More like Tugendhat v Braverman, Badenoch or Patel. Tonbridge and Malling will also almost certainly stay blue on current polls (though Tunbridge Wells is less certain for Greg Clark) and every Tory or Labour leadership election normally ends up with a more centrist candidate v a more right or left candidate.
Mordaunt and Kwarteng might lose their seats on current polls as most likely would Hunt and Steve Baker and maybe even Zahawi on the last Yougov
I suspect Epping Forest is also likely to be in the Conservative column as well.
A lot will depend on the scale of the disaster - William Hague was chosen in 1997 because it looked as though the Conservatives would be out for a minimum of 10 years.
IF a 2024 defeat is on a similar or larger scale, the question then becomes less about an actual Prime Minister than a leader to prepare the way for the next Conservative Prime Minister.
Patel is 50, Tugendhat is 49 - both Badenoch and Braverman are 42. The latter pair look the future Prime Ministers, the former are the Kinnock/Smith figures making the Conservative Party electable again (no doubt aided and abetted by Labour in Government).
My VERY long shot to be a future Conservative Prime Minister - Laura Trott.
There's a man who saw the screaming inevitability of humiliation in the up coming court case.
Or, even better, there's a man who is fucking hurting bad after the screaming humiliation of his Ukraine peace plan being roundly mocked.
He was always mad as a box of frogs, but in a good way.
Ever since he invested in crypto onwards, a truly bizarre thing to do for someone who says they care about the environment, he seems to be descending into just being mad.
You really do have a bugbear about crypto. Can you show us on the doll where bitcoin hurt you?
Though I'm actually inclined to agree with you for once - Musk selling all his bitcoin (for a loss) was absolutely mad, and he's going to regret that in four years time. So he's definitely gone downhill.
Crypto is a scam.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
To be fair, crypto itself isn't a scam. Good cryptography is always useful.
Electronic currencies aren't a scam as such, either.
"Investment" in bullshit topped with "block chain" and "We expect growth in the 12,340% range" definitely is a scam.
And using all the graphics cards in the world to mine electronic currency is as mad as a box of frogs on every possible level.
99% of crypto "business" are either bullshit where the founders have conned themselves, or are actually cons. Hence the long and growing list of frauds, lost money, missing executives, missing executives with the only key to the wallet etc etc
Here you are correct - 100% agree with you.
There are a lot of scammers in the crypto space. However we don't say that the dollar is a scam because people get scammed out of their dollars in shell games. Nor do we say that telephone banking is a scam, just because sometimes people are scammed out of their life savings this way. Scammers are scammers and they'll use any medium at their disposal to take your money off you. There is a lot of dumb money in crypto, and a lot of scammy crypto products out there designed to separate the dumb from their money.
More like Tugendhat v Braverman, Badenoch or Patel. Tonbridge and Malling will also almost certainly stay blue on current polls (though Tunbridge Wells is less certain for Greg Clark) and every Tory or Labour leadership election normally ends up with a more centrist candidate v a more right or left candidate.
Mordaunt and Kwarteng might lose their seats on current polls as most likely would Hunt and Steve Baker and maybe even Zahawi on the last Yougov
I suspect Epping Forest is also likely to be in the Conservative column as well.
A lot will depend on the scale of the disaster - William Hague was chosen in 1997 because it looked as though the Conservatives would be out for a minimum of 10 years.
IF a 2024 defeat is on a similar or larger scale, the question then becomes less about an actual Prime Minister than a leader to prepare the way for the next Conservative Prime Minister.
Patel is 50, Tugendhat is 49 - both Badenoch and Braverman are 42. The latter pair look the future Prime Ministers, the former are the Kinnock/Smith figures making the Conservative Party electable again (no doubt aided and abetted by Labour in Government).
My VERY long shot to be a future Conservative Prime Minister - Laura Trott.
Truss Seeks 20-Year Gas Deal With Norway to Avoid Winter Blackouts. Discussions may lead to locking in gas price for two decades.
Sky’s Sam Coates was clearly on to something, Truss on the cusp of her big Norway deal - is she thinking of announcing it in her speech tomorrow as the conference saving rabbit from the hat?
What would PBs advice be on this?
At what length of contract and cost does Energy Security argument fall apart and it become a risk on Value For Money?
and political risk of a huge stick opponents will bludgeon Tory LOTO with for decades to come if this is signed in haste and repented at leisure?
More like Tugendhat v Braverman, Badenoch or Patel. Tonbridge and Malling will also almost certainly stay blue on current polls (though Tunbridge Wells is less certain for Greg Clark) and every Tory or Labour leadership election normally ends up with a more centrist candidate v a more right or left candidate.
Mordaunt and Kwarteng might lose their seats on current polls as most likely would Hunt and Steve Baker and maybe even Zahawi on the last Yougov
I suspect Epping Forest is also likely to be in the Conservative column as well.
A lot will depend on the scale of the disaster - William Hague was chosen in 1997 because it looked as though the Conservatives would be out for a minimum of 10 years.
IF a 2024 defeat is on a similar or larger scale, the question then becomes less about an actual Prime Minister than a leader to prepare the way for the next Conservative Prime Minister.
Patel is 50, Tugendhat is 49 - both Badenoch and Braverman are 42. The latter pair look the future Prime Ministers, the former are the Kinnock/Smith figures making the Conservative Party electable again (no doubt aided and abetted by Labour in Government).
My VERY long shot to be a future Conservative Prime Minister - Laura Trott.
Kemi Badenoch says using the word “coup” over MPs and cabinet ministers “speaking our minds” is “inflammatory”. But dismisses talk of a cabinet split and says Truss doesn’t mind differing opinions until a policy is laid out.
I hope so too, because it is a good point well made. Even a Cabinet has to be brought onside, and the party definitely, a new leader has reasonable excuse to seek to change direction, but they still need to persuade internally. They aren't emperors.
Indeed, but I was particularly curious about automatrons
Perhaps as well Ms B isn't at Health.
Automatrons could be the answer to the NHS recruitment problem.
"Carry on Automatron" sounds like one of @Leons future dystopias, though in that one at least we aren't all living in a post nuclear wasteland.
Is that the film in which @Leon starred alongside Kenneth Williams?
Sky reporting conservative mps now saying they have ended up with their own Jeremy Corbyn where ideology trumps popularity
They know what they have to do - purge the party of her and Kwarteng
Truss and Kwarteng have u-turned but have made it clear that they still think giving tax cuts to high earners was the right thing to do. Which shows that they think this is morally defensible in the current climate .
Do they seriously think the public are going to thank them for the u-turn when it’s clear they only did it under sufferance and with zero admission that giving those tax cuts was just the wrong thing to do from a moral standpoint .
Sky reporting conservative mps now saying they have ended up with their own Jeremy Corbyn where ideology trumps popularity
They know what they have to do - purge the party of her and Kwarteng
No they haven't. They've ended up with someone whose ideology is unpopular and who doesn't want to be unpopular so is backpedalling from everything she wants to do.
There was, briefly, a possibility that the UK might have taken a different path. You might argue that it was a terrible path to go down. But it seems that already we are heading back to Brownonomics/Rishinomics.
You can argue the toss about whether her ideology is sensible* or whether or not it is better to sometimes tack to the winds of public opinion** but she's very much not letting ideology trump popularity. Indeed, if her approach was to let ideology trump popularity her strategy would be cut taxes and cut spending, not cut taxes and increase borrowing.
*Personally, I'm not averse to a smaller state, and letting taxpayers keep more of their own money is to me right in principle. I'm, er, not sure this is exactly the way I would have gone about it though.
**Nothing wrong with a bit of this in principle, providing the answer isn't just kicking the can down the road.
More like Tugendhat v Braverman, Badenoch or Patel. Tonbridge and Malling will also almost certainly stay blue on current polls (though Tunbridge Wells is less certain for Greg Clark) and every Tory or Labour leadership election normally ends up with a more centrist candidate v a more right or left candidate.
Mordaunt and Kwarteng might lose their seats on current polls as most likely would Hunt and Steve Baker and maybe even Zahawi on the last Yougov
I suspect Epping Forest is also likely to be in the Conservative column as well.
A lot will depend on the scale of the disaster - William Hague was chosen in 1997 because it looked as though the Conservatives would be out for a minimum of 10 years.
IF a 2024 defeat is on a similar or larger scale, the question then becomes less about an actual Prime Minister than a leader to prepare the way for the next Conservative Prime Minister.
Patel is 50, Tugendhat is 49 - both Badenoch and Braverman are 42. The latter pair look the future Prime Ministers, the former are the Kinnock/Smith figures making the Conservative Party electable again (no doubt aided and abetted by Labour in Government).
My VERY long shot to be a future Conservative Prime Minister - Laura Trott.
It should be on all polls except the last Yougov where Epping Forest would be neck and neck between the Conservatives and Labour (though Brentwood and Ongar would still be Conservative even on that poll).
On the last Yougov the Tories would fall below 100 seats, it would be an even worse disaster than 1997. Indeed never mind preparing for the next Tory PM the Leader of the Opposition's job would be to ensure they stay the main opposition.
The next Tory government would likely be over a decade away as it was in 1997 unless the Starmer government completely mucked up
More like Tugendhat v Braverman, Badenoch or Patel. Tonbridge and Malling will also almost certainly stay blue on current polls (though Tunbridge Wells is less certain for Greg Clark) and every Tory or Labour leadership election normally ends up with a more centrist candidate v a more right or left candidate.
Mordaunt and Kwarteng might lose their seats on current polls as most likely would Hunt and Steve Baker and maybe even Zahawi on the last Yougov
I suspect Epping Forest is also likely to be in the Conservative column as well.
A lot will depend on the scale of the disaster - William Hague was chosen in 1997 because it looked as though the Conservatives would be out for a minimum of 10 years.
IF a 2024 defeat is on a similar or larger scale, the question then becomes less about an actual Prime Minister than a leader to prepare the way for the next Conservative Prime Minister.
Patel is 50, Tugendhat is 49 - both Badenoch and Braverman are 42. The latter pair look the future Prime Ministers, the former are the Kinnock/Smith figures making the Conservative Party electable again (no doubt aided and abetted by Labour in Government).
My VERY long shot to be a future Conservative Prime Minister - Laura Trott.
not that i am advocating Patel of course but being 60 is just as good an age to run the country as any other- not sure why we write of 60 year olds as being too old as they will be a lot more experienced in life and career and still be sharp enough to do the job and fit enough
Sky reporting conservative mps now saying they have ended up with their own Jeremy Corbyn where ideology trumps popularity
They know what they have to do - purge the party of her and Kwarteng
Truss and Kwarteng have u-turned but have made it clear that they still think giving tax cuts to high earners was the right thing to do. Which shows that they think this is morally defensible in the current climate .
Do they seriously think the public are going to thank them for the u-turn when it’s clear they only did it under sufferance and with zero admission that giving those tax cuts was just the wrong thing to do from a moral standpoint .
From their perspective, it's immoral to persist with an economic strategy that is failing the country and this overrides any perceived unfairness from reverting back to 40p being the highest income tax band now.
