Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

It is becoming harder to see how Truss survives – politicalbetting.com

1235711

Comments

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,322
    Scott_xP said:

    Blimey. Mocking the incumbent while talking up a putative successor? https://twitter.com/e_casalicchio/status/1577226123960012800

    All discipline appears to have broken down.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,029
    Scott_xP said:

    HYUFD said:

    Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done

    Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"

    Bless
    If Brexit isn't done, how do I contact my MEP?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,846
    Mr. Barnesian, it's entirely possible to be socially awkward without pathologising it.

    The psychologists' collective drive to slap a label on every damned personality quirk is not a healthy approach, as well as being contrary to good old-fashioned British eccentricity.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,897

    Selebian said:

    Scott_xP said:

    HYUFD said:

    Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done

    Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"

    Bless
    It is done Hiroo Onoda, we have left. That's as done as done can be.

    What we're dealing with is now post-Brexit. We will deal with post-Brexit for a very long time, just as we had post-war legacy issues to resolve even after the war was over.
    :open_mouth: You know, I think Brexit was a mistake, but I wouldn't say Brexit (and the effects of Brexit) was quite as bad as WW2 (and its effects). Still, respect for your honesty if you feel that way :wink:
    I know you're joking but I do actually think its a good comparison.

    Departing a trade organisation we'd be a member of for nearly fifty years and setting our own path was always going to involve traumatic changes at first, I thought that all along.

    I don't think Brexit was a mistake though. I don't think WWII was a mistake either, we were right to do it.
    Ah, comparing EU to the Nazis, now we're on surer ground :wink:

    But in WW2 we were obliged to act to keep promises to the Poles. Brexit was about shafting the Poles.* I guess it evens out in the end?

    *Not for you, I accept.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,077

    eek said:

    148grss said:

    OllyT said:

    Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.

    Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.

    What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.

    Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.

    My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed

    [snip!]
    The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.

    The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.

    The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well.

    BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
    No the problem isn't the MPs - the problem is that members shouldn't have a say in a democracy where we elect representatives...

    There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
    Like others on here I have no problem with a members vote in opposition - yes you might get an IDS or Corbyn, but when you are out of government it is fair to have a genuine debate with your supporters over the direction of the party and what the party want to offer to the country. If the country agrees with you great, you get to form a government. If they don’t then have a rethink and try again. No real damage is done.

    But members shouldn’t get a vote when the party is in government. The emphasis should be more on the suitability of the candidate to lead the party rather than creating new and novel policies to appeal to the party membership, hence destabilising its mandate.
    As I mentioned, I don't remember this debate going on when Gordon Brown was chosen as PM when he took over from Blair. Correct me if I am wrong.
    Brown had a coronation so the debate wasn’t really there to be had.
    John McDonnell wanted to challenge him, it is not impossible had he got enough MPs nominations then Labour members and affiliated members could have elected McDonnell, not Brown, as PM in 2007
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,419
    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    HYUFD said:

    Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done

    Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"

    Bless
    If Brexit isn't done, how do I contact my MEP?
    Brexit is done in as much as we left.

    Brexit is not yet done in as much as there is still a lot of work to do to to tidy up the mess it made.

    So like Schrodinger's cat, it is both done and not done at the same time.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,322

    Cyclefree said:

    eek said:

    148grss said:

    OllyT said:

    Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.

    Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.

    What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.

    Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.

    My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed

    [snip!]
    The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.

    The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.

    The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well.

    BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
    No the problem isn't the MPs - the problem is that members shouldn't have a say in a democracy where we elect representatives...

    There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
    They were given the choice between a 2nd rate politician and a 3rd rate one. They were never going to pick a proper leader with a choice like that.

    There is a lot wrong with UK democracy, but you cannot blame the Tory selectorate for choosing inadequate leaders when given a choice of inadequates. Having said that, Boris and Hunt was a clearer choice were the membership, but Boris should never have been one of the candidates. The MPs put him there.
    The MPs put him there because they knew the members wanted him.
    Which was exactly the wrong reason to put him there, but I think the real reason they put him there was that they knew he would be popular in the country especially with Leavers in Labour areas. And let us face it - they were right. He got Labour Leavers to vote Tory.
    Cyclefree said:


    Members should not choose the party leader. MPs should. If the Tories don't change this rule they will keep getting loons foisted on them.

    So, in an alternate universe, the Tory Selectorate have two candidates for leader presented to them - Margaret Thatcher and Ken Clarke. Which one is the loon?
    With Boris they chose someone who would be good at winning elections but crap at governing. With Truss they've chosen someone who appears to be crap at both. The direction of travel is not good.

    One would hope that MPs would have some idea who would be good at governing and therefore good at winning elections. One should follow the other. Ideally.

  • Selebian said:

    Selebian said:

    Scott_xP said:

    HYUFD said:

    Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done

    Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"

    Bless
    It is done Hiroo Onoda, we have left. That's as done as done can be.

    What we're dealing with is now post-Brexit. We will deal with post-Brexit for a very long time, just as we had post-war legacy issues to resolve even after the war was over.
    :open_mouth: You know, I think Brexit was a mistake, but I wouldn't say Brexit (and the effects of Brexit) was quite as bad as WW2 (and its effects). Still, respect for your honesty if you feel that way :wink:
    I know you're joking but I do actually think its a good comparison.

    Departing a trade organisation we'd be a member of for nearly fifty years and setting our own path was always going to involve traumatic changes at first, I thought that all along.

    I don't think Brexit was a mistake though. I don't think WWII was a mistake either, we were right to do it.
    Ah, comparing EU to the Nazis, now we're on surer ground :wink:

    But in WW2 we were obliged to act to keep promises to the Poles. Brexit was about shafting the Poles.* I guess it evens out in the end?

    *Not for you, I accept.
    LOL 🤣

    For the avoidance of any doubt (I don't think you had any, hence the wink) I'm not comparing the EU to Nazis, but rather saying that unpleasant things (like the war, the turmoil from Brexit etc) can be necessary in the right circumstances. Just taking the easy path may be in the short term more stable, but it is not good in the long term.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056

    eek said:

    148grss said:

    OllyT said:

    Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.

    Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.

    What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.

    Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.

    My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed

    [snip!]
    The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.

    The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.

    The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well.

    BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
    No the problem isn't the MPs - the problem is that members shouldn't have a say in a democracy where we elect representatives...

    There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
    They were given the choice between a 2nd rate politician and a 3rd rate one. They were never going to pick a proper leader with a choice like that.

    There is a lot wrong with UK democracy, but you cannot blame the Tory selectorate for choosing inadequate leaders when given a choice of inadequates. Having said that, Boris and Hunt was a clearer choice for the membership, but Boris should never have been one of the candidates. The MPs put him there.
    My problem is that the Tory selectorate should not have been anywhere near the decision.

    We are a Parliamentary democracy and the only people with the right to select the next PM was and is Tory MPs....

    And if they had made the decision they wouldn't be in the mess they now find themselves in because the selectorate wouldn't have changed or had the chance to change Tory party policy.....
  • Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    HYUFD said:

    Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done

    Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"

    Bless
    If Brexit isn't done, how do I contact my MEP?
    Brexit is done in as much as we left.

    Brexit is not yet done in as much as there is still a lot of work to do to to tidy up the mess it made.

    So like Schrodinger's cat, it is both done and not done at the same time.
    Dealing with the mess is not a part of Brexit though, its post-Brexit, so its done.

    In the 1980s we still had some land that was ruined from WWII due to having been bombed but not rebuilt. WWII was done though, even if there was a mess to clean up after it being done.

    Dealing with the legacy of Brexit is post-Brexit, not part of Brexit.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 4,196
    edited October 2022
    Barnesian said:

    Truss finds it hard to understand how other people think or feel, says the same thing over and over, is awkward and robotic in movement with learned responses. Does she has a condition?

    As I have said before I find it very difficult to understand why she is in politics given that she does not appear to be a people person at all. And politics is the ultimate people person job.

    May and Brown in comparison might have been uncharismatic but you knew deep down they entered politics because they wanted to help people. May had a dutiful, WI, Home Counties vibe and Brown’s sense of duty was rooted in his religious upbringing.

    What does Truss have? She went to what she says was a poor school and she was incensed with the lack of opportunity. OK. But she’s not turned that into any kind of real message that she cares about people - she just turned it into Thatcherite policy wonkery.
  • NorthofStokeNorthofStoke Posts: 1,758
    darkage said:

    ClippP said:

    Jonathan said:

    Johnson offered the country populist cakeism. That was unsustainable.

    To her credit, Truss is moving away from that tone at least - she talks about that there are choices to be made. Although painting the idea that growing the economy is somehow a new priority is utterly ridiculous too.

    To her discredit, Truss doesn't seem able to actually make the choices required (borrowing for tax cuts for her mates is not a tough choice) and is actually making things worse with the policies she has settled on, because they are all about political positioning and electoral cycles and less about economics.

    But Truss is the best possible person to lead the Conservative Party. Conservatives themselves chose her to lead them, following rules of their own devising. Nobody forced them to choose her. As far as we outsiders can tell, they followed their own rules. And she had been in a prominent position for some time - so it is not as though they did not know her.

    Conservative moaners should just shut up. There is nobody else in the Conservative Party who would be any better than Truss.

    Those of us who are not Conservatives can, of course, see many more promising people to speak up for the country. We have not pledged loyalty to Truss. We can be as critical of her performance as we please. If hitherto Conservatives want to be critical, they should do the decent thing, be consistent - and move over to another party.
    The other way of looking at this is that Liz Truss has proved to be so atrocious at PM she must be dismissed on the grounds of incompetence. Political parties and governments have to adapt to changes in circumstance and remove failed leaders. In my opinion she failed in the first week of doing the job, proving beyond any doubt that she is not up to it. The arrogance over the 'budget' and the five day silence afterwards whilst chaos took over did her in completely. Unlike other parties the tories are in a position to disregard their members and rapidly reinvent themselves in changing circumstances; and this is such a moment.


    I think that is a good summing up of the situation. Delusion and divisions may prevent them from acting decisively but the polls are so terrible I think they probably will topple her before the end of the year. Another factor is whether she will simply resign soon - do an Estelle Morris. The pressure is terrible to behold.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,306
    Scott_xP said:

    HYUFD said:

    Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done

    Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"

    Bless
    How are you getting on with my thought experiment? Are you able to imagine not caring about Brexit one way or the other yet?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,914

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Today's stupid idea

    https://twitter.com/matt_dathan/status/1577183670879735808

    Matt Dathan
    @matt_dathan
    EXCL: Suella Braverman will today announce plans for a new law to bar anyone who crosses the Channel in small boats from claiming asylum:


    Let me count the number of international treaties going back over 100 years that make this illegal....

    Now I can't fault the idea but it just doesn't work otherwise we would have tried this a decade ago...

    And once again the fix for this alongside a lot of other things has been available on here for years.

    large £25,000+ fine for employing an illegal immigrant with director's jointly and personally liable.

    Residency for anyone reporting an employer who is found to be employing illegal workers.
    Make it 100K - the immigrant who reports it gets half.

    This would be self funding - the ambulance chasing lawyers would be all over that luscious 50K like a tramps on chips.
    And allow people who are seeking asylum, whose case is being considered, to work. The advantage there is that they would have a national insurance number and an address.
    If you haven't managed to lose your documents. The "I've lost my docs" thing needs to get hit with a heavy, heavy hammer.
  • tlg86 said:

    @LostPassword - here you go:

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0962629817301300

    Despite widespread expectations to the contrary, our analysis shows that the rain had the greatest effect on the leave vote, reducing the Brexiteer tally by as many as 4618 votes in one district. We find that if the referendum had taken place on a sunny day, there would have been a small increase in the margin of victory for Vote Leave.

