Dunno why, but I've really got a thing against old people now. I might start a political party (before I get too old) to attack them
Definition of old will be kind of like the definition of rich, won't it:
"Me plus "
At sixty, you'll insist 70 is old. At seventy, it'll become clear that actually eighty is "old" As you approach eighty, you'll realise that advances in medical science mean that "old" really starts at ninety.
And at 165, you will confidently declare *really* old people start at about 200.
I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.
Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?
She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.
"You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.
When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.
I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.
Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.
Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
You're lying, that's not what she said.
What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.
You're tilting at windmills.
I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".
But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.
Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.
Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.
There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
She literally said she'd do both.
She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.
Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.
Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:
"To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.
I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
"such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
No, you're the only one who's been lying.
She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.
You dishonestly said that meant no support.
If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
That's a "no, your mum" answer.
That all you got left?
No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.
If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
"Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".
Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?
Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "
Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
Re-read what I wrote. Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.
Not you, when has she ever said that?
But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷♂️
She said no bungs.
No, she didn't.
She said not just bungs.
Don't just take paracetamol != don't take paracetamol.
Truss: “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
That’s a somewhat different usage of “just” than the analogue you offer. She has repeatedly failed to take up an opportunity to say something like, “My government will look at what additional short term support we can offer, but it isn’t right to just bung more money into the system.” No. It’s just the second half.
If you’re right that Truss is actually planning a serious support package and she’s just communicating that poorly, then maybe she’ll be able to partially reverse the Conservatives’ 14 point polling deficit. I wouldn’t bet on it.
But she did say the first part. She explicitly said so re:emergency budget, but that part isn't getting quoted.
Even as we lucky Brits contemplate a winter of gnawing cold pigeon, served on a bed of toxic seaweed, there are hard-pressed wealthy Albanian drug dealers who are being basically FORCED by themselves to climb into air-conditioned Mercedes minibuses, in which they are basically TRAFFICKED by themselves through several agreeable European spa-towns, with scenic lunch-stops, until they reach the Channel where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they have no money, dropping their Rolexes at Deauville, so they can cross ten minutes of water where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they are asylum seekers, which we are happy to accept despite it being ludicrous, thus allowing them to live on our money as they then go out and deal lethal drugs to our kids. And maybe do a couple of violent burglaries
Thank God THEY will be warm this winter. In a British home YOU pay for
Leon, the only person thinking about these Albanians is you. In fact, they won't need any kind of accommodation or heating as they live in your head rent-free, warmed by the glowing embers of your perpetual outrage.
Remember when you told me it was all Eritreans. I think that was about two days ago?
"Official data released on Thursday has confirmed suspicions that Albanians are now a prominent national group among the asylum seekers travelling across the Channel."
"Speculation has fallen upon dominant organised criminal gangs known to have previously trafficked sex workers and gang members into the UK, and which now control large parts of the marijuana and cocaine markets.
"Albanian gang activity is “rising up the security services’ list” of priorities because of the surge in arrivals from the Balkan state, it is understood.
Evidence of a growing market offering Albanians a route across the Channel to the UK can be found on TikTok"
Soft-headed liberal dullards like you are still weeping about Rwanda. Get a grip
It's a recent surge, who knows if it will be sustained. Hopefully intelligence led law enforcement can deal with the issue. The Rwandan scheme won't deter any Albanians as they will simply elect to go back to Albania if they are caught. They are not seeking asylum in the UK and are unlikely to be granted it if they did, their goal is to enter undetected and enter the black economy. Historically about 90% of those arriving by boat come from a handful of wartorn countries and more than half are granted leave to stay as they are genuine refugees. I've said this before, try to be civil when you post on here.
But you are a softheaded liberal dullard. As this exchange conclusively proves. You don't like difficult truths, you are Woke liberal, and you're not very bright.
Admitting this fact is not incivility, that's statin' the bleedin' obvious
And, by the way, Rwanda really WOULD deter Albanians from crossing. If these drug lords think there is a 5% chance they will be sent to Africa, not back to Albania, they would all stop coming tomorrow
They wouldn't be prisoners in Rwanda, and free to go to Albania if they chose.
Albanians are pretty certain to be rejected for an asylum claim. They should be be taken straight to one of our own immigration centres for deportation. Indeed I think all arrivals should go straight to camps so that they can get an express assessment of any asylum claim on site. It needs a bit of investment in camps and legal system, but is far more likely to work than the Rwandan scheme, which has been a total failure.
But then they will just come back on the next chauffeured minibus from Tirana. This is already happening. We deport them, they come back a week later, on a dinghy
Fuck this, why should we tolerate it? Life is getting harder, Brits could die of cold this winter, the UKG needs to toughen up on those who would prey on our generosity, and kill our kids with drugs
Send these fuckers to Rwanda. They won't try again after THAT
Hold on, first things first has anyone actually been deported to anywhere in the last few years ?
I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.
Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?
She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.
"You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.
When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.
I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.
Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.
Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
You're lying, that's not what she said.
What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.
You're tilting at windmills.
I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".
But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.
Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.
Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.
There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
She literally said she'd do both.
She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.
Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.
Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:
"To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.
I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
"such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
No, you're the only one who's been lying.
She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.
You dishonestly said that meant no support.
If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
That's a "no, your mum" answer.
That all you got left?
No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.
If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
"Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".
Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?
Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "
Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
Re-read what I wrote. Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.
Not you, when has she ever said that?
But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷♂️
She said no bungs.
No, she didn't.
She said not just bungs.
Don't just take paracetamol != don't take paracetamol.
Truss: “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
That’s a somewhat different usage of “just” than the analogue you offer. She has repeatedly failed to take up an opportunity to say something like, “My government will look at what additional short term support we can offer, but it isn’t right to just bung more money into the system.” No. It’s just the second half.
If you’re right that Truss is actually planning a serious support package and she’s just communicating that poorly, then maybe she’ll be able to partially reverse the Conservatives’ 14 point polling deficit. I wouldn’t bet on it.
But she did say the first part. She explicitly said so re:emergency budget, but that part isn't getting quoted.
And she’s said what’s in the Emergency Budget: measures that will have little impact on the energy price crisis, but which will benefit the rich. If what’s been announced for the Emergency Budget is it, God save us.
I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.
Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?
She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.
"You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.
When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.
I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.
Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.
Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
You're lying, that's not what she said.
What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.
You're tilting at windmills.
I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".
But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.
Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.
Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.
There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
She literally said she'd do both.
She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.
Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.
Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:
"To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.
I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
"such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
No, you're the only one who's been lying.
She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.
You dishonestly said that meant no support.
If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
That's a "no, your mum" answer.
That all you got left?
No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.
If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
"Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".
Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?
Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "
Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
Re-read what I wrote. Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.
Not you, when has she ever said that?
But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷♂️
She said no bungs.
No, she didn't.
She said not just bungs.
Don't just take paracetamol != don't take paracetamol.
Truss: “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
That’s a somewhat different usage of “just” than the analogue you offer. She has repeatedly failed to take up an opportunity to say something like, “My government will look at what additional short term support we can offer, but it isn’t right to just bung more money into the system.” No. It’s just the second half.
If you’re right that Truss is actually planning a serious support package and she’s just communicating that poorly, then maybe she’ll be able to partially reverse the Conservatives’ 14 point polling deficit. I wouldn’t bet on it.
But she did say the first part. She explicitly said so re:emergency budget, but that part isn't getting quoted.
You agree she needs to switch to selling belt tightening now not stoking optimism too much? The expectation management needs to be better than this now, to sell the need for pain and pulling together?
Even as we lucky Brits contemplate a winter of gnawing cold pigeon, served on a bed of toxic seaweed, there are hard-pressed wealthy Albanian drug dealers who are being basically FORCED by themselves to climb into air-conditioned Mercedes minibuses, in which they are basically TRAFFICKED by themselves through several agreeable European spa-towns, with scenic lunch-stops, until they reach the Channel where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they have no money, dropping their Rolexes at Deauville, so they can cross ten minutes of water where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they are asylum seekers, which we are happy to accept despite it being ludicrous, thus allowing them to live on our money as they then go out and deal lethal drugs to our kids. And maybe do a couple of violent burglaries
Thank God THEY will be warm this winter. In a British home YOU pay for
Is this post produced by Dalle2, an alien or a real human?
It was produced by John TynDalle-2.
It’s better than your SMO-sturbating in our faces
Except you should note that the right wing Tw@tter which seems to be inspiring @Leon 's recent posting tends also to be quite pro-Putin.
I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.
Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?
She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.
"You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.
When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.
I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.
Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.
Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
You're lying, that's not what she said.
What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.
You're tilting at windmills.
I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".
But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.
Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.
Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.
There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
She literally said she'd do both.
She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.
Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.
Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:
"To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.
I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
"such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
No, you're the only one who's been lying.
She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.
You dishonestly said that meant no support.
If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
That's a "no, your mum" answer.
That all you got left?
No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.
If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
"Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".
Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?
Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "
Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
Re-read what I wrote. Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.
Not you, when has she ever said that?
But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷♂️
She said no bungs.
No, she didn't.
She said not just bungs.
Don't just take paracetamol != don't take paracetamol.
Truss: “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
That’s a somewhat different usage of “just” than the analogue you offer. She has repeatedly failed to take up an opportunity to say something like, “My government will look at what additional short term support we can offer, but it isn’t right to just bung more money into the system.” No. It’s just the second half.
If you’re right that Truss is actually planning a serious support package and she’s just communicating that poorly, then maybe she’ll be able to partially reverse the Conservatives’ 14 point polling deficit. I wouldn’t bet on it.
But she did say the first part. She explicitly said so re:emergency budget, but that part isn't getting quoted.
And she’s said what’s in the Emergency Budget: measures that will have little impact on the energy price crisis, but which will benefit the rich. If what’s been announced for the Emergency Budget is it, God save us.
(“God” in a rhetorical sense. I’m not HYUFD.)
She's not said what will be in the Emergency Budget.
She's said what her priorities are, but budgets don't only deal with the priorities.
Interesting cooperation, which will give the US some regulatory powers in China.
https://mobile.twitter.com/onlyyoontv/status/1563136237136842752 #China announces China Securities Regulatory Commission and Finance Ministry have signed an #audit supervision cooperation agreement with US regulators, says relevant cooperation will be launched in the near future.
I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.
Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?
She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.
"You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.
When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.
I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.
Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.
Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
You're lying, that's not what she said.
What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.
You're tilting at windmills.
I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".
But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.
Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.
Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.
There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
She literally said she'd do both.
She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.
Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.
Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:
"To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.
I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
"such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
No, you're the only one who's been lying.
She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.
You dishonestly said that meant no support.
If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
That's a "no, your mum" answer.
That all you got left?
No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.
If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
"Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".
Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?
Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "
Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
Re-read what I wrote. Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.
Not you, when has she ever said that?
But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷♂️
She said no bungs.
No, she didn't.
She said not just bungs.
Don't just take paracetamol != don't take paracetamol.
Truss: “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
That’s a somewhat different usage of “just” than the analogue you offer. She has repeatedly failed to take up an opportunity to say something like, “My government will look at what additional short term support we can offer, but it isn’t right to just bung more money into the system.” No. It’s just the second half.
If you’re right that Truss is actually planning a serious support package and she’s just communicating that poorly, then maybe she’ll be able to partially reverse the Conservatives’ 14 point polling deficit. I wouldn’t bet on it.
But she did say the first part. She explicitly said so re:emergency budget, but that part isn't getting quoted.
You agree she needs to switch to selling belt tightening now not stoking optimism too much? The expectation management needs to be better than this now, to sell the need for pain and pulling together?
I think the media are doing a fantastic job at setting expectations low.
I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.
Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?
She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.
"You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.
When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.
I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.
Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.
Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
You're lying, that's not what she said.
What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.
You're tilting at windmills.
I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".
But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.
Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.
Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.
There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
She literally said she'd do both.
She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.
Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.
Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:
"To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.
I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
"such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
No, you're the only one who's been lying.
She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.
You dishonestly said that meant no support.
If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
That's a "no, your mum" answer.
That all you got left?
No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.
If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
"Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".
Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?
Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "
Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
Re-read what I wrote. Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.
Not you, when has she ever said that?
But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷♂️
She said no bungs.
No, she didn't.
She said not just bungs.
Don't just take paracetamol != don't take paracetamol.
Truss: “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
That’s a somewhat different usage of “just” than the analogue you offer. She has repeatedly failed to take up an opportunity to say something like, “My government will look at what additional short term support we can offer, but it isn’t right to just bung more money into the system.” No. It’s just the second half.
If you’re right that Truss is actually planning a serious support package and she’s just communicating that poorly, then maybe she’ll be able to partially reverse the Conservatives’ 14 point polling deficit. I wouldn’t bet on it.
But she did say the first part. She explicitly said so re:emergency budget, but that part isn't getting quoted.
And she’s said what’s in the Emergency Budget: measures that will have little impact on the energy price crisis, but which will benefit the rich. If what’s been announced for the Emergency Budget is it, God save us.
(“God” in a rhetorical sense. I’m not HYUFD.)
'Trust her, she's lying about it' seems to be the line to take from Barty Bobs and the few other warriors of the Lizlamic State.
I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.
Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?
She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.
"You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.
When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.
I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.
Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.
Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
You're lying, that's not what she said.
What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.
You're tilting at windmills.
I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".
But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.
Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.
Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.
There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
She literally said she'd do both.
She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.
Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.
Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:
"To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.
I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
"such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
No, you're the only one who's been lying.
She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.
You dishonestly said that meant no support.
If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
That's a "no, your mum" answer.
That all you got left?
No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.
If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
"Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".
Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?
Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "
Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
Re-read what I wrote. Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.
Not you, when has she ever said that?
But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷♂️
She said no bungs.
No, she didn't.
She said not just bungs.
Don't just take paracetamol != don't take paracetamol.
Truss: “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
That’s a somewhat different usage of “just” than the analogue you offer. She has repeatedly failed to take up an opportunity to say something like, “My government will look at what additional short term support we can offer, but it isn’t right to just bung more money into the system.” No. It’s just the second half.