Obviously this argument is undermined by leaving in place some of the crazy distortions that have been left in the income tax system, but there is an obvious moral case for doing what you believe will benefit the country as a whole.
Why on earth double down on still wanting to cut taxes for those earning over 150,000 ?
It has a different look and meaning to it depending which side of the ideological fence you sit on - from Truss side of the fence it holds UK back in this world making us Uncompetitive in the new global economy, and it puts huge posters up everywhere on UK streets: “we are not an aspirational nation.”
Does that answer your question.
Clearly the vast majority of the public don’t think those high earners should have their taxes cut and that includes a decent chunk of Tory voters. So Truss and her ideology are vote losers .
I’m not as cock sure the Truss approach is always a vote loser - Bolsonaro and Trump seem to massively over perform polls with the same approach.
Personally myself Truss ideology is hideous two nation idea’s, where I am all about one nation politics for sure - but you seemed to be struggling to understand it, so I explained Truss view pretty accurately I think.
More like Tugendhat v Braverman, Badenoch or Patel. Tonbridge and Malling will also almost certainly stay blue on current polls (though Tunbridge Wells is less certain for Greg Clark) and every Tory or Labour leadership election normally ends up with a more centrist candidate v a more right or left candidate.
Mordaunt and Kwarteng might lose their seats on current polls as most likely would Hunt and Steve Baker and maybe even Zahawi on the last Yougov
I suspect Epping Forest is also likely to be in the Conservative column as well.
A lot will depend on the scale of the disaster - William Hague was chosen in 1997 because it looked as though the Conservatives would be out for a minimum of 10 years.
IF a 2024 defeat is on a similar or larger scale, the question then becomes less about an actual Prime Minister than a leader to prepare the way for the next Conservative Prime Minister.
Patel is 50, Tugendhat is 49 - both Badenoch and Braverman are 42. The latter pair look the future Prime Ministers, the former are the Kinnock/Smith figures making the Conservative Party electable again (no doubt aided and abetted by Labour in Government).
My VERY long shot to be a future Conservative Prime Minister - Laura Trott.
It should be on all polls except the last Yougov where Epping Forest would be neck and neck between the Conservatives and Labour (though Brentwood and Ongar would still be Conservative even on that poll).
On the last Yougov the Tories would fall below 100 seats, it would be an even worse disaster than 1997. Indeed never mind preparing for the next Tory PM the Leader of the Opposition's job would be to ensure they stay the main opposition.
The next Tory government would likely be over a decade away as it was in 1997 unless the Starmer government completely mucked up
The Starmer government may indeed muck up, Hyufd, but I wouldn't bank on it.
As long as it doesn't try to introduce Socialism it should be ok.
Sky reporting conservative mps now saying they have ended up with their own Jeremy Corbyn where ideology trumps popularity
They know what they have to do - purge the party of her and Kwarteng
No they haven't. They've ended up with someone whose ideology is unpopular and who doesn't want to be unpopular so is backpedalling from everything she wants to do.
There was, briefly, a possibility that the UK might have taken a different path. You might argue that it was a terrible path to go down. But it seems that already we are heading back to Brownonomics/Rishinomics.
You can argue the toss about whether her ideology is sensible* or whether or not it is better to sometimes tack to the winds of public opinion** but she's very much not letting ideology trump popularity. Indeed, if her approach was to let ideology trump popularity her strategy would be cut taxes and cut spending, not cut taxes and increase borrowing.
*Personally, I'm not averse to a smaller state, and letting taxpayers keep more of their own money is to me right in principle. I'm, er, not sure this is exactly the way I would have gone about it though.
**Nothing wrong with a bit of this in principle, providing the answer isn't just kicking the can down the road.
She is not backpedalling because she wants to avoid being unpopular. She is doing it because she does not have the votes despite a nominal majority. In reality she has the support of 10% of the commons with 90% against. Corbyn would have faced a very similar scenario and been forced to do the same.
More like Tugendhat v Braverman, Badenoch or Patel. Tonbridge and Malling will also almost certainly stay blue on current polls (though Tunbridge Wells is less certain for Greg Clark) and every Tory or Labour leadership election normally ends up with a more centrist candidate v a more right or left candidate.
Mordaunt and Kwarteng might lose their seats on current polls as most likely would Hunt and Steve Baker and maybe even Zahawi on the last Yougov
I suspect Epping Forest is also likely to be in the Conservative column as well.
A lot will depend on the scale of the disaster - William Hague was chosen in 1997 because it looked as though the Conservatives would be out for a minimum of 10 years.
IF a 2024 defeat is on a similar or larger scale, the question then becomes less about an actual Prime Minister than a leader to prepare the way for the next Conservative Prime Minister.
Patel is 50, Tugendhat is 49 - both Badenoch and Braverman are 42. The latter pair look the future Prime Ministers, the former are the Kinnock/Smith figures making the Conservative Party electable again (no doubt aided and abetted by Labour in Government).
My VERY long shot to be a future Conservative Prime Minister - Laura Trott.
not that i am advocating Patel of course but being 60 is just as good an age to run the country as any other- not sure why we write of 60 year olds as being too old as they will be a lot more experienced in life and career and still be sharp enough to do the job and fit enough
If the Conservatives are out for 20 years, it'll be Laura Trott (there I go again) who will be the more likely candidate.
I see it is "Send the buggers back" time at Tory conference.
Braverman is a good bet for leader of the post-apocalyptic Tory Party. Running as the anti-coup/Truss loyalist/machine gun the dinghies mid-Channel candidate. She also holds the 35th safest Conservative seat so has a chance of survival under some of the less extreme projections.
A chance of survival close to 100% I'd say - 45.6% majority & will be amazed if Fareham is not blue at next GE.
In the event of a truly catastrophic defeat, Truss, Sunak, Patel and Braverman are all likely survivors.
A near-wipeout of Tory MPs would not, of course, change the number and composition of the membership.
Next Con leader election: Braverman vs Patel, with Patel rejected by the fossil membership for being too moderate.
More like Tugendhat v Braverman, Badenoch or Patel. Tonbridge and Malling will also almost certainly stay blue on current polls (though Tunbridge Wells is less certain for Greg Clark) and every Tory or Labour leadership election normally ends up with a more centrist candidate v a more right or left candidate.
Mordaunt and Kwarteng might lose their seats on current polls as most likely would Hunt and Steve Baker and maybe even Zahawi on the last Yougov
I see it is "Send the buggers back" time at Tory conference.
Braverman is a good bet for leader of the post-apocalyptic Tory Party. Running as the anti-coup/Truss loyalist/machine gun the dinghies mid-Channel candidate. She also holds the 35th safest Conservative seat so has a chance of survival under some of the less extreme projections.
A chance of survival close to 100% I'd say - 45.6% majority & will be amazed if Fareham is not blue at next GE.
In the event of a truly catastrophic defeat, Truss, Sunak, Patel and Braverman are all likely survivors.
A near-wipeout of Tory MPs would not, of course, change the number and composition of the membership.
Next Con leader election: Braverman vs Patel, with Patel rejected by the fossil membership for being too moderate.
More like Tugendhat v Braverman, Badenoch or Patel. Tonbridge and Malling will also almost certainly stay blue on current polls (though Tunbridge Wells is less certain for Greg Clark) and every Tory or Labour leadership election normally ends up with a more centrist candidate v a more right or left candidate.
Mordaunt and Kwarteng might lose their seats on current polls as most likely would Hunt and Steve Baker and maybe even Zahawi on the last Yougov
Why on earth double down on still wanting to cut taxes for those earning over 150,000 ?
It has a different look and meaning to it depending which side of the ideological fence you sit on - from Truss side of the fence it holds UK back in this world making us Uncompetitive in the new global economy, and it puts huge posters up everywhere on UK streets: “we are not an aspirational nation.”
Does that answer your question.
Clearly the vast majority of the public don’t think those high earners should have their taxes cut and that includes a decent chunk of Tory voters. So Truss and her ideology are vote losers .
I’m not as cock sure the Truss approach is always a vote loser - Bolsonaro and Trump seem to massively over perform polls with the same approach.
Personally myself Truss ideology is hideous two nation idea’s, where I am all about one nation politics for sure - but you seemed to be struggling to understand it, so I explained Truss view pretty accurately I think.
Bolsonaro and Trump and indeed Boris or Meloni are charismatic populists, Truss is a dry as dust libertarian
Why on earth double down on still wanting to cut taxes for those earning over 150,000 ?
It has a different look and meaning to it depending which side of the ideological fence you sit on - from Truss side of the fence it holds UK back in this world making us Uncompetitive in the new global economy, and it puts huge posters up everywhere on UK streets: “we are not an aspirational nation.”
Does that answer your question.
Clearly the vast majority of the public don’t think those high earners should have their taxes cut and that includes a decent chunk of Tory voters. So Truss and her ideology are vote losers .
I’m not as cock sure the Truss approach is always a vote loser - Bolsonaro and Trump seem to massively over perform polls with the same approach.
Personally myself Truss ideology is hideous two nation idea’s, where I am all about one nation politics for sure - but you seemed to be struggling to understand it, so I explained Truss view pretty accurately I think.
I understand it but totally disagree with it . And I think it will remain a vote loser .
Why on earth double down on still wanting to cut taxes for those earning over 150,000 ?
It has a different look and meaning to it depending which side of the ideological fence you sit on - from Truss side of the fence it holds UK back in this world making us Uncompetitive in the new global economy, and it puts huge posters up everywhere on UK streets: “we are not an aspirational nation.”
Does that answer your question.
Clearly the vast majority of the public don’t think those high earners should have their taxes cut and that includes a decent chunk of Tory voters. So Truss and her ideology are vote losers .
I’m not as cock sure the Truss approach is always a vote loser - Bolsonaro and Trump seem to massively over perform polls with the same approach.
Personally myself Truss ideology is hideous two nation idea’s, where I am all about one nation politics for sure - but you seemed to be struggling to understand it, so I explained Truss view pretty accurately I think.
The problem is while everyone supports the idea of cutting income tax across the board, polling worldwide has shown since the pandemic a greater awareness and demand for a "fair" system of Government. Now, we can spend all evening trying to define what is fair but for many people it's about not deliberately making very rich people even richer while poorer people are struggling to keep themselves fed and heated.
The growing "sense" is for a tax on wealth - now, I'm struggling to understand how you define wealth as I discussed the other night. We tend to concentrate on property or land ownership but you could have a ton of cash in the bank, live in a stuidio flat and drive a Ferrari and you'd be by most people's standards wealthy.
Question - whilst the assumption going into this conference was that it would be dreadful, did anyone conceive of just how catastrophic this is? Could the Tories make their conference any more of a disaster if they really tried?
I think people paying attention with both eyes (so ruling out libertarian pirates with eyepatches) could predict that Truss would be bad. There were lots of clues.
But not this bad, I reckon.
During the debates, even the first one, she surprised me on the upside.
She managed to avoid major clangers during the campaign, and a commitment to re-in state NPR was even mildly encouraging.
Of course there some absurd comments passed during the hustings - such as the berserk idea that Macron was not necessarily an ally. But, I’m not really the consituency.
So mea culpa? I personally found both Rishi and Truss deeply flawed, but I don’t think anyone was predicting this level of failure.