    Interesting. Seems very counter intuitive. Full paper here.

    https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/78059/1/Could_rainfall_have_swung_the_result_of_the_Brexit_AAM.pdf

    Not convinced by their main idea that the rain changed leave voters minds and made them vote remain on the day. Six years on, with loads of massive events hardly anyone has changed their mind, yet they think the rain changed peoples minds on the day. But they have gone through a lot of statistical analysis to reach their conclusions.

    I wonder if the author is on pb given "His research interests include gambling research and political science."

    https://researchers.anu.edu.au/researchers/leslie-p

    Could be a fascinating guest header.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,306

    Barnesian said:

    Truss finds it hard to understand how other people think or feel, says the same thing over and over, is awkward and robotic in movement with learned responses. Does she has a condition?

    As I have said before I find it very difficult to understand why she is in politics given that she does not appear to be a people person at all. And politics is the ultimate people person job.

    May and Brown in comparison might have been uncharismatic but you knew deep down they entered politics because they wanted to help people. May had a dutiful, WI, Home Counties vibe and Brown’s sense of duty was rooted in his religious upbringing.

    What does Truss have? She went to what she says was a poor school and she was incensed with the lack of opportunity. OK. But she’s not turned that into any kind of real message that she cares about people - she just turned it into Thatcherite policy wonkery.
    As one of the A-list, perhaps she's the ultimate symbol of the failure of the Cameron project.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 1,477
    eek said:

    eek said:

    148grss said:

    OllyT said:

    Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.

    Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.

    What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.

    Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.

    My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed

    [snip!]
    The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.

    The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.

    The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well.

    BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
    No the problem isn't the MPs - the problem is that members shouldn't have a say in a democracy where we elect representatives...

    There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
    They were given the choice between a 2nd rate politician and a 3rd rate one. They were never going to pick a proper leader with a choice like that.

    There is a lot wrong with UK democracy, but you cannot blame the Tory selectorate for choosing inadequate leaders when given a choice of inadequates. Having said that, Boris and Hunt was a clearer choice for the membership, but Boris should never have been one of the candidates. The MPs put him there.
    My problem is that the Tory selectorate should not have been anywhere near the decision.

    We are a Parliamentary democracy and the only people with the right to select the next PM was and is Tory MPs....

    And if they had made the decision they wouldn't be in the mess they now find themselves in because the selectorate wouldn't have changed or had the chance to change Tory party policy.....
    Political parties have evolved since the inception of parliament - they do (and arguably should) have a mandate from their membership to do things. If parties are untethered from their members, then what is the point of them? They are supposed to be vehicles that people can use to push ideological and political theory and policy - if you agree with the premises of party a's platform, but disagree on the edges, or feel it needs to evolve in certain places, you join it and work with it for change.

    When parties are disconnected or openly despise their own members you get parties like the Dems in the USA - not very good at wielding power, only seeking the status quo, and basically only campaigning on the pledge to not be as bad as the other guys.

    People want things to believe in, and hope for good outcomes as being participants in society and politics is important for that in the modern era.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,914
    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Today's stupid idea

    https://twitter.com/matt_dathan/status/1577183670879735808

    Matt Dathan
    @matt_dathan
    EXCL: Suella Braverman will today announce plans for a new law to bar anyone who crosses the Channel in small boats from claiming asylum:


    Let me count the number of international treaties going back over 100 years that make this illegal....

    Now I can't fault the idea but it just doesn't work otherwise we would have tried this a decade ago...

    And once again the fix for this alongside a lot of other things has been available on here for years.

    large £25,000+ fine for employing an illegal immigrant with director's jointly and personally liable.

    Residency for anyone reporting an employer who is found to be employing illegal workers.
    I don't think turning every HR department into a mini-Home Office is the right direction to go in.
    It won't because most firms are already doing things correctly because it's not difficult to check that someone can legally work in the UK isn't difficult. I would note that things changed yesterday and now may require you actually having a valid passport but most firms really don't have a problem checking if a worker is legal or illegal...

    And it's better than the other options because the whole point is to remove the pull that encourages people to come here...
    Every employer I've had in recent years needs a photocopy of my UK passport to go in my personnel file.

    A relative runs a building business. He's always run it on fully legit lines - pays full taxes, detailed accounts and his workforce is vetted, since they are working in clients houses. He finds it quite trivial to make sure they have the right to work in the UK - just ask them for the papers.

    You can already get done for employing illegals. Years ago, @Roger complained about a friend running a restaurant who got a 30K fine for employing someone who didn't have the right to work in the UK.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,212
    Barnesian said:

    Truss finds it hard to understand how other people think or feel, says the same thing over and over, is awkward and robotic in movement with learned responses.

    You could have said exactly the same about Theresa May, of course.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,850

    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Today's stupid idea

    https://twitter.com/matt_dathan/status/1577183670879735808

    Matt Dathan
    @matt_dathan
    EXCL: Suella Braverman will today announce plans for a new law to bar anyone who crosses the Channel in small boats from claiming asylum:


    Let me count the number of international treaties going back over 100 years that make this illegal....

    Now I can't fault the idea but it just doesn't work otherwise we would have tried this a decade ago...

    And once again the fix for this alongside a lot of other things has been available on here for years.

    large £25,000+ fine for employing an illegal immigrant with director's jointly and personally liable.

    Residency for anyone reporting an employer who is found to be employing illegal workers.
    I don't think turning every HR department into a mini-Home Office is the right direction to go in.
    It won't because most firms are already doing things correctly because it's not difficult to check that someone can legally work in the UK isn't difficult. I would note that things changed yesterday and now may require you actually having a valid passport but most firms really don't have a problem checking if a worker is legal or illegal...

    And it's better than the other options because the whole point is to remove the pull that encourages people to come here...
    Every employer I've had in recent years needs a photocopy of my UK passport to go in my personnel file.

    A relative runs a building business. He's always run it on fully legit lines - pays full taxes, detailed accounts and his workforce is vetted, since they are working in clients houses. He finds it quite trivial to make sure they have the right to work in the UK - just ask them for the papers.

    You can already get done for employing illegals. Years ago, @Roger complained about a friend running a restaurant who got a 30K fine for employing someone who didn't have the right to work in the UK.
    Isn't one of the problems that you can quite happily live without a passport or driving license or any other form of identifying doc ?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,850
    edited October 2022
    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    Truss finds it hard to understand how other people think or feel, says the same thing over and over, is awkward and robotic in movement with learned responses. Does she has a condition?

    As I have said before I find it very difficult to understand why she is in politics given that she does not appear to be a people person at all. And politics is the ultimate people person job.

    May and Brown in comparison might have been uncharismatic but you knew deep down they entered politics because they wanted to help people. May had a dutiful, WI, Home Counties vibe and Brown’s sense of duty was rooted in his religious upbringing.

    What does Truss have? She went to what she says was a poor school and she was incensed with the lack of opportunity. OK. But she’s not turned that into any kind of real message that she cares about people - she just turned it into Thatcherite policy wonkery.
    Truss went into politics to slash the state as close down to zero as possible, she is an economic and social libertarian.

    We are witnessing the first truly libertarian PM and Chancellor in power in our lifetimes. As well as how popular pure libertarianism is with British voters
    If she truly believed in that she wouldn't have announced an energy package and we'd simply pay market rates going forward. But we got one of the biggest in europe.
    Which the Gov't is boasting about...
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,914
    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Today's stupid idea

    https://twitter.com/matt_dathan/status/1577183670879735808

    Matt Dathan
    @matt_dathan
    EXCL: Suella Braverman will today announce plans for a new law to bar anyone who crosses the Channel in small boats from claiming asylum:


    Let me count the number of international treaties going back over 100 years that make this illegal....

    Now I can't fault the idea but it just doesn't work otherwise we would have tried this a decade ago...

    And once again the fix for this alongside a lot of other things has been available on here for years.

    large £25,000+ fine for employing an illegal immigrant with director's jointly and personally liable.

    Residency for anyone reporting an employer who is found to be employing illegal workers.
    I don't think turning every HR department into a mini-Home Office is the right direction to go in.
    It won't because most firms are already doing things correctly because it's not difficult to check that someone can legally work in the UK isn't difficult. I would note that things changed yesterday and now may require you actually having a valid passport but most firms really don't have a problem checking if a worker is legal or illegal...

    And it's better than the other options because the whole point is to remove the pull that encourages people to come here...
    Every employer I've had in recent years needs a photocopy of my UK passport to go in my personnel file.

    A relative runs a building business. He's always run it on fully legit lines - pays full taxes, detailed accounts and his workforce is vetted, since they are working in clients houses. He finds it quite trivial to make sure they have the right to work in the UK - just ask them for the papers.

    You can already get done for employing illegals. Years ago, @Roger complained about a friend running a restaurant who got a 30K fine for employing someone who didn't have the right to work in the UK.
    Isn't one of the problems that you can quite happily live without a passport or driving license or any other form of identifying doc ?
    In the black economy, you can live. Not sure about the happily.

    I've seen the conditions, and they can be horrific. Multiple adults living in rooms - 2 bunk beds in each room of a house etc....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,077
    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    Truss finds it hard to understand how other people think or feel, says the same thing over and over, is awkward and robotic in movement with learned responses. Does she has a condition?

    As I have said before I find it very difficult to understand why she is in politics given that she does not appear to be a people person at all. And politics is the ultimate people person job.

    May and Brown in comparison might have been uncharismatic but you knew deep down they entered politics because they wanted to help people. May had a dutiful, WI, Home Counties vibe and Brown’s sense of duty was rooted in his religious upbringing.

    What does Truss have? She went to what she says was a poor school and she was incensed with the lack of opportunity. OK. But she’s not turned that into any kind of real message that she cares about people - she just turned it into Thatcherite policy wonkery.
    Truss went into politics to slash the state as close down to zero as possible, she is an economic and social libertarian.

    We are witnessing the first truly libertarian PM and Chancellor in power in our lifetimes. As well as how popular pure libertarianism is with British voters
    If she truly believed in that she wouldn't have announced an energy package and we'd simply pay market rates going forward. But we got one of the biggest in europe.
    Which the Gov't is boasting about...
    She didn't intend to, Rishi and Starmer forced her into it. Her original plan was just to give tax cuts with no energy subsidy plan
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,278
    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    148grss said:

    OllyT said:

    Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.

    Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.

    What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.

    Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.

    My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed

    [snip!]
    The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.

    The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.

    The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well.

    BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
    No the problem isn't the MPs - the problem is that members shouldn't have a say in a democracy where we elect representatives...

    There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
    They were given the choice between a 2nd rate politician and a 3rd rate one. They were never going to pick a proper leader with a choice like that.

    There is a lot wrong with UK democracy, but you cannot blame the Tory selectorate for choosing inadequate leaders when given a choice of inadequates. Having said that, Boris and Hunt was a clearer choice for the membership, but Boris should never have been one of the candidates. The MPs put him there.
    Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done
    Can't say that either has turned out well!
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056

    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Today's stupid idea

    https://twitter.com/matt_dathan/status/1577183670879735808

    Matt Dathan
    @matt_dathan
    EXCL: Suella Braverman will today announce plans for a new law to bar anyone who crosses the Channel in small boats from claiming asylum:


    Let me count the number of international treaties going back over 100 years that make this illegal....

    Now I can't fault the idea but it just doesn't work otherwise we would have tried this a decade ago...

    And once again the fix for this alongside a lot of other things has been available on here for years.

    large £25,000+ fine for employing an illegal immigrant with director's jointly and personally liable.

    Residency for anyone reporting an employer who is found to be employing illegal workers.
    I don't think turning every HR department into a mini-Home Office is the right direction to go in.
    It won't because most firms are already doing things correctly because it's not difficult to check that someone can legally work in the UK isn't difficult. I would note that things changed yesterday and now may require you actually having a valid passport but most firms really don't have a problem checking if a worker is legal or illegal...

    And it's better than the other options because the whole point is to remove the pull that encourages people to come here...
    Every employer I've had in recent years needs a photocopy of my UK passport to go in my personnel file.

