Howdy, Stranger!

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

The latest Truss exit date betting – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited October 20 in General
imageThe latest Truss exit date betting – politicalbetting.com

Well what can you say after such a crazy day when when the the Chancellor of the Exchequer of just 5-weeks was sacked and now all the focus is on Liz Truss’s survival..

Read the full story here

«13

Comments

  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,148
    Very little talk about the next PM market which is never usually the case.

    The funny thing about that Nick Watt tweet from earlier is it could be read a number of ways. Maybe the senior figures are loyalists of Kwasi Kwarteng who've been enraged by his sacking?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,644
    Evening all,

    Strayed awfully close to @Leon territory by going to London Zoo to watch the three young tiger cubs.

    But have I missed much today? :lol:
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,552
    I think Truss will either be gone by next week or will hang on for dear life as the febrile atmosphere starts to subside .

    If Tory MPs want rid of her they need to act now .
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Very little talk about the next PM market which is never usually the case.

    The funny thing about that Nick Watt tweet from earlier is it could be read a number of ways. Maybe the senior figures are loyalists of Kwasi Kwarteng who've been enraged by his sacking?

    Rishi 2.34 Keir and Hunt both about 6.

    Lay the arse off Sunak.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,148
    edited October 14
    Ironically while Tory members voted for Truss to be Boris 2 plus a smaller state, after today's further tax cut reversal and with Hunt now Chancellor she looks more like May 2
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,839
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Very little talk about the next PM market which is never usually the case.

    The funny thing about that Nick Watt tweet from earlier is it could be read a number of ways. Maybe the senior figures are loyalists of Kwasi Kwarteng who've been enraged by his sacking?

    Rishi 2.34 Keir and Hunt both about 6.

    Lay the arse off Sunak.
    Sunak has peaked too soon twice already. Is this him peaking too soon for a third time?
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 2,177
    “ Yet over the past 18 months she topped the ConHome surveys on who should be PM.” Would you trust ConHome members to make any decisions on your behalf?
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,529
    edited October 14

    Evening all,

    Strayed awfully close to @Leon territory by going to London Zoo to watch the three young tiger cubs.

    But have I missed much today? :lol:

    I think Leon lives near the zoo, rather than in it. Though he's certainly a bit of a wild animal.
  • MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 882
    Laying her to leave by 2022 seems like the play.

    With no likely successor its going to take a while for Conservative MPs to do anything. Plus no one knows how she'll even be removed.

    With Christmas approaching it seems like if its it not done by late November its not going to happen till January. So with1.5months left I believe she'll make it.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,839
    Off thread - I know I am an irredeemable old gammon, but pretty much every sentence of this story makes me want to slap someone:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/63253948
  • ' Yet over the past 18 months she topped the ConHome surveys on who should be PM.'

    That surely tells you more about ConHome than who should be PM.

    It is not for nothing that miscreants on this site are sent there as a punishment.
  • Evening all,

    Strayed awfully close to @Leon territory by going to London Zoo to watch the three young tiger cubs.

    But have I missed much today? :lol:

    The Zoo was a very good place to be today.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,819
    Just trying to work it all out. Liz has been forced to row back on all her bold promises backed by the mail and express to the point where she is effectively going to enact Sunak’s medicine and policy.

    She’s just had to sack KK and put in Hunt, who backed Sunak.

    Hunt is being now described as the de facto PM in some quarters.

    So everything she was chosen for has been proven bollocks.

    She has no power in the party.

    She isn’t a ring-master like Boris who can get the crowd going whilst the other circus acts actually have a skill.

    What is she there for?
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Laying her to leave by 2022 seems like the play.

    With no likely successor its going to take a while for Conservative MPs to do anything. Plus no one knows how she'll even be removed.

    With Christmas approaching it seems like if its it not done by late November its not going to happen till January. So with1.5months left I believe she'll make it.

    She'll be removed like Johnson by mass resignation of ministers, or the threat of same. There are two reasonable successors, Sunak and Hunt, and the situation is so existentially perilous to the party that I don't see a headbanger seeking to disrupt a coronation. Not following you on this one.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,839
    Cookie said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Very little talk about the next PM market which is never usually the case.

    The funny thing about that Nick Watt tweet from earlier is it could be read a number of ways. Maybe the senior figures are loyalists of Kwasi Kwarteng who've been enraged by his sacking?

    Rishi 2.34 Keir and Hunt both about 6.