If you’re right that Truss is actually planning a serious support package and she’s just communicating that poorly, then maybe she’ll be able to partially reverse the Conservatives’ 14 point polling deficit. I wouldn’t bet on it.
But she did say the first part. She explicitly said so re:emergency budget, but that part isn't getting quoted.
And she’s said what’s in the Emergency Budget: measures that will have little impact on the energy price crisis, but which will benefit the rich. If what’s been announced for the Emergency Budget is it, God save us.
(“God” in a rhetorical sense. I’m not HYUFD.)
'Trust her, she's lying about it' seems to be the line to take from Barty Bobs and the few other warriors of the Lizlamic State.
I think she's telling the truth.
She's said there'll be support in the Emergency Budget. If there is, she hasn't lied. 🤷♂️
I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.
Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?
She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.
"You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.
When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.
I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.
Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.
Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
You're lying, that's not what she said.
What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.
You're tilting at windmills.
I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".
But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.
Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.
Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.
There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
She literally said she'd do both.
She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.
Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.
Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:
"To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.
I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
"such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
No, you're the only one who's been lying.
She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.
You dishonestly said that meant no support.
If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
That's a "no, your mum" answer.
That all you got left?
No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.
If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
"Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".
Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?
Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "
Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
Re-read what I wrote. Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.
Not you, when has she ever said that?
But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷♂️
She said no bungs.
No, she didn't.
She said not just bungs.
Don't just take paracetamol != don't take paracetamol.
Truss: “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
That’s a somewhat different usage of “just” than the analogue you offer. She has repeatedly failed to take up an opportunity to say something like, “My government will look at what additional short term support we can offer, but it isn’t right to just bung more money into the system.” No. It’s just the second half.
If you’re right that Truss is actually planning a serious support package and she’s just communicating that poorly, then maybe she’ll be able to partially reverse the Conservatives’ 14 point polling deficit. I wouldn’t bet on it.
But she did say the first part. She explicitly said so re:emergency budget, but that part isn't getting quoted.
She has been saying the same thing for 235 different Tory hustings. Each time it is reported by the press. If she had the slightest interest in communicating something different than the press have been reporting, she would done so before the 235th hustings event.
Macron is not a friend, he's the President of France but no friend. He's not a foe either.
Why do muppets feel the need to pretend the President of France is our friend?
Because we’re both western democracies in NATO and frankly the way things are going western democracies all need all the friends they can get.
So are Orban, Erdogan and Trump "friends"?
You really do have a problem letting go of irrelevant rhetorical points. The Foreign Secretary was asked if the President of one if our allies is a friend or a foe.
That she was unable or unwilling to bat away such a foolish question is not a point in her favour. However much you try to deflect.
I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.
Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?
She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.
"You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.
When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.
I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.
Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.
Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
You're lying, that's not what she said.
What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.
You're tilting at windmills.
I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".
But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.
Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.
Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.
There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
She literally said she'd do both.
She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.
Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.
Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:
"To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.
I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
"such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
No, you're the only one who's been lying.
She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.
You dishonestly said that meant no support.
If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
That's a "no, your mum" answer.
That all you got left?
No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.
If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
"Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".
Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?
Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "
Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
Re-read what I wrote. Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.
Not you, when has she ever said that?
But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷♂️
She said no bungs.
No, she didn't.
She said not just bungs.
Don't just take paracetamol != don't take paracetamol.
Truss: “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
That’s a somewhat different usage of “just” than the analogue you offer. She has repeatedly failed to take up an opportunity to say something like, “My government will look at what additional short term support we can offer, but it isn’t right to just bung more money into the system.” No. It’s just the second half.
If you’re right that Truss is actually planning a serious support package and she’s just communicating that poorly, then maybe she’ll be able to partially reverse the Conservatives’ 14 point polling deficit. I wouldn’t bet on it.
But she did say the first part. She explicitly said so re:emergency budget, but that part isn't getting quoted.
bart logic at its finest.
there is no point in just throwing good money after bad there is no point in just spaffing money against the wall there is no point in just painting yourself into a corner
In none of these cases does the "just" mean I am going to do the thing after just, but also other things. it is an intensifier emphasisingthe pointlessness of the thing, hence why I am not going to do it.
Now, there is an alternative construction: there is no point in just taking paracetemol without also getting a diagnosis. The trouble is, the derogatory "bunging" and the absence of a "without also" puts Truss's remark very clearly in the first category. She is saying she is not going to do it. In practice she will do it, but that will be a U turn.
I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.
Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?
She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.
"You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.
When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.
I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.
Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.
Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
You're lying, that's not what she said.
What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.
You're tilting at windmills.
I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".
But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.
Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.
Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.
There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
She literally said she'd do both.
She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.
Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.
Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:
"To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.
I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
"such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
No, you're the only one who's been lying.
She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.
You dishonestly said that meant no support.
If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
That's a "no, your mum" answer.
That all you got left?
No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.
If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
"Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".
Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?
Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "
Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
Re-read what I wrote. Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.
Not you, when has she ever said that?
But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷♂️
She said no bungs.
No, she didn't.
She said not just bungs.
Don't just take paracetamol != don't take paracetamol.
Truss: “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
That’s a somewhat different usage of “just” than the analogue you offer. She has repeatedly failed to take up an opportunity to say something like, “My government will look at what additional short term support we can offer, but it isn’t right to just bung more money into the system.” No. It’s just the second half.
If you’re right that Truss is actually planning a serious support package and she’s just communicating that poorly, then maybe she’ll be able to partially reverse the Conservatives’ 14 point polling deficit. I wouldn’t bet on it.
But she did say the first part. She explicitly said so re:emergency budget, but that part isn't getting quoted.
She has been saying the same thing for 235 different Tory hustings. Each time it is reported by the press. If she had the slightest interest in communicating something different than the press have been reporting, she would done so before the 235th hustings event.
You're right she's been saying the same thing all along, and I've been pointing that out all along.
She's always kept t he door open to support, she's never closed it off, but she's always said its not the 'priority' or we shouldn't 'just' be doing that etc
Even as we lucky Brits contemplate a winter of gnawing cold pigeon, served on a bed of toxic seaweed, there are hard-pressed wealthy Albanian drug dealers who are being basically FORCED by themselves to climb into air-conditioned Mercedes minibuses, in which they are basically TRAFFICKED by themselves through several agreeable European spa-towns, with scenic lunch-stops, until they reach the Channel where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they have no money, dropping their Rolexes at Deauville, so they can cross ten minutes of water where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they are asylum seekers, which we are happy to accept despite it being ludicrous, thus allowing them to live on our money as they then go out and deal lethal drugs to our kids. And maybe do a couple of violent burglaries
Thank God THEY will be warm this winter. In a British home YOU pay for
Leon, the only person thinking about these Albanians is you. In fact, they won't need any kind of accommodation or heating as they live in your head rent-free, warmed by the glowing embers of your perpetual outrage.
Remember when you told me it was all Eritreans. I think that was about two days ago?
"Official data released on Thursday has confirmed suspicions that Albanians are now a prominent national group among the asylum seekers travelling across the Channel."
"Speculation has fallen upon dominant organised criminal gangs known to have previously trafficked sex workers and gang members into the UK, and which now control large parts of the marijuana and cocaine markets.
"Albanian gang activity is “rising up the security services’ list” of priorities because of the surge in arrivals from the Balkan state, it is understood.
Evidence of a growing market offering Albanians a route across the Channel to the UK can be found on TikTok"
Soft-headed liberal dullards like you are still weeping about Rwanda. Get a grip
It's a recent surge, who knows if it will be sustained. Hopefully intelligence led law enforcement can deal with the issue. The Rwandan scheme won't deter any Albanians as they will simply elect to go back to Albania if they are caught. They are not seeking asylum in the UK and are unlikely to be granted it if they did, their goal is to enter undetected and enter the black economy. Historically about 90% of those arriving by boat come from a handful of wartorn countries and more than half are granted leave to stay as they are genuine refugees. I've said this before, try to be civil when you post on here.
But you are a softheaded liberal dullard. As this exchange conclusively proves. You don't like difficult truths, you are Woke liberal, and you're not very bright.
Admitting this fact is not incivility, that's statin' the bleedin' obvious
And, by the way, Rwanda really WOULD deter Albanians from crossing. If these drug lords think there is a 5% chance they will be sent to Africa, not back to Albania, they would all stop coming tomorrow
They wouldn't be prisoners in Rwanda, and free to go to Albania if they chose.
Albanians are pretty certain to be rejected for an asylum claim. They should be be taken straight to one of our own immigration centres for deportation. Indeed I think all arrivals should go straight to camps so that they can get an express assessment of any asylum claim on site. It needs a bit of investment in camps and legal system, but is far more likely to work than the Rwandan scheme, which has been a total failure.
But then they will just come back on the next chauffeured minibus from Tirana. This is already happening. We deport them, they come back a week later, on a dinghy
Fuck this, why should we tolerate it? Life is getting harder, Brits could die of cold this winter, the UKG needs to toughen up on those who would prey on our generosity, and kill our kids with drugs
Send these fuckers to Rwanda. They won't try again after THAT
Hold on, first things first has anyone actually been deported to anywhere in the last few years ?
Indeed. That's why the Aussie system works: Go directly to Nauru/Rwanda, do not pass go, do not collect 200 lawyers.
People choose voluntary returns instead. Or simply don't make the journey.
Surely the fact that Australia is 1500 miles from any other country prevents the majority of journeys?
QTWAIN.
Look at the number of journeys in 2012 (pre-Nauru) and 2014 onwards (post).
I'm looking at charts which show very small amounts of asylum seekers compared to the UK.
If you're in a country that is a hell of a long way from most sources of asylum seekers, and have a hell of a lot of sea in the way, then you're going to have small numbers, and it's a hell of a lot easier to introduce a policy which cuts the numbers down.
I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.
Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?
She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.
"You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.
When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.
I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.
Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.
Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
You're lying, that's not what she said.
What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.
You're tilting at windmills.
I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".
But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.
Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.
Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.
There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
She literally said she'd do both.
She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.
Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.
Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:
"To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.
I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
"such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
No, you're the only one who's been lying.
She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.
You dishonestly said that meant no support.
If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
That's a "no, your mum" answer.
That all you got left?
No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.
If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
"Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".
Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?
Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "
Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
Re-read what I wrote. Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.
Not you, when has she ever said that?
But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷♂️
She said no bungs.
No, she didn't.
She said not just bungs.
Don't just take paracetamol != don't take paracetamol.
Truss: “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
That’s a somewhat different usage of “just” than the analogue you offer. She has repeatedly failed to take up an opportunity to say something like, “My government will look at what additional short term support we can offer, but it isn’t right to just bung more money into the system.” No. It’s just the second half.
If you’re right that Truss is actually planning a serious support package and she’s just communicating that poorly, then maybe she’ll be able to partially reverse the Conservatives’ 14 point polling deficit. I wouldn’t bet on it.
But she did say the first part. She explicitly said so re:emergency budget, but that part isn't getting quoted.
And she’s said what’s in the Emergency Budget: measures that will have little impact on the energy price crisis, but which will benefit the rich. If what’s been announced for the Emergency Budget is it, God save us.
(“God” in a rhetorical sense. I’m not HYUFD.)
She's not said what will be in the Emergency Budget.
She's said what her priorities are, but budgets don't only deal with the priorities.
Cutting NI doesn't aid the rich, it aids workers.
So we’re back to she’s not ruled out doing something she hasn’t specified. So she’s deliberately keeping the Tory selectorate in the dark as to her plans, and damaging Tory polling by not communicating to the wider electorate? If that works for you…
And her plans aid the highest-paid workers more than the lower-paid workers.
I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.
Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?
She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.
"You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.
When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.
I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.
Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.
Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
You're lying, that's not what she said.
What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.
You're tilting at windmills.
I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".
But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.
Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.
Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.
There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
She literally said she'd do both.
She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.
Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.
Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:
"To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.
I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
"such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
No, you're the only one who's been lying.
She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.
You dishonestly said that meant no support.
If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
That's a "no, your mum" answer.
That all you got left?
No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.
If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
"Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".
Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?
Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "
Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
Re-read what I wrote. Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.
Not you, when has she ever said that?
But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷♂️
She said no bungs.
No, she didn't.
She said not just bungs.
Don't just take paracetamol != don't take paracetamol.
Truss: “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
That’s a somewhat different usage of “just” than the analogue you offer. She has repeatedly failed to take up an opportunity to say something like, “My government will look at what additional short term support we can offer, but it isn’t right to just bung more money into the system.” No. It’s just the second half.
If you’re right that Truss is actually planning a serious support package and she’s just communicating that poorly, then maybe she’ll be able to partially reverse the Conservatives’ 14 point polling deficit. I wouldn’t bet on it.
But she did say the first part. She explicitly said so re:emergency budget, but that part isn't getting quoted.
bart logic at its finest.
there is no point in just throwing good money after bad there is no point in just spaffing money against the wall there is no point in just painting yourself into a corner
In none of these cases does the "just" mean I am going to do the thing after just, but also other things. it is an intensifier emphasisingthe pointlessness of the thing, hence why I am not going to do it.
Now, there is an alternative construction: there is no point in just taking paracetemol without also getting a diagnosis. The trouble is, the derogatory "bunging" and the absence of a "without also" puts Truss's remark very clearly in the first category. She is saying she is not going to do it. In practice she will do it, but that will be a U turn.
"There is no point in just spaffing money against the wall," can also be read as meaning, "We shouldn't spaff money willy-nilly but think very carefully about how best to deploy our resources."
I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.
Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?
She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.
"You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.
When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.
I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.
Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.
Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
You're lying, that's not what she said.
What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.
You're tilting at windmills.
I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".
But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.
Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.
Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.
There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
She literally said she'd do both.
She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.
Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.
Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:
"To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.
I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
"such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
No, you're the only one who's been lying.
She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.
You dishonestly said that meant no support.
If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
That's a "no, your mum" answer.
That all you got left?
No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.
If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
"Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".
Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?
Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "
Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
Re-read what I wrote. Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.
Not you, when has she ever said that?