    A relative runs a building business. He's always run it on fully legit lines - pays full taxes, detailed accounts and his workforce is vetted, since they are working in clients houses. He finds it quite trivial to make sure they have the right to work in the UK - just ask them for the papers.

    You can already get done for employing illegals. Years ago, @Roger complained about a friend running a restaurant who got a 30K fine for employing someone who didn't have the right to work in the UK.
    Isn't one of the problems that you can quite happily live without a passport or driving license or any other form of identifying doc ?
    In the black economy, you can live. Not sure about the happily.

    I've seen the conditions, and they can be horrific. Multiple adults living in rooms - 2 bunk beds in each room of a house etc....
    My point was more we need to enforce the rules better as if it's harder to work in the black economy it will reduce some of the demand to come to the Uk...
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,029

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    HYUFD said:

    Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done

    Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"

    Bless
    If Brexit isn't done, how do I contact my MEP?
    Brexit is done in as much as we left.

    Brexit is not yet done in as much as there is still a lot of work to do to to tidy up the mess it made.

    So like Schrodinger's cat, it is both done and not done at the same time.
    So Brexit is done. We will be dealing with the EU forever, just like we deal with ~200 countries around the world.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 4,196
    edited October 2022

    Barnesian said:

    Truss finds it hard to understand how other people think or feel, says the same thing over and over, is awkward and robotic in movement with learned responses.

    You could have said exactly the same about Theresa May, of course.
    Truss makes May look like Blair in comparison.

    Yes May was robotic and awkward in front of camera but I always thought that came from a slightly reserved, dull and dutiful personality. She just didn’t like spontaneity.

    Truss just gives the impression of nothing being there. No personality behind it. Just an automaton. It’s very peculiar.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,850
    Jim Redmond, he of the unforgettable father-son 1992 Olympic moment died yesterday.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,278

    Barnesian said:

    Truss finds it hard to understand how other people think or feel, says the same thing over and over, is awkward and robotic in movement with learned responses. Does she has a condition?

    As I have said before I find it very difficult to understand why she is in politics given that she does not appear to be a people person at all. And politics is the ultimate people person job.

    May and Brown in comparison might have been uncharismatic but you knew deep down they entered politics because they wanted to help people. May had a dutiful, WI, Home Counties vibe and Brown’s sense of duty was rooted in his religious upbringing.

    What does Truss have? She went to what she says was a poor school and she was incensed with the lack of opportunity. OK. But she’s not turned that into any kind of real message that she cares about people - she just turned it into Thatcherite policy wonkery.
    She went to such a poor school that she ended up at university in Oxford! And Oxford University not Oxford Brooks!!
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 1,477
    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    Truss finds it hard to understand how other people think or feel, says the same thing over and over, is awkward and robotic in movement with learned responses. Does she has a condition?

    As I have said before I find it very difficult to understand why she is in politics given that she does not appear to be a people person at all. And politics is the ultimate people person job.

    May and Brown in comparison might have been uncharismatic but you knew deep down they entered politics because they wanted to help people. May had a dutiful, WI, Home Counties vibe and Brown’s sense of duty was rooted in his religious upbringing.

    What does Truss have? She went to what she says was a poor school and she was incensed with the lack of opportunity. OK. But she’s not turned that into any kind of real message that she cares about people - she just turned it into Thatcherite policy wonkery.
    Truss went into politics to slash the state as close down to zero as possible, she is an economic and social libertarian.

    We are witnessing the first truly libertarian PM and Chancellor in power in our lifetimes. As well as how popular pure libertarianism is with British voters
    If she truly believed in that she wouldn't have announced an energy package and we'd simply pay market rates going forward. But we got one of the biggest in europe.
    Which the Gov't is boasting about...
    Yeah, she isn't a libertarian as such - she's just antisocial. She wants big companies to thrive at the expense of average people. The thing is that has always been the Thatcherite / Reaganite policy, there was just enough state assets to sell off / natural resources to exploit / smattering of manufacturing jobs left to keep things afloat. That isn't the case any more. The political view of this right wing is, essentially, that the gains of the post war era were bad and that the state holding on to valuable assets for the benefit of many is bad when those assets could be in the hands of the few making them money.

    I remember one specific story of how one of the old hospital buildings in London used to be owned by an aristocratic family who sold it when they were in financial need at one point to the Labour government when they were looking for buildings for hospitals at the beginning of the NHS. When Thatcher gets into power the same family essentially ask if they could buy it back at the original price they sold it, because in the time that had passed development prices had soared, so they could flip it and make a huge amount. Thatcher was on board for this, but had to be talked down by ministers and civil servants because it was still a functioning hospital at the time, and selling it at the original price made no economic sense. But for Thatcher it wasn't about economics, it was about the class order of things needing to be set right - back to where it was pre war.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,768

    Barnesian said:

    Truss finds it hard to understand how other people think or feel, says the same thing over and over, is awkward and robotic in movement with learned responses.

    You could have said exactly the same about Theresa May, of course.
    Truss makes May look like Blair in comparison.

    Yes May was robotic and awkward in front of camera but I always thought that came from a slightly reserved, dull and dutiful personality. She just didn’t like spontaneity.

    Truss just gives the impression of nothing being there. No personality behind it. Just an automaton. It’s very peculiar.
    Stress, exhaustion? Maybe I've been reading too many books about WW1 and WW2 combat medicine.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,408

    I just am not seeing the case that Truss actually gets removed. She should just call a GE

    Agreed.
    Any attempt now to remove her would seriously weaken the Conservative party even more.....
    "You did what?" the voter on the street will ask. "You got rid of Boris, put someone in who I'd barely heard of before deciding after two weeks she was shite after all and now want rid and put liar liar Boris back in?"

    The democratic deficit would widen even further and Labour would just spend the whole time laughing and laughing.

    And Truss shouldn't accept it either. Just call a GE for November.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056
    148grss said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    148grss said:

    OllyT said:

    Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.

    Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.

    What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.

    Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.

    My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed

    [snip!]
    The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.

    The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.

    The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well.

    BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
    No the problem isn't the MPs - the problem is that members shouldn't have a say in a democracy where we elect representatives...

    There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
    They were given the choice between a 2nd rate politician and a 3rd rate one. They were never going to pick a proper leader with a choice like that.

    There is a lot wrong with UK democracy, but you cannot blame the Tory selectorate for choosing inadequate leaders when given a choice of inadequates. Having said that, Boris and Hunt was a clearer choice for the membership, but Boris should never have been one of the candidates. The MPs put him there.
    My problem is that the Tory selectorate should not have been anywhere near the decision.

    We are a Parliamentary democracy and the only people with the right to select the next PM was and is Tory MPs....

    And if they had made the decision they wouldn't be in the mess they now find themselves in because the selectorate wouldn't have changed or had the chance to change Tory party policy.....
    Political parties have evolved since the inception of parliament - they do (and arguably should) have a mandate from their membership to do things. If parties are untethered from their members, then what is the point of them? They are supposed to be vehicles that people can use to push ideological and political theory and policy - if you agree with the premises of party a's platform, but disagree on the edges, or feel it needs to evolve in certain places, you join it and work with it for change.

    When parties are disconnected or openly despise their own members you get parties like the Dems in the USA - not very good at wielding power, only seeking the status quo, and basically only campaigning on the pledge to not be as bad as the other guys.

    People want things to believe in, and hope for good outcomes as being participants in society and politics is important for that in the modern era.
    Boris's Tory party was elected on a manifesto that promised "levelling up". What it didn't offer was tax cuts for the rich and austerity.

    Truss was elected after promising tax cuts for the rich and an end to levelling up and there is no political remit for her to implement those items...
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,768
    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    HYUFD said:

    Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done

    Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"

    Bless
    If Brexit isn't done, how do I contact my MEP?
    Brexit is done in as much as we left.

    Brexit is not yet done in as much as there is still a lot of work to do to to tidy up the mess it made.

    So like Schrodinger's cat, it is both done and not done at the same time.
    So Brexit is done. We will be dealing with the EU forever, just like we deal with ~200 countries around the world.
    Northern Ireland is sufficient refutation for the 'done' bit.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,248
    148grss said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    148grss said:

    OllyT said:

    Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.

    Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.

    What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.

    Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.

    My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed

    [snip!]
    The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.

    The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.

    The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well.

    BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
    No the problem isn't the MPs - the problem is that members shouldn't have a say in a democracy where we elect representatives...

    There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
    They were given the choice between a 2nd rate politician and a 3rd rate one. They were never going to pick a proper leader with a choice like that.

    There is a lot wrong with UK democracy, but you cannot blame the Tory selectorate for choosing inadequate leaders when given a choice of inadequates. Having said that, Boris and Hunt was a clearer choice for the membership, but Boris should never have been one of the candidates. The MPs put him there.
    My problem is that the Tory selectorate should not have been anywhere near the decision.

    We are a Parliamentary democracy and the only people with the right to select the next PM was and is Tory MPs....

    And if they had made the decision they wouldn't be in the mess they now find themselves in because the selectorate wouldn't have changed or had the chance to change Tory party policy.....
    Political parties have evolved since the inception of parliament - they do (and arguably should) have a mandate from their membership to do things. If parties are untethered from their members, then what is the point of them? They are supposed to be vehicles that people can use to push ideological and political theory and policy - if you agree with the premises of party a's platform, but disagree on the edges, or feel it needs to evolve in certain places, you join it and work with it for change.

    When parties are disconnected or openly despise their own members you get parties like the Dems in the USA - not very good at wielding power, only seeking the status quo, and basically only campaigning on the pledge to not be as bad as the other guys.

    People want things to believe in, and hope for good outcomes as being participants in society and politics is important for that in the modern era.
    Hm? The Democrats implemented massive federal spending programmes under both Biden and Obama. You don't have to like them but they definitely stand for "more government".
  • Grand old man of Scottish Indy and stane stealing gone.








  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,169
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.

    Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
    The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
    Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.

    The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.

    https://nadinbrzezinski.medium.com/logistics-collapse-945984f5d48e
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 18,013
    If a US President cannot remain in office, the VP steps up.

    We could have a similar system, where parties have a designated Deputy PM, and they have to step up if the PM does not continue.

    Then the mandate of the new PM only comes from the GE result and the manifesto they stood on. None of this Year Zero crap we are seeing from The Truss.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,914
    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Today's stupid idea

    https://twitter.com/matt_dathan/status/1577183670879735808

    Matt Dathan
    @matt_dathan
    EXCL: Suella Braverman will today announce plans for a new law to bar anyone who crosses the Channel in small boats from claiming asylum:


    Let me count the number of international treaties going back over 100 years that make this illegal....

    Now I can't fault the idea but it just doesn't work otherwise we would have tried this a decade ago...

    And once again the fix for this alongside a lot of other things has been available on here for years.

    large £25,000+ fine for employing an illegal immigrant with director's jointly and personally liable.

    Residency for anyone reporting an employer who is found to be employing illegal workers.
    I don't think turning every HR department into a mini-Home Office is the right direction to go in.
    It won't because most firms are already doing things correctly because it's not difficult to check that someone can legally work in the UK isn't difficult. I would note that things changed yesterday and now may require you actually having a valid passport but most firms really don't have a problem checking if a worker is legal or illegal...

    And it's better than the other options because the whole point is to remove the pull that encourages people to come here...
    Every employer I've had in recent years needs a photocopy of my UK passport to go in my personnel file.

    A relative runs a building business. He's always run it on fully legit lines - pays full taxes, detailed accounts and his workforce is vetted, since they are working in clients houses. He finds it quite trivial to make sure they have the right to work in the UK - just ask them for the papers.

    You can already get done for employing illegals. Years ago, @Roger complained about a friend running a restaurant who got a 30K fine for employing someone who didn't have the right to work in the UK.
    Isn't one of the problems that you can quite happily live without a passport or driving license or any other form of identifying doc ?
    In the black economy, you can live. Not sure about the happily.