    Lay the arse off Sunak.
    Sunak has peaked too soon twice already. Is this him peaking too soon for a third time?
    Incidentally, out for a walk with one of the few 'out' Tories I know today, who has previously lambasted Rishi for his perceived ambivalemce to SMEs; he was yearning for Rishi to take over to restore some professionalism (because as he sees it if Reeves is CofE he is really screwed - this isn't purely partisan and he has previously been very complimentary about Gordon Brown's stint in the job).
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,328
    Cookie said:

    Off thread - I know I am an irredeemable old gammon, but pretty much every sentence of this story makes me want to slap someone:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/63253948

    50 billion streams? That’s incredible. Anyone any idea what he will get per stream? Small fractions of a penny presumably but it will still be a mind boggling total.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,977
    'Full support' klaxon.

    @KemiBadenoch
    To say it’s been a difficult day would be an understatement. We knew the scale of the challenge this autumn given multiple global headwinds would be unprecedented. Our Prime Minister is working flat out to get the country through these turbulent times. She has my full support.


    https://twitter.com/KemiBadenoch/status/1580992999965982720
  • Cookie said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Very little talk about the next PM market which is never usually the case.

    The funny thing about that Nick Watt tweet from earlier is it could be read a number of ways. Maybe the senior figures are loyalists of Kwasi Kwarteng who've been enraged by his sacking?

    Rishi 2.34 Keir and Hunt both about 6.

    Lay the arse off Sunak.
    Sunak has peaked too soon twice already. Is this him peaking too soon for a third time?
    It depends, Cookie.

    Some of us are able to peak repeatedly.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644
    edited October 14
    boulay said:

    Just trying to work it all out. Liz has been forced to row back on all her bold promises backed by the mail and express to the point where she is effectively going to enact Sunak’s medicine and policy.

    She’s just had to sack KK and put in Hunt, who backed Sunak.

    Hunt is being now described as the de facto PM in some quarters.

    So everything she was chosen for has been proven bollocks.

    She has no power in the party.

    She isn’t a ring-master like Boris who can get the crowd going whilst the other circus acts actually have a skill.

    What is she there for?

    Because it would be too embarrassing and too tricky to replace her?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,304
    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Very little talk about the next PM market which is never usually the case.

    The funny thing about that Nick Watt tweet from earlier is it could be read a number of ways. Maybe the senior figures are loyalists of Kwasi Kwarteng who've been enraged by his sacking?

    Rishi 2.34 Keir and Hunt both about 6.

    Lay the arse off Sunak.
    Sunak has peaked too soon twice already. Is this him peaking too soon for a third time?
    Incidentally, out for a walk with one of the few 'out' Tories I know today, who has previously lambasted Rishi for his perceived ambivalemce to SMEs; he was yearning for Rishi to take over to restore some professionalism (because as he sees it if Reeves is CofE he is really screwed - this isn't purely partisan and he has previously

    been very complimentary about Gordon Brown's stint in the job).
    What has he got against the lovely Rachel? She seems like a good Cote in waiting to me

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,328

    Evening all,

    Strayed awfully close to @Leon territory by going to London Zoo to watch the three young tiger cubs.

    But have I missed much today? :lol:

    I think Leon lives near the zoo, rather than in it. Though he's certainly a bit of a wild animal.
    He says he has a gaff in Primrose Hill but as far as I can work out he spends most of his time at T2.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,148
    Can anyone else explain to me why Boris Johnson is 7/2 to be the Prime minister after the next election? He's nowhere in the next PM betting.

    All I can think of is that there is a revolt in the grassroots after the coronation of the next leader and Boris 'rides to the rescue.'

    There really shouldn't be a fight among rivals of Mordaunt and Sunak. Why not do a vote behind closed doors to see who has most support among MPs and then coalesce around that candidate.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,176

    ' Yet over the past 18 months she topped the ConHome surveys on who should be PM.'

    That surely tells you more about ConHome than who should be PM.

    It is not for nothing that miscreants on this site are sent there as a punishment.

    To be fair, I think none of us thought she'd be this bad.

    She had a decent record under several Tory PMs going all the way back to Cameron.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Laying her to leave by 2022 seems like the play.

    With no likely successor its going to take a while for Conservative MPs to do anything. Plus no one knows how she'll even be removed.

    With Christmas approaching it seems like if its it not done by late November its not going to happen till January. So with1.5months left I believe she'll make it.