But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷♂️
She said no bungs.
No, she didn't.
She said not just bungs.
Don't just take paracetamol != don't take paracetamol.
Truss: “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
That’s a somewhat different usage of “just” than the analogue you offer. She has repeatedly failed to take up an opportunity to say something like, “My government will look at what additional short term support we can offer, but it isn’t right to just bung more money into the system.” No. It’s just the second half.
If you’re right that Truss is actually planning a serious support package and she’s just communicating that poorly, then maybe she’ll be able to partially reverse the Conservatives’ 14 point polling deficit. I wouldn’t bet on it.
But she did say the first part. She explicitly said so re:emergency budget, but that part isn't getting quoted.
She has been saying the same thing for 235 different Tory hustings. Each time it is reported by the press. If she had the slightest interest in communicating something different than the press have been reporting, she would done so before the 235th hustings event.
You're right she's been saying the same thing all along, and I've been pointing that out all along.
She's always kept t he door open to support, she's never closed it off, but she's always said its not the 'priority' or we shouldn't 'just' be doing that etc
Quite right too.
How can it not be the priority? She can't seriously answer "How are you going to support people with no disposable income facing fuel bills rising by £3k per year?" with "We will give them £30 a year NI back" as the priority solution. She may as well answer with we will bring back grammar schools.
I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.
Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?
She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.
"You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.
When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.
I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.
Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.
Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
You're lying, that's not what she said.
What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.
You're tilting at windmills.
I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".
But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.
Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.
Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.
There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
She literally said she'd do both.
She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.
Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.
Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:
"To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.
I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
"such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
No, you're the only one who's been lying.
She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.
You dishonestly said that meant no support.
If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
That's a "no, your mum" answer.
That all you got left?
No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.
If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
"Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".
Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?
Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "
Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
Re-read what I wrote. Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.
Not you, when has she ever said that?
But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷♂️
She said no bungs.
No, she didn't.
She said not just bungs.
Don't just take paracetamol != don't take paracetamol.
Truss: “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
That’s a somewhat different usage of “just” than the analogue you offer. She has repeatedly failed to take up an opportunity to say something like, “My government will look at what additional short term support we can offer, but it isn’t right to just bung more money into the system.” No. It’s just the second half.
If you’re right that Truss is actually planning a serious support package and she’s just communicating that poorly, then maybe she’ll be able to partially reverse the Conservatives’ 14 point polling deficit. I wouldn’t bet on it.
But she did say the first part. She explicitly said so re:emergency budget, but that part isn't getting quoted.
bart logic at its finest.
there is no point in just throwing good money after bad there is no point in just spaffing money against the wall there is no point in just painting yourself into a corner
In none of these cases does the "just" mean I am going to do the thing after just, but also other things. it is an intensifier emphasisingthe pointlessness of the thing, hence why I am not going to do it.
Now, there is an alternative construction: there is no point in just taking paracetemol without also getting a diagnosis. The trouble is, the derogatory "bunging" and the absence of a "without also" puts Truss's remark very clearly in the first category. She is saying she is not going to do it. In practice she will do it, but that will be a U turn.
The fact she explicitly said support would be offered means its clearly the second.
When the support is offered, it will mean I was right and you were wrong.
I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.
Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?
She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.
"You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.
When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.
I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.
Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.
Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
You're lying, that's not what she said.
What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.
You're tilting at windmills.
I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".
But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.
Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.
Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.
There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
She literally said she'd do both.
She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.
Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.
Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:
"To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.
I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
"such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
No, you're the only one who's been lying.
She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.
You dishonestly said that meant no support.
If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
That's a "no, your mum" answer.
That all you got left?
No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.
If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
"Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".
Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?
Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "
Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
Re-read what I wrote. Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.
Not you, when has she ever said that?
But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷♂️
She said no bungs.
No, she didn't.
She said not just bungs.
Don't just take paracetamol != don't take paracetamol.
Truss: “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
That’s a somewhat different usage of “just” than the analogue you offer. She has repeatedly failed to take up an opportunity to say something like, “My government will look at what additional short term support we can offer, but it isn’t right to just bung more money into the system.” No. It’s just the second half.
If you’re right that Truss is actually planning a serious support package and she’s just communicating that poorly, then maybe she’ll be able to partially reverse the Conservatives’ 14 point polling deficit. I wouldn’t bet on it.
But she did say the first part. She explicitly said so re:emergency budget, but that part isn't getting quoted.
And she’s said what’s in the Emergency Budget: measures that will have little impact on the energy price crisis, but which will benefit the rich. If what’s been announced for the Emergency Budget is it, God save us.
(“God” in a rhetorical sense. I’m not HYUFD.)
'Trust her, she's lying about it' seems to be the line to take from Barty Bobs and the few other warriors of the Lizlamic State.
Bart is not saying that. He’s saying, ‘Trust her, she’s being vague about it’.
I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.
Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?
She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.
"You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.
When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.
I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.
Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.
Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
You're lying, that's not what she said.
What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.
You're tilting at windmills.
I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".
But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.
Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.
Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.
There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
She literally said she'd do both.
She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.
Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.
Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:
"To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.
I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
"such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
No, you're the only one who's been lying.
She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.
You dishonestly said that meant no support.
If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
That's a "no, your mum" answer.
That all you got left?
No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.
If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
"Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".
Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?
Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "
Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
Re-read what I wrote. Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.
Not you, when has she ever said that?
But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷♂️
She said no bungs.
No, she didn't.
She said not just bungs.
Don't just take paracetamol != don't take paracetamol.
Truss: “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
That’s a somewhat different usage of “just” than the analogue you offer. She has repeatedly failed to take up an opportunity to say something like, “My government will look at what additional short term support we can offer, but it isn’t right to just bung more money into the system.” No. It’s just the second half.
If you’re right that Truss is actually planning a serious support package and she’s just communicating that poorly, then maybe she’ll be able to partially reverse the Conservatives’ 14 point polling deficit. I wouldn’t bet on it.
But she did say the first part. She explicitly said so re:emergency budget, but that part isn't getting quoted.
She has been saying the same thing for 235 different Tory hustings. Each time it is reported by the press. If she had the slightest interest in communicating something different than the press have been reporting, she would done so before the 235th hustings event.
You're right she's been saying the same thing all along, and I've been pointing that out all along.
She's always kept t he door open to support, she's never closed it off, but she's always said its not the 'priority' or we shouldn't 'just' be doing that etc
Quite right too.
How can it not be the priority? She can't seriously answer "How are you going to support people with no disposable income facing fuel bills rising by £3k per year?" with "We will give them £30 a year NI back" as the priority solution. She may as well answer with we will bring back grammar schools.
Are people with no disposable income really facing the prospect of fuel bills rising by £3k per year? I thought that value was for an average household.
I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.
Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?
She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.
"You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.
When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.
I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.
Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.
Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
You're lying, that's not what she said.
What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.
You're tilting at windmills.
I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".
But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.
Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.
Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.
There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
She literally said she'd do both.
She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.
Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.
Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:
"To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.
I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
"such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
No, you're the only one who's been lying.
She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.
You dishonestly said that meant no support.
If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
That's a "no, your mum" answer.
That all you got left?
No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.
If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
"Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".
Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?
Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "
Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
Re-read what I wrote. Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.
Not you, when has she ever said that?
But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷♂️
She said no bungs.
No, she didn't.
She said not just bungs.
Don't just take paracetamol != don't take paracetamol.
Truss: “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
That’s a somewhat different usage of “just” than the analogue you offer. She has repeatedly failed to take up an opportunity to say something like, “My government will look at what additional short term support we can offer, but it isn’t right to just bung more money into the system.” No. It’s just the second half.
If you’re right that Truss is actually planning a serious support package and she’s just communicating that poorly, then maybe she’ll be able to partially reverse the Conservatives’ 14 point polling deficit. I wouldn’t bet on it.
But she did say the first part. She explicitly said so re:emergency budget, but that part isn't getting quoted.
She has been saying the same thing for 235 different Tory hustings. Each time it is reported by the press. If she had the slightest interest in communicating something different than the press have been reporting, she would done so before the 235th hustings event.
You're right she's been saying the same thing all along, and I've been pointing that out all along.
She's always kept t he door open to support, she's never closed it off, but she's always said its not the 'priority' or we shouldn't 'just' be doing that etc
Quite right too.
We are missing something. Mrs T needs right now to win the ballot to be PM. In time, but not now, she wants to buy enough votes to win an election. Be patient.
I hope she fails on all counts, but the position makes perfect sense. Nothing said now will be recalled by the general voters for two seconds.
Macron is not a friend, he's the President of France but no friend. He's not a foe either.
Why do muppets feel the need to pretend the President of France is our friend?
Because we’re both western democracies in NATO and frankly the way things are going western democracies all need all the friends they can get.
So are Orban, Erdogan and Trump "friends"?
You really do have a problem letting go of irrelevant rhetorical points. The Foreign Secretary was asked if the President of one if our allies is a friend or a foe.
That she was unable or unwilling to bat away such a foolish question is not a point in her favour. However much you try to deflect.
She played to the gallery and her audience of reactionary geriatrics lapped it up. It's like watching a country visibly diminishing itself on the world stage in real time. The UK's genuine foes, eg Putin, will have loved it.
I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.
Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?
She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.
"You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.
When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.
I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.
Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.
Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
You're lying, that's not what she said.
What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.
You're tilting at windmills.
I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".
But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.
Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.
Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.
There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
She literally said she'd do both.
She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.
Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.
Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:
"To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.
I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
"such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
No, you're the only one who's been lying.
She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.
You dishonestly said that meant no support.
If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
That's a "no, your mum" answer.
That all you got left?
No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.
If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
"Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".
Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?
Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "
Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
Re-read what I wrote. Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.
Not you, when has she ever said that?
But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷♂️
She said no bungs.
No, she didn't.
She said not just bungs.
Don't just take paracetamol != don't take paracetamol.
Truss: “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
That’s a somewhat different usage of “just” than the analogue you offer. She has repeatedly failed to take up an opportunity to say something like, “My government will look at what additional short term support we can offer, but it isn’t right to just bung more money into the system.” No. It’s just the second half.
If you’re right that Truss is actually planning a serious support package and she’s just communicating that poorly, then maybe she’ll be able to partially reverse the Conservatives’ 14 point polling deficit. I wouldn’t bet on it.
But she did say the first part. She explicitly said so re:emergency budget, but that part isn't getting quoted.
bart logic at its finest.
there is no point in just throwing good money after bad there is no point in just spaffing money against the wall there is no point in just painting yourself into a corner
In none of these cases does the "just" mean I am going to do the thing after just, but also other things. it is an intensifier emphasisingthe pointlessness of the thing, hence why I am not going to do it.
Now, there is an alternative construction: there is no point in just taking paracetemol without also getting a diagnosis. The trouble is, the derogatory "bunging" and the absence of a "without also" puts Truss's remark very clearly in the first category. She is saying she is not going to do it. In practice she will do it, but that will be a U turn.
The fact she explicitly said support would be offered means its clearly the second.
When the support is offered, it will mean I was right and you were wrong.
Everyone says there will eventually be support, we are all correct on that. Truss is just unwilling to say it clearly or how it will be delivered. Most think that is unreasonable.
Macron is not a friend, he's the President of France but no friend. He's not a foe either.
Why do muppets feel the need to pretend the President of France is our friend?
Because we’re both western democracies in NATO and frankly the way things are going western democracies all need all the friends they can get.
So are Orban, Erdogan and Trump "friends"?
Trump isn't in power. Comparing Macron to Orban and Erdogan just reemphasises the Francophobia you have so often shown on this board.
Trump was in power.
Orban and Erdogan are the leaders of NATO allies of ours.
Hungary and Turkey are barely democracies though. Anyway, if they are non-hostile powers then they are friends. That's the language of diplomacy. If she doesn't understand that then she's not up to the job. Why wind people up unnessessarily? If you want to do that come on here.
I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.
Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?
She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.
"You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.
When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.
I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.
Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.
Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
You're lying, that's not what she said.
What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.
You're tilting at windmills.
I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".
But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.
Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.
Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.
There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
She literally said she'd do both.
She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.
Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.
Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:
"To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.
I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
"such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
No, you're the only one who's been lying.
She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.
You dishonestly said that meant no support.
If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
That's a "no, your mum" answer.
That all you got left?
No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.
If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
"Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".
Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?
Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "
Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
Re-read what I wrote. Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.
Not you, when has she ever said that?
But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷♂️
She said no bungs.
No, she didn't.
She said not just bungs.
Don't just take paracetamol != don't take paracetamol.
Truss: “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
That’s a somewhat different usage of “just” than the analogue you offer. She has repeatedly failed to take up an opportunity to say something like, “My government will look at what additional short term support we can offer, but it isn’t right to just bung more money into the system.” No. It’s just the second half.
If you’re right that Truss is actually planning a serious support package and she’s just communicating that poorly, then maybe she’ll be able to partially reverse the Conservatives’ 14 point polling deficit. I wouldn’t bet on it.
But she did say the first part. She explicitly said so re:emergency budget, but that part isn't getting quoted.
bart logic at its finest.
there is no point in just throwing good money after bad there is no point in just spaffing money against the wall there is no point in just painting yourself into a corner
In none of these cases does the "just" mean I am going to do the thing after just, but also other things. it is an intensifier emphasisingthe pointlessness of the thing, hence why I am not going to do it.
Now, there is an alternative construction: there is no point in just taking paracetemol without also getting a diagnosis. The trouble is, the derogatory "bunging" and the absence of a "without also" puts Truss's remark very clearly in the first category. She is saying she is not going to do it. In practice she will do it, but that will be a U turn.
The fact she explicitly said support would be offered means its clearly the second.
When the support is offered, it will mean I was right and you were wrong.
I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.
Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?
She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.
"You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.
When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.
I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.
Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.
Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
You're lying, that's not what she said.
What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.
You're tilting at windmills.
I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".
But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.
Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.
Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.
There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
She literally said she'd do both.
She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.
Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.
Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:
"To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.
I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
"such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
No, you're the only one who's been lying.
She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.