Mea culpa from me also. I started off thinking she would be a disaster. The first debate came around and it didn’t change my mind.
But I did think she did OK against Sunak and I thought, to use that phrase, there was a chance she would “surprise on the upside.” The fact that she announced the energy bill policy (although I appreciate there were queries re funding) and came across as calm and serious during the succession, made me think she could be OK. Not going to win a landslide, but in with a chance of saving a small majority if the COL crisis abated in 2023.
But then she drove the government straight off a cliff with the Special Financial Operation and with all her actions since, in a way that is just so chaotically, unabashedly messy, that I almost wonder if this is all a piece of high stakes performance art.
There's a man who saw the screaming inevitability of humiliation in the up coming court case.
Or, even better, there's a man who is fucking hurting bad after the screaming humiliation of his Ukraine peace plan being roundly mocked.
He was always mad as a box of frogs, but in a good way.
Ever since he invested in crypto onwards, a truly bizarre thing to do for someone who says they care about the environment, he seems to be descending into just being mad.
You really do have a bugbear about crypto. Can you show us on the doll where bitcoin hurt you?
Though I'm actually inclined to agree with you for once - Musk selling all his bitcoin (for a loss) was absolutely mad, and he's going to regret that in four years time. So he's definitely gone downhill.
Crypto is a scam.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
Having done consultancy work for three different crypto firms, I can assure you it's not. Having profited from it over a number of years, I can assure you it's not. Having a basic understanding of a) economics, b) scarcity and c) sound money (I like gold, too), I can assure you it's not. Having seen Ukrainians able to flee the war zone with their crypto intact, while their bank accounts were frozen, I can assure you it's not. Having seen a supposedly democratic government (Canada) freeze people's bank accounts for donating to a political cause, I can assure you it's not. Having seen people at the WEF give talks on the cashless society, CBDCs and programmable money (essentially, the government being able to decide how and where you spend your money, e.g. limiting you from purchasing more than a certain amount of fuel, alcohol or even meat per month), I can assure you it's not. Having watched China ban it because they're terrified of how hard it is to censor, and how easy it is to use it to take money out of the hands of an authoritarian regime, I can assure you it's not.
Whenever anybody tells me that "crypto is a scam", I am reminded of the Arthur C Clarke quote - “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. You think it's a scam (aka magic trick) because you can't understand the technology, and therefore the value.
You are like Paul Krugman opining that the internet will have no more impact on the economy than the fax machine had.
I feel sorry for the likes of you and Barty, because you simply can't understand the technology and therefore its value. You are therefore destined to scream "scam" evermore, even while the world moves on around you. HFSP.
You make some good points, however I can't help but think that most people pushing Crypto nowadays would have been pushing Spanish Timeshare a few decades back.
It's all getting a bit serious now, but chaotic defeat after chaotic defeat, infighting and insurrection amongst the ground troops and lots of ground lost to a plucky opponent, suggests it has the be the nuclear option to save face. But what is Liz Truss's nuclear option.
It's all getting a bit serious now, but chaotic defeat after chaotic defeat, infighting and insurrection amongst the ground troops and lots of ground lost to a plucky opponent, suggests it has the be the nuclear option to save face. But what is Liz Truss's nuclear option.
Royal Commission on moving to an insurance based health system?
More like Tugendhat v Braverman, Badenoch or Patel. Tonbridge and Malling will also almost certainly stay blue on current polls (though Tunbridge Wells is less certain for Greg Clark) and every Tory or Labour leadership election normally ends up with a more centrist candidate v a more right or left candidate.
Mordaunt and Kwarteng might lose their seats on current polls as most likely would Hunt and Steve Baker and maybe even Zahawi on the last Yougov
I suspect Epping Forest is also likely to be in the Conservative column as well.
A lot will depend on the scale of the disaster - William Hague was chosen in 1997 because it looked as though the Conservatives would be out for a minimum of 10 years.
IF a 2024 defeat is on a similar or larger scale, the question then becomes less about an actual Prime Minister than a leader to prepare the way for the next Conservative Prime Minister.
Patel is 50, Tugendhat is 49 - both Badenoch and Braverman are 42. The latter pair look the future Prime Ministers, the former are the Kinnock/Smith figures making the Conservative Party electable again (no doubt aided and abetted by Labour in Government).
My VERY long shot to be a future Conservative Prime Minister - Laura Trott.
not that i am advocating Patel of course but being 60 is just as good an age to run the country as any other- not sure why we write of 60 year olds as being too old as they will be a lot more experienced in life and career and still be sharp enough to do the job and fit enough
If the Conservatives are out for 20 years, it'll be Laura Trott (there I go again) who will be the more likely candidate.
For heaven's sake, Stodge, get the name right - Laura Kenny.
Someone needs to start a round of “Oh Liz Truss” at the Tory conference.
Or another football favourite:
(To the tune of My Old Man's a Dustman)
Liz Truss is magic She wears a magic hat, She could have gone Lib Dem, But didn't fancy that.
She would rather be a Tory, So she could be PM, Now she's got the job at last, And that is how it ends
(Repeat ad nauseum)
Trussedy! When you lose control and tank in the polls It's Trussedy! When your MPs cry and you don't know why It's hard to bear With Kwasi beside you, you're goin' nowhere
It's all getting a bit serious now, but chaotic defeat after chaotic defeat, infighting and insurrection amongst the ground troops and lots of ground lost to a plucky opponent, suggests it has the be the nuclear option to save face. But what is Liz Truss's nuclear option.
Truss Seeks 20-Year Gas Deal With Norway to Avoid Winter Blackouts. Discussions may lead to locking in gas price for two decades.
Sky’s Sam Coates was clearly on to something, Truss on the cusp of her big Norway deal - is she thinking of announcing it in her speech tomorrow as the conference saving rabbit from the hat?
What would PBs advice be on this?
At what length of contract and cost does Energy Security argument fall apart and it become a risk on Value For Money?
and political risk of a huge stick opponents will bludgeon Tory LOTO with for decades to come if this is signed in haste and repented at leisure?
As I noted upthread, this has the potential to be G Brown and the gold reserves, but an order of magnitude or two bigger.
Is it really the job of a temp PM to be taking two decade bets on the commodities market ?
There's a man who saw the screaming inevitability of humiliation in the up coming court case.
Or, even better, there's a man who is fucking hurting bad after the screaming humiliation of his Ukraine peace plan being roundly mocked.
He was always mad as a box of frogs, but in a good way.
Ever since he invested in crypto onwards, a truly bizarre thing to do for someone who says they care about the environment, he seems to be descending into just being mad.
You really do have a bugbear about crypto. Can you show us on the doll where bitcoin hurt you?
Though I'm actually inclined to agree with you for once - Musk selling all his bitcoin (for a loss) was absolutely mad, and he's going to regret that in four years time. So he's definitely gone downhill.
Crypto is a scam.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
Having done consultancy work for three different crypto firms, I can assure you it's not. Having profited from it over a number of years, I can assure you it's not. Having a basic understanding of a) economics, b) scarcity and c) sound money (I like gold, too), I can assure you it's not. Having seen Ukrainians able to flee the war zone with their crypto intact, while their bank accounts were frozen, I can assure you it's not. Having seen a supposedly democratic government (Canada) freeze people's bank accounts for donating to a political cause, I can assure you it's not. Having seen people at the WEF give talks on the cashless society, CBDCs and programmable money (essentially, the government being able to decide how and where you spend your money, e.g. limiting you from purchasing more than a certain amount of fuel, alcohol or even meat per month), I can assure you it's not. Having watched China ban it because they're terrified of how hard it is to censor, and how easy it is to use it to take money out of the hands of an authoritarian regime, I can assure you it's not.
Whenever anybody tells me that "crypto is a scam", I am reminded of the Arthur C Clarke quote - “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. You think it's a scam (aka magic trick) because you can't understand the technology, and therefore the value.
You are like Paul Krugman opining that the internet will have no more impact on the economy than the fax machine had.
I feel sorry for the likes of you and Barty, because you simply can't understand the technology and therefore its value. You are therefore destined to scream "scam" evermore, even while the world moves on around you. HFSP.
Many people profit off of scams. Lots of people made money from Madoff.
I understand how cryptocurrencies work. They are stupid and dumb. The structure of Bitcoin is just jaw droppingly stupid for somethig that wants to replace the entire financial system.
And the whole things is propped up by Tether the most obvious scam in all of scamville
More like Tugendhat v Braverman, Badenoch or Patel. Tonbridge and Malling will also almost certainly stay blue on current polls (though Tunbridge Wells is less certain for Greg Clark) and every Tory or Labour leadership election normally ends up with a more centrist candidate v a more right or left candidate.
Mordaunt and Kwarteng might lose their seats on current polls as most likely would Hunt and Steve Baker and maybe even Zahawi on the last Yougov
I suspect Epping Forest is also likely to be in the Conservative column as well.
A lot will depend on the scale of the disaster - William Hague was chosen in 1997 because it looked as though the Conservatives would be out for a minimum of 10 years.
IF a 2024 defeat is on a similar or larger scale, the question then becomes less about an actual Prime Minister than a leader to prepare the way for the next Conservative Prime Minister.
Patel is 50, Tugendhat is 49 - both Badenoch and Braverman are 42. The latter pair look the future Prime Ministers, the former are the Kinnock/Smith figures making the Conservative Party electable again (no doubt aided and abetted by Labour in Government).
My VERY long shot to be a future Conservative Prime Minister - Laura Trott.
It should be on all polls except the last Yougov where Epping Forest would be neck and neck between the Conservatives and Labour (though Brentwood and Ongar would still be Conservative even on that poll).
On the last Yougov the Tories would fall below 100 seats, it would be an even worse disaster than 1997. Indeed never mind preparing for the next Tory PM the Leader of the Opposition's job would be to ensure they stay the main opposition.
The next Tory government would likely be over a decade away as it was in 1997 unless the Starmer government completely mucked up
A scorched earth inheritance for an incoming Labour Government might make measuring their competence in the face of unpopular but necessary decisions problematic. If that is the master plan from La Truss. Hats off, it's working like clockwork.
There's a man who saw the screaming inevitability of humiliation in the up coming court case.
Or, even better, there's a man who is fucking hurting bad after the screaming humiliation of his Ukraine peace plan being roundly mocked.
He was always mad as a box of frogs, but in a good way.
Ever since he invested in crypto onwards, a truly bizarre thing to do for someone who says they care about the environment, he seems to be descending into just being mad.
You really do have a bugbear about crypto. Can you show us on the doll where bitcoin hurt you?
Though I'm actually inclined to agree with you for once - Musk selling all his bitcoin (for a loss) was absolutely mad, and he's going to regret that in four years time. So he's definitely gone downhill.