    She'll be removed like Johnson by mass resignation of ministers, or the threat of same. There are two reasonable successors, Sunak and Hunt, and the situation is so existentially perilous to the party that I don't see a headbanger seeking to disrupt a coronation. Not following you on this one.
    I think there’s enough headbangers who had banged their heads too much to make it difficult to achieve a neat coronation, certainly of Hunt, who the party has rejected more than once before.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286
    Pentagon confirms US in talks with Musk’s company over funding Ukraine’s Starlink
    https://thehill.com/policy/defense/3688602-pentagon-confirms-us-in-talks-with-musks-company-over-funding-ukraines-starlink/

    Common sense prevails.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,328

    boulay said:

    Just trying to work it all out. Liz has been forced to row back on all her bold promises backed by the mail and express to the point where she is effectively going to enact Sunak’s medicine and policy.

    She’s just had to sack KK and put in Hunt, who backed Sunak.

    Hunt is being now described as the de facto PM in some quarters.

    So everything she was chosen for has been proven bollocks.

    She has no power in the party.

    She isn’t a ring-master like Boris who can get the crowd going whilst the other circus acts actually have a skill.

    What is she there for?

    Because it would be too embarrassing and too tricky to replace her?
    Surely the Tory party is well beyond the concept of embarrassment.

  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,148
    Another thing. I presume cricket fans will remember the summer of 4 captains? Wonder if you could name them? This is the year of 4 chancellors.
  • ' Yet over the past 18 months she topped the ConHome surveys on who should be PM.'

    That surely tells you more about ConHome than who should be PM.

    It is not for nothing that miscreants on this site are sent there as a punishment.

    To be fair, I think none of us thought she'd be this bad.

    She had a decent record under several Tory PMs going all the way back to Cameron.
    To be fair, you are right.

    Personally I thought she was a high risk choice, but not in my wildest dreams did I imagine this.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,453
    edited October 14

    Evening all,

    Strayed awfully close to @Leon territory by going to London Zoo to watch the three young tiger cubs.

    But have I missed much today? :lol:

    I think Leon lives near the zoo, rather than in it. Though he's certainly a bit of a wild animal.
    @Leon can sometimes be seen at the zoo, throwing Ukrainian refugee children into the Lion and Tiger enclosures.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    net rating one month after becoming PM

    Tony Blair +65
    Theresa May +35
    David Cameron +31
    Gordon Brown +20
    John Major +15
    Margaret Thatcher +2
    Boris Johnson -18
    Liz Truss -51

    Ipsos-MORI

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1580894324786532353

    Golly
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Another thing. I presume cricket fans will remember the summer of 4 captains? Wonder if you could name them? This is the year of 4 chancellors.

    so far...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,468
    Ishmael_Z said:

    net rating one month after becoming PM

    Tony Blair +65
    Theresa May +35
    David Cameron +31
    Gordon Brown +20
    John Major +15
    Margaret Thatcher +2
    Boris Johnson -18
    Liz Truss -51

    Ipsos-MORI

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1580894324786532353

    Golly

    Well, it does show first month rating is not the be all and end all...unless you're that far back I feel.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,552
    I expect the dictionary will add “ to do a Truss “ .

    Promise the earth, then crash and burn within a month .
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    ' Yet over the past 18 months she topped the ConHome surveys on who should be PM.'

    That surely tells you more about ConHome than who should be PM.

    It is not for nothing that miscreants on this site are sent there as a punishment.

    To be fair, I think none of us thought she'd be this bad.

    She had a decent record under several Tory PMs going all the way back to Cameron.
    Just a reminder of the disgrace/new pork markets speech

    https://twitter.com/thehistoryguy/status/1580669653655117824
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,322

    ' Yet over the past 18 months she topped the ConHome surveys on who should be PM.'

    That surely tells you more about ConHome than who should be PM.

    It is not for nothing that miscreants on this site are sent there as a punishment.

    To be fair, I think none of us thought she'd be this bad.

    She had a decent record under several Tory PMs going all the way back to Cameron.
    To be fair, you are right.

    Personally I thought she was a high risk choice, but not in my wildest dreams did I imagine this.
    Personally, I was amazed that anyone thought she would be any use at all. She has not surprised me in the slightest.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,304
    ….
  • PhilPhil Posts: 1,132
    edited October 14

    ' Yet over the past 18 months she topped the ConHome surveys on who should be PM.'

    That surely tells you more about ConHome than who should be PM.

    It is not for nothing that miscreants on this site are sent there as a punishment.