You dishonestly said that meant no support.
If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
That's a "no, your mum" answer.
That all you got left?
No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.
If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
"Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".
Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?
Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "
Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
Re-read what I wrote. Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.
Not you, when has she ever said that?
But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷♂️
She said no bungs.
No, she didn't.
She said not just bungs.
Don't just take paracetamol != don't take paracetamol.
Truss: “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
That’s a somewhat different usage of “just” than the analogue you offer. She has repeatedly failed to take up an opportunity to say something like, “My government will look at what additional short term support we can offer, but it isn’t right to just bung more money into the system.” No. It’s just the second half.
If you’re right that Truss is actually planning a serious support package and she’s just communicating that poorly, then maybe she’ll be able to partially reverse the Conservatives’ 14 point polling deficit. I wouldn’t bet on it.
But she did say the first part. She explicitly said so re:emergency budget, but that part isn't getting quoted.
And she’s said what’s in the Emergency Budget: measures that will have little impact on the energy price crisis, but which will benefit the rich. If what’s been announced for the Emergency Budget is it, God save us.
(“God” in a rhetorical sense. I’m not HYUFD.)
'Trust her, she's lying about it' seems to be the line to take from Barty Bobs and the few other warriors of the Lizlamic State.
Bart is not saying that. He’s saying, ‘Trust her, she’s being vague about it’.
Normally most Budgets people moan that Parliament is supposed to be told first.
Now people are complaining the media isn't being told first.
I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.
Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?
She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.
"You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.
When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.
I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.
Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.
Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
You're lying, that's not what she said.
What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.
You're tilting at windmills.
I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".
But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.
Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.
Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.
There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
She literally said she'd do both.
She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.
Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.
Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:
"To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.
I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
"such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
No, you're the only one who's been lying.
She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.
You dishonestly said that meant no support.
If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
That's a "no, your mum" answer.
That all you got left?
No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.
If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
"Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".
Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?
Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "
Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
Re-read what I wrote. Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.
Not you, when has she ever said that?
But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷♂️
She said no bungs.
No, she didn't.
She said not just bungs.
Don't just take paracetamol != don't take paracetamol.
Truss: “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
That’s a somewhat different usage of “just” than the analogue you offer. She has repeatedly failed to take up an opportunity to say something like, “My government will look at what additional short term support we can offer, but it isn’t right to just bung more money into the system.” No. It’s just the second half.
If you’re right that Truss is actually planning a serious support package and she’s just communicating that poorly, then maybe she’ll be able to partially reverse the Conservatives’ 14 point polling deficit. I wouldn’t bet on it.
But she did say the first part. She explicitly said so re:emergency budget, but that part isn't getting quoted.
She has been saying the same thing for 235 different Tory hustings. Each time it is reported by the press. If she had the slightest interest in communicating something different than the press have been reporting, she would done so before the 235th hustings event.
You're right she's been saying the same thing all along, and I've been pointing that out all along.
She's always kept t he door open to support, she's never closed it off, but she's always said its not the 'priority' or we shouldn't 'just' be doing that etc
Quite right too.
How can it not be the priority? She can't seriously answer "How are you going to support people with no disposable income facing fuel bills rising by £3k per year?" with "We will give them £30 a year NI back" as the priority solution. She may as well answer with we will bring back grammar schools.
Are people with no disposable income really facing the prospect of fuel bills rising by £3k per year? I thought that value was for an average household.
I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.
Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?
She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.
"You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.
When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.
I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.
Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.
Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
You're lying, that's not what she said.
What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.
You're tilting at windmills.
I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".
But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.
Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.
Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.
There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
She literally said she'd do both.
She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.
Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.
Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:
"To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.
I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
"such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
No, you're the only one who's been lying.
She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.
You dishonestly said that meant no support.
If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
That's a "no, your mum" answer.
That all you got left?
No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.
If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
"Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".
Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?
Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "
Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
Re-read what I wrote. Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.
Not you, when has she ever said that?
But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷♂️
She said no bungs.
No, she didn't.
She said not just bungs.
Don't just take paracetamol != don't take paracetamol.
Truss: “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
That’s a somewhat different usage of “just” than the analogue you offer. She has repeatedly failed to take up an opportunity to say something like, “My government will look at what additional short term support we can offer, but it isn’t right to just bung more money into the system.” No. It’s just the second half.
If you’re right that Truss is actually planning a serious support package and she’s just communicating that poorly, then maybe she’ll be able to partially reverse the Conservatives’ 14 point polling deficit. I wouldn’t bet on it.
But she did say the first part. She explicitly said so re:emergency budget, but that part isn't getting quoted.
And she’s said what’s in the Emergency Budget: measures that will have little impact on the energy price crisis, but which will benefit the rich. If what’s been announced for the Emergency Budget is it, God save us.
(“God” in a rhetorical sense. I’m not HYUFD.)
'Trust her, she's lying about it' seems to be the line to take from Barty Bobs and the few other warriors of the Lizlamic State.
Bart is not saying that. He’s saying, ‘Trust her, she’s being vague about it’.
Normally most Budgets people moan that Parliament is supposed to be told first.
Now people are complaining the media isn't being told first.
The Conservatives are well known for demanding detailed spending plans in other parties’ election manifestos. Are not Truss’s comments while campaigning more like a manifesto than a pre-budget leak to a friendly newspaper?
I may have missed it, but nobody seems to have mentioned the rather obvious point that France is much closer, geographically, to us than Turkey, Hungary, the USA or indeed anywhere else.
It's surely much better to see neighbours, a mere 21 miles away, as close friends.
I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.
Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?
She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.
"You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.
When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.
I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.
Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.
Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
You're lying, that's not what she said.
What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.
You're tilting at windmills.
I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".
But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.
Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.
Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.
There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
She literally said she'd do both.
She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.
Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.
Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:
"To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.
I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
"such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
No, you're the only one who's been lying.
She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.
You dishonestly said that meant no support.
If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
That's a "no, your mum" answer.
That all you got left?
No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.
If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
"Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".
Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?
Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "
Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
Re-read what I wrote. Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.
Not you, when has she ever said that?
But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷♂️
She said no bungs.
No, she didn't.
She said not just bungs.
Don't just take paracetamol != don't take paracetamol.
Truss: “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
That’s a somewhat different usage of “just” than the analogue you offer. She has repeatedly failed to take up an opportunity to say something like, “My government will look at what additional short term support we can offer, but it isn’t right to just bung more money into the system.” No. It’s just the second half.
If you’re right that Truss is actually planning a serious support package and she’s just communicating that poorly, then maybe she’ll be able to partially reverse the Conservatives’ 14 point polling deficit. I wouldn’t bet on it.
But she did say the first part. She explicitly said so re:emergency budget, but that part isn't getting quoted.
And she’s said what’s in the Emergency Budget: measures that will have little impact on the energy price crisis, but which will benefit the rich. If what’s been announced for the Emergency Budget is it, God save us.
(“God” in a rhetorical sense. I’m not HYUFD.)
She's not said what will be in the Emergency Budget.
She's said what her priorities are, but budgets don't only deal with the priorities.
Cutting NI doesn't aid the rich, it aids workers.
So we’re back to she’s not ruled out doing something she hasn’t specified. So she’s deliberately keeping the Tory selectorate in the dark as to her plans, and damaging Tory polling by not communicating to the wider electorate? If that works for you…
And her plans aid the highest-paid workers more than the lower-paid workers.
I agree she's being vague, I've said so too. If people were claiming she's being vague, I wouldn't disagree.
Rochdale et al aren't claiming she is being vague, they're saying she's being specific on issues she simply isn't.
I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.
Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?
She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.
"You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.
When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.
I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.
Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.
Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
You're lying, that's not what she said.
What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.
You're tilting at windmills.
I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".
But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.
Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.
Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.
There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
She literally said she'd do both.
She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.
Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.
Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:
"To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.
I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
"such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
No, you're the only one who's been lying.
She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.
You dishonestly said that meant no support.
If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
That's a "no, your mum" answer.
That all you got left?
No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.
If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
"Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".
Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?
Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "
Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
Re-read what I wrote. Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.
Not you, when has she ever said that?
But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷♂️
She said no bungs.
No, she didn't.
She said not just bungs.
Don't just take paracetamol != don't take paracetamol.
Truss: “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
That’s a somewhat different usage of “just” than the analogue you offer. She has repeatedly failed to take up an opportunity to say something like, “My government will look at what additional short term support we can offer, but it isn’t right to just bung more money into the system.” No. It’s just the second half.
If you’re right that Truss is actually planning a serious support package and she’s just communicating that poorly, then maybe she’ll be able to partially reverse the Conservatives’ 14 point polling deficit. I wouldn’t bet on it.
But she did say the first part. She explicitly said so re:emergency budget, but that part isn't getting quoted.
She has been saying the same thing for 235 different Tory hustings. Each time it is reported by the press. If she had the slightest interest in communicating something different than the press have been reporting, she would done so before the 235th hustings event.
You're right she's been saying the same thing all along, and I've been pointing that out all along.
She's always kept t he door open to support, she's never closed it off, but she's always said its not the 'priority' or we shouldn't 'just' be doing that etc
Quite right too.
How can it not be the priority? She can't seriously answer "How are you going to support people with no disposable income facing fuel bills rising by £3k per year?" with "We will give them £30 a year NI back" as the priority solution. She may as well answer with we will bring back grammar schools.
Are people with no disposable income really facing the prospect of fuel bills rising by £3k per year? I thought that value was for an average household.
Average in 2021 was £1339 per year.
Latest forecast for April 2023 is £6616 per year.
Quoting the cap for the average household is misleading. It should be quoted in terms of the price per unit. It gives the impression that everyone (including those at the bottom who tend to have smaller bills) is facing the same absolute rise in the cost.
I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.
Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?
She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.
"You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.
When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.
I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.
Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.
Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
You're lying, that's not what she said.
What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.
You're tilting at windmills.
I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".
But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.
Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.
Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.
There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
She literally said she'd do both.
She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.
Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.
Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:
"To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.
I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
"such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
No, you're the only one who's been lying.
She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.
You dishonestly said that meant no support.
If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
That's a "no, your mum" answer.
That all you got left?
No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.
If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
"Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".
Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?
Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "
Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
Re-read what I wrote. Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.
Not you, when has she ever said that?
But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷♂️
She said no bungs.
No, she didn't.
She said not just bungs.
Don't just take paracetamol != don't take paracetamol.
Truss: “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
That’s a somewhat different usage of “just” than the analogue you offer. She has repeatedly failed to take up an opportunity to say something like, “My government will look at what additional short term support we can offer, but it isn’t right to just bung more money into the system.” No. It’s just the second half.
If you’re right that Truss is actually planning a serious support package and she’s just communicating that poorly, then maybe she’ll be able to partially reverse the Conservatives’ 14 point polling deficit. I wouldn’t bet on it.
But she did say the first part. She explicitly said so re:emergency budget, but that part isn't getting quoted.
And she’s said what’s in the Emergency Budget: measures that will have little impact on the energy price crisis, but which will benefit the rich. If what’s been announced for the Emergency Budget is it, God save us.
(“God” in a rhetorical sense. I’m not HYUFD.)
'Trust her, she's lying about it' seems to be the line to take from Barty Bobs and the few other warriors of the Lizlamic State.
Bart is not saying that. He’s saying, ‘Trust her, she’s being vague about it’.
Normally most Budgets people moan that Parliament is supposed to be told first.
Now people are complaining the media isn't being told first.
The Conservatives are well known for demanding detailed spending plans in other parties’ election manifestos. Are not Truss’s comments while campaigning more like a manifesto than a pre-budget leak to a friendly newspaper?
But Truss hasn't made a manifesto promise on how to deal with this. She's said it will be dealt with by an emergency budget, but not how, provided no costings, and said no OBR too.
Yes its dark. So too was the furlough scheme five minutes before it was announced.
I may have missed it, but nobody seems to have mentioned the rather obvious point that France is much closer, geographically, to us than Turkey, Hungary, the USA or indeed anywhere else.
It's surely much better to see neighbours, a mere 21 miles away, as close friends.
So China is more friendly to Japan than the USA?
France are our close neighbours. They are NATO allies but so too are Turkey, Hungary and the USA. If they want to be close friends, lets see more unequivocal support for Ukraine.
I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.
Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?
She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.
"You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.
When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.
I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.
Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.
Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
You're lying, that's not what she said.
What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.
You're tilting at windmills.
I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".
But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.
Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.
Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.
There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
She literally said she'd do both.
She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.
Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.
Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:
"To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.
I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
"such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
No, you're the only one who's been lying.
She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.
You dishonestly said that meant no support.
If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
That's a "no, your mum" answer.
That all you got left?
No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.
If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
"Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".
Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?
Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "
Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
Re-read what I wrote. Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.
Not you, when has she ever said that?
But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷♂️
She said no bungs.
No, she didn't.
She said not just bungs.
Don't just take paracetamol != don't take paracetamol.
Truss: “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
That’s a somewhat different usage of “just” than the analogue you offer. She has repeatedly failed to take up an opportunity to say something like, “My government will look at what additional short term support we can offer, but it isn’t right to just bung more money into the system.” No. It’s just the second half.
If you’re right that Truss is actually planning a serious support package and she’s just communicating that poorly, then maybe she’ll be able to partially reverse the Conservatives’ 14 point polling deficit. I wouldn’t bet on it.
But she did say the first part. She explicitly said so re:emergency budget, but that part isn't getting quoted.
She has been saying the same thing for 235 different Tory hustings. Each time it is reported by the press. If she had the slightest interest in communicating something different than the press have been reporting, she would done so before the 235th hustings event.
You're right she's been saying the same thing all along, and I've been pointing that out all along.
She's always kept t he door open to support, she's never closed it off, but she's always said its not the 'priority' or we shouldn't 'just' be doing that etc
Quite right too.
How can it not be the priority? She can't seriously answer "How are you going to support people with no disposable income facing fuel bills rising by £3k per year?" with "We will give them £30 a year NI back" as the priority solution. She may as well answer with we will bring back grammar schools.
Are people with no disposable income really facing the prospect of fuel bills rising by £3k per year? I thought that value was for an average household.