Crypto is a scam.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
Having done consultancy work for three different crypto firms, I can assure you it's not. Having profited from it over a number of years, I can assure you it's not. Having a basic understanding of a) economics, b) scarcity and c) sound money (I like gold, too), I can assure you it's not. Having seen Ukrainians able to flee the war zone with their crypto intact, while their bank accounts were frozen, I can assure you it's not. Having seen a supposedly democratic government (Canada) freeze people's bank accounts for donating to a political cause, I can assure you it's not. Having seen people at the WEF give talks on the cashless society, CBDCs and programmable money (essentially, the government being able to decide how and where you spend your money, e.g. limiting you from purchasing more than a certain amount of fuel, alcohol or even meat per month), I can assure you it's not. Having watched China ban it because they're terrified of how hard it is to censor, and how easy it is to use it to take money out of the hands of an authoritarian regime, I can assure you it's not.
Whenever anybody tells me that "crypto is a scam", I am reminded of the Arthur C Clarke quote - “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. You think it's a scam (aka magic trick) because you can't understand the technology, and therefore the value.
You are like Paul Krugman opining that the internet will have no more impact on the economy than the fax machine had.
I feel sorry for the likes of you and Barty, because you simply can't understand the technology and therefore its value. You are therefore destined to scream "scam" evermore, even while the world moves on around you. HFSP.
You make some good points, however I can't help but think that most people pushing Crypto nowadays would have been pushing Spanish Timeshare a few decades back.
As with my response to Malmsbury below, I 100% agree with you.
There is a layer of scamminess - pushed by the exact "timeshare" people you speak of, on top of the underlying technology - which is permissionless, distributed and censorship resistant.
The problem is that the original crypto, Bitcoin, was a "zero to one" invention as Peter Thiel might coin it (no pun intended). This meant that its value went from "what is this?" to "lots of people are interested in it" in the space of a few years, giving it the absurd 10,000% returns that others have mentioned. That was an unrepeatable, one off experience that has now been and gone (I'm a bitcoin bull, but even I only expect it to 5x from here over the next 5 to 10 years)... However that original dopamine hit of the huge "zero to one" bull run means that plenty of scammers are attracted to the space because there is so much dumb money looking for "the next 10,000% return" - they are like Barty and co in reverse - they have failed to realise that the moment has passed them by. Only instead of decrying the technology as a scam, they run headlong *into* a scam, assuming the "zero to one" bull run can be repeated.
More like Tugendhat v Braverman, Badenoch or Patel. Tonbridge and Malling will also almost certainly stay blue on current polls (though Tunbridge Wells is less certain for Greg Clark) and every Tory or Labour leadership election normally ends up with a more centrist candidate v a more right or left candidate.
Mordaunt and Kwarteng might lose their seats on current polls as most likely would Hunt and Steve Baker and maybe even Zahawi on the last Yougov
I suspect Epping Forest is also likely to be in the Conservative column as well.
A lot will depend on the scale of the disaster - William Hague was chosen in 1997 because it looked as though the Conservatives would be out for a minimum of 10 years.
IF a 2024 defeat is on a similar or larger scale, the question then becomes less about an actual Prime Minister than a leader to prepare the way for the next Conservative Prime Minister.
Patel is 50, Tugendhat is 49 - both Badenoch and Braverman are 42. The latter pair look the future Prime Ministers, the former are the Kinnock/Smith figures making the Conservative Party electable again (no doubt aided and abetted by Labour in Government).
My VERY long shot to be a future Conservative Prime Minister - Laura Trott.
It should be on all polls except the last Yougov where Epping Forest would be neck and neck between the Conservatives and Labour (though Brentwood and Ongar would still be Conservative even on that poll).
On the last Yougov the Tories would fall below 100 seats, it would be an even worse disaster than 1997. Indeed never mind preparing for the next Tory PM the Leader of the Opposition's job would be to ensure they stay the main opposition.
The next Tory government would likely be over a decade away as it was in 1997 unless the Starmer government completely mucked up
A scorched earth inheritance for an incoming Labour Government might make measuring their competence in the face of unpopular but necessary decisions problematic. If that is the master plan from La Truss. Hats off, it's working like clockwork.
They need to start blaming the Tories from day one in office and promote the narrative that it will likely take 20 years to undo the damage afflicted by the Tory swivel-eyed loons and keep repeating it.
I suppose Truss's real nuclear option is to threaten Tory MPs with a snap election unless they fall in line.
It’s such a terrible tactic because it will create such bad blood in the parliamentary party that she’ll find it tough to get anything done, that I suspect she might just go for that.
I see it is "Send the buggers back" time at Tory conference.
Braverman is a good bet for leader of the post-apocalyptic Tory Party. Running as the anti-coup/Truss loyalist/machine gun the dinghies mid-Channel candidate. She also holds the 35th safest Conservative seat so has a chance of survival under some of the less extreme projections.
A chance of survival close to 100% I'd say - 45.6% majority & will be amazed if Fareham is not blue at next GE.
In the event of a truly catastrophic defeat, Truss, Sunak, Patel and Braverman are all likely survivors.
A near-wipeout of Tory MPs would not, of course, change the number and composition of the membership.
Next Con leader election: Braverman vs Patel, with Patel rejected by the fossil membership for being too moderate.
More like Tugendhat v Braverman, Badenoch or Patel. Tonbridge and Malling will also almost certainly stay blue on current polls (though Tunbridge Wells is less certain for Greg Clark) and every Tory or Labour leadership election normally ends up with a more centrist candidate v a more right or left candidate.
Mordaunt and Kwarteng might lose their seats on current polls as most likely would Hunt and Steve Baker and maybe even Zahawi on the last Yougov
“Were you up for TunbrIdge Wells?….”
It already has a LD led council
The danger is that we non-Tories are already starting to dream of an election night like 1997, when the Tories - who have been so shit for so long - finally get what they deserve.
I think there are two main reasons for the fact that so many Conservative MPs are lightweight, compared to thirty years ago:-
1. The dominance of people who have always worked in politics, in various capacities; 2. The A List, which prioritised superficial diversity over and above being competent.
Question - whilst the assumption going into this conference was that it would be dreadful, did anyone conceive of just how catastrophic this is? Could the Tories make their conference any more of a disaster if they really tried?
I think people paying attention with both eyes (so ruling out libertarian pirates with eyepatches) could predict that Truss would be bad. There were lots of clues.
But not this bad, I reckon.
During the debates, even the first one, she surprised me on the upside.
She managed to avoid major clangers during the campaign, and a commitment to re-in state NPR was even mildly encouraging.
Of course there some absurd comments passed during the hustings - such as the berserk idea that Macron was not necessarily an ally. But, I’m not really the consituency.
So mea culpa? I personally found both Rishi and Truss deeply flawed, but I don’t think anyone was predicting this level of failure.
To add: What started to make me suspicious was her silence on the energy bung; she refused to show leadership. More than that, though, was her ghastly loyalty to Boris.
Both were calculated to win over the membership, but revealed a kind of cowardice and tendency to dissembling.
I think the problem is that she meant exactly what she said.
Sky reporting conservative mps now saying they have ended up with their own Jeremy Corbyn where ideology trumps popularity
They know what they have to do - purge the party of her and Kwarteng
No they haven't. They've ended up with someone whose ideology is unpopular and who doesn't want to be unpopular so is backpedalling from everything she wants to do.
There was, briefly, a possibility that the UK might have taken a different path. You might argue that it was a terrible path to go down. But it seems that already we are heading back to Brownonomics/Rishinomics.
You can argue the toss about whether her ideology is sensible* or whether or not it is better to sometimes tack to the winds of public opinion** but she's very much not letting ideology trump popularity. Indeed, if her approach was to let ideology trump popularity her strategy would be cut taxes and cut spending, not cut taxes and increase borrowing.
*Personally, I'm not averse to a smaller state, and letting taxpayers keep more of their own money is to me right in principle. I'm, er, not sure this is exactly the way I would have gone about it though.
**Nothing wrong with a bit of this in principle, providing the answer isn't just kicking the can down the road.
She is not backpedalling because she wants to avoid being unpopular. She is doing it because she does not have the votes despite a nominal majority. In reality she has the support of 10% of the commons with 90% against. Corbyn would have faced a very similar scenario and been forced to do the same.
More like Tugendhat v Braverman, Badenoch or Patel. Tonbridge and Malling will also almost certainly stay blue on current polls (though Tunbridge Wells is less certain for Greg Clark) and every Tory or Labour leadership election normally ends up with a more centrist candidate v a more right or left candidate.
Mordaunt and Kwarteng might lose their seats on current polls as most likely would Hunt and Steve Baker and maybe even Zahawi on the last Yougov
I suspect Epping Forest is also likely to be in the Conservative column as well.
A lot will depend on the scale of the disaster - William Hague was chosen in 1997 because it looked as though the Conservatives would be out for a minimum of 10 years.
IF a 2024 defeat is on a similar or larger scale, the question then becomes less about an actual Prime Minister than a leader to prepare the way for the next Conservative Prime Minister.
Patel is 50, Tugendhat is 49 - both Badenoch and Braverman are 42. The latter pair look the future Prime Ministers, the former are the Kinnock/Smith figures making the Conservative Party electable again (no doubt aided and abetted by Labour in Government).
My VERY long shot to be a future Conservative Prime Minister - Laura Trott.
It should be on all polls except the last Yougov where Epping Forest would be neck and neck between the Conservatives and Labour (though Brentwood and Ongar would still be Conservative even on that poll).
On the last Yougov the Tories would fall below 100 seats, it would be an even worse disaster than 1997. Indeed never mind preparing for the next Tory PM the Leader of the Opposition's job would be to ensure they stay the main opposition.
The next Tory government would likely be over a decade away as it was in 1997 unless the Starmer government completely mucked up
A scorched earth inheritance for an incoming Labour Government might make measuring their competence in the face of unpopular but necessary decisions problematic. If that is the master plan from La Truss. Hats off, it's working like clockwork.
Parties come back from big defeats surprisingly quickly.
Why on earth double down on still wanting to cut taxes for those earning over 150,000 ?
It has a different look and meaning to it depending which side of the ideological fence you sit on - from Truss side of the fence it holds UK back in this world making us Uncompetitive in the new global economy, and it puts huge posters up everywhere on UK streets: “we are not an aspirational nation.”
Does that answer your question.
Clearly the vast majority of the public don’t think those high earners should have their taxes cut and that includes a decent chunk of Tory voters. So Truss and her ideology are vote losers .
I’m not as cock sure the Truss approach is always a vote loser - Bolsonaro and Trump seem to massively over perform polls with the same approach.
Personally myself Truss ideology is hideous two nation idea’s, where I am all about one nation politics for sure - but you seemed to be struggling to understand it, so I explained Truss view pretty accurately I think.
Bolsonaro and Trump and indeed Boris or Meloni are charismatic populists, Truss is a dry as dust libertarian
Bolsonaro, Meloni and Trump, as well as Orban, Modi, Erdogan and Le Pen can be grouped together, but I would describe it as explicitly hard-line nationalist. While Boris Johnson was certainly a charismatic populist, I would suggest that he is not hard-line to be lumped with that lot. He appealed to nationalism, but I would hesitate to draw a line to Bolsonaro or even Trump in their actual idea of what the nation is.
Truss, were she to succeed (which would appear to be impossible now) would be more of a British Koizumi. In the heat of the current flurry of furious briefings, she appears instead to be the Tory Akhenaten - to be regarded as a heathen and stricken from the party record for generations.