    To be fair, I think none of us thought she'd be this bad.

    She had a decent record under several Tory PMs going all the way back to Cameron.
    That her weaknesses weren’t revealed during the election process says bad things about either the process or the electorate.

    Personally, I suspect the latter: Truss was the darling of the conservative press & the party membership has been reduced (like most UK political parties) to a rump of dedicated obsessives. Neither of these constituencies were really interested in the quality of the candidates, only in whether they were sufficiently commited to a particular ideological line of thought. Truss had a clear message on that front & therefore won easily.

    The left shouldn’t crow about this though: Corbyn was only a few years ago after all. Somehow we need to get back to the point where the parties believe that sense in a politician matters as much or more than ideology. Ideological purity without sense leads to disaster, regardless of which end of the political spectrum we’re talking about.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,584
    edited October 14
    FYI - OGH begins his holiday next Friday and I’m charge of PB for 9 days.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,468
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Another thing. I presume cricket fans will remember the summer of 4 captains? Wonder if you could name them? This is the year of 4 chancellors.

    so far...
    I don't think even the Romans got beyond a year of Five Emperors, so that should be the upper limit on number of Chancellors.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,977
    nico679 said:

    I expect the dictionary will add “ to do a Truss “ .

    Promise the earth, then crash and burn within a month .

    It's a good thing Truss isn't the first woman to be PM, or every female politician would face the stigma of being compared to her.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Very little talk about the next PM market which is never usually the case.

    The funny thing about that Nick Watt tweet from earlier is it could be read a number of ways. Maybe the senior figures are loyalists of Kwasi Kwarteng who've been enraged by his sacking?

    Rishi 2.34 Keir and Hunt both about 6.

    Lay the arse off Sunak.
    2.34? fucking hell.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,304
    Phil said:

    ' Yet over the past 18 months she topped the ConHome surveys on who should be PM.'

    That surely tells you more about ConHome than who should be PM.

    It is not for nothing that miscreants on this site are sent there as a punishment.

    To be fair, I think none of us thought she'd be this bad.

    She had a decent record under several Tory PMs going all the way back to Cameron.
    That her weaknesses weren’t revealed during the election process says bad things about either the process or the electorate.

    Personally, I suspect the latter: Truss was the darling of the conservative press & the party membership has been reduced (like most UK political parties) to a rump of dedicated obsessives. Neither of these constituencies were really interested in the quality of the candidates, only in whether they were sufficiently commited to a particular ideological line of thought. Truss had a clear message on that front & therefore won easily.

    The left shouldn’t crow about this though: Corbyn was only a few years ago after all. Somehow we need to get back to the point where the parties believe that sense in a politician matters as much or more than ideology. Ideological purity without
    sense leads to disaster, regardless of which end of the political spectrum we’re talking about.

    Agreed. Good managers are hard to find. A PM who had no distinct ideology but who could manage would be a vast improvement on the clowns, nutters and incompetents who we’ve had to suffer of late.

  • PhilPhil Posts: 1,132
    Nigelb said:

    Pentagon confirms US in talks with Musk’s company over funding Ukraine’s Starlink
    https://thehill.com/policy/defense/3688602-pentagon-confirms-us-in-talks-with-musks-company-over-funding-ukraines-starlink/

    Common sense prevails.

    I imagine that, as part of the discussions, somebody somewhere will be explaining the terms of the Defence Production Act of 1950 to Musk.

    Its terms might be summarised as: Play nice, or the government will take your toys away from you.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    edited October 14
    I laid him at 3.8 and felt smug about it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,468
    edited October 14

    Phil said:

    ' Yet over the past 18 months she topped the ConHome surveys on who should be PM.'

    That surely tells you more about ConHome than who should be PM.

    It is not for nothing that miscreants on this site are sent there as a punishment.

    To be fair, I think none of us thought she'd be this bad.

    She had a decent record under several Tory PMs going all the way back to Cameron.
    That her weaknesses weren’t revealed during the election process says bad things about either the process or the electorate.

    Personally, I suspect the latter: Truss was the darling of the conservative press & the party membership has been reduced (like most UK political parties) to a rump of dedicated obsessives. Neither of these constituencies were really interested in the quality of the candidates, only in whether they were sufficiently commited to a particular ideological line of thought. Truss had a clear message on that front & therefore won easily.