Average in 2021 was £1339 per year.
Latest forecast for April 2023 is £6616 per year.
Quoting the cap for the average household is misleading. It should be quoted in terms of the price per unit. It gives the impression that everyone (including those at the bottom who tend to have smaller bills) is facing the same absolute rise in the cost.
Sorry. I didn't mean to imply you specifically were being misleading, rather that the media's obsession over the average figure is not at all helpful.
I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.
Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?
She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.
"You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.
When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.
I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.
Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.
Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
You're lying, that's not what she said.
What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.
You're tilting at windmills.
I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".
But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.
Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.
Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.
There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
She literally said she'd do both.
She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.
Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.
Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:
"To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.
I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
"such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
No, you're the only one who's been lying.
She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.
You dishonestly said that meant no support.
If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
That's a "no, your mum" answer.
That all you got left?
No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.
If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
"Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".
Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?
Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "
Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
Re-read what I wrote. Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.
Not you, when has she ever said that?
But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷♂️
She said no bungs.
No, she didn't.
She said not just bungs.
Don't just take paracetamol != don't take paracetamol.
Truss: “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
That’s a somewhat different usage of “just” than the analogue you offer. She has repeatedly failed to take up an opportunity to say something like, “My government will look at what additional short term support we can offer, but it isn’t right to just bung more money into the system.” No. It’s just the second half.
If you’re right that Truss is actually planning a serious support package and she’s just communicating that poorly, then maybe she’ll be able to partially reverse the Conservatives’ 14 point polling deficit. I wouldn’t bet on it.
But she did say the first part. She explicitly said so re:emergency budget, but that part isn't getting quoted.
She has been saying the same thing for 235 different Tory hustings. Each time it is reported by the press. If she had the slightest interest in communicating something different than the press have been reporting, she would done so before the 235th hustings event.
You're right she's been saying the same thing all along, and I've been pointing that out all along.
She's always kept t he door open to support, she's never closed it off, but she's always said its not the 'priority' or we shouldn't 'just' be doing that etc
Quite right too.
How can it not be the priority? She can't seriously answer "How are you going to support people with no disposable income facing fuel bills rising by £3k per year?" with "We will give them £30 a year NI back" as the priority solution. She may as well answer with we will bring back grammar schools.
Are people with no disposable income really facing the prospect of fuel bills rising by £3k per year? I thought that value was for an average household.
Average in 2021 was £1339 per year.
Latest forecast for April 2023 is £6616 per year.
Quoting the cap for the average household is misleading. It should be quoted in terms of the price per unit. It gives the impression that everyone (including those at the bottom who tend to have smaller bills) is facing the same absolute rise in the cost.
Interesting cooperation, which will give the US some regulatory powers in China.
https://mobile.twitter.com/onlyyoontv/status/1563136237136842752 #China announces China Securities Regulatory Commission and Finance Ministry have signed an #audit supervision cooperation agreement with US regulators, says relevant cooperation will be launched in the near future.
That’s impressive. One assumes that the US were carrying a very big stick when they negotiated. The issue was shell companies listing on Wall St, buying Chinese companies, then fabricating Chinese accounts for them, which American investors couldn’t verify.
I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.
Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?
She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.
"You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.
When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.
I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.
Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.
Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
You're lying, that's not what she said.
What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.
You're tilting at windmills.
I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".
But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.
Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.
Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.
There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
She literally said she'd do both.
She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.
Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.
Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:
"To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.
I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
"such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
No, you're the only one who's been lying.
She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.
You dishonestly said that meant no support.
If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
That's a "no, your mum" answer.
That all you got left?
No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.
If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
"Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".
Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?
Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "
Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
Re-read what I wrote. Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.
Not you, when has she ever said that?
But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷♂️
She said no bungs.
No, she didn't.
She said not just bungs.
Don't just take paracetamol != don't take paracetamol.
Truss: “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
That’s a somewhat different usage of “just” than the analogue you offer. She has repeatedly failed to take up an opportunity to say something like, “My government will look at what additional short term support we can offer, but it isn’t right to just bung more money into the system.” No. It’s just the second half.
If you’re right that Truss is actually planning a serious support package and she’s just communicating that poorly, then maybe she’ll be able to partially reverse the Conservatives’ 14 point polling deficit. I wouldn’t bet on it.
But she did say the first part. She explicitly said so re:emergency budget, but that part isn't getting quoted.
She has been saying the same thing for 235 different Tory hustings. Each time it is reported by the press. If she had the slightest interest in communicating something different than the press have been reporting, she would done so before the 235th hustings event.
You're right she's been saying the same thing all along, and I've been pointing that out all along.
She's always kept t he door open to support, she's never closed it off, but she's always said its not the 'priority' or we shouldn't 'just' be doing that etc
Quite right too.
How can it not be the priority? She can't seriously answer "How are you going to support people with no disposable income facing fuel bills rising by £3k per year?" with "We will give them £30 a year NI back" as the priority solution. She may as well answer with we will bring back grammar schools.
Are people with no disposable income really facing the prospect of fuel bills rising by £3k per year? I thought that value was for an average household.
Average in 2021 was £1339 per year.
Latest forecast for April 2023 is £6616 per year.
Quoting the cap for the average household is misleading. It should be quoted in terms of the price per unit. It gives the impression that everyone (including those at the bottom who tend to have smaller bills) is facing the same absolute rise in the cost.
Removed as seen additional post below.
Sorry, poorly worded originally. You were right that the blame lies with ofgem, who have the figure front and centre in their press release.
Well yes, he's well geared up to take on the increasingly marginalised unreconciled faction that is motivated only by utter hatred of his leadership, as manifest by the fact that it clearly cares more about undermining his position than it does about the result of the next GE.
Macron is not a friend, he's the President of France but no friend. He's not a foe either.
Why do muppets feel the need to pretend the President of France is our friend?
Because we’re both western democracies in NATO and frankly the way things are going western democracies all need all the friends they can get.
So are Orban, Erdogan and Trump "friends"?
Trump isn't in power. Comparing Macron to Orban and Erdogan just reemphasises the Francophobia you have so often shown on this board.
Trump was in power.
Orban and Erdogan are the leaders of NATO allies of ours.
Hungary and Turkey are barely democracies though. Anyway, if they are non-hostile powers then they are friends. That's the language of diplomacy. If she doesn't understand that then she's not up to the job. Why wind people up unnessessarily? If you want to do that come on here.
Two separate things here. I agree with you about the idiocy of Truss so I am not agreeing with Bart on that bit.
But Turkey and Hungary are, by our own definitions, democracies. We may not agree with the choices the people make nor with the actions of the elected governments but they are elected by popular mandate and have not, as yet, chosen to move away from that system of electing their governments.
When criticising other countries by calling them 'barely democracies' it is worth baring in mind that plenty of people - including no small number on PB - consider the UK to be barely a democracy because of our electoral system. I happen to disagree with them but they have a logical argument for this.
I would also agree with Bart that, although I think it is deeply stupid for our prospective PM to say it, there are no friends in international diplomacy, only overlapping spheres of self interest.
“We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual.”
I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.
Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?
She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.
"You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.
When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.
I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.
Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.
Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
You're lying, that's not what she said.
What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.
You're tilting at windmills.
I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".
But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.
Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.
Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.
There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
She literally said she'd do both.
She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.
Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.
Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:
"To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.
I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
"such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
No, you're the only one who's been lying.
She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.
You dishonestly said that meant no support.
If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
That's a "no, your mum" answer.
That all you got left?
No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.
If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
"Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".
Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?
Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "
Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
Re-read what I wrote. Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.
Not you, when has she ever said that?
But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷♂️
She said no bungs.
No, she didn't.
She said not just bungs.
Don't just take paracetamol != don't take paracetamol.
Truss: “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
That’s a somewhat different usage of “just” than the analogue you offer. She has repeatedly failed to take up an opportunity to say something like, “My government will look at what additional short term support we can offer, but it isn’t right to just bung more money into the system.” No. It’s just the second half.
If you’re right that Truss is actually planning a serious support package and she’s just communicating that poorly, then maybe she’ll be able to partially reverse the Conservatives’ 14 point polling deficit. I wouldn’t bet on it.
But she did say the first part. She explicitly said so re:emergency budget, but that part isn't getting quoted.
She has been saying the same thing for 235 different Tory hustings. Each time it is reported by the press. If she had the slightest interest in communicating something different than the press have been reporting, she would done so before the 235th hustings event.
You're right she's been saying the same thing all along, and I've been pointing that out all along.
She's always kept t he door open to support, she's never closed it off, but she's always said its not the 'priority' or we shouldn't 'just' be doing that etc
Quite right too.
How can it not be the priority? She can't seriously answer "How are you going to support people with no disposable income facing fuel bills rising by £3k per year?" with "We will give them £30 a year NI back" as the priority solution. She may as well answer with we will bring back grammar schools.
Are people with no disposable income really facing the prospect of fuel bills rising by £3k per year? I thought that value was for an average household.
Average in 2021 was £1339 per year.
Latest forecast for April 2023 is £6616 per year.
Quoting the cap for the average household is misleading. It should be quoted in terms of the price per unit. It gives the impression that everyone (including those at the bottom who tend to have smaller bills) is facing the same absolute rise in the cost.
Removed as seen additional post below.
Sorry, poorly worded originally. You were right that the blame lies with ofgem, who have the figure front and centre in their press release.
I don't think they are particularly at fault. It is a perfectly reasonable starting point even if, of course, it does not show the full picture.
Interesting cooperation, which will give the US some regulatory powers in China.
https://mobile.twitter.com/onlyyoontv/status/1563136237136842752 #China announces China Securities Regulatory Commission and Finance Ministry have signed an #audit supervision cooperation agreement with US regulators, says relevant cooperation will be launched in the near future.
That’s impressive. One assumes that the US were carrying a very big stick when they negotiated. The issue was shell companies listing on Wall St, buying Chinese companies, then fabricating Chinese accounts for them, which American investors couldn’t verify.
The administration has got rather a lot done in the last couple of months.
I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.
Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?
She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.
"You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.
When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.
I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.
Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.
Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
You're lying, that's not what she said.
What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.
You're tilting at windmills.
I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".
But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.
Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.
Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.
There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
She literally said she'd do both.
She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.
Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.
Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:
"To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.
I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
"such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
No, you're the only one who's been lying.
She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.
You dishonestly said that meant no support.
If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
That's a "no, your mum" answer.
That all you got left?
No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.
If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
"Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".
Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?
Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "
Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
Re-read what I wrote. Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.
Not you, when has she ever said that?
But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷♂️
She said no bungs.
No, she didn't.
She said not just bungs.
Don't just take paracetamol != don't take paracetamol.
Truss: “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
That’s a somewhat different usage of “just” than the analogue you offer. She has repeatedly failed to take up an opportunity to say something like, “My government will look at what additional short term support we can offer, but it isn’t right to just bung more money into the system.” No. It’s just the second half.
If you’re right that Truss is actually planning a serious support package and she’s just communicating that poorly, then maybe she’ll be able to partially reverse the Conservatives’ 14 point polling deficit. I wouldn’t bet on it.
But she did say the first part. She explicitly said so re:emergency budget, but that part isn't getting quoted.
She has been saying the same thing for 235 different Tory hustings. Each time it is reported by the press. If she had the slightest interest in communicating something different than the press have been reporting, she would done so before the 235th hustings event.
You're right she's been saying the same thing all along, and I've been pointing that out all along.
She's always kept t he door open to support, she's never closed it off, but she's always said its not the 'priority' or we shouldn't 'just' be doing that etc
Quite right too.
How can it not be the priority? She can't seriously answer "How are you going to support people with no disposable income facing fuel bills rising by £3k per year?" with "We will give them £30 a year NI back" as the priority solution. She may as well answer with we will bring back grammar schools.
Are people with no disposable income really facing the prospect of fuel bills rising by £3k per year? I thought that value was for an average household.
Average in 2021 was £1339 per year.
Latest forecast for April 2023 is £6616 per year.
Quoting the cap for the average household is misleading. It should be quoted in terms of the price per unit. It gives the impression that everyone (including those at the bottom who tend to have smaller bills) is facing the same absolute rise in the cost.
Removed as seen additional post below.
Sorry, poorly worded originally. You were right that the blame lies with ofgem, who have the figure front and centre in their press release.
What figure are they supposed to go with ? A split for average gas and average electricity would be handy but they've risen in tandem this time round so the "average" works I'd say.
Interesting cooperation, which will give the US some regulatory powers in China.
https://mobile.twitter.com/onlyyoontv/status/1563136237136842752 #China announces China Securities Regulatory Commission and Finance Ministry have signed an #audit supervision cooperation agreement with US regulators, says relevant cooperation will be launched in the near future.
That’s impressive. One assumes that the US were carrying a very big stick when they negotiated. The issue was shell companies listing on Wall St, buying Chinese companies, then fabricating Chinese accounts for them, which American investors couldn’t verify.
The administration has got rather a lot done in the last couple of months.
I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.
Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?
She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.
"You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.
When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.
I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.
Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.
Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
You're lying, that's not what she said.
What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.
You're tilting at windmills.
I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".
But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.
Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.
Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.
There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
She literally said she'd do both.
She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.
Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.
Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:
"To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.
I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
"such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
No, you're the only one who's been lying.
She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.
You dishonestly said that meant no support.
If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
That's a "no, your mum" answer.
That all you got left?
No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.
If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
"Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".
Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?
Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "
Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
Re-read what I wrote. Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.
Not you, when has she ever said that?
But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷♂️
She said no bungs.
No, she didn't.
She said not just bungs.
Don't just take paracetamol != don't take paracetamol.
Truss: “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
That’s a somewhat different usage of “just” than the analogue you offer. She has repeatedly failed to take up an opportunity to say something like, “My government will look at what additional short term support we can offer, but it isn’t right to just bung more money into the system.” No. It’s just the second half.
If you’re right that Truss is actually planning a serious support package and she’s just communicating that poorly, then maybe she’ll be able to partially reverse the Conservatives’ 14 point polling deficit. I wouldn’t bet on it.