    I've seen the conditions, and they can be horrific. Multiple adults living in rooms - 2 bunk beds in each room of a house etc....
    My point was more we need to enforce the rules better as if it's harder to work in the black economy it will reduce some of the demand to come to the Uk...
    Which my scheme would do - the problem with enforcement is that is costs money. If you given the workers the financial incentives to report the employers, then you have suddenly employed 100s of thousands of inspectors. At no cost to the government....
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,248
    Senior UK politicians tend to be intelligent but apart from this it's hard to say there is one traits uniting them all. More often than not PMs appear either socially awkward or sociopathic, but I think that's a mix of permanent coverage and bias toward thinking negatively about politicians - e.g. nowadays close to most people would say they hate all politicians.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,623
    edited October 2022

    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Today's stupid idea

    https://twitter.com/matt_dathan/status/1577183670879735808

    Matt Dathan
    @matt_dathan
    EXCL: Suella Braverman will today announce plans for a new law to bar anyone who crosses the Channel in small boats from claiming asylum:


    Let me count the number of international treaties going back over 100 years that make this illegal....

    Now I can't fault the idea but it just doesn't work otherwise we would have tried this a decade ago...

    And once again the fix for this alongside a lot of other things has been available on here for years.

    large £25,000+ fine for employing an illegal immigrant with director's jointly and personally liable.

    Residency for anyone reporting an employer who is found to be employing illegal workers.
    I don't think turning every HR department into a mini-Home Office is the right direction to go in.
    It won't because most firms are already doing things correctly because it's not difficult to check that someone can legally work in the UK isn't difficult. I would note that things changed yesterday and now may require you actually having a valid passport but most firms really don't have a problem checking if a worker is legal or illegal...

    And it's better than the other options because the whole point is to remove the pull that encourages people to come here...
    Every employer I've had in recent years needs a photocopy of my UK passport to go in my personnel file.

    A relative runs a building business. He's always run it on fully legit lines - pays full taxes, detailed accounts and his workforce is vetted, since they are working in clients houses. He finds it quite trivial to make sure they have the right to work in the UK - just ask them for the papers.

    You can already get done for employing illegals. Years ago, @Roger complained about a friend running a restaurant who got a 30K fine for employing someone who didn't have the right to work in the UK.
    £15,000* for a spot check on a coffee bar. The man without the correct papers was a part time washer up who only worked eight hours a week. It was during Theresa May's premiership

    *For immediate payment.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    Straws in the wind in the debt market? DMO had a bit of relative trouble shifting some debt this morning it seems:


    https://twitter.com/BruceReuters/status/1577224325715103749
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,897

    Barnesian said:

    Truss finds it hard to understand how other people think or feel, says the same thing over and over, is awkward and robotic in movement with learned responses. Does she has a condition?

    As I have said before I find it very difficult to understand why she is in politics given that she does not appear to be a people person at all. And politics is the ultimate people person job.

    May and Brown in comparison might have been uncharismatic but you knew deep down they entered politics because they wanted to help people. May had a dutiful, WI, Home Counties vibe and Brown’s sense of duty was rooted in his religious upbringing.

    What does Truss have? She went to what she says was a poor school and she was incensed with the lack of opportunity. OK. But she’s not turned that into any kind of real message that she cares about people - she just turned it into Thatcherite policy wonkery.
    The poor school stuff is nonsense of course (I have an acquaintance who was a teacher there when Truss was at the school). Poor compared to Eton, maybe.

    And people know that, particularly locally. Even my hairdresser (who in eight years has never once raised politics) was ranting about Truss last week: mortgages, markets, husband a kitchen fitter having jobs cancelled as people decided they can't afford it, but also about all the nonsense she'd spouted about her upbringing. Proper Yorkshire folk who inherited nothing more than a shaving mug are not impressed :wink:
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,582

    Grand old man of Scottish Indy and stane stealing gone.



    Stane stealing? Can you steal something that's already yours?
  • eek said:

    148grss said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    148grss said:

    OllyT said:

    Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.

    Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.

    What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.

    Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.

    My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed

    [snip!]
    The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.

    The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.

    The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well.

    BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
    No the problem isn't the MPs - the problem is that members shouldn't have a say in a democracy where we elect representatives...

    There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
    They were given the choice between a 2nd rate politician and a 3rd rate one. They were never going to pick a proper leader with a choice like that.

    There is a lot wrong with UK democracy, but you cannot blame the Tory selectorate for choosing inadequate leaders when given a choice of inadequates. Having said that, Boris and Hunt was a clearer choice for the membership, but Boris should never have been one of the candidates. The MPs put him there.
    My problem is that the Tory selectorate should not have been anywhere near the decision.

    We are a Parliamentary democracy and the only people with the right to select the next PM was and is Tory MPs....

    And if they had made the decision they wouldn't be in the mess they now find themselves in because the selectorate wouldn't have changed or had the chance to change Tory party policy.....
    Political parties have evolved since the inception of parliament - they do (and arguably should) have a mandate from their membership to do things. If parties are untethered from their members, then what is the point of them? They are supposed to be vehicles that people can use to push ideological and political theory and policy - if you agree with the premises of party a's platform, but disagree on the edges, or feel it needs to evolve in certain places, you join it and work with it for change.

    When parties are disconnected or openly despise their own members you get parties like the Dems in the USA - not very good at wielding power, only seeking the status quo, and basically only campaigning on the pledge to not be as bad as the other guys.

    People want things to believe in, and hope for good outcomes as being participants in society and politics is important for that in the modern era.
    Boris's Tory party was elected on a manifesto that promised "levelling up". What it didn't offer was tax cuts for the rich and austerity.

    Truss was elected after promising tax cuts for the rich and an end to levelling up and there is no political remit for her to implement those items...
    That she has no majority in the Commons to do anything she wants to do shows the system kind of works. It just needs a PM who can count and convince.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056

    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Today's stupid idea

    https://twitter.com/matt_dathan/status/1577183670879735808

    Matt Dathan
    @matt_dathan
    EXCL: Suella Braverman will today announce plans for a new law to bar anyone who crosses the Channel in small boats from claiming asylum:


    Let me count the number of international treaties going back over 100 years that make this illegal....

    Now I can't fault the idea but it just doesn't work otherwise we would have tried this a decade ago...

    And once again the fix for this alongside a lot of other things has been available on here for years.

    large £25,000+ fine for employing an illegal immigrant with director's jointly and personally liable.

    Residency for anyone reporting an employer who is found to be employing illegal workers.
    I don't think turning every HR department into a mini-Home Office is the right direction to go in.
    It won't because most firms are already doing things correctly because it's not difficult to check that someone can legally work in the UK isn't difficult. I would note that things changed yesterday and now may require you actually having a valid passport but most firms really don't have a problem checking if a worker is legal or illegal...

    And it's better than the other options because the whole point is to remove the pull that encourages people to come here...
    Every employer I've had in recent years needs a photocopy of my UK passport to go in my personnel file.

    A relative runs a building business. He's always run it on fully legit lines - pays full taxes, detailed accounts and his workforce is vetted, since they are working in clients houses. He finds it quite trivial to make sure they have the right to work in the UK - just ask them for the papers.

    You can already get done for employing illegals. Years ago, @Roger complained about a friend running a restaurant who got a 30K fine for employing someone who didn't have the right to work in the UK.
    Isn't one of the problems that you can quite happily live without a passport or driving license or any other form of identifying doc ?
    In the black economy, you can live. Not sure about the happily.

    I've seen the conditions, and they can be horrific. Multiple adults living in rooms - 2 bunk beds in each room of a house etc....
    My point was more we need to enforce the rules better as if it's harder to work in the black economy it will reduce some of the demand to come to the Uk...
    Which my scheme would do - the problem with enforcement is that is costs money. If you given the workers the financial incentives to report the employers, then you have suddenly employed 100s of thousands of inspectors. At no cost to the government....
    Yep - you would notice that it's included (although I missed the financial incentive) in my original post on this thread.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,077

    If a US President cannot remain in office, the VP steps up.

    We could have a similar system, where parties have a designated Deputy PM, and they have to step up if the PM does not continue.

    Then the mandate of the new PM only comes from the GE result and the manifesto they stood on. None of this Year Zero crap we are seeing from The Truss.

    Ford as has been pointed out became US President in 1974 when Nixon resigned but was not even VP candidate in 1972, that was Agnew who had already resigned and who he had previously replaced
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,582

    Barnesian said:

    Truss finds it hard to understand how other people think or feel, says the same thing over and over, is awkward and robotic in movement with learned responses. Does she has a condition?

    As I have said before I find it very difficult to understand why she is in politics given that she does not appear to be a people person at all. And politics is the ultimate people person job.

    May and Brown in comparison might have been uncharismatic but you knew deep down they entered politics because they wanted to help people. May had a dutiful, WI, Home Counties vibe and Brown’s sense of duty was rooted in his religious upbringing.

    What does Truss have? She went to what she says was a poor school and she was incensed with the lack of opportunity. OK. But she’s not turned that into any kind of real message that she cares about people - she just turned it into Thatcherite policy wonkery.
    She went to such a poor school that she ended up at university in Oxford! And Oxford University not Oxford Brooks!!
    Careful, Mrs P. went to Oxford Brookes, she'll be having words.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,914

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.

    Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
    The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
    Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.

    The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.

    https://nadinbrzezinski.medium.com/logistics-collapse-945984f5d48e
    There have been a number of such analyses done - one chap looked at all the satellite photos of the tank depots in Russia. His conclusion was the majority of tanks were unusable hulks that have been sat outside for decades.

    The Russian tactic of sending single tanks down a road unsupported by infantry is insane. The British Army worked out before Cambrai, that a tank on it's own is just waiting to be destroyed. That's a hundred years ago...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,997
    .
    EPG said:

    148grss said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    148grss said:

    OllyT said:

    Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.

    Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.

    What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.

    Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.

    My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed

    [snip!]
    The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.

    The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.

    The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well.

    BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
    No the problem isn't the MPs - the problem is that members shouldn't have a say in a democracy where we elect representatives...

    There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
    They were given the choice between a 2nd rate politician and a 3rd rate one. They were never going to pick a proper leader with a choice like that.

    There is a lot wrong with UK democracy, but you cannot blame the Tory selectorate for choosing inadequate leaders when given a choice of inadequates. Having said that, Boris and Hunt was a clearer choice for the membership, but Boris should never have been one of the candidates. The MPs put him there.
    My problem is that the Tory selectorate should not have been anywhere near the decision.

    We are a Parliamentary democracy and the only people with the right to select the next PM was and is Tory MPs....

    And if they had made the decision they wouldn't be in the mess they now find themselves in because the selectorate wouldn't have changed or had the chance to change Tory party policy.....
    Political parties have evolved since the inception of parliament - they do (and arguably should) have a mandate from their membership to do things. If parties are untethered from their members, then what is the point of them? They are supposed to be vehicles that people can use to push ideological and political theory and policy - if you agree with the premises of party a's platform, but disagree on the edges, or feel it needs to evolve in certain places, you join it and work with it for change.

    When parties are disconnected or openly despise their own members you get parties like the Dems in the USA - not very good at wielding power, only seeking the status quo, and basically only campaigning on the pledge to not be as bad as the other guys.

    People want things to believe in, and hope for good outcomes as being participants in society and politics is important for that in the modern era.
    Hm? The Democrats implemented massive
    federal spending programmes under both Biden and Obama. You don't have to like them but they definitely stand for "more government".
    Yes, that was a seriously odd comment.
    Given the constraints of a two party system, the Democrats have actually done a pretty good job recently in representing their electoral coalition.

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,914
    Roger said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Today's stupid idea

    https://twitter.com/matt_dathan/status/1577183670879735808

    Matt Dathan
    @matt_dathan
    EXCL: Suella Braverman will today announce plans for a new law to bar anyone who crosses the Channel in small boats from claiming asylum:


    Let me count the number of international treaties going back over 100 years that make this illegal....