    The left shouldn’t crow about this though: Corbyn was only a few years ago after all. Somehow we need to get back to the point where the parties believe that sense in a politician matters as much or more than ideology. Ideological purity without
    sense leads to disaster, regardless of which end of the political spectrum we’re talking about.

    Agreed. Good managers are hard to find. A PM who had no distinct ideology but who could manage would be a vast improvement on the clowns, nutters and incompetents who we’ve had to suffer of late.

    Political vision is like salt - None can be bad, a little is good, but too much can kill you.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    edited October 14
    rcs1000 said:

    Evening all,

    Strayed awfully close to @Leon territory by going to London Zoo to watch the three young tiger cubs.

    But have I missed much today? :lol:

    I think Leon lives near the zoo, rather than in it. Though he's certainly a bit of a wild animal.
    @Leon can sometimes be seen at the zoo, throwing Ukrainian refugee children into the Lion and Tiger enclosures.
    You have to find an accomodation with the big cats. You can't just deny them small children. They'd be humiliated.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 2,963

    FYI - OGH begins his holiday next Friday and I’m charge of PB for 9 days.

    Should be quiet then...
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,366
    Phil said:

    ' Yet over the past 18 months she topped the ConHome surveys on who should be PM.'

    That surely tells you more about ConHome than who should be PM.

    It is not for nothing that miscreants on this site are sent there as a punishment.

    To be fair, I think none of us thought she'd be this bad.

    She had a decent record under several Tory PMs going all the way back to Cameron.
    That her weaknesses weren’t revealed during the election process says bad things about either the process or the electorate.

    Personally, I suspect the latter: Truss was the darling of the conservative press & the party membership has been reduced (like most UK political parties) to a rump of dedicated obsessives. Neither of these constituencies were really interested in the quality of the candidates, only in whether they were sufficiently commited to a particular ideological line of thought. Truss had a clear message on that front & therefore won easily.

    The left shouldn’t crow about this though: Corbyn was only a few years ago after all. Somehow we need to get back to the point where the parties believe that sense in a politician matters as much or more than ideology. Ideological purity without sense leads to disaster, regardless of which end of the political spectrum we’re talking about.
    But Truss's weaknesses were revealed during the leadership election. Her lousy debating and speaking styles, her dangerous economic policies, her not understanding her own policies and then ditching them (arguably a positive) were all on display.

    The problem was the 1922 Committee arranged a ten week campaign but sent ballot papers out at the start and encouraged members to vote immediately. This meant that most votes were cast before the campaign was anywhere near finished.

    But that is OK because the 1922 had devised a way of letting members alter their votes if they changed their minds during the campaign. But this facility never went live for security reasons.

    So basically, the 1922 Committee stuffed things up, and not for the first time.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,203
    Phil said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pentagon confirms US in talks with Musk’s company over funding Ukraine’s Starlink
    https://thehill.com/policy/defense/3688602-pentagon-confirms-us-in-talks-with-musks-company-over-funding-ukraines-starlink/

    Common sense prevails.

    I imagine that, as part of the discussions, somebody somewhere will be explaining the terms of the Defence Production Act of 1950 to Musk.

    Its terms might be summarised as: Play nice, or the government will take your toys away from you.
    The government has to offer a price - the Act specifically requires that.

    The price has to be above cost. Which, given Starlink is in expansion phase is greater than subscription costs.
  • Phil said:

    ' Yet over the past 18 months she topped the ConHome surveys on who should be PM.'

    That surely tells you more about ConHome than who should be PM.

    It is not for nothing that miscreants on this site are sent there as a punishment.

    To be fair, I think none of us thought she'd be this bad.

    She had a decent record under several Tory PMs going all the way back to Cameron.
    That her weaknesses weren’t revealed during the election process says bad things about either the process or the electorate.

    Personally, I suspect the latter: Truss was the darling of the conservative press & the party membership has been reduced (like most UK political parties) to a rump of dedicated obsessives. Neither of these constituencies were really interested in the quality of the candidates, only in whether they were sufficiently commited to a particular ideological line of thought. Truss had a clear message on that front & therefore won easily.

    The left shouldn’t crow about this though: Corbyn was only a few years ago after all. Somehow we need to get back to the point where the parties believe that sense in a politician matters as much or more than ideology. Ideological purity without
    sense leads to disaster, regardless of which end of the political spectrum we’re talking about.

    Agreed. Good managers are hard to find. A PM who had no distinct ideology but who could manage would be a vast improvement on the clowns, nutters and incompetents who we’ve had to suffer of late.