But she did say the first part. She explicitly said so re:emergency budget, but that part isn't getting quoted.
She has been saying the same thing for 235 different Tory hustings. Each time it is reported by the press. If she had the slightest interest in communicating something different than the press have been reporting, she would done so before the 235th hustings event.
You're right she's been saying the same thing all along, and I've been pointing that out all along.
She's always kept t he door open to support, she's never closed it off, but she's always said its not the 'priority' or we shouldn't 'just' be doing that etc
Quite right too.
How can it not be the priority? She can't seriously answer "How are you going to support people with no disposable income facing fuel bills rising by £3k per year?" with "We will give them £30 a year NI back" as the priority solution. She may as well answer with we will bring back grammar schools.
Are people with no disposable income really facing the prospect of fuel bills rising by £3k per year? I thought that value was for an average household.
Average in 2021 was £1339 per year.
Latest forecast for April 2023 is £6616 per year.
Quoting the cap for the average household is misleading. It should be quoted in terms of the price per unit. It gives the impression that everyone (including those at the bottom who tend to have smaller bills) is facing the same absolute rise in the cost.
Removed as seen additional post below.
Sorry, poorly worded originally. You were right that the blame lies with ofgem, who have the figure front and centre in their press release.
What figure are they supposed to go with ? A split for average gas and average electricity would be handy but they've risen in tandem this time round so the "average" works I'd say.
Price per unit, or at least showing the distribution of customers' bill increase so we can actually interpret what their average means. I suspect it is highly skewed.
Interesting cooperation, which will give the US some regulatory powers in China.
https://mobile.twitter.com/onlyyoontv/status/1563136237136842752 #China announces China Securities Regulatory Commission and Finance Ministry have signed an #audit supervision cooperation agreement with US regulators, says relevant cooperation will be launched in the near future.
That’s impressive. One assumes that the US were carrying a very big stick when they negotiated. The issue was shell companies listing on Wall St, buying Chinese companies, then fabricating Chinese accounts for them, which American investors couldn’t verify.
The administration has got rather a lot done in the last couple of months.
Bit of a contrast to somewhere else ....
Quite. I wonder if the Tory party leadership election rules should be changed to something more similar to Labour's.
Dunno why, but I've really got a thing against old people now. I might start a political party (before I get too old) to attack them
Definition of old will be kind of like the definition of rich, won't it:
"Me plus "
At sixty, you'll insist 70 is old. At seventy, it'll become clear that actually eighty is "old" As you approach eighty, you'll realise that advances in medical science mean that "old" really starts at ninety.
At a certain point though people accept they're old and become proud of the fact.
My granddad is 92 and has a "not a bad innings" attitude to that.
Given how many times I should have died, I have that attitude in my late 50s
I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.
Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?
She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.
"You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.
When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.
I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.
Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.
Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
You're lying, that's not what she said.
What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.
You're tilting at windmills.
I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".
But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.
Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.
Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.
There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
She literally said she'd do both.
She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.
Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.
Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:
"To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.
I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
"such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
No, you're the only one who's been lying.
She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.
You dishonestly said that meant no support.
If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
That's a "no, your mum" answer.
That all you got left?
No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.
If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
"Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".
Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?
Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "
Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
Re-read what I wrote. Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.
Not you, when has she ever said that?
But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷♂️
She said no bungs.
No, she didn't.
She said not just bungs.
Don't just take paracetamol != don't take paracetamol.
Truss: “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
That’s a somewhat different usage of “just” than the analogue you offer. She has repeatedly failed to take up an opportunity to say something like, “My government will look at what additional short term support we can offer, but it isn’t right to just bung more money into the system.” No. It’s just the second half.
If you’re right that Truss is actually planning a serious support package and she’s just communicating that poorly, then maybe she’ll be able to partially reverse the Conservatives’ 14 point polling deficit. I wouldn’t bet on it.
But she did say the first part. She explicitly said so re:emergency budget, but that part isn't getting quoted.
You agree she needs to switch to selling belt tightening now not stoking optimism too much? The expectation management needs to be better than this now, to sell the need for pain and pulling together?
I think the media are doing a fantastic job at setting expectations low.
Not lowering expectation in Truss sorting it out they certainly are not, look at Mail and Tele and Express today! 😯
The contest with Rishi is over, he’s ground into the dust, that shouldn’t be the focus now.
It’s going to be a difficult time, I can’t promise you your loved ones won’t come to harm, but we shall pull together and we will come through this. That’s the only message the Truss team should be putting out now, otherwise they are setting Truss up to disappoint and fail. That’s the correct politics they seem slow to react to.
Macron is not a friend, he's the President of France but no friend. He's not a foe either.
Why do muppets feel the need to pretend the President of France is our friend?
Because we’re both western democracies in NATO and frankly the way things are going western democracies all need all the friends they can get.
So are Orban, Erdogan and Trump "friends"?
Trump isn't in power. Comparing Macron to Orban and Erdogan just reemphasises the Francophobia you have so often shown on this board.
Trump was in power.
Orban and Erdogan are the leaders of NATO allies of ours.
Hungary and Turkey are barely democracies though. Anyway, if they are non-hostile powers then they are friends. That's the language of diplomacy. If she doesn't understand that then she's not up to the job. Why wind people up unnessessarily? If you want to do that come on here.
Two separate things here. I agree with you about the idiocy of Truss so I am not agreeing with Bart on that bit.
But Turkey and Hungary are, by our own definitions, democracies. We may not agree with the choices the people make nor with the actions of the elected governments but they are elected by popular mandate and have not, as yet, chosen to move away from that system of electing their governments.
When criticising other countries by calling them 'barely democracies' it is worth baring in mind that plenty of people - including no small number on PB - consider the UK to be barely a democracy because of our electoral system. I happen to disagree with them but they have a logical argument for this.
I would also agree with Bart that, although I think it is deeply stupid for our prospective PM to say it, there are no friends in international diplomacy, only overlapping spheres of self interest.
“We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual.”
- Lord Palmerston
Truss wasn't referring to France, she was specifically asked about Macron
And the jury really is out as to whether HE is a friend or foe of the UK, I'm tempted to say more foe than friend. Either way, leaders are entirely different to countries
If Starmer becomes PM in 2024, and Trump is elected prez the same year, and Starmer is asked "is Trump friend or foe", what should he say?
NigelB asks: "Why isn't this guy even on the Vice President nominee market on Betfair ?"
Because: "He was a national co-chair of Bernie Sanders’ 2020 bid." And because he is neither black nor female, in a party which is hooked on identity poltics.
Dunno why, but I've really got a thing against old people now. I might start a political party (before I get too old) to attack them
Perhaps it is because you are now recognising your own senescence and senility, and reacting against the dying of the light?
Yes, maybe
But it was always live fast, die young Leon, who wants to slowly decompose in a smelly nursing home? Read Amiss Ending Up and then head on that US road trip, with as much mescaline, meth, uppers, downers skoolboy, China girl (Ishmael zee would approve) toot, molly, bliss, joker - pack up your kibbles and bit - the Joshua Tree is calling you 🤘
Macron is not a friend, he's the President of France but no friend. He's not a foe either.
Why do muppets feel the need to pretend the President of France is our friend?
Because we’re both western democracies in NATO and frankly the way things are going western democracies all need all the friends they can get.
So are Orban, Erdogan and Trump "friends"?
Trump isn't in power. Comparing Macron to Orban and Erdogan just reemphasises the Francophobia you have so often shown on this board.
Trump was in power.
Orban and Erdogan are the leaders of NATO allies of ours.
Hungary and Turkey are barely democracies though. Anyway, if they are non-hostile powers then they are friends. That's the language of diplomacy. If she doesn't understand that then she's not up to the job. Why wind people up unnessessarily? If you want to do that come on here.
Two separate things here. I agree with you about the idiocy of Truss so I am not agreeing with Bart on that bit.
But Turkey and Hungary are, by our own definitions, democracies. We may not agree with the choices the people make nor with the actions of the elected governments but they are elected by popular mandate and have not, as yet, chosen to move away from that system of electing their governments.
When criticising other countries by calling them 'barely democracies' it is worth baring in mind that plenty of people - including no small number on PB - consider the UK to be barely a democracy because of our electoral system. I happen to disagree with them but they have a logical argument for this.
I would also agree with Bart that, although I think it is deeply stupid for our prospective PM to say it, there are no friends in international diplomacy, only overlapping spheres of self interest.
“We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual.”
- Lord Palmerston
Truss wasn't referring to France, she was specifically asked about Macron
And the jury really is out as to whether HE is a friend or foe of the UK, I'm tempted to say more foe than friend. Either way, leaders are entirely different to countries
If Starmer becomes PM in 2024, and Trump is elected prez the same year, and Starmer is asked "is Trump friend or foe", what should he say?
"The United States and the United Kingdom have a relationship going back centuries which is vital to the security of the free world and is bigger than the temporary holders of office, whether that is President Trump or myself. Values are more important than individuals."
If you can't say anything nice, say nothing. Or better still, use lots of words to say nothing.
Dunno why, but I've really got a thing against old people now. I might start a political party (before I get too old) to attack them
Perhaps it is because you are now recognising your own senescence and senility, and reacting against the dying of the light?
Yes, maybe
But it was always live fast, die young Leon, who wants to slowly decompose in a smelly nursing home? Read Amiss Ending Up and then head on that US road trip, with as much mescaline, meth, uppers, downers skoolboy, China girl (Ishmael zee would approve) toot, molly, bliss, joker - pack up your kibbles and bit - the Joshua Tree is calling you 🤘
That's the way I feel, entirely
I nearly killed myself last year in several different ways - driving at 138mph on the A35 - driving out of my gourd on Xanax across East Anglia - and so on and so forth. I survived. I'm glad I did. I just had a brilliant holiday in Florence with my older daughter. Also glad I didn't kill anyone else with my selfishness in 2021
Dunno why, but I've really got a thing against old people now. I might start a political party (before I get too old) to attack them
Perhaps it is because you are now recognising your own senescence and senility, and reacting against the dying of the light?
Yes, maybe
But it was always live fast, die young Leon, who wants to slowly decompose in a smelly nursing home? Read Amiss Ending Up and then head on that US road trip, with as much mescaline, meth, uppers, downers skoolboy, China girl (Ishmael zee would approve) toot, molly, bliss, joker - pack up your kibbles and bit - the Joshua Tree is calling you 🤘
Naah, opiates suck. They also lose their glamour to an amazing extent when you get to the age where the NHS dishes them out to you like sweeties. So I just have a prudent stash of a lethal quantity of BP grade morphine, on a Be prepared kinda basis.
At the same point in the presidency Ahead of Truman and Reagen, ever so slightly behind Trump, Clinton and Carter. A little further behind Obama and Ford. Way behind W Bush, HW Bush, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower
Macron is not a friend, he's the President of France but no friend. He's not a foe either.
Why do muppets feel the need to pretend the President of France is our friend?
Because we’re both western democracies in NATO and frankly the way things are going western democracies all need all the friends they can get.
So are Orban, Erdogan and Trump "friends"?
Trump isn't in power. Comparing Macron to Orban and Erdogan just reemphasises the Francophobia you have so often shown on this board.
Trump was in power.
Orban and Erdogan are the leaders of NATO allies of ours.
Hungary and Turkey are barely democracies though. Anyway, if they are non-hostile powers then they are friends. That's the language of diplomacy. If she doesn't understand that then she's not up to the job. Why wind people up unnessessarily? If you want to do that come on here.
Two separate things here. I agree with you about the idiocy of Truss so I am not agreeing with Bart on that bit.
But Turkey and Hungary are, by our own definitions, democracies. We may not agree with the choices the people make nor with the actions of the elected governments but they are elected by popular mandate and have not, as yet, chosen to move away from that system of electing their governments.
When criticising other countries by calling them 'barely democracies' it is worth baring in mind that plenty of people - including no small number on PB - consider the UK to be barely a democracy because of our electoral system. I happen to disagree with them but they have a logical argument for this.
I would also agree with Bart that, although I think it is deeply stupid for our prospective PM to say it, there are no friends in international diplomacy, only overlapping spheres of self interest.
“We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual.”
- Lord Palmerston
Truss wasn't referring to France, she was specifically asked about Macron
And the jury really is out as to whether HE is a friend or foe of the UK, I'm tempted to say more foe than friend. Either way, leaders are entirely different to countries
If Starmer becomes PM in 2024, and Trump is elected prez the same year, and Starmer is asked "is Trump friend or foe", what should he say?
"The United States and the United Kingdom have a relationship going back centuries which is vital to the security of the free world and is bigger than the temporary holders of office, whether that is President Trump or myself. Values are more important than individuals."
If you can't say anything nice, say nothing. Or better still, use lots of words to say nothing.
But it is a politician waffling, typically
Truss gave a direct answer, and an accurate one. The jury IS out on Macron. He has been quite hostile to Britain at several junctures. Therefor I would say: a foe, as things stand. Truss has yet to decide
If she'd been asked about FRANCE I am sure she would have said FRIEND (and rightly so)
I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.
Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?
She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.
"You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.
When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.
I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.
Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.
Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
You're lying, that's not what she said.
What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.
You're tilting at windmills.
I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".
But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.
Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.
Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.
There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
She literally said she'd do both.
She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.
Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.
Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:
"To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.
I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
"such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
No, you're the only one who's been lying.
She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.
You dishonestly said that meant no support.
If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
That's a "no, your mum" answer.
That all you got left?
No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.
If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
"Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".
Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?
Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "
Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
Re-read what I wrote. Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.
Not you, when has she ever said that?
But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷♂️
She said no bungs.
No, she didn't.
She said not just bungs.
Don't just take paracetamol != don't take paracetamol.
Truss: “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
That’s a somewhat different usage of “just” than the analogue you offer. She has repeatedly failed to take up an opportunity to say something like, “My government will look at what additional short term support we can offer, but it isn’t right to just bung more money into the system.” No. It’s just the second half.