    Now I can't fault the idea but it just doesn't work otherwise we would have tried this a decade ago...

    And once again the fix for this alongside a lot of other things has been available on here for years.

    large £25,000+ fine for employing an illegal immigrant with director's jointly and personally liable.

    Residency for anyone reporting an employer who is found to be employing illegal workers.
    I don't think turning every HR department into a mini-Home Office is the right direction to go in.
    It won't because most firms are already doing things correctly because it's not difficult to check that someone can legally work in the UK isn't difficult. I would note that things changed yesterday and now may require you actually having a valid passport but most firms really don't have a problem checking if a worker is legal or illegal...

    And it's better than the other options because the whole point is to remove the pull that encourages people to come here...
    Every employer I've had in recent years needs a photocopy of my UK passport to go in my personnel file.

    A relative runs a building business. He's always run it on fully legit lines - pays full taxes, detailed accounts and his workforce is vetted, since they are working in clients houses. He finds it quite trivial to make sure they have the right to work in the UK - just ask them for the papers.

    You can already get done for employing illegals. Years ago, @Roger complained about a friend running a restaurant who got a 30K fine for employing someone who didn't have the right to work in the UK.
    £15,000* for a spot check on a coffee bar. The man without the correct papers was a part time washer up who only worked eight hours a week. It was during Theresa May's premiership

    *For immediate payment.
    From a law passed under Gordon Brown, IIRC.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,778
    edited October 2022
    Roger said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Today's stupid idea

    https://twitter.com/matt_dathan/status/1577183670879735808

    Matt Dathan
    @matt_dathan
    EXCL: Suella Braverman will today announce plans for a new law to bar anyone who crosses the Channel in small boats from claiming asylum:


    Let me count the number of international treaties going back over 100 years that make this illegal....

    Now I can't fault the idea but it just doesn't work otherwise we would have tried this a decade ago...

    And once again the fix for this alongside a lot of other things has been available on here for years.

    large £25,000+ fine for employing an illegal immigrant with director's jointly and personally liable.

    Residency for anyone reporting an employer who is found to be employing illegal workers.
    I don't think turning every HR department into a mini-Home Office is the right direction to go in.
    It won't because most firms are already doing things correctly because it's not difficult to check that someone can legally work in the UK isn't difficult. I would note that things changed yesterday and now may require you actually having a valid passport but most firms really don't have a problem checking if a worker is legal or illegal...

    And it's better than the other options because the whole point is to remove the pull that encourages people to come here...
    Every employer I've had in recent years needs a photocopy of my UK passport to go in my personnel file.

    A relative runs a building business. He's always run it on fully legit lines - pays full taxes, detailed accounts and his workforce is vetted, since they are working in clients houses. He finds it quite trivial to make sure they have the right to work in the UK - just ask them for the papers.

    You can already get done for employing illegals. Years ago, @Roger complained about a friend running a restaurant who got a 30K fine for employing someone who didn't have the right to work in the UK.
    £15,000* for a spot check on a coffee bar. The man without the correct papers was a part time washer up who only worked eight hours a week. It was during Theresa May's premiership

    *For immediate payment.
    Good. We need to deter people trafficking as much as possible, and going after people who employ illegal immigrants is by far the most cost effective option.

    This is distinct from the discussion about whether we should have a more open immigration system.
  • Grand old man of Scottish Indy and stane stealing gone.



    Stane stealing? Can you steal something that's already yours?
    Fair point, stealing back maybe?

    The authorities thought long and hard about prosecuting but shat it when they considered the questions it might raise.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251
    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    HYUFD said:

    Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done

    Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"

    Bless
    If Brexit isn't done, how do I contact my MEP?
    Brexit is done in as much as we left.

    Brexit is not yet done in as much as there is still a lot of work to do to to tidy up the mess it made.

    So like Schrodinger's cat, it is both done and not done at the same time.
    So Brexit is done. We will be dealing with the EU forever, just like we deal with ~200 countries around the world.
    Dealing with the EU "as a country" is why we did Brexit. It was not a country the majority wanted to be a part of.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,997
    HYUFD said:

    If a US President cannot remain in office, the VP steps up.

    We could have a similar system, where parties have a designated Deputy PM, and they have to step up if the PM does not continue.

    Then the mandate of the new PM only comes from the GE result and the manifesto they stood on. None of this Year Zero crap we are seeing from The Truss.

    Ford as has been pointed out became US President in 1974 when Nixon resigned but was not even VP candidate in 1972, that was Agnew who had already resigned and who he had previously replaced
    That's really the precedent you wish to call back to ?

    And the only really dramatic policy reversal was the new President not being a crook.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,029

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    HYUFD said:

    Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done

    Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"

    Bless
    If Brexit isn't done, how do I contact my MEP?
    Brexit is done in as much as we left.

    Brexit is not yet done in as much as there is still a lot of work to do to to tidy up the mess it made.

    So like Schrodinger's cat, it is both done and not done at the same time.
    So Brexit is done. We will be dealing with the EU forever, just like we deal with ~200 countries around the world.
    Dealing with the EU "as a country" is why we did Brexit. It was not a country the majority wanted to be a part of.
    Indeed so.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,897

    Barnesian said:

    Truss finds it hard to understand how other people think or feel, says the same thing over and over, is awkward and robotic in movement with learned responses.

    You could have said exactly the same about Theresa May, of course.
    Truss makes May look like Blair in comparison.

    Yes May was robotic and awkward in front of camera but I always thought that came from a slightly reserved, dull and dutiful personality. She just didn’t like spontaneity.

    Truss just gives the impression of nothing being there. No personality behind it. Just an automaton. It’s very peculiar.
    I'm sick and tired of "charisma" in politics and for me her lack of it is her best feature. But I know what you mean. There's a strange void. Just no sense of what or who she is. Which is not appealing.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,582

    Grand old man of Scottish Indy and stane stealing gone.



    Stane stealing? Can you steal something that's already yours?
    Fair point, stealing back maybe?

    The authorities thought long and hard about prosecuting but shat it when they considered the questions it might raise.

    They did break the stone of course, so could have been prosecuted for criminal damage.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,897

    Barnesian said:

    Truss finds it hard to understand how other people think or feel, says the same thing over and over, is awkward and robotic in movement with learned responses. Does she has a condition?

    As I have said before I find it very difficult to understand why she is in politics given that she does not appear to be a people person at all. And politics is the ultimate people person job.

    May and Brown in comparison might have been uncharismatic but you knew deep down they entered politics because they wanted to help people. May had a dutiful, WI, Home Counties vibe and Brown’s sense of duty was rooted in his religious upbringing.

    What does Truss have? She went to what she says was a poor school and she was incensed with the lack of opportunity. OK. But she’s not turned that into any kind of real message that she cares about people - she just turned it into Thatcherite policy wonkery.
    She went to such a poor school that she ended up at university in Oxford! And Oxford University not Oxford Brooks!!
    Careful, Mrs P. went to Oxford Brookes, she'll be having words.
    Surely OKC's point? That the school was so poor Truss only managed Oxford? With a better education, she could have got into Brookes? :innocent:
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,778
    RAF Lossie very busy today.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,077
    edited October 2022
    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    If a US President cannot remain in office, the VP steps up.

    We could have a similar system, where parties have a designated Deputy PM, and they have to step up if the PM does not continue.

    Then the mandate of the new PM only comes from the GE result and the manifesto they stood on. None of this Year Zero crap we are seeing from The Truss.

    Ford as has been pointed out became US President in 1974 when Nixon resigned but was not even VP candidate in 1972, that was Agnew who had already resigned and who he had previously replaced
    That's really the precedent you wish to call back to ?

    And the only really dramatic policy reversal was the new President not being a crook.
    Ford also announced an end to US involvement in the Vietnam War. Nixon won the 1972 election on a pro war platform over the anti Vietnam War McGovern
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056

    eek said:

    148grss said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    148grss said:

    OllyT said:

    Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.

    Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.

    What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.

    Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.

    My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed

    [snip!]
    The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.

    The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.

    The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well.

    BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
    No the problem isn't the MPs - the problem is that members shouldn't have a say in a democracy where we elect representatives...

    There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
    They were given the choice between a 2nd rate politician and a 3rd rate one. They were never going to pick a proper leader with a choice like that.

    There is a lot wrong with UK democracy, but you cannot blame the Tory selectorate for choosing inadequate leaders when given a choice of inadequates. Having said that, Boris and Hunt was a clearer choice for the membership, but Boris should never have been one of the candidates. The MPs put him there.
    My problem is that the Tory selectorate should not have been anywhere near the decision.

    We are a Parliamentary democracy and the only people with the right to select the next PM was and is Tory MPs....

    And if they had made the decision they wouldn't be in the mess they now find themselves in because the selectorate wouldn't have changed or had the chance to change Tory party policy.....
    Political parties have evolved since the inception of parliament - they do (and arguably should) have a mandate from their membership to do things. If parties are untethered from their members, then what is the point of them? They are supposed to be vehicles that people can use to push ideological and political theory and policy - if you agree with the premises of party a's platform, but disagree on the edges, or feel it needs to evolve in certain places, you join it and work with it for change.

    When parties are disconnected or openly despise their own members you get parties like the Dems in the USA - not very good at wielding power, only seeking the status quo, and basically only campaigning on the pledge to not be as bad as the other guys.

    People want things to believe in, and hope for good outcomes as being participants in society and politics is important for that in the modern era.
    Boris's Tory party was elected on a manifesto that promised "levelling up". What it didn't offer was tax cuts for the rich and austerity.

    Truss was elected after promising tax cuts for the rich and an end to levelling up and there is no political remit for her to implement those items...
    That she has no majority in the Commons to do anything she wants to do shows the system kind of works. It just needs a PM who can count and convince.
    If the Tory party membership hadn't been involved we wouldn't be in this mess. The only thing we can be thankful for is because enough Tory MPs have morals, Truss can't actually implement much.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,914

    Grand old man of Scottish Indy and stane stealing gone.



    Stane stealing? Can you steal something that's already yours?
    Fair point, stealing back maybe?

    The authorities thought long and hard about prosecuting but shat it when they considered the questions it might raise.

    They did break the stone of course, so could have been prosecuted for criminal damage.
    IIRC there was consideration of trying to recover the costs of the restoration.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,278

    Barnesian said:

    Truss finds it hard to understand how other people think or feel, says the same thing over and over, is awkward and robotic in movement with learned responses. Does she has a condition?

    As I have said before I find it very difficult to understand why she is in politics given that she does not appear to be a people person at all. And politics is the ultimate people person job.

    May and Brown in comparison might have been uncharismatic but you knew deep down they entered politics because they wanted to help people. May had a dutiful, WI, Home Counties vibe and Brown’s sense of duty was rooted in his religious upbringing.

    What does Truss have? She went to what she says was a poor school and she was incensed with the lack of opportunity. OK. But she’s not turned that into any kind of real message that she cares about people - she just turned it into Thatcherite policy wonkery.
    She went to such a poor school that she ended up at university in Oxford! And Oxford University not Oxford Brooks!!
    Careful, Mrs P. went to Oxford Brookes, she'll be having words.
    Sunderland (before it was a uni) and Anglia Ruskin. I think about evens!
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,768
    edited October 2022

    Grand old man of Scottish Indy and stane stealing gone.



    Stane stealing? Can you steal something that's already yours?
    Fair point, stealing back maybe?

    The authorities thought long and hard about prosecuting but shat it when they considered the questions it might raise.

    They did break the stone of course, so could have been prosecuted for criminal damage.
    By the owner. Which was a Scottish monastery, it being their cesspit lid, and stolen, in the first place. Not sure how that works down to present day though in that case.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 18,013
    HYUFD said:

    If a US President cannot remain in office, the VP steps up.

    We could have a similar system, where parties have a designated Deputy PM, and they have to step up if the PM does not continue.