I think there are two main reasons for the fact that so many Conservative MPs are lightweight, compared to thirty years ago:-
1. The dominance of people who have always worked in politics, in various capacities; 2. The A List, which prioritised superficial diversity over and above being competent.
I never hear of anyone serious from industry, commerce, finance, engineering or law going into politics.
They do become trustees of charities and non executive directors and, very occasionally, a local authority Councillor.
I think there are two main reasons for the fact that so many Conservative MPs are lightweight, compared to thirty years ago:-
1. The dominance of people who have always worked in politics, in various capacities; 2. The A List, which prioritised superficial diversity over and above being competent.
I never hear of anyone serious from industry, commerce, finance, engineering or law going into politics.
They do become trustees of charities and non executive directors and, very occasionally, a local authority Councillor.
There Is Such A People (ITN) polled just 3.7% (-5.8) and lost all 25 seats.
Pick the bones out of that - the three surviving coalition parties from the last Government are on 98 seats so well short of the 121 needed for a majority in the 240-seat National Assembly. The No Confidence vote which ended the previous Government was backed by GERB-SDS, Revivial and the Movement for Rights & Freedoms and they would command a majority with 130 seats in the new National Assembly.
There were huge protests against Borisov, the GERB leader in 2020-21 and the personal antipathy with President Radev is well documented. It's hard to see how any Government can't be led by Borisov so interesting times ahead.
More like Tugendhat v Braverman, Badenoch or Patel. Tonbridge and Malling will also almost certainly stay blue on current polls (though Tunbridge Wells is less certain for Greg Clark) and every Tory or Labour leadership election normally ends up with a more centrist candidate v a more right or left candidate.
Mordaunt and Kwarteng might lose their seats on current polls as most likely would Hunt and Steve Baker and maybe even Zahawi on the last Yougov
I suspect Epping Forest is also likely to be in the Conservative column as well.
A lot will depend on the scale of the disaster - William Hague was chosen in 1997 because it looked as though the Conservatives would be out for a minimum of 10 years.
IF a 2024 defeat is on a similar or larger scale, the question then becomes less about an actual Prime Minister than a leader to prepare the way for the next Conservative Prime Minister.
Patel is 50, Tugendhat is 49 - both Badenoch and Braverman are 42. The latter pair look the future Prime Ministers, the former are the Kinnock/Smith figures making the Conservative Party electable again (no doubt aided and abetted by Labour in Government).
My VERY long shot to be a future Conservative Prime Minister - Laura Trott.
It should be on all polls except the last Yougov where Epping Forest would be neck and neck between the Conservatives and Labour (though Brentwood and Ongar would still be Conservative even on that poll).
On the last Yougov the Tories would fall below 100 seats, it would be an even worse disaster than 1997. Indeed never mind preparing for the next Tory PM the Leader of the Opposition's job would be to ensure they stay the main opposition.
The next Tory government would likely be over a decade away as it was in 1997 unless the Starmer government completely mucked up
A scorched earth inheritance for an incoming Labour Government might make measuring their competence in the face of unpopular but necessary decisions problematic. If that is the master plan from La Truss. Hats off, it's working like clockwork.
Parties come back from big defeats surprisingly quickly.
The last time the Tories got shellacked it took eighteen years, four general elections and as many changes of leadership for them to win a majority, and that was only by ten seats.
I think there are two main reasons for the fact that so many Conservative MPs are lightweight, compared to thirty years ago:-
1. The dominance of people who have always worked in politics, in various capacities; 2. The A List, which prioritised superficial diversity over and above being competent.
I never hear of anyone serious from industry, commerce, finance, engineering or law going into politics.
They do become trustees of charities and non executive directors and, very occasionally, a local authority Councillor.
It tends to end there.
I expect that Labour would run into a similar shortage of talent, in office.
It's always easy to think things were better when one was younger, but I think there were more people who were genuinely talented in other fields than politics.
Compare and contrast the calibre of Attorneys and Solicitors-General, pre and post Blair. Blair did a lot to ensure that people who were glib, but really all flash and no substance, came to prominence in political life.
There's a man who saw the screaming inevitability of humiliation in the up coming court case.
Or, even better, there's a man who is fucking hurting bad after the screaming humiliation of his Ukraine peace plan being roundly mocked.
He was always mad as a box of frogs, but in a good way.
Ever since he invested in crypto onwards, a truly bizarre thing to do for someone who says they care about the environment, he seems to be descending into just being mad.
You really do have a bugbear about crypto. Can you show us on the doll where bitcoin hurt you?
Though I'm actually inclined to agree with you for once - Musk selling all his bitcoin (for a loss) was absolutely mad, and he's going to regret that in four years time. So he's definitely gone downhill.
Crypto is a scam.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
Having done consultancy work for three different crypto firms, I can assure you it's not. Having profited from it over a number of years, I can assure you it's not. Having a basic understanding of a) economics, b) scarcity and c) sound money (I like gold, too), I can assure you it's not. Having seen Ukrainians able to flee the war zone with their crypto intact, while their bank accounts were frozen, I can assure you it's not. Having seen a supposedly democratic government (Canada) freeze people's bank accounts for donating to a political cause, I can assure you it's not. Having seen people at the WEF give talks on the cashless society, CBDCs and programmable money (essentially, the government being able to decide how and where you spend your money, e.g. limiting you from purchasing more than a certain amount of fuel, alcohol or even meat per month), I can assure you it's not. Having watched China ban it because they're terrified of how hard it is to censor, and how easy it is to use it to take money out of the hands of an authoritarian regime, I can assure you it's not.
Whenever anybody tells me that "crypto is a scam", I am reminded of the Arthur C Clarke quote - “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. You think it's a scam (aka magic trick) because you can't understand the technology, and therefore the value.
You are like Paul Krugman opining that the internet will have no more impact on the economy than the fax machine had.
I feel sorry for the likes of you and Barty, because you simply can't understand the technology and therefore its value. You are therefore destined to scream "scam" evermore, even while the world moves on around you. HFSP.
Many people profit off of scams. Lots of people made money from Madoff.
I understand how cryptocurrencies work. They are stupid and dumb. The structure of Bitcoin is just jaw droppingly stupid for somethig that wants to replace the entire financial system.
And the whole things is propped up by Tether the most obvious scam in all of scamville
And you are very welcome to your opinion, as I hope you respect mine.
Btw, I don't think Tether is an obvious scam at all - I do, however, think it is backed by paper investments in the Chinese real estate market, but when that goes pop, a heck of a lot more than just Tether will be proved to be a "scam"...
I suppose Truss's real nuclear option is to threaten Tory MPs with a snap election unless they fall in line.
It would appear to follow the principles of mutually assured destruction, at least.
And the lower the poll ratings, the more effective the deterrent.
I'm not sure. The Tory Party could move to VoNC her and coronate inside a week if they had to do so, and stop it.
Once a dissolution of Parliament has been requested to the monarch by the PM I'm not sure it can be rescinded by a new PM on different advice but I'd expect HM's private secretary would be contacted by the '22 and advised to stall until such a process had worked through.
I think there are two main reasons for the fact that so many Conservative MPs are lightweight, compared to thirty years ago:-
1. The dominance of people who have always worked in politics, in various capacities; 2. The A List, which prioritised superficial diversity over and above being competent.
I never hear of anyone serious from industry, commerce, finance, engineering or law going into politics.
They do become trustees of charities and non executive directors and, very occasionally, a local authority Councillor.
It tends to end there.
I expect that Labour would run into a similar shortage of talent, in office.
It's always easy to think things were better when one was younger, but I think there were more people who were genuinely talented in other fields than politics.
Compare and contrast the calibre of Attorneys and Solicitors-General, pre and post Blair. Blair did a lot to ensure that people who were glib, but really all flash and no substance, came to prominence in political life.
They were torrid times of industrial relations and the transition from an industrial economy to a services economy but I think the calibre of both Labour and Conservative politicians was far higher in the 1970s and 1980s.
I think there are two main reasons for the fact that so many Conservative MPs are lightweight, compared to thirty years ago:-
1. The dominance of people who have always worked in politics, in various capacities; 2. The A List, which prioritised superficial diversity over and above being competent.
I never hear of anyone serious from industry, commerce, finance, engineering or law going into politics.
They do become trustees of charities and non executive directors and, very occasionally, a local authority Councillor.
It tends to end there.
I expect that Labour would run into a similar shortage of talent, in office.
It's always easy to think things were better when one was younger, but I think there were more people who were genuinely talented in other fields than politics.
Compare and contrast the calibre of Attorneys and Solicitors-General, pre and post Blair. Blair did a lot to ensure that people who were glib, but really all flash and no substance, came to prominence in political life.
The tabloidisation of politics coverage on TV has played a large part in driving away serious people too.
I suppose Truss's real nuclear option is to threaten Tory MPs with a snap election unless they fall in line.
It would appear to follow the principles of mutually assured destruction, at least.
And the lower the poll ratings, the more effective the deterrent.
I'm not sure. The Tory Party could move to VoNC her and coronate inside a week if they had to do so, and stop it.
Once a dissolution of Parliament has been requested to the monarch by the PM I'm not sure it can be rescinded by a new PM on different advice but I'd expect HM's private secretary would be contacted by the '22 and advised to stall until such a process had worked through.
The Lascelles Principles would apply.
So a snap election by Truss against the will of the Tory party ain't happening.
I think there are two main reasons for the fact that so many Conservative MPs are lightweight, compared to thirty years ago:-
1. The dominance of people who have always worked in politics, in various capacities; 2. The A List, which prioritised superficial diversity over and above being competent.
I never hear of anyone serious from industry, commerce, finance, engineering or law going into politics.
They do become trustees of charities and non executive directors and, very occasionally, a local authority Councillor.
It tends to end there.
Two reasons
1) Money 2) The abuse.
I've certainly gone off the idea. I could have gone down that road and been "trained" in my 20s but I'd have been the same as everyone else in politics.
I think there are two main reasons for the fact that so many Conservative MPs are lightweight, compared to thirty years ago:-
1. The dominance of people who have always worked in politics, in various capacities; 2. The A List, which prioritised superficial diversity over and above being competent.
I never hear of anyone serious from industry, commerce, finance, engineering or law going into politics.
They do become trustees of charities and non executive directors and, very occasionally, a local authority Councillor.
It tends to end there.
I expect that Labour would run into a similar shortage of talent, in office.
It's always easy to think things were better when one was younger, but I think there were more people who were genuinely talented in other fields than politics.
Compare and contrast the calibre of Attorneys and Solicitors-General, pre and post Blair. Blair did a lot to ensure that people who were glib, but really all flash and no substance, came to prominence in political life.
I think it’s generational. Basically, the generation(s) born before c. 1945 had a different notion of public service.
Clinton heralded the triumph of the baby boomers, and it was downhill from there.
More like Tugendhat v Braverman, Badenoch or Patel. Tonbridge and Malling will also almost certainly stay blue on current polls (though Tunbridge Wells is less certain for Greg Clark) and every Tory or Labour leadership election normally ends up with a more centrist candidate v a more right or left candidate.
Mordaunt and Kwarteng might lose their seats on current polls as most likely would Hunt and Steve Baker and maybe even Zahawi on the last Yougov
I suspect Epping Forest is also likely to be in the Conservative column as well.