If you’re right that Truss is actually planning a serious support package and she’s just communicating that poorly, then maybe she’ll be able to partially reverse the Conservatives’ 14 point polling deficit. I wouldn’t bet on it.
But she did say the first part. She explicitly said so re:emergency budget, but that part isn't getting quoted.
She has been saying the same thing for 235 different Tory hustings. Each time it is reported by the press. If she had the slightest interest in communicating something different than the press have been reporting, she would done so before the 235th hustings event.
You're right she's been saying the same thing all along, and I've been pointing that out all along.
She's always kept t he door open to support, she's never closed it off, but she's always said its not the 'priority' or we shouldn't 'just' be doing that etc
Quite right too.
How can it not be the priority? She can't seriously answer "How are you going to support people with no disposable income facing fuel bills rising by £3k per year?" with "We will give them £30 a year NI back" as the priority solution. She may as well answer with we will bring back grammar schools.
Are people with no disposable income really facing the prospect of fuel bills rising by £3k per year? I thought that value was for an average household.
Average in 2021 was £1339 per year.
Latest forecast for April 2023 is £6616 per year.
Quoting the cap for the average household is misleading. It should be quoted in terms of the price per unit. It gives the impression that everyone (including those at the bottom who tend to have smaller bills) is facing the same absolute rise in the cost.
I do wonder what an average household does. My house is very large compared to the average, but we use considerably less than the average energy. We don't have a hot house and are fairly energy efficient, although not to any extreme.
Dunno why, but I've really got a thing against old people now. I might start a political party (before I get too old) to attack them
Definition of old will be kind of like the definition of rich, won't it:
"Me plus "
At sixty, you'll insist 70 is old. At seventy, it'll become clear that actually eighty is "old" As you approach eighty, you'll realise that advances in medical science mean that "old" really starts at ninety.
And at 165, you will confidently declare *really* old people start at about 200.
Verstappen to start from the back of the grid. Did anyone follow me in laying him at evens ?
Some company there: Max Verstappen, Charles Leclerc, Lando Norris, Esteban Ocon, Valtteri Bottas and Mick Schumacher...
That means that someone from that list will start as high as 14th, once all the penalties are applied. They’ll be qualifying right to the end tomorrow. Also Lewis Hamilton’s best chance this season to win a race.
Dunno why, but I've really got a thing against old people now. I might start a political party (before I get too old) to attack them
Perhaps it is because you are now recognising your own senescence and senility, and reacting against the dying of the light?
Yes, maybe
But it was always live fast, die young Leon, who wants to slowly decompose in a smelly nursing home? Read Amiss Ending Up and then head on that US road trip, with as much mescaline, meth, uppers, downers skoolboy, China girl (Ishmael zee would approve) toot, molly, bliss, joker - pack up your kibbles and bit - the Joshua Tree is calling you 🤘
Naah, opiates suck. They also lose their glamour to an amazing extent when you get to the age where the NHS dishes them out to you like sweeties. So I just have a prudent stash of a lethal quantity of BP grade morphine, on a Be prepared kinda basis.
A friend of mine tried heroin for the first time in 30 years, only the other day
Told me it was "disappointing". He used to do a ton of smack (like me), so that was a little dismaying. Smack was my back up plan for late old age. I will just have to get the best shit possible
One thing that I have noticed is that Liz Truss has a peculiarly expressive face. The photographers are going to have fun with that. I hope she doesn't plan to play poker with the government finances.
Truss' problem is not that she's barking mad (although she has a bit of the messianic about her), it's that she's pushing a creed - neo-Thatcherism - that is turning completely out of fashion.
We are now at the end of the 40 year+ Reagan / Thatcher consensus on how the world should be run. Covid put the final nail in the coffin, with its massive support of individuals and businesses ruining the idea Governments shouldn't intervene while businesses have done a great job at convincing people that the idea they can be trusted to be self-regulating is a complete fallacy. To quote an example, the fact that Dido Harding survived for years as a CEO with such compensation is a sign of how much the system is broken.
We are now likely to see a return to some form of the post-1945 social democracy consensus in some form or another. Whoever gets that formula right will have electoral alchemy.
NigelB asks: "Why isn't this guy even on the Vice President nominee market on Betfair ?"
Because: "He was a national co-chair of Bernie Sanders’ 2020 bid." And because he is neither black nor female, in a party which is hooked on identity poltics.
Macron is not a friend, he's the President of France but no friend. He's not a foe either.
Why do muppets feel the need to pretend the President of France is our friend?
Because we’re both western democracies in NATO and frankly the way things are going western democracies all need all the friends they can get.
So are Orban, Erdogan and Trump "friends"?
Trump isn't in power. Comparing Macron to Orban and Erdogan just reemphasises the Francophobia you have so often shown on this board.
Trump was in power.
Orban and Erdogan are the leaders of NATO allies of ours.
Hungary and Turkey are barely democracies though. Anyway, if they are non-hostile powers then they are friends. That's the language of diplomacy. If she doesn't understand that then she's not up to the job. Why wind people up unnessessarily? If you want to do that come on here.
Two separate things here. I agree with you about the idiocy of Truss so I am not agreeing with Bart on that bit.
But Turkey and Hungary are, by our own definitions, democracies. We may not agree with the choices the people make nor with the actions of the elected governments but they are elected by popular mandate and have not, as yet, chosen to move away from that system of electing their governments.
When criticising other countries by calling them 'barely democracies' it is worth baring in mind that plenty of people - including no small number on PB - consider the UK to be barely a democracy because of our electoral system. I happen to disagree with them but they have a logical argument for this.
I would also agree with Bart that, although I think it is deeply stupid for our prospective PM to say it, there are no friends in international diplomacy, only overlapping spheres of self interest.
“We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual.”
- Lord Palmerston
Truss wasn't referring to France, she was specifically asked about Macron
And the jury really is out as to whether HE is a friend or foe of the UK, I'm tempted to say more foe than friend. Either way, leaders are entirely different to countries
If Starmer becomes PM in 2024, and Trump is elected prez the same year, and Starmer is asked "is Trump friend or foe", what should he say?
"The United States and the United Kingdom have a relationship going back centuries which is vital to the security of the free world and is bigger than the temporary holders of office, whether that is President Trump or myself. Values are more important than individuals."
If you can't say anything nice, say nothing. Or better still, use lots of words to say nothing.
But it is a politician waffling, typically
Truss gave a direct answer, and an accurate one. The jury IS out on Macron. He has been quite hostile to Britain at several junctures. Therefor I would say: a foe, as things stand. Truss has yet to decide
If she'd been asked about FRANCE I am sure she would have said FRIEND (and rightly so)
Why thank you. Waffle was the effect I was after- it's the difference between a diplomat and a polemicist.
Incidentally, Bozza had hit the mark in his unique way.
Boris Johnson says Emmanuel Macron is a 'tres bon buddy' of the UK
Macron is not a friend, he's the President of France but no friend. He's not a foe either.
Why do muppets feel the need to pretend the President of France is our friend?
Because we’re both western democracies in NATO and frankly the way things are going western democracies all need all the friends they can get.
So are Orban, Erdogan and Trump "friends"?
Trump isn't in power. Comparing Macron to Orban and Erdogan just reemphasises the Francophobia you have so often shown on this board.
Trump was in power.
Orban and Erdogan are the leaders of NATO allies of ours.
Hungary and Turkey are barely democracies though. Anyway, if they are non-hostile powers then they are friends. That's the language of diplomacy. If she doesn't understand that then she's not up to the job. Why wind people up unnessessarily? If you want to do that come on here.
Two separate things here. I agree with you about the idiocy of Truss so I am not agreeing with Bart on that bit.
But Turkey and Hungary are, by our own definitions, democracies. We may not agree with the choices the people make nor with the actions of the elected governments but they are elected by popular mandate and have not, as yet, chosen to move away from that system of electing their governments.
When criticising other countries by calling them 'barely democracies' it is worth baring in mind that plenty of people - including no small number on PB - consider the UK to be barely a democracy because of our electoral system. I happen to disagree with them but they have a logical argument for this.
I would also agree with Bart that, although I think it is deeply stupid for our prospective PM to say it, there are no friends in international diplomacy, only overlapping spheres of self interest.
“We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual.”
- Lord Palmerston
Truss wasn't referring to France, she was specifically asked about Macron
And the jury really is out as to whether HE is a friend or foe of the UK, I'm tempted to say more foe than friend. Either way, leaders are entirely different to countries
If Starmer becomes PM in 2024, and Trump is elected prez the same year, and Starmer is asked "is Trump friend or foe", what should he say?
"The United States and the United Kingdom have a relationship going back centuries which is vital to the security of the free world and is bigger than the temporary holders of office, whether that is President Trump or myself. Values are more important than individuals."
If you can't say anything nice, say nothing. Or better still, use lots of words to say nothing.
But it is a politician waffling, typically
Truss gave a direct answer, and an accurate one. The jury IS out on Macron. He has been quite hostile to Britain at several junctures. Therefor I would say: a foe, as things stand. Truss has yet to decide
If she'd been asked about FRANCE I am sure she would have said FRIEND (and rightly so)
Why thank you. Waffle was the effect I was after- it's the difference between a diplomat and a polemicist.
Incidentally, Bozza had hit the mark in his unique way.
Boris Johnson says Emmanuel Macron is a 'tres bon buddy' of the UK
NigelB asks: "Why isn't this guy even on the Vice President nominee market on Betfair ?"
Because: "He was a national co-chair of Bernie Sanders’ 2020 bid." And because he is neither black nor female, in a party which is hooked on identity poltics.
Dunno why, but I've really got a thing against old people now. I might start a political party (before I get too old) to attack them
Perhaps it is because you are now recognising your own senescence and senility, and reacting against the dying of the light?
Yes, maybe
But it was always live fast, die young Leon, who wants to slowly decompose in a smelly nursing home? Read Amiss Ending Up and then head on that US road trip, with as much mescaline, meth, uppers, downers skoolboy, China girl (Ishmael zee would approve) toot, molly, bliss, joker - pack up your kibbles and bit - the Joshua Tree is calling you 🤘
Naah, opiates suck. They also lose their glamour to an amazing extent when you get to the age where the NHS dishes them out to you like sweeties. So I just have a prudent stash of a lethal quantity of BP grade morphine, on a Be prepared kinda basis.
A friend of mine tried heroin for the first time in 30 years, only the other day
Told me it was "disappointing". He used to do a ton of smack (like me), so that was a little dismaying. Smack was my back up plan for late old age. I will just have to get the best shit possible
I’m taking notes from you both 😇 Sensible to prepare my retirement plan early as possible. Though they will probably introduce Carousel by the time I get there.
Making good progress towards London, I’ll be home eeeeeeearly 🥳 then my postings will stop, but don’t panic, I don’t think I’ll be banned. I haven’t posted any naughty pictures during my third coming!
I'm afraid I am beginning to agree with the Trumpites. The 2020 election was arguably stolen, but not with actual pilfered votes, but with a liberal US Establishment conspiring to silence stories unhelpful to Biden, like the Hunter laptop (see the extraordinary Zuckerberg Rogan interview yesterday) the squashing of the lab leak hypothesis (until Trump was gone, then wow it re-emerged) and now this Biden diary horror. The FBI really IS corrupt
Now, you can argue that America is headed for Civil War and the institutions are taking sides, and the FBI is siding with the democrats (small d) but nonetheless they are breaking the law to help the Dems (capital d), and thus steal elections
Macron is not a friend, he's the President of France but no friend. He's not a foe either.
Why do muppets feel the need to pretend the President of France is our friend?
Because we’re both western democracies in NATO and frankly the way things are going western democracies all need all the friends they can get.
So are Orban, Erdogan and Trump "friends"?
Trump isn't in power. Comparing Macron to Orban and Erdogan just reemphasises the Francophobia you have so often shown on this board.
Trump was in power.
Orban and Erdogan are the leaders of NATO allies of ours.
Hungary and Turkey are barely democracies though. Anyway, if they are non-hostile powers then they are friends. That's the language of diplomacy. If she doesn't understand that then she's not up to the job. Why wind people up unnessessarily? If you want to do that come on here.
Two separate things here. I agree with you about the idiocy of Truss so I am not agreeing with Bart on that bit.
But Turkey and Hungary are, by our own definitions, democracies. We may not agree with the choices the people make nor with the actions of the elected governments but they are elected by popular mandate and have not, as yet, chosen to move away from that system of electing their governments.
When criticising other countries by calling them 'barely democracies' it is worth baring in mind that plenty of people - including no small number on PB - consider the UK to be barely a democracy because of our electoral system. I happen to disagree with them but they have a logical argument for this.
I would also agree with Bart that, although I think it is deeply stupid for our prospective PM to say it, there are no friends in international diplomacy, only overlapping spheres of self interest.
“We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual.”
- Lord Palmerston
Truss wasn't referring to France, she was specifically asked about Macron
And the jury really is out as to whether HE is a friend or foe of the UK, I'm tempted to say more foe than friend. Either way, leaders are entirely different to countries
If Starmer becomes PM in 2024, and Trump is elected prez the same year, and Starmer is asked "is Trump friend or foe", what should he say?
"The United States and the United Kingdom have a relationship going back centuries which is vital to the security of the free world and is bigger than the temporary holders of office, whether that is President Trump or myself. Values are more important than individuals."
If you can't say anything nice, say nothing. Or better still, use lots of words to say nothing.
But it is a politician waffling, typically
Truss gave a direct answer, and an accurate one. The jury IS out on Macron. He has been quite hostile to Britain at several junctures. Therefor I would say: a foe, as things stand. Truss has yet to decide
If she'd been asked about FRANCE I am sure she would have said FRIEND (and rightly so)
Why thank you. Waffle was the effect I was after- it's the difference between a diplomat and a polemicist.
Incidentally, Bozza had hit the mark in his unique way.