    Then the mandate of the new PM only comes from the GE result and the manifesto they stood on. None of this Year Zero crap we are seeing from The Truss.

    Ford as has been pointed out became US President in 1974 when Nixon resigned but was not even VP candidate in 1972, that was Agnew who had already resigned and who he had previously replaced
    There will always be edge cases such as this, but the principle would remain that the replacement is there as a result of the GE result and was elected on the same manifesto as the person they are replacing.

    Just think - we would have had PM Prescott!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,077
    eek said:

    eek said:

    148grss said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    148grss said:

    OllyT said:

    Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.

    Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.

    What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.

    Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.

    My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed

    [snip!]
    The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.

    The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.

    The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well.

    BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
    No the problem isn't the MPs - the problem is that members shouldn't have a say in a democracy where we elect representatives...

    There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
    They were given the choice between a 2nd rate politician and a 3rd rate one. They were never going to pick a proper leader with a choice like that.

    There is a lot wrong with UK democracy, but you cannot blame the Tory selectorate for choosing inadequate leaders when given a choice of inadequates. Having said that, Boris and Hunt was a clearer choice for the membership, but Boris should never have been one of the candidates. The MPs put him there.
    My problem is that the Tory selectorate should not have been anywhere near the decision.

    We are a Parliamentary democracy and the only people with the right to select the next PM was and is Tory MPs....

    And if they had made the decision they wouldn't be in the mess they now find themselves in because the selectorate wouldn't have changed or had the chance to change Tory party policy.....
    Political parties have evolved since the inception of parliament - they do (and arguably should) have a mandate from their membership to do things. If parties are untethered from their members, then what is the point of them? They are supposed to be vehicles that people can use to push ideological and political theory and policy - if you agree with the premises of party a's platform, but disagree on the edges, or feel it needs to evolve in certain places, you join it and work with it for change.

    When parties are disconnected or openly despise their own members you get parties like the Dems in the USA - not very good at wielding power, only seeking the status quo, and basically only campaigning on the pledge to not be as bad as the other guys.

    People want things to believe in, and hope for good outcomes as being participants in society and politics is important for that in the modern era.
    Boris's Tory party was elected on a manifesto that promised "levelling up". What it didn't offer was tax cuts for the rich and austerity.

    Truss was elected after promising tax cuts for the rich and an end to levelling up and there is no political remit for her to implement those items...
    That she has no majority in the Commons to do anything she wants to do shows the system kind of works. It just needs a PM who can count and convince.
    If the Tory party membership hadn't been involved we wouldn't be in this mess. The only thing we can be thankful for is because enough Tory MPs have morals, Truss can't actually implement much.
    If the decision had been left to Tory members Badenoch would now be PM not Truss.

    Tory MPs could have put Mordaunt or Badenoch in the last 2 with Sunak not Truss
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 1,477
    EPG said:

    148grss said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    148grss said:

    OllyT said:

    Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.

    Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.

    What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.

    Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.

    My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed

    [snip!]
    The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.

    The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.

    The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well.

    BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
    No the problem isn't the MPs - the problem is that members shouldn't have a say in a democracy where we elect representatives...

    There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
    They were given the choice between a 2nd rate politician and a 3rd rate one. They were never going to pick a proper leader with a choice like that.

    There is a lot wrong with UK democracy, but you cannot blame the Tory selectorate for choosing inadequate leaders when given a choice of inadequates. Having said that, Boris and Hunt was a clearer choice for the membership, but Boris should never have been one of the candidates. The MPs put him there.
    My problem is that the Tory selectorate should not have been anywhere near the decision.

    We are a Parliamentary democracy and the only people with the right to select the next PM was and is Tory MPs....

    And if they had made the decision they wouldn't be in the mess they now find themselves in because the selectorate wouldn't have changed or had the chance to change Tory party policy.....
    Political parties have evolved since the inception of parliament - they do (and arguably should) have a mandate from their membership to do things. If parties are untethered from their members, then what is the point of them? They are supposed to be vehicles that people can use to push ideological and political theory and policy - if you agree with the premises of party a's platform, but disagree on the edges, or feel it needs to evolve in certain places, you join it and work with it for change.

    When parties are disconnected or openly despise their own members you get parties like the Dems in the USA - not very good at wielding power, only seeking the status quo, and basically only campaigning on the pledge to not be as bad as the other guys.

    People want things to believe in, and hope for good outcomes as being participants in society and politics is important for that in the modern era.
    Hm? The Democrats implemented massive federal spending programmes under both Biden and Obama. You don't have to like them but they definitely stand for "more government".
    But they don't stand for what a majority of them members want - specific policies on healthcare, abortion, etc. Like, Obama promised to pass a legislative protection of abortion in case roe ever got over turned, and didn't. Members wanted a single payer system, or even a public option, and didn't get it. Most of the things the Dems have done have been much milder than their membership wants, and arguably the country as a whole wants. Whereas the GOP, frothing in the brain they may be, deliver for their party members and their party members hold them to account if they don't. Democrats discipline the party base, the party base discipline the GOP. One party has, if not held complete power, always been in the drivers seat as much as possible, even from a minoritarian position, and the other party... doesn't.
  • SandraMcSandraMc Posts: 363
    I just seen the Mail Online. In the main photo Truss looks completely manic. Is the Mail regretting having done a character assassination on Penny and backed Liz for PM?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,897

    eek said:

    148grss said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    148grss said:

    OllyT said:

    Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.

    Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.

    What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.

    Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.

    My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed

    [snip!]
    The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.

    The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.

    The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well.

    BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
    No the problem isn't the MPs - the problem is that members shouldn't have a say in a democracy where we elect representatives...

    There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
    They were given the choice between a 2nd rate politician and a 3rd rate one. They were never going to pick a proper leader with a choice like that.

    There is a lot wrong with UK democracy, but you cannot blame the Tory selectorate for choosing inadequate leaders when given a choice of inadequates. Having said that, Boris and Hunt was a clearer choice for the membership, but Boris should never have been one of the candidates. The MPs put him there.
    My problem is that the Tory selectorate should not have been anywhere near the decision.

    We are a Parliamentary democracy and the only people with the right to select the next PM was and is Tory MPs....

    And if they had made the decision they wouldn't be in the mess they now find themselves in because the selectorate wouldn't have changed or had the chance to change Tory party policy.....
    Political parties have evolved since the inception of parliament - they do (and arguably should) have a mandate from their membership to do things. If parties are untethered from their members, then what is the point of them? They are supposed to be vehicles that people can use to push ideological and political theory and policy - if you agree with the premises of party a's platform, but disagree on the edges, or feel it needs to evolve in certain places, you join it and work with it for change.

    When parties are disconnected or openly despise their own members you get parties like the Dems in the USA - not very good at wielding power, only seeking the status quo, and basically only campaigning on the pledge to not be as bad as the other guys.

    People want things to believe in, and hope for good outcomes as being participants in society and politics is important for that in the modern era.
    Boris's Tory party was elected on a manifesto that promised "levelling up". What it didn't offer was tax cuts for the rich and austerity.

    Truss was elected after promising tax cuts for the rich and an end to levelling up and there is no political remit for her to implement those items...
    That she has no majority in the Commons to do anything she wants to do shows the system kind of works. It just needs a PM who can count and convince.
    That's a good point actually. There's no mandate for her programme of reheated Thatcherism plus incompetence plus magic money tree, but if she's prevented from doing it - as looks likely - then this problem is in practice somewhat mitigated.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,850
    eek said:

    eek said:

    148grss said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    148grss said:

    OllyT said:

    Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.

    Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.

    What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.

    Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.

    My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed

    [snip!]
    The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.

    The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.

    The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well.

    BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
    No the problem isn't the MPs - the problem is that members shouldn't have a say in a democracy where we elect representatives...

    There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
    They were given the choice between a 2nd rate politician and a 3rd rate one. They were never going to pick a proper leader with a choice like that.

    There is a lot wrong with UK democracy, but you cannot blame the Tory selectorate for choosing inadequate leaders when given a choice of inadequates. Having said that, Boris and Hunt was a clearer choice for the membership, but Boris should never have been one of the candidates. The MPs put him there.
    My problem is that the Tory selectorate should not have been anywhere near the decision.

    We are a Parliamentary democracy and the only people with the right to select the next PM was and is Tory MPs....

    And if they had made the decision they wouldn't be in the mess they now find themselves in because the selectorate wouldn't have changed or had the chance to change Tory party policy.....
    Political parties have evolved since the inception of parliament - they do (and arguably should) have a mandate from their membership to do things. If parties are untethered from their members, then what is the point of them? They are supposed to be vehicles that people can use to push ideological and political theory and policy - if you agree with the premises of party a's platform, but disagree on the edges, or feel it needs to evolve in certain places, you join it and work with it for change.

    When parties are disconnected or openly despise their own members you get parties like the Dems in the USA - not very good at wielding power, only seeking the status quo, and basically only campaigning on the pledge to not be as bad as the other guys.

    People want things to believe in, and hope for good outcomes as being participants in society and politics is important for that in the modern era.
    Boris's Tory party was elected on a manifesto that promised "levelling up". What it didn't offer was tax cuts for the rich and austerity.

    Truss was elected after promising tax cuts for the rich and an end to levelling up and there is no political remit for her to implement those items...
    That she has no majority in the Commons to do anything she wants to do shows the system kind of works. It just needs a PM who can count and convince.
    If the Tory party membership hadn't been involved we wouldn't be in this mess. The only thing we can be thankful for is because enough Tory MPs have morals, Truss can't actually implement much.
    Lol "morals". It's more about them trying to save their seats, see the "planning" discussion with HYUFD below.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,433

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.

    Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
    The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
    Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.

    The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.

    https://nadinbrzezinski.medium.com/logistics-collapse-945984f5d48e
    Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,077
    148grss said:

    EPG said:

    148grss said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    148grss said:

    OllyT said:

    Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.

    Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.

    What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.

    Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.

    My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed

    [snip!]
    The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.

    The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.

    The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well.

    BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
    No the problem isn't the MPs - the problem is that members shouldn't have a say in a democracy where we elect representatives...

    There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
    They were given the choice between a 2nd rate politician and a 3rd rate one. They were never going to pick a proper leader with a choice like that.

    There is a lot wrong with UK democracy, but you cannot blame the Tory selectorate for choosing inadequate leaders when given a choice of inadequates. Having said that, Boris and Hunt was a clearer choice for the membership, but Boris should never have been one of the candidates. The MPs put him there.
    My problem is that the Tory selectorate should not have been anywhere near the decision.

    We are a Parliamentary democracy and the only people with the right to select the next PM was and is Tory MPs....

    And if they had made the decision they wouldn't be in the mess they now find themselves in because the selectorate wouldn't have changed or had the chance to change Tory party policy.....
    Political parties have evolved since the inception of parliament - they do (and arguably should) have a mandate from their membership to do things. If parties are untethered from their members, then what is the point of them? They are supposed to be vehicles that people can use to push ideological and political theory and policy - if you agree with the premises of party a's platform, but disagree on the edges, or feel it needs to evolve in certain places, you join it and work with it for change.

    When parties are disconnected or openly despise their own members you get parties like the Dems in the USA - not very good at wielding power, only seeking the status quo, and basically only campaigning on the pledge to not be as bad as the other guys.

    People want things to believe in, and hope for good outcomes as being participants in society and politics is important for that in the modern era.
    Hm? The Democrats implemented massive federal spending programmes under both Biden and Obama. You don't have to like them but they definitely stand for "more government".
    But they don't stand for what a majority of them members want - specific policies on healthcare, abortion, etc. Like, Obama promised to pass a legislative protection of abortion in case roe ever got over turned, and didn't. Members wanted a single payer system, or even a public option, and didn't get it. Most of the things the Dems have done have been much milder than their membership wants, and arguably the country as a whole wants. Whereas the GOP, frothing in the brain they may be, deliver for their party members and their party members hold them to account if they don't. Democrats discipline the party base, the party base discipline the GOP. One party has, if not held complete power, always been in the drivers seat as much as possible, even from a minoritarian position, and the other party... doesn't.
    Democrat primary voters could have elected Bernie Sanders as their Presidential candidate in 2016 or 2020 who did want single payer healthcare. Instead they chose the centrists Hillary and Biden, their choice
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,278
    Selebian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Truss finds it hard to understand how other people think or feel, says the same thing over and over, is awkward and robotic in movement with learned responses. Does she has a condition?