A lot will depend on the scale of the disaster - William Hague was chosen in 1997 because it looked as though the Conservatives would be out for a minimum of 10 years.
IF a 2024 defeat is on a similar or larger scale, the question then becomes less about an actual Prime Minister than a leader to prepare the way for the next Conservative Prime Minister.
Patel is 50, Tugendhat is 49 - both Badenoch and Braverman are 42. The latter pair look the future Prime Ministers, the former are the Kinnock/Smith figures making the Conservative Party electable again (no doubt aided and abetted by Labour in Government).
My VERY long shot to be a future Conservative Prime Minister - Laura Trott.
It should be on all polls except the last Yougov where Epping Forest would be neck and neck between the Conservatives and Labour (though Brentwood and Ongar would still be Conservative even on that poll).
On the last Yougov the Tories would fall below 100 seats, it would be an even worse disaster than 1997. Indeed never mind preparing for the next Tory PM the Leader of the Opposition's job would be to ensure they stay the main opposition.
The next Tory government would likely be over a decade away as it was in 1997 unless the Starmer government completely mucked up
A scorched earth inheritance for an incoming Labour Government might make measuring their competence in the face of unpopular but necessary decisions problematic. If that is the master plan from La Truss. Hats off, it's working like clockwork.
Parties come back from big defeats surprisingly quickly.
Both the Conservatives and Labour have had their polling positions totally upended (more than once) in the last 3 years.
I think there are two main reasons for the fact that so many Conservative MPs are lightweight, compared to thirty years ago:-
1. The dominance of people who have always worked in politics, in various capacities; 2. The A List, which prioritised superficial diversity over and above being competent.
I never hear of anyone serious from industry, commerce, finance, engineering or law going into politics.
They do become trustees of charities and non executive directors and, very occasionally, a local authority Councillor.
It tends to end there.
I expect that Labour would run into a similar shortage of talent, in office.
It's always easy to think things were better when one was younger, but I think there were more people who were genuinely talented in other fields than politics.
Compare and contrast the calibre of Attorneys and Solicitors-General, pre and post Blair. Blair did a lot to ensure that people who were glib, but really all flash and no substance, came to prominence in political life.
The tabloidisation of politics coverage on TV has played a large part in driving away serious people too.
Sure, the fact that every interviewer wants a "gotcha" moment means that politicians just stonewall behind platitudes.
Interviews conducted by people like David Frost, Sir Robin Day, and Brian Walden were genuinely interesting to listen to.
I think there are two main reasons for the fact that so many Conservative MPs are lightweight, compared to thirty years ago:-
1. The dominance of people who have always worked in politics, in various capacities; 2. The A List, which prioritised superficial diversity over and above being competent.
I never hear of anyone serious from industry, commerce, finance, engineering or law going into politics.
They do become trustees of charities and non executive directors and, very occasionally, a local authority Councillor.
It tends to end there.
I wish there was more nuance in politics today. As a candidate you sign up to front the whole programme. These days there appears to be very little space to inject your own views, think or influence. You get a lot of abuse.
However, if you do do it, it is terrific fun. You get to meet tons of people and represent their hopes. You get to see the world as it is. There is no hiding as a junior politician. The trouble for senior politicians is that they become isolated from this essential feedback and energy. .
I think there are two main reasons for the fact that so many Conservative MPs are lightweight, compared to thirty years ago:-
1. The dominance of people who have always worked in politics, in various capacities; 2. The A List, which prioritised superficial diversity over and above being competent.
I never hear of anyone serious from industry, commerce, finance, engineering or law going into politics.
They do become trustees of charities and non executive directors and, very occasionally, a local authority Councillor.
It tends to end there.
It's my experience people from a commercial or business background struggle when they get into politics.
Running a local authority isn't like running a business - you have to argue and persuade rather than command and coerce. There are plenty of people (colleagues, officers, key local figures) who you need to being with you rather than order about. It's a different environment.
I think plenty of lawyers do go into politics - it's a fair point about engineers though.
I think there are two main reasons for the fact that so many Conservative MPs are lightweight, compared to thirty years ago:-
1. The dominance of people who have always worked in politics, in various capacities; 2. The A List, which prioritised superficial diversity over and above being competent.
I never hear of anyone serious from industry, commerce, finance, engineering or law going into politics.
They do become trustees of charities and non executive directors and, very occasionally, a local authority Councillor.
It tends to end there.
I expect that Labour would run into a similar shortage of talent, in office.
It's always easy to think things were better when one was younger, but I think there were more people who were genuinely talented in other fields than politics.
Compare and contrast the calibre of Attorneys and Solicitors-General, pre and post Blair. Blair did a lot to ensure that people who were glib, but really all flash and no substance, came to prominence in political life.
The tabloidisation of politics coverage on TV has played a large part in driving away serious people too.
Sure, the fact that every interviewer wants a "gotcha" moment means that politicians just stonewall behind platitudes.
Interviews conducted by people like David Frost, Sir Robin Day, and Brian Walden were genuinely interesting to listen to.
See my thesis above. Seriousness was replaced with flippancy. There was a noticeable “handover” in the 1990s.
We have now seen the 90s generation hand over to the 10s, and the effects have been worse, if anything.
I think there are two main reasons for the fact that so many Conservative MPs are lightweight, compared to thirty years ago:-
1. The dominance of people who have always worked in politics, in various capacities; 2. The A List, which prioritised superficial diversity over and above being competent.
I never hear of anyone serious from industry, commerce, finance, engineering or law going into politics.
They do become trustees of charities and non executive directors and, very occasionally, a local authority Councillor.
It tends to end there.
I expect that Labour would run into a similar shortage of talent, in office.
It's always easy to think things were better when one was younger, but I think there were more people who were genuinely talented in other fields than politics.
Compare and contrast the calibre of Attorneys and Solicitors-General, pre and post Blair. Blair did a lot to ensure that people who were glib, but really all flash and no substance, came to prominence in political life.
Controversial, I know, but isn't the salary a major part of the problem? Not many captains of industry, or lawyers etc. would apply for a job on a salary of £84k. This used to matter less for two reasons. Firstly, the unwritten use/abuse of expenses enabled a better lifestyle than the salary. Secondly, many (especially, but not only, Tories) made money elsewhere while an MP. This has been more frowned upon in recent years, and will be even more so since the Paterson case and associated scandals.
In brief - if we want MPs of all the talents, we have to pay them more, while at the same time clamping down on outside 'interests'.
I think there are two main reasons for the fact that so many Conservative MPs are lightweight, compared to thirty years ago:-
1. The dominance of people who have always worked in politics, in various capacities; 2. The A List, which prioritised superficial diversity over and above being competent.
I never hear of anyone serious from industry, commerce, finance, engineering or law going into politics.
They do become trustees of charities and non executive directors and, very occasionally, a local authority Councillor.
It tends to end there.
I wish there was more nuance in politics today. As a candidate you sign up to front the whole programme. These days there appears to be very little space to inject your own views, think or influence. You get a lot of abuse.
However, if you do do it, it is terrific fun. You get to meet tons of people and represent their hopes. You get to see the world as it is. There is no hiding as a junior politician. The trouble for senior politicians is that they become isolated from this essential feedback and energy. .
I'm glad you had a good experience Jonathan but I don't think I'd enjoy it.
I'm half thinking about running to be a town councillor one day but that's because I love my town and am passionate about making it better and I think I could make a difference by joining the executive there.
Sure there'd be lots of politics with a small-p at that level but less with the big-P.
Mea culpa from me also. I started off thinking she would be a disaster. The first debate came around and it didn’t change my mind.
But I did think she did OK against Sunak and I thought, to use that phrase, there was a chance she would “surprise on the upside.” The fact that she announced the energy bill policy (although I appreciate there were queries re funding) and came across as calm and serious during the succession, made me think she could be OK. Not going to win a landslide, but in with a chance of saving a small majority if the COL crisis abated in 2023.
But then she drove the government straight off a cliff with the Special Financial Operation and with all her actions since, in a way that is just so chaotically, unabashedly messy, that I almost wonder if this is all a piece of high stakes performance art.
Yep, when she announced the energy price cap I thought "she's not mad after all". Suffice it to say I have already revised my revision. She's a moonbat.
I think there are two main reasons for the fact that so many Conservative MPs are lightweight, compared to thirty years ago:-
1. The dominance of people who have always worked in politics, in various capacities; 2. The A List, which prioritised superficial diversity over and above being competent.
I never hear of anyone serious from industry, commerce, finance, engineering or law going into politics.
They do become trustees of charities and non executive directors and, very occasionally, a local authority Councillor.
It tends to end there.
I wish there was more nuance in politics today. As a candidate you sign up to front the whole programme. These days there appears to be very little space to inject your own views, think or influence. You get a lot of abuse.
However, if you do do it, it is terrific fun. You get to meet tons of people and represent their hopes. You get to see the world as it is. There is no hiding as a junior politician. The trouble for senior politicians is that they become isolated from this essential feedback and energy. .
I'm glad you had a good experience Jonathan but I don't think I'd enjoy it.
I'm half thinking about running to be a town councillor one day but that's because I love my town and am passionate about making it better and I think I could make a difference by joining the executive there.
Sure there'd be lots of politics with a small-p at that level but less with the big-P.
You need a thickish skin and a hinterland to retreat to at the end of an interesting day. I suspect you’ll regret it if you don’t do it.
I think there are two main reasons for the fact that so many Conservative MPs are lightweight, compared to thirty years ago:-
1. The dominance of people who have always worked in politics, in various capacities; 2. The A List, which prioritised superficial diversity over and above being competent.
I never hear of anyone serious from industry, commerce, finance, engineering or law going into politics.
They do become trustees of charities and non executive directors and, very occasionally, a local authority Councillor.
It tends to end there.
I expect that Labour would run into a similar shortage of talent, in office.
It's always easy to think things were better when one was younger, but I think there were more people who were genuinely talented in other fields than politics.
Compare and contrast the calibre of Attorneys and Solicitors-General, pre and post Blair. Blair did a lot to ensure that people who were glib, but really all flash and no substance, came to prominence in political life.
Controversial, I know, but isn't the salary a major part of the problem? Not many captains of industry, or lawyers etc. would apply for a job on a salary of £84k. This used to matter less for two reasons. Firstly, the unwritten use/abuse of expenses enabled a better lifestyle than the salary. Secondly, many (especially, but not only, Tories) made money elsewhere while an MP. This has been more frowned upon in recent years, and will be even more so since the Paterson case and associated scandals.
In brief - if we want MPs of all the talents, we have to pay them more, while at the same time clamping down on outside 'interests'.
I get the conflict of interest point but I don't see any harm in people staying involved in their industries/businesses and being in politics on top. In fact, it's probably quite grounding. MPs should be focused on the big national issues and represent their constituents accordingly.
What's the point in spending 100 hours a week just processing constituency casework on potholes and planning issues?
I think there are two main reasons for the fact that so many Conservative MPs are lightweight, compared to thirty years ago:-
1. The dominance of people who have always worked in politics, in various capacities; 2. The A List, which prioritised superficial diversity over and above being competent.