Boris Johnson says Emmanuel Macron is a 'tres bon buddy' of the UK
Matey, jokey, Franglais mangled just enough to not be grovelly.
Yes, looks like Truss already needs Boris to step in and sort out her gaffes
One of the reasons BoJo got away with so much for so long was his mastery of the sly glance to camera; the ability to imply "it's all a bit of a joke, not serious". I don't think that's a good attitude to government, and there's reasonable evidence that it was a veneer for ambition that burned with a heat that we could usefully tap into this winter. But he had it, and at some level, it worked.
Truss, bless her, doesn't. Hardly anyone does in politics, which is why it's so powerful. It's part of the reason why Boris going (which had to happen, and should have happened ages ago) is going to leave a difficult hole to fill for the Conservatives.
Truss' problem is not that she's barking mad (although she has a bit of the messianic about her), it's that she's pushing a creed - neo-Thatcherism - that is turning completely out of fashion.
We are now at the end of the 40 year+ Reagan / Thatcher consensus on how the world should be run. Covid put the final nail in the coffin, with its massive support of individuals and businesses ruining the idea Governments shouldn't intervene while businesses have done a great job at convincing people that the idea they can be trusted to be self-regulating is a complete fallacy. To quote an example, the fact that Dido Harding survived for years as a CEO with such compensation is a sign of how much the system is broken.
We are now likely to see a return to some form of the post-1945 social democracy consensus in some form or another. Whoever gets that formula right will have electoral alchemy.
Covid didn't put the final nail in the coffin anymore than the previous war did. Extreme events change the narrative for the duration of the event and perhaps a while afterwards. They don't change the rightness or wrongness of the basic principle. So the concept of personal liberty (as an example) is not destroyed by the need to suspend certain liberties during an emergency.
The Reagan/Thatcher consensus was always flawed because it believed there should be no intervention at all in the markets - it treated corporations as individuals with rights rather than as organisations to be managed and controlled within the law. That was wrong before Covid and it hasn't become any more or less wrong now. But it certainly doesn't mean that the normally touted alternative - of continuous state intervention or even ownership of businesses - is any less flawed.
I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.
Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?
She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.
"You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.
When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.
I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.
Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.
Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
You're lying, that's not what she said.
What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.
You're tilting at windmills.
I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".
But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.
Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.
Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.
There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
She literally said she'd do both.
She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.
Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.
Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:
"To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.
I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
"such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
No, you're the only one who's been lying.
She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.
You dishonestly said that meant no support.
If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
That's a "no, your mum" answer.
That all you got left?
No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.
If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
"Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".
Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?
Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "
Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
Re-read what I wrote. Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.
Not you, when has she ever said that?
But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷♂️
She said no bungs.
No, she didn't.
She said not just bungs.
Don't just take paracetamol != don't take paracetamol.
Truss: “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”
That’s a somewhat different usage of “just” than the analogue you offer. She has repeatedly failed to take up an opportunity to say something like, “My government will look at what additional short term support we can offer, but it isn’t right to just bung more money into the system.” No. It’s just the second half.
If you’re right that Truss is actually planning a serious support package and she’s just communicating that poorly, then maybe she’ll be able to partially reverse the Conservatives’ 14 point polling deficit. I wouldn’t bet on it.
But she did say the first part. She explicitly said so re:emergency budget, but that part isn't getting quoted.
She has been saying the same thing for 235 different Tory hustings. Each time it is reported by the press. If she had the slightest interest in communicating something different than the press have been reporting, she would done so before the 235th hustings event.
You're right she's been saying the same thing all along, and I've been pointing that out all along.
She's always kept t he door open to support, she's never closed it off, but she's always said its not the 'priority' or we shouldn't 'just' be doing that etc
Quite right too.
How can it not be the priority? She can't seriously answer "How are you going to support people with no disposable income facing fuel bills rising by £3k per year?" with "We will give them £30 a year NI back" as the priority solution. She may as well answer with we will bring back grammar schools.
Cutting NI does not help those in need. This policy needs to be scrapped!
Macron is not a friend, he's the President of France but no friend. He's not a foe either.
Why do muppets feel the need to pretend the President of France is our friend?
Because we’re both western democracies in NATO and frankly the way things are going western democracies all need all the friends they can get.
So are Orban, Erdogan and Trump "friends"?
Trump isn't in power. Comparing Macron to Orban and Erdogan just reemphasises the Francophobia you have so often shown on this board.
Trump was in power.
Orban and Erdogan are the leaders of NATO allies of ours.
Hungary and Turkey are barely democracies though. Anyway, if they are non-hostile powers then they are friends. That's the language of diplomacy. If she doesn't understand that then she's not up to the job. Why wind people up unnessessarily? If you want to do that come on here.
Two separate things here. I agree with you about the idiocy of Truss so I am not agreeing with Bart on that bit.
But Turkey and Hungary are, by our own definitions, democracies. We may not agree with the choices the people make nor with the actions of the elected governments but they are elected by popular mandate and have not, as yet, chosen to move away from that system of electing their governments.
When criticising other countries by calling them 'barely democracies' it is worth baring in mind that plenty of people - including no small number on PB - consider the UK to be barely a democracy because of our electoral system. I happen to disagree with them but they have a logical argument for this.
I would also agree with Bart that, although I think it is deeply stupid for our prospective PM to say it, there are no friends in international diplomacy, only overlapping spheres of self interest.
“We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual.”
- Lord Palmerston
Truss wasn't referring to France, she was specifically asked about Macron
And the jury really is out as to whether HE is a friend or foe of the UK, I'm tempted to say more foe than friend. Either way, leaders are entirely different to countries
If Starmer becomes PM in 2024, and Trump is elected prez the same year, and Starmer is asked "is Trump friend or foe", what should he say?
"The United States and the United Kingdom have a relationship going back centuries which is vital to the security of the free world and is bigger than the temporary holders of office, whether that is President Trump or myself. Values are more important than individuals."
If you can't say anything nice, say nothing. Or better still, use lots of words to say nothing.
But it is a politician waffling, typically
Truss gave a direct answer, and an accurate one. The jury IS out on Macron. He has been quite hostile to Britain at several junctures. Therefor I would say: a foe, as things stand. Truss has yet to decide
If she'd been asked about FRANCE I am sure she would have said FRIEND (and rightly so)
Why thank you. Waffle was the effect I was after- it's the difference between a diplomat and a polemicist.
Incidentally, Bozza had hit the mark in his unique way.
Boris Johnson says Emmanuel Macron is a 'tres bon buddy' of the UK
Comments
(“God” in a rhetorical sense. I’m not HYUFD.)
Leon doesn’t want Putin to win
Duma_Ace [sic] patently does
She's said what her priorities are, but budgets don't only deal with the priorities.
Cutting NI doesn't aid the rich, it aids workers.
https://mobile.twitter.com/onlyyoontv/status/1563136237136842752
#China announces China Securities Regulatory Commission and Finance Ministry have signed an #audit supervision cooperation agreement with US regulators, says relevant cooperation will be launched in the near future.
Orban and Erdogan are the leaders of NATO allies of ours.
She's said there'll be support in the Emergency Budget. If there is, she hasn't lied. 🤷♂️
The Foreign Secretary was asked if the President of one if our allies is a friend or a foe.
That she was unable or unwilling to bat away such a foolish question is not a point in her favour. However much you try to deflect.
there is no point in just throwing good money after bad
there is no point in just spaffing money against the wall
there is no point in just painting yourself into a corner
In none of these cases does the "just" mean I am going to do the thing after just, but also other things. it is an intensifier emphasisingthe pointlessness of the thing, hence why I am not going to do it.
Now, there is an alternative construction: there is no point in just taking paracetemol without also getting a diagnosis. The trouble is, the derogatory "bunging" and the absence of a "without also" puts Truss's remark very clearly in the first category. She is saying she is not going to do it. In practice she will do it, but that will be a U turn.
She's always kept t he door open to support, she's never closed it off, but she's always said its not the 'priority' or we shouldn't 'just' be doing that etc
Quite right too.
If you're in a country that is a hell of a long way from most sources of asylum seekers, and have a hell of a lot of sea in the way, then you're going to have small numbers, and it's a hell of a lot easier to introduce a policy which cuts the numbers down.
And her plans aid the highest-paid workers more than the lower-paid workers.
When the support is offered, it will mean I was right and you were wrong.
I hope she fails on all counts, but the position makes perfect sense. Nothing said now will be recalled by the general voters for two seconds.
Now people are complaining the media isn't being told first.
Latest forecast for April 2023 is £6616 per year.
Per Spiegel, politicians of the SPG-Linke group signed an appeal urging a "diplomatic offensive" to stop the war titled "The guns must be silent!"
https://mobile.twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1563140777349627904
It's surely much better to see neighbours, a mere 21 miles away, as close friends.
Rochdale et al aren't claiming she is being vague, they're saying she's being specific on issues she simply isn't.
Yes its dark. So too was the furlough scheme five minutes before it was announced.
France are our close neighbours. They are NATO allies but so too are Turkey, Hungary and the USA. If they want to be close friends, lets see more unequivocal support for Ukraine.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/08/26/ro-khanna-midwest-policy-democrat-00052660
But Turkey and Hungary are, by our own definitions, democracies. We may not agree with the choices the people make nor with the actions of the elected governments but they are elected by popular mandate and have not, as yet, chosen to move away from that system of electing their governments.
When criticising other countries by calling them 'barely democracies' it is worth baring in mind that plenty of people - including no small number on PB - consider the UK to be barely a democracy because of our electoral system. I happen to disagree with them but they have a logical argument for this.
I would also agree with Bart that, although I think it is deeply stupid for our prospective PM to say it, there are no friends in international diplomacy, only overlapping spheres of self interest.
“We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual.”
- Lord Palmerston
Did anyone follow me in laying him at evens ?
Wow. I made it this far? Etc
Max Verstappen, Charles Leclerc, Lando Norris, Esteban Ocon, Valtteri Bottas and Mick Schumacher...
The contest with Rishi is over, he’s ground into the dust, that shouldn’t be the focus now.
It’s going to be a difficult time, I can’t promise you your loved ones won’t come to harm, but we shall pull together and we will come through this. That’s the only message the Truss team should be putting out now, otherwise they are setting Truss up to disappoint and fail. That’s the correct politics they seem slow to react to.
The US drug company is alleging that mRNA technology it developed before the pandemic was copied.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-62691102
And the jury really is out as to whether HE is a friend or foe of the UK, I'm tempted to say more foe than friend. Either way, leaders are entirely different to countries
If Starmer becomes PM in 2024, and Trump is elected prez the same year, and Starmer is asked "is Trump friend or foe", what should he say?
Because: "He was a national co-chair of Bernie Sanders’ 2020 bid." And because he is neither black nor female, in a party which is hooked on identity poltics.
If you can't say anything nice, say nothing. Or better still, use lots of words to say nothing.
I nearly killed myself last year in several different ways - driving at 138mph on the A35 - driving out of my gourd on Xanax across East Anglia - and so on and so forth. I survived. I'm glad I did. I just had a brilliant holiday in Florence with my older daughter. Also glad I didn't kill anyone else with my selfishness in 2021
But do I want to drag things on into my 80s? Nah
At the same point in the presidency
Ahead of Truman and Reagen,
ever so slightly behind Trump, Clinton and Carter.
A little further behind Obama and Ford.
Way behind W Bush, HW Bush, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower
Truss gave a direct answer, and an accurate one. The jury IS out on Macron. He has been quite hostile to Britain at several junctures. Therefor I would say: a foe, as things stand. Truss has yet to decide
If she'd been asked about FRANCE I am sure she would have said FRIEND (and rightly so)
But this means he doesn't get moved up in front of the rest of them.
I remember when we had proper beakers. None of this fancy mead horn nonsense….
Told me it was "disappointing". He used to do a ton of smack (like me), so that was a little dismaying. Smack was my back up plan for late old age. I will just have to get the best shit possible
https://twitter.com/JuliaHB1/status/1563154567335854081?s=20&t=ZwYZrBzgI_4nhIjvOwW78w
Boris has said Macron 'is a good mate of the UK'
https://twitter.com/JuliaHB1/status/1563154567335854081?s=20&t=ZwYZrBzgI_4nhIjvOwW78w
We are now at the end of the 40 year+ Reagan / Thatcher consensus on how the world should be run. Covid put the final nail in the coffin, with its massive support of individuals and businesses ruining the idea Governments shouldn't intervene while businesses have done a great job at convincing people that the idea they can be trusted to be self-regulating is a complete fallacy. To quote an example, the fact that Dido Harding survived for years as a CEO with such compensation is a sign of how much the system is broken.
We are now likely to see a return to some form of the post-1945 social democracy consensus in some form or another. Whoever gets that formula right will have electoral alchemy.
If one side prevails, they'll just agree royalty rates.
Incidentally, Bozza had hit the mark in his unique way.
Boris Johnson says Emmanuel Macron is a 'tres bon buddy' of the UK
https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1563119645212954624
Matey, jokey, Franglais mangled just enough to not be grovelly.
Making good progress towards London, I’ll be home eeeeeeearly 🥳 then my postings will stop, but don’t panic, I don’t think I’ll be banned. I haven’t posted any naughty pictures during my third coming!
Now, you can argue that America is headed for Civil War and the institutions are taking sides, and the FBI is siding with the democrats (small d) but nonetheless they are breaking the law to help the Dems (capital d), and thus steal elections
Truss, bless her, doesn't. Hardly anyone does in politics, which is why it's so powerful. It's part of the reason why Boris going (which had to happen, and should have happened ages ago) is going to leave a difficult hole to fill for the Conservatives.
The Reagan/Thatcher consensus was always flawed because it believed there should be no intervention at all in the markets - it treated corporations as individuals with rights rather than as organisations to be managed and controlled within the law. That was wrong before Covid and it hasn't become any more or less wrong now. But it certainly doesn't mean that the normally touted alternative - of continuous state intervention or even ownership of businesses - is any less flawed.