    As I have said before I find it very difficult to understand why she is in politics given that she does not appear to be a people person at all. And politics is the ultimate people person job.

    May and Brown in comparison might have been uncharismatic but you knew deep down they entered politics because they wanted to help people. May had a dutiful, WI, Home Counties vibe and Brown’s sense of duty was rooted in his religious upbringing.

    What does Truss have? She went to what she says was a poor school and she was incensed with the lack of opportunity. OK. But she’s not turned that into any kind of real message that she cares about people - she just turned it into Thatcherite policy wonkery.
    She went to such a poor school that she ended up at university in Oxford! And Oxford University not Oxford Brooks!!
    Careful, Mrs P. went to Oxford Brookes, she'll be having words.
    Surely OKC's point? That the school was so poor Truss only managed Oxford? With a better education, she could have got into Brookes? :innocent:
    Ha ha.

    All depends on the subject of course. There are some subjects, I believe, where Brookes is superior to the older firm.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,582
    Reflecting on @Leon's nuclear panic last night (sorry), I do wonder what plans HMG and the security services have for any potential effect a Russian tactical nuke would have on civil order in the UK?

    Clearly, @Leon is a panicky drama queen of the first degree but... would there be an exodus from London and other big cities?

    I guess those with somewhere to go, second home owners and the like, would be tempted to flee - à la Paris in the (covid) spring.

    Personally, I feel if a proper nuclear war broke out we're all buggered anyway, so why bother? (Though, I'm not in London of course.)
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,897

    Barnesian said:

    Truss finds it hard to understand how other people think or feel, says the same thing over and over, is awkward and robotic in movement with learned responses. Does she has a condition?

    As I have said before I find it very difficult to understand why she is in politics given that she does not appear to be a people person at all. And politics is the ultimate people person job.

    May and Brown in comparison might have been uncharismatic but you knew deep down they entered politics because they wanted to help people. May had a dutiful, WI, Home Counties vibe and Brown’s sense of duty was rooted in his religious upbringing.

    What does Truss have? She went to what she says was a poor school and she was incensed with the lack of opportunity. OK. But she’s not turned that into any kind of real message that she cares about people - she just turned it into Thatcherite policy wonkery.
    She went to such a poor school that she ended up at university in Oxford! And Oxford University not Oxford Brooks!!
    Careful, Mrs P. went to Oxford Brookes, she'll be having words.
    Sunderland (before it was a uni) and Anglia Ruskin. I think about evens!
    Ah, so you studied at Cambridge? :wink:

    Or was it the Chelmsford campus? :disappointed:
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,582
    Eabhal said:

    RAF Lossie very busy today.

    Why?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,308
    edited October 2022

    Barnesian said:

    Truss finds it hard to understand how other people think or feel, says the same thing over and over, is awkward and robotic in movement with learned responses.

    You could have said exactly the same about Theresa May, of course.
    Yes. It's amazing they both got to the top in politics. Contrast with Blair or Clinton.

    EDIT: Or Boris even. Or perhaps Boris was a bit robotic.
  • kinabalu said:

    Barnesian said:

    Truss finds it hard to understand how other people think or feel, says the same thing over and over, is awkward and robotic in movement with learned responses.

    You could have said exactly the same about Theresa May, of course.
    Truss makes May look like Blair in comparison.

    Yes May was robotic and awkward in front of camera but I always thought that came from a slightly reserved, dull and dutiful personality. She just didn’t like spontaneity.

    Truss just gives the impression of nothing being there. No personality behind it. Just an automaton. It’s very peculiar.
    I'm sick and tired of "charisma" in politics and for me her lack of it is her best feature. But I know what you mean. There's a strange void. Just no sense of what or who she is. Which is not appealing.
    She is the re-incarnation of Margaret Thatcher. But they forgot to add the brain.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,419
    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    HYUFD said:

    Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done

    Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"

    Bless
    If Brexit isn't done, how do I contact my MEP?
    Brexit is done in as much as we left.

    Brexit is not yet done in as much as there is still a lot of work to do to to tidy up the mess it made.

    So like Schrodinger's cat, it is both done and not done at the same time.
    So Brexit is done. We will be dealing with the EU forever, just like we deal with ~200 countries around the world.
    I have never denied that we had left, in fact I always thought I was fairly obvious about that fact and that I also feel it was a bad decision, but it is interesting how you and some other Leavers highlighted that part of my post like you had some desperate need for affirmation that what happened did indeed happen.

    I am past it. The UK's descent back into a basketcase of a country is now in progress and it is being done by the Brexiteers. This current mess is because of the Brexit purges of "Remain" politicians and hollowing out of the former Conservative party by the Kippers and their supporter.

    The Brexit cause continues to drive the country towards economic meltdown and a no-rights social sh*thole and "Leave" owns it. It is Leave's project and the consequences and blame can be pinned on the Brexit donkey.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,897
    148grss said:

    EPG said:

    148grss said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    148grss said:

    OllyT said:

    Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.

    Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.

    What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.

    Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.

    My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed

    [snip!]
    The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.

    The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.

    The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well.

    BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
    No the problem isn't the MPs - the problem is that members shouldn't have a say in a democracy where we elect representatives...

    There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
    They were given the choice between a 2nd rate politician and a 3rd rate one. They were never going to pick a proper leader with a choice like that.

    There is a lot wrong with UK democracy, but you cannot blame the Tory selectorate for choosing inadequate leaders when given a choice of inadequates. Having said that, Boris and Hunt was a clearer choice for the membership, but Boris should never have been one of the candidates. The MPs put him there.
    My problem is that the Tory selectorate should not have been anywhere near the decision.

    We are a Parliamentary democracy and the only people with the right to select the next PM was and is Tory MPs....

    And if they had made the decision they wouldn't be in the mess they now find themselves in because the selectorate wouldn't have changed or had the chance to change Tory party policy.....
    Political parties have evolved since the inception of parliament - they do (and arguably should) have a mandate from their membership to do things. If parties are untethered from their members, then what is the point of them? They are supposed to be vehicles that people can use to push ideological and political theory and policy - if you agree with the premises of party a's platform, but disagree on the edges, or feel it needs to evolve in certain places, you join it and work with it for change.

    When parties are disconnected or openly despise their own members you get parties like the Dems in the USA - not very good at wielding power, only seeking the status quo, and basically only campaigning on the pledge to not be as bad as the other guys.

    People want things to believe in, and hope for good outcomes as being participants in society and politics is important for that in the modern era.
    Hm? The Democrats implemented massive federal spending programmes under both Biden and Obama. You don't have to like them but they definitely stand for "more government".
    But they don't stand for what a majority of them members want - specific policies on healthcare, abortion, etc. Like, Obama promised to pass a legislative protection of abortion in case roe ever got over turned, and didn't. Members wanted a single payer system, or even a public option, and didn't get it. Most of the things the Dems have done have been much milder than their membership wants, and arguably the country as a whole wants. Whereas the GOP, frothing in the brain they may be, deliver for their party members and their party members hold them to account if they don't. Democrats discipline the party base, the party base discipline the GOP. One party has, if not held complete power, always been in the drivers seat as much as possible, even from a minoritarian position, and the other party... doesn't.
    Agree to some extent - but we don't want the Dems chasing and trying to catch the GOP in the extremist stakes. The GOP has gone rancid and utterly bonkers as far as I can see.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,278
    Selebian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Truss finds it hard to understand how other people think or feel, says the same thing over and over, is awkward and robotic in movement with learned responses. Does she has a condition?

    As I have said before I find it very difficult to understand why she is in politics given that she does not appear to be a people person at all. And politics is the ultimate people person job.

    May and Brown in comparison might have been uncharismatic but you knew deep down they entered politics because they wanted to help people. May had a dutiful, WI, Home Counties vibe and Brown’s sense of duty was rooted in his religious upbringing.

    What does Truss have? She went to what she says was a poor school and she was incensed with the lack of opportunity. OK. But she’s not turned that into any kind of real message that she cares about people - she just turned it into Thatcherite policy wonkery.
    She went to such a poor school that she ended up at university in Oxford! And Oxford University not Oxford Brooks!!
    Careful, Mrs P. went to Oxford Brookes, she'll be having words.
    Sunderland (before it was a uni) and Anglia Ruskin. I think about evens!
    Ah, so you studied at Cambridge? :wink:

    Or was it the Chelmsford campus? :disappointed:
    Mostly Chelmsford. For supervision of my dissertation I had to go to Cambridge.
  • Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.

    Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
    The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
    Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.

    The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.

    https://nadinbrzezinski.medium.com/logistics-collapse-945984f5d48e
    Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
    Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?

    At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,914

    Selebian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Truss finds it hard to understand how other people think or feel, says the same thing over and over, is awkward and robotic in movement with learned responses. Does she has a condition?

    As I have said before I find it very difficult to understand why she is in politics given that she does not appear to be a people person at all. And politics is the ultimate people person job.

    May and Brown in comparison might have been uncharismatic but you knew deep down they entered politics because they wanted to help people. May had a dutiful, WI, Home Counties vibe and Brown’s sense of duty was rooted in his religious upbringing.

    What does Truss have? She went to what she says was a poor school and she was incensed with the lack of opportunity. OK. But she’s not turned that into any kind of real message that she cares about people - she just turned it into Thatcherite policy wonkery.
    She went to such a poor school that she ended up at university in Oxford! And Oxford University not Oxford Brooks!!
    Careful, Mrs P. went to Oxford Brookes, she'll be having words.
    Surely OKC's point? That the school was so poor Truss only managed Oxford? With a better education, she could have got into Brookes? :innocent:
    Ha ha.

    All depends on the subject of course. There are some subjects, I believe, where Brookes is superior to the older firm.
    Hence the attempted takeover of Brookes when it first became a university - Oxford University saw it as an opportunity to fill some holes in their offering.
  • Reflecting on @Leon's nuclear panic last night (sorry), I do wonder what plans HMG and the security services have for any potential effect a Russian tactical nuke would have on civil order in the UK?

    Clearly, @Leon is a panicky drama queen of the first degree but... would there be an exodus from London and other big cities?

    I guess those with somewhere to go, second home owners and the like, would be tempted to flee - à la Paris in the (covid) spring.

    Personally, I feel if a proper nuclear war broke out we're all buggered anyway, so why bother? (Though, I'm not in London of course.)

    We should never have forced Abramovich out. He was London's cheap nuclear shield!
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Reflecting on @Leon's nuclear panic last night (sorry), I do wonder what plans HMG and the security services have for any potential effect a Russian tactical nuke would have on civil order in the UK?

    Clearly, @Leon is a panicky drama queen of the first degree but... would there be an exodus from London and other big cities?

    I guess those with somewhere to go, second home owners and the like, would be tempted to flee - à la Paris in the (covid) spring.

    Personally, I feel if a proper nuclear war broke out we're all buggered anyway, so why bother? (Though, I'm not in London of course.)

    If you have Amazon Prime you can sign up for a week free Britbox trial and watch Threads for the 1984 version. Non-fictional underpinning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_Leg (1980). I think there is a more recent big civil defence exercise but can't find it on internet.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,751
    The Truss/Tory line to take now is to avoid the distraction of the mini-budget, and respond to every question by emphasising the energy support scheme. "If we hadn't intervened, the average household would be facing energy bills of £6,000 this winter", is the response I keep hearing.

    The thing is, this isn't really true, is it? If bills had actually gone up to £6,000. there's no way millions of families could have found an average of £500 a month to pay their bill. So something would have had to give, whatever.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,914
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.

    Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
    The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
    Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.

    The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.

    https://nadinbrzezinski.medium.com/logistics-collapse-945984f5d48e
    Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
    Apparently 1.5 million water uniforms are missing.

    Just as Finland starts deliveries of top of the line winter uniforms to Ukraine.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,582

    Reflecting on @Leon's nuclear panic last night (sorry), I do wonder what plans HMG and the security services have for any potential effect a Russian tactical nuke would have on civil order in the UK?

    Clearly, @Leon is a panicky drama queen of the first degree but... would there be an exodus from London and other big cities?

    I guess those with somewhere to go, second home owners and the like, would be tempted to flee - à la Paris in the (covid) spring.

    Personally, I feel if a proper nuclear war broke out we're all buggered anyway, so why bother? (Though, I'm not in London of course.)

    We should never have forced Abramovich out. He was London's cheap nuclear shield!
    Aren't Putin's children in the West somewhere?
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,029
    .

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    HYUFD said:

    Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done

    Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"

    Bless
    If Brexit isn't done, how do I contact my MEP?
    Brexit is done in as much as we left.

    Brexit is not yet done in as much as there is still a lot of work to do to to tidy up the mess it made.

    So like Schrodinger's cat, it is both done and not done at the same time.
    So Brexit is done. We will be dealing with the EU forever, just like we deal with ~200 countries around the world.
    I have never denied that we had left, in fact I always thought I was fairly obvious about that fact and that I also feel it was a bad decision, but it is interesting how you and some other Leavers highlighted that part of my post like you had some desperate need for affirmation that what happened did indeed happen.
    If people like Scotty and you who still haven't got over losing a vote over six years ago keep lying about Brexit not being done, then naturally they will get corrected.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,522
    148grss said:

    EPG said:

    148grss said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    148grss said:

    OllyT said:

    Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.

    Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.

    What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.

    Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.

    My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed

    [snip!]
    The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.

    The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.

    The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well.

    BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
    No the problem isn't the MPs - the problem is that members shouldn't have a say in a democracy where we elect representatives...

    There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
    They were given the choice between a 2nd rate politician and a 3rd rate one. They were never going to pick a proper leader with a choice like that.

    There is a lot wrong with UK democracy, but you cannot blame the Tory selectorate for choosing inadequate leaders when given a choice of inadequates. Having said that, Boris and Hunt was a clearer choice for the membership, but Boris should never have been one of the candidates. The MPs put him there.
    My problem is that the Tory selectorate should not have been anywhere near the decision.

    We are a Parliamentary democracy and the only people with the right to select the next PM was and is Tory MPs....

    And if they had made the decision they wouldn't be in the mess they now find themselves in because the selectorate wouldn't have changed or had the chance to change Tory party policy.....
    Political parties have evolved since the inception of parliament - they do (and arguably should) have a mandate from their membership to do things. If parties are untethered from their members, then what is the point of them? They are supposed to be vehicles that people can use to push ideological and political theory and policy - if you agree with the premises of party a's platform, but disagree on the edges, or feel it needs to evolve in certain places, you join it and work with it for change.

    When parties are disconnected or openly despise their own members you get parties like the Dems in the USA - not very good at wielding power, only seeking the status quo, and basically only campaigning on the pledge to not be as bad as the other guys.

    People want things to believe in, and hope for good outcomes as being participants in society and politics is important for that in the modern era.
    Hm? The Democrats implemented massive federal spending programmes under both Biden and Obama. You don't have to like them but they definitely stand for "more government".
    But they don't stand for what a majority of them members want - specific policies on healthcare, abortion, etc. Like, Obama promised to pass a legislative protection of abortion in case roe ever got over turned, and didn't. Members wanted a single payer system, or even a public option, and didn't get it. Most of the things the Dems have done have been much milder than their membership wants, and arguably the country as a whole wants. Whereas the GOP, frothing in the brain they may be, deliver for their party members and their party members hold them to account if they don't. Democrats discipline the party base, the party base discipline the GOP. One party has, if not held complete power, always been in the drivers seat as much as possible, even from a minoritarian position, and the other party... doesn't.
    This isn't right. The GOP hardly got any of its long-standing priorities enacted. They failed to repeal ObamaCare, they couldn't privatize social security, they didn't build the wall. It's just really hard to get changes through the American system, especially ones that are unpopular or work against a powerful lobby.

    Obama didn't have the votes to codify Roe vs Wade, he didn't have the votes for single payer, he didn't have the votes for a public option, so none of those things happened. Trump didn't have the votes to fund a meaningful amount of wall, the GOP never had the votes to privatize social security, McCain vetoed the repeal of ObamaCare so none of those things happened.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 4,196
    kinabalu said:

    Barnesian said:

    Truss finds it hard to understand how other people think or feel, says the same thing over and over, is awkward and robotic in movement with learned responses.

    You could have said exactly the same about Theresa May, of course.
    Truss makes May look like Blair in comparison.

    Yes May was robotic and awkward in front of camera but I always thought that came from a slightly reserved, dull and dutiful personality. She just didn’t like spontaneity.

    Truss just gives the impression of nothing being there. No personality behind it. Just an automaton. It’s very peculiar.
    I'm sick and tired of "charisma" in politics and for me her lack of it is her best feature. But I know what you mean. There's a strange void. Just no sense of what or who she is. Which is not appealing.
    I agree with you on charisma. Personally a character like Rishi leaves me cold - that unctuous Blairesque fake sincerity really grates with me.

    But I think you hit the nail on the head with “no sense of what or who she is.” I can have a great go at painting a picture of what makes more “Clunky” politicians tick, what their personalities are, who they are as a person - see comments on May and Brown above. Truss I just find unknowable.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,077

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.

    Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
    The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
    Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.

    The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.

    https://nadinbrzezinski.medium.com/logistics-collapse-945984f5d48e
    Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
    Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?

    At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
    Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,850

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.

    Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
    The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
    Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.

    The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.

    https://nadinbrzezinski.medium.com/logistics-collapse-945984f5d48e
    Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
    Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?

    At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
    Winter is better for vehicles (Frozen fields). Less good for infantry.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,624
    eek said:

    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Truss did go before the next election I think Wallace would be the likely replacement by coronation. However I think she stays

    It is very difficult under the current rules to see how Truss can be removed from office without triggering an election. The reason being, the only realistic way to do it would be for a Tory rebellion on confidence or supply, which would trigger an election.

    So I agree I don't think she'll be leaving this side of an election.

    In some ways May is to blame for this. By clinging on like grim death when it was clear she was achieving nothing she set the precedent that Tory leaders don't have to be immediately despatched on the government losing the confidence of their party. That was also exploited by Johnson.
    Now would be a good time to fix that but the issue then becomes the membership's right to have a say over the party leader.

    Which means you can't have a coronation because there will always be a looney candidate willing to stand and throw a spanner into the coronation and that candidate has a chance of winning because, well, Tory members are batshit crazy....
    What we could really do with is a system where the leader of the governing party is selected via an open primary, organised a la a general election.

    The chances of this happening are to put it mildly remote.
    I'm perfectly happy for MPs to have the final say - we are after all a Parliamentary democracy. My problem is that party members should not be anywhere near the decision unless the party is in opposition (and even then the party will get the disaster to deserves as demonstrated by Corbyn)...
    Just reverse the process. The membership chooses the shortlist (say 5) in a ranked preference vote. Winnowing out a long-list of candidates nominated by 10-20 MPs each.

    The MPs choose the winner from that list.

    The only risk is that the MPs nominate 5 crazies… but hopefully the ranked preference helps with that
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 2,382

    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Today's stupid idea

    https://twitter.com/matt_dathan/status/1577183670879735808

    Matt Dathan
    @matt_dathan
    EXCL: Suella Braverman will today announce plans for a new law to bar anyone who crosses the Channel in small boats from claiming asylum:


    Let me count the number of international treaties going back over 100 years that make this illegal....

    Now I can't fault the idea but it just doesn't work otherwise we would have tried this a decade ago...

    And once again the fix for this alongside a lot of other things has been available on here for years.

    large £25,000+ fine for employing an illegal immigrant with director's jointly and personally liable.

    Residency for anyone reporting an employer who is found to be employing illegal workers.
    I don't think turning every HR department into a mini-Home Office is the right direction to go in.
    It won't because most firms are already doing things correctly because it's not difficult to check that someone can legally work in the UK isn't difficult. I would note that things changed yesterday and now may require you actually having a valid passport but most firms really don't have a problem checking if a worker is legal or illegal...

    And it's better than the other options because the whole point is to remove the pull that encourages people to come here...
    Every employer I've had in recent years needs a photocopy of my UK passport to go in my personnel file.

    A relative runs a building business. He's always run it on fully legit lines - pays full taxes, detailed accounts and his workforce is vetted, since they are working in clients houses. He finds it quite trivial to make sure they have the right to work in the UK - just ask them for the papers.

    You can already get done for employing illegals. Years ago, @Roger complained about a friend running a restaurant who got a 30K fine for employing someone who didn't have the right to work in the UK.
    Not long after I left, I gather immigration once raided my College and took away what was basically the entire kitchen and waiting staff. That would have been in the early 90s.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 1,477
    HYUFD said:

    148grss said:

    EPG said:

    148grss said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    148grss said:

    OllyT said:

    Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.

    Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.

    What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.

    Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.

    My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed

    [snip!]
    The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.

    The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.

    The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well.

    BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
    No the problem isn't the MPs - the problem is that members shouldn't have a say in a democracy where we elect representatives...

    There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
    They were given the choice between a 2nd rate politician and a 3rd rate one. They were never going to pick a proper leader with a choice like that.

    There is a lot wrong with UK democracy, but you cannot blame the Tory selectorate for choosing inadequate leaders when given a choice of inadequates. Having said that, Boris and Hunt was a clearer choice for the membership, but Boris should never have been one of the candidates. The MPs put him there.
    My problem is that the Tory selectorate should not have been anywhere near the decision.

    We are a Parliamentary democracy and the only people with the right to select the next PM was and is Tory MPs....

    And if they had made the decision they wouldn't be in the mess they now find themselves in because the selectorate wouldn't have changed or had the chance to change Tory party policy.....
    Political parties have evolved since the inception of parliament - they do (and arguably should) have a mandate from their membership to do things. If parties are untethered from their members, then what is the point of them? They are supposed to be vehicles that people can use to push ideological and political theory and policy - if you agree with the premises of party a's platform, but disagree on the edges, or feel it needs to evolve in certain places, you join it and work with it for change.

    When parties are disconnected or openly despise their own members you get parties like the Dems in the USA - not very good at wielding power, only seeking the status quo, and basically only campaigning on the pledge to not be as bad as the other guys.

    People want things to believe in, and hope for good outcomes as being participants in society and politics is important for that in the modern era.
    Hm? The Democrats implemented massive federal spending programmes under both Biden and Obama. You don't have to like them but they definitely stand for "more government".
    But they don't stand for what a majority of them members want - specific policies on healthcare, abortion, etc. Like, Obama promised to pass a legislative protection of abortion in case roe ever got over turned, and didn't. Members wanted a single payer system, or even a public option, and didn't get it. Most of the things the Dems have done have been much milder than their membership wants, and arguably the country as a whole wants. Whereas the GOP, frothing in the brain they may be, deliver for their party members and their party members hold them to account if they don't. Democrats discipline the party base, the party base discipline the GOP. One party has, if not held complete power, always been in the drivers seat as much as possible, even from a minoritarian position, and the other party... doesn't.
    Democrat primary voters could have elected Bernie Sanders as their Presidential candidate in 2016 or 2020 who did want single payer healthcare. Instead they chose the centrists Hillary and Biden, their choice
    In the primaries Biden did say he would back a public option, and walked that back. Also Biden is historically unpopular, having dipped below even Trump at points, and is doing worse amongst Dem voters than Trump was doing against GOP voters.
This discussion has been closed.