I never hear of anyone serious from industry, commerce, finance, engineering or law going into politics.
They do become trustees of charities and non executive directors and, very occasionally, a local authority Councillor.
It tends to end there.
I wish there was more nuance in politics today. As a candidate you sign up to front the whole programme. These days there appears to be very little space to inject your own views, think or influence. You get a lot of abuse.
However, if you do do it, it is terrific fun. You get to meet tons of people and represent their hopes. You get to see the world as it is. There is no hiding as a junior politician. The trouble for senior politicians is that they become isolated from this essential feedback and energy. .
I'm glad you had a good experience Jonathan but I don't think I'd enjoy it.
I'm half thinking about running to be a town councillor one day but that's because I love my town and am passionate about making it better and I think I could make a difference by joining the executive there.
Sure there'd be lots of politics with a small-p at that level but less with the big-P.
Mea culpa from me also. I started off thinking she would be a disaster. The first debate came around and it didn’t change my mind.
But I did think she did OK against Sunak and I thought, to use that phrase, there was a chance she would “surprise on the upside.” The fact that she announced the energy bill policy (although I appreciate there were queries re funding) and came across as calm and serious during the succession, made me think she could be OK. Not going to win a landslide, but in with a chance of saving a small majority if the COL crisis abated in 2023.
But then she drove the government straight off a cliff with the Special Financial Operation and with all her actions since, in a way that is just so chaotically, unabashedly messy, that I almost wonder if this is all a piece of high stakes performance art.
Yep, when she announced the energy price cap I thought "she's not mad after all". Suffice it to say I have already revised my revision. She's a moonbat.
Actually I was further disquieted.
It seemed aimed at blowing Labour out of the water rather than comsiderations of energy security or fiscal sobriety.
"Everyone says she's ideological, she's not ideological. She learns phrases that make her sound ideological but below the surface there is nothing.
"The reason she freezes after a question from the media is a) she is thinking up a phrase to say that makes her sound ideological and b) she's furious. She's like a thesaurus of phrases that make her sound ideological.
"Before becoming PM every time she would answer a question, she'd pause and think about what answer would make her prime minister. That's it.
"Everyone says she's ideological, she's not ideological. She learns phrases that make her sound ideological but below the surface there is nothing.
"The reason she freezes after a question from the media is a) she is thinking up a phrase to say that makes her sound ideological and b) she's furious. She's like a thesaurus of phrases that make her sound ideological.
"Before becoming PM every time she would answer a question, she'd pause and think about what answer would make her prime minister. That's it.
I think there are two main reasons for the fact that so many Conservative MPs are lightweight, compared to thirty years ago:-
1. The dominance of people who have always worked in politics, in various capacities; 2. The A List, which prioritised superficial diversity over and above being competent.
I never hear of anyone serious from industry, commerce, finance, engineering or law going into politics.
They do become trustees of charities and non executive directors and, very occasionally, a local authority Councillor.
It tends to end there.
I expect that Labour would run into a similar shortage of talent, in office.
It's always easy to think things were better when one was younger, but I think there were more people who were genuinely talented in other fields than politics.
Compare and contrast the calibre of Attorneys and Solicitors-General, pre and post Blair. Blair did a lot to ensure that people who were glib, but really all flash and no substance, came to prominence in political life.
The tabloidisation of politics coverage on TV has played a large part in driving away serious people too.
Sure, the fact that every interviewer wants a "gotcha" moment means that politicians just stonewall behind platitudes.
Interviews conducted by people like David Frost, Sir Robin Day, and Brian Walden were genuinely interesting to listen to.
Yes, I think that's pathetic.
It's just sport, and it's self-reinforcing: interviewers want the gotcha and politicians learn to dissemble. Viewers learn nothing.
I think there are two main reasons for the fact that so many Conservative MPs are lightweight, compared to thirty years ago:-
1. The dominance of people who have always worked in politics, in various capacities; 2. The A List, which prioritised superficial diversity over and above being competent.
I never hear of anyone serious from industry, commerce, finance, engineering or law going into politics.
They do become trustees of charities and non executive directors and, very occasionally, a local authority Councillor.
It tends to end there.
I expect that Labour would run into a similar shortage of talent, in office.
It's always easy to think things were better when one was younger, but I think there were more people who were genuinely talented in other fields than politics.
Compare and contrast the calibre of Attorneys and Solicitors-General, pre and post Blair. Blair did a lot to ensure that people who were glib, but really all flash and no substance, came to prominence in political life.
The tabloidisation of politics coverage on TV has played a large part in driving away serious people too.
Sure, the fact that every interviewer wants a "gotcha" moment means that politicians just stonewall behind platitudes.
Interviews conducted by people like David Frost, Sir Robin Day, and Brian Walden were genuinely interesting to listen to.
Yes, I think that's pathetic.
It's just sport, and it's self-reinforcing: interviewers want the gotcha and politicians learn to dissemble. Viewers learn nothing.
Who can break the cycle?
In theory the BBC, by rediscovering it’s public service ethos.
Question - whilst the assumption going into this conference was that it would be dreadful, did anyone conceive of just how catastrophic this is? Could the Tories make their conference any more of a disaster if they really tried?
I think people paying attention with both eyes (so ruling out libertarian pirates with eyepatches) could predict that Truss would be bad. There were lots of clues.
But not this bad, I reckon.
I thought she would be terrible and have consistently said that a Labour majority was twice as likely as a Tory one, and that is now priced. I attended a dinner shortly after she became PM where the Westminster insiders present did little to disguise their contempt for her and her team. So none of this should be wholly surprising. But I never imagined that any politician could be quite as spectacularly awful as she has turned out to be.
Yep. I had a low bar for but she has absolutely soared under it. Remarkable.
"Kyiv city council handing out potassium iodine pills to evacuation centers around the area in preparation for a possible nuclear attack, according to the Associated Press."
"Everyone says she's ideological, she's not ideological. She learns phrases that make her sound ideological but below the surface there is nothing.
"The reason she freezes after a question from the media is a) she is thinking up a phrase to say that makes her sound ideological and b) she's furious. She's like a thesaurus of phrases that make her sound ideological.
"Before becoming PM every time she would answer a question, she'd pause and think about what answer would make her prime minister. That's it.
I think there are two main reasons for the fact that so many Conservative MPs are lightweight, compared to thirty years ago:-
1. The dominance of people who have always worked in politics, in various capacities; 2. The A List, which prioritised superficial diversity over and above being competent.
I never hear of anyone serious from industry, commerce, finance, engineering or law going into politics.
They do become trustees of charities and non executive directors and, very occasionally, a local authority Councillor.
It tends to end there.
I expect that Labour would run into a similar shortage of talent, in office.
It's always easy to think things were better when one was younger, but I think there were more people who were genuinely talented in other fields than politics.
Compare and contrast the calibre of Attorneys and Solicitors-General, pre and post Blair. Blair did a lot to ensure that people who were glib, but really all flash and no substance, came to prominence in political life.
The tabloidisation of politics coverage on TV has played a large part in driving away serious people too.
Sure, the fact that every interviewer wants a "gotcha" moment means that politicians just stonewall behind platitudes.
Interviews conducted by people like David Frost, Sir Robin Day, and Brian Walden were genuinely interesting to listen to.
Yes, I think that's pathetic.
It's just sport, and it's self-reinforcing: interviewers want the gotcha and politicians learn to dissemble. Viewers learn nothing.
Who can break the cycle?
Today Truss was asked if she trusted her chancellor. She couldn’t answer yes and she blustered instead. That’s not an intricate gotcha. That’s a no brainer.
"Kyiv city council handing out potassium iodine pills to evacuation centers around the area in preparation for a possible nuclear attack, according to the Associated Press."
"Everyone says she's ideological, she's not ideological. She learns phrases that make her sound ideological but below the surface there is nothing.
"The reason she freezes after a question from the media is a) she is thinking up a phrase to say that makes her sound ideological and b) she's furious. She's like a thesaurus of phrases that make her sound ideological.
"Before becoming PM every time she would answer a question, she'd pause and think about what answer would make her prime minister. That's it.
"Everyone says she's ideological, she's not ideological. She learns phrases that make her sound ideological but below the surface there is nothing.
"The reason she freezes after a question from the media is a) she is thinking up a phrase to say that makes her sound ideological and b) she's furious. She's like a thesaurus of phrases that make her sound ideological.
"Before becoming PM every time she would answer a question, she'd pause and think about what answer would make her prime minister. That's it.
Mea culpa from me also. I started off thinking she would be a disaster. The first debate came around and it didn’t change my mind.
But I did think she did OK against Sunak and I thought, to use that phrase, there was a chance she would “surprise on the upside.” The fact that she announced the energy bill policy (although I appreciate there were queries re funding) and came across as calm and serious during the succession, made me think she could be OK. Not going to win a landslide, but in with a chance of saving a small majority if the COL crisis abated in 2023.
But then she drove the government straight off a cliff with the Special Financial Operation and with all her actions since, in a way that is just so chaotically, unabashedly messy, that I almost wonder if this is all a piece of high stakes performance art.
Yep, when she announced the energy price cap I thought "she's not mad after all". Suffice it to say I have already revised my revision. She's a moonbat.
Actually I was further disquieted.
It seemed aimed at blowing Labour out of the water rather than comsiderations of energy security or fiscal sobriety.
Oh I don't think it really deals with the issues or is an optimal solution, but it is a necessary evil and a zillion times better than her nonsense about tax cuts during the leadership election. Of course she's completey destroyed any goodwill she gained a couple of days later with the half-a-budget which has backfired to an extent not seen for generations. Right now Liz Truss is in the lead for "worst PM in living memory".
"Kyiv city council handing out potassium iodine pills to evacuation centers around the area in preparation for a possible nuclear attack, according to the Associated Press."
I think there are two main reasons for the fact that so many Conservative MPs are lightweight, compared to thirty years ago:-
1. The dominance of people who have always worked in politics, in various capacities; 2. The A List, which prioritised superficial diversity over and above being competent.
I never hear of anyone serious from industry, commerce, finance, engineering or law going into politics.
They do become trustees of charities and non executive directors and, very occasionally, a local authority Councillor.
It tends to end there.
I wish there was more nuance in politics today. As a candidate you sign up to front the whole programme. These days there appears to be very little space to inject your own views, think or influence. You get a lot of abuse.
However, if you do do it, it is terrific fun. You get to meet tons of people and represent their hopes. You get to see the world as it is. There is no hiding as a junior politician. The trouble for senior politicians is that they become isolated from this essential feedback and energy. .
I'm glad you had a good experience Jonathan but I don't think I'd enjoy it.
I'm half thinking about running to be a town councillor one day but that's because I love my town and am passionate about making it better and I think I could make a difference by joining the executive there.
Sure there'd be lots of politics with a small-p at that level but less with the big-P.
I broadly agree with Jonathan, as you'd expect - politics is satisfying and fun if you don't get too bothered by losing some battles.
Being a town councillor varies enormously. They can do really good work on a local level. Some TCs are intensely political with a big P, and everyone spends their time squabbling over trivia. You wouldn't get on the executive unless you threw yourself into winning the squabbles. Others are almost apolitical, and do quiet good work in broad consensus. Before plunging in, it's worth going to some meetings to find out which kind your TC is.
Comments
https://livesrunning.wordpress.com/2022/09/06/liz-trusss-two-weeks-in-the-socialist-worker-student-society/
A lot will depend on the scale of the disaster - William Hague was chosen in 1997 because it looked as though the Conservatives would be out for a minimum of 10 years.
IF a 2024 defeat is on a similar or larger scale, the question then becomes less about an actual Prime Minister than a leader to prepare the way for the next Conservative Prime Minister.
Patel is 50, Tugendhat is 49 - both Badenoch and Braverman are 42. The latter pair look the future Prime Ministers, the former are the Kinnock/Smith figures making the Conservative Party electable again (no doubt aided and abetted by Labour in Government).
My VERY long shot to be a future Conservative Prime Minister - Laura Trott.
There are a lot of scammers in the crypto space. However we don't say that the dollar is a scam because people get scammed out of their dollars in shell games. Nor do we say that telephone banking is a scam, just because sometimes people are scammed out of their life savings this way. Scammers are scammers and they'll use any medium at their disposal to take your money off you. There is a lot of dumb money in crypto, and a lot of scammy crypto products out there designed to separate the dumb from their money.
Sky’s Sam Coates was clearly on to something, Truss on the cusp of her big Norway deal - is she thinking of announcing it in her speech tomorrow as the conference saving rabbit from the hat?
What would PBs advice be on this?
At what length of contract and cost does Energy Security argument fall apart and it become a risk on Value For Money?
and political risk of a huge stick opponents will bludgeon Tory LOTO with for decades to come if this is signed in haste and repented at leisure?
https://twitter.com/timfarron/status/1577217590543253504?s=46&t=AQTb1qObagjiNfaQ7H_uFg
Do they seriously think the public are going to thank them for the u-turn when it’s clear they only did it under sufferance and with zero admission that giving those tax cuts was just the wrong thing to do from a moral standpoint .
They've ended up with someone whose ideology is unpopular and who doesn't want to be unpopular so is backpedalling from everything she wants to do.
There was, briefly, a possibility that the UK might have taken a different path. You might argue that it was a terrible path to go down. But it seems that already we are heading back to Brownonomics/Rishinomics.
You can argue the toss about whether her ideology is sensible* or whether or not it is better to sometimes tack to the winds of public opinion** but she's very much not letting ideology trump popularity.
Indeed, if her approach was to let ideology trump popularity her strategy would be cut taxes and cut spending, not cut taxes and increase borrowing.
*Personally, I'm not averse to a smaller state, and letting taxpayers keep more of their own money is to me right in principle. I'm, er, not sure this is exactly the way I would have gone about it though.
**Nothing wrong with a bit of this in principle, providing the answer isn't just kicking the can down the road.
On the last Yougov the Tories would fall below 100 seats, it would be an even worse disaster than 1997. Indeed never mind preparing for the next Tory PM the Leader of the Opposition's job would be to ensure they stay the main opposition.
The next Tory government would likely be over a decade away as it was in 1997 unless the Starmer government completely mucked up
Corbyn actually believed in what he stood for. Truss didn't. It was just a means to the end of winning the leadership.
Same was true of Johnson of course but with marginally less catastrophic results.
(To the tune of My Old Man's a Dustman)
Liz Truss is magic
She wears a magic hat,
She could have gone Lib Dem,
But didn't fancy that.
She would rather be a Tory,
So she could be PM,
Now she's got the job at last,
And that is how it ends
(Repeat ad nauseum)
Obviously this argument is undermined by leaving in place some of the crazy distortions that have been left in the income tax system, but there is an obvious moral case for doing what you believe will benefit the country as a whole.
Personally myself Truss ideology is hideous two nation idea’s, where I am all about one nation politics for sure - but you seemed to be struggling to understand it, so I explained Truss view pretty accurately I think.
As long as it doesn't try to introduce Socialism it should be ok.
The growing "sense" is for a tax on wealth - now, I'm struggling to understand how you define wealth as I discussed the other night. We tend to concentrate on property or land ownership but you could have a ton of cash in the bank, live in a stuidio flat and drive a Ferrari and you'd be by most people's standards wealthy.
But I did think she did OK against Sunak and I thought, to use that phrase, there was a chance she would “surprise on the upside.” The fact that she announced the energy bill policy (although I appreciate there were queries re funding) and came across as calm and serious during the succession, made me think she could be OK. Not going to win a landslide, but in with a chance of saving a small majority if the COL crisis abated in 2023.
But then she drove the government straight off a cliff with the Special Financial Operation and with all her actions since, in a way that is just so chaotically, unabashedly messy, that I almost wonder if this is all a piece of high stakes performance art.
Great at backpedalling.
When you lose control and tank in the polls
It's Trussedy!
When your MPs cry and you don't know why
It's hard to bear
With Kwasi beside you, you're goin' nowhere
Defect to Lib Dems
Is it really the job of a temp PM to be taking two decade bets on the commodities market ?
I understand how cryptocurrencies work. They are stupid and dumb. The structure of Bitcoin is just jaw droppingly stupid for somethig that wants to replace the entire financial system.
And the whole things is propped up by Tether the most obvious scam in all of scamville
There is a layer of scamminess - pushed by the exact "timeshare" people you speak of, on top of the underlying technology - which is permissionless, distributed and censorship resistant.
The problem is that the original crypto, Bitcoin, was a "zero to one" invention as Peter Thiel might coin it (no pun intended). This meant that its value went from "what is this?" to "lots of people are interested in it" in the space of a few years, giving it the absurd 10,000% returns that others have mentioned. That was an unrepeatable, one off experience that has now been and gone (I'm a bitcoin bull, but even I only expect it to 5x from here over the next 5 to 10 years)... However that original dopamine hit of the huge "zero to one" bull run means that plenty of scammers are attracted to the space because there is so much dumb money looking for "the next 10,000% return" - they are like Barty and co in reverse - they have failed to realise that the moment has passed them by. Only instead of decrying the technology as a scam, they run headlong *into* a scam, assuming the "zero to one" bull run can be repeated.
It would probably even be true!
1. The dominance of people who have always worked in politics, in various capacities;
2. The A List, which prioritised superficial diversity over and above being competent.
While Boris Johnson was certainly a charismatic populist, I would suggest that he is not hard-line to be lumped with that lot. He appealed to nationalism, but I would hesitate to draw a line to Bolsonaro or even Trump in their actual idea of what the nation is.
Truss, were she to succeed (which would appear to be impossible now) would be more of a British Koizumi. In the heat of the current flurry of furious briefings, she appears instead to be the Tory Akhenaten - to be regarded as a heathen and stricken from the party record for generations.
They do become trustees of charities and non executive directors and, very occasionally, a local authority Councillor.
It tends to end there.
1) Money
2) The abuse.
GERB-SDS: 25.3% (+2.6) 67 Seats (+8)
Change Continues: 20.2% (-5.5) 53 Seats (-14)
Movement for Rights & Freedoms: 13.8% (+0.8) 36 Seats (+2)
Revival: 10.2% (+5.3) 27 Seats (+14)
Bulgarian Socialist Party: 9.3% (-0.9) 25 Seats (-1)
Democratic Bulgaria: 7.4% (+1) 20 seats (+4)
Bulgaria Rise: 4.6% (new) 12 seats (+12)
There Is Such A People (ITN) polled just 3.7% (-5.8) and lost all 25 seats.
Pick the bones out of that - the three surviving coalition parties from the last Government are on 98 seats so well short of the 121 needed for a majority in the 240-seat National Assembly. The No Confidence vote which ended the previous Government was backed by GERB-SDS, Revivial and the Movement for Rights & Freedoms and they would command a majority with 130 seats in the new National Assembly.
There were huge protests against Borisov, the GERB leader in 2020-21 and the personal antipathy with President Radev is well documented. It's hard to see how any Government can't be led by Borisov so interesting times ahead.
It's always easy to think things were better when one was younger, but I think there were more people who were genuinely talented in other fields than politics.
Compare and contrast the calibre of Attorneys and Solicitors-General, pre and post Blair. Blair did a lot to ensure that people who were glib, but really all flash and no substance, came to prominence in political life.
Btw, I don't think Tether is an obvious scam at all - I do, however, think it is backed by paper investments in the Chinese real estate market, but when that goes pop, a heck of a lot more than just Tether will be proved to be a "scam"...
Once a dissolution of Parliament has been requested to the monarch by the PM I'm not sure it can be rescinded by a new PM on different advice but I'd expect HM's private secretary would be contacted by the '22 and advised to stall until such a process had worked through.
So a snap election by Truss against the will of the Tory party ain't happening.
Much wiser now and, wise enough to not want it.
Basically, the generation(s) born before c. 1945 had a different notion of public service.
Clinton heralded the triumph of the baby boomers, and it was downhill from there.
Politics is far less stable than it once was.
Interviews conducted by people like David Frost, Sir Robin Day, and Brian Walden were genuinely interesting to listen to.
However, if you do do it, it is terrific fun. You get to meet tons of people and represent their hopes. You get to see the world as it is. There is no hiding as a junior politician. The trouble for senior politicians is that they become isolated from this essential feedback and energy. .
Running a local authority isn't like running a business - you have to argue and persuade rather than command and coerce. There are plenty of people (colleagues, officers, key local figures) who you need to being with you rather than order about. It's a different environment.
I think plenty of lawyers do go into politics - it's a fair point about engineers though.
Seriousness was replaced with flippancy.
There was a noticeable “handover” in the 1990s.
We have now seen the 90s generation hand over to the 10s, and the effects have been worse, if anything.
In brief - if we want MPs of all the talents, we have to pay them more, while at the same time clamping down on outside 'interests'.
I'm half thinking about running to be a town councillor one day but that's because I love my town and am passionate about making it better and I think I could make a difference by joining the executive there.
Sure there'd be lots of politics with a small-p at that level but less with the big-P.
What's the point in spending 100 hours a week just processing constituency casework on potholes and planning issues?
It seemed aimed at blowing Labour out of the water rather than comsiderations of energy security or fiscal sobriety.
She is a socially awkward ideologue who has to think through how to present (or mask) her ideology in the most palatable fashion.
Thatcher didn’t have this issue because she was simply a lot more considered and had greater courage of her convictions.
It's just sport, and it's self-reinforcing: interviewers want the gotcha and politicians learn to dissemble. Viewers learn nothing.
Who can break the cycle?
https://twitter.com/IntelDoge/status/1577356723332988931?s=20&t=VZ8-rvWfgtcePqWhQPgQbA
Also, one forgets that, until 1987 at least, Thatcher was a highly skilled politician.
But it does seem there is a glibness, or a belief so strong that it shies away from detail, especially conflicting evidence.
And there is a narcissism there too.
Being a town councillor varies enormously. They can do really good work on a local level. Some TCs are intensely political with a big P, and everyone spends their time squabbling over trivia. You wouldn't get on the executive unless you threw yourself into winning the squabbles. Others are almost apolitical, and do quiet good work in broad consensus. Before plunging in, it's worth going to some meetings to find out which kind your TC is.