    You seem to be talking about Harold Wilson without necessarily knowing it.

    I recall him as being rather dull, and politics back then was relatively dull. It was widely and I think correctly thought that in substance there was little ideological difference between Labour and the Conservatives.

    Wilson is rarely viewed as a great PM, although of late history has tended to be kind to him. Kept us out of 'Nam if nothing else.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,452
    edited October 14
    She has two remarkable achievements.
    Firstly. She has managed to somehow become personally responsible for rising mortgage rates. Which have been climbing for a fair while. And would be doing so whatever anyone did.
    Secondly. She has managed to implement a huge energy bailout without anyone really noticing, let alone giving her any credit.
    Takes rare political skill.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,304
    Cookie said:

    Off thread - I know I am an irredeemable old gammon, but pretty much every sentence of this story makes me want to slap someone:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/63253948

    I wasn’t clear why Sheffield Wednesday’s logo was on Barca’s shirts?
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,453
    Politico.com - DeSantis agrees to election changes for storm-battered area
    Governor's executive order would allow election supervisors to set up super voting centers.

    TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis used his emergency powers on Thursday to waive state election laws for counties hard hit by Hurricane Ian that are grappling with widespread damages and disruptions.

    DeSantis agreed to set aside state laws so election officials in Charlotte, Lee and Sarasota — all of which are Republican strongholds — can consolidate polling places, extend early voting days and make it easier to send mail in ballots to voters to an address that is not listed in voting records.

    “Those are, I think, reasonable accommodations that ensure everybody has an opportunity to participate in this November’s election,” said DeSantis during a mid-afternoon press conference in Cape Coral in southwest Florida.

    The hurricane slammed into the state two weeks ago, causing catastrophic damage to some areas and leaving more than 100 people dead. The hurricane also destroyed polling places, disrupted mail delivery and forced both voters and poll workers from their homes in counties directly hit by the historic storm.

    Many of the steps authorized by DeSantis mirror those that were taken in Florida’s Panhandle in the aftermath of Hurricane Michael in 2018. But they could draw additional scrutiny from those who have made baseless allegations about widespread voter fraud marring the 2020 elections. Some of those who have pushed these allegations, including the conservative group Defend Florida, maintained that people who were voting didn’t live at their listed addresses. . . .

    The three counties covered by DeSantis’s executive order are home to more than 1 million active registered voters, with more than 450,000 of them registered as Republicans. Lee County provided a 62,000-vote margin to DeSantis in the 2018 election when he barely edged Democratic nominee Andrew Gillum.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,461
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Disappointed that here aren't per month or indeed per week markets.

    Or rather, given the amount of money I lkost on similar Bojo markets, not disappointed.

    Andrew Marr reckons next week

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GChuKqgvJ5E
  • FYI - OGH begins his holiday next Friday and I’m charge of PB for 9 days.

    Thank goodness. Things might quieten down a bit.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 637
    Are we looking at a Liz as nominal PM until the local elections in May, then replaced by Hunt/Sunak/Mordaunt if it looks bad, and dragging onwards and gently downwards if not?
  • It is so bad, that if she does not go in 2022, I think that it will be after a general election in January 2025.

    If the conservative MPs can't get rid of her now, I do not see that they would before the next general election.

    As things are bad, they will wait the longest possible before calling the election, so January 2025 here we come!
  • glwglw Posts: 8,788

    FYI - OGH begins his holiday next Friday and I’m charge of PB for 9 days.

    So that's when Russia is going to use the bomb then?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,045
    Ishmael_Z said:

    net rating one month after becoming PM

    Tony Blair +65
    Theresa May +35
    David Cameron +31
    Gordon Brown +20
    John Major +15
    Margaret Thatcher +2
    Boris Johnson -18
    Liz Truss -51

    Ipsos-MORI

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1580894324786532353

    Golly

    Maybe it's anti-woman sentiment. Every female PM seems to be unpopular: Thatcher, May, Truss.
  • glw said:

    FYI - OGH begins his holiday next Friday and I’m charge of PB for 9 days.

    So that's when Russia is going to use the bomb then?
    And the asteroid lands.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,468
    Truss will be in post until at least 2023. She will want her wikipedia to list her as PM from 2022-23.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,453
    Phil said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pentagon confirms US in talks with Musk’s company over funding Ukraine’s Starlink
    https://thehill.com/policy/defense/3688602-pentagon-confirms-us-in-talks-with-musks-company-over-funding-ukraines-starlink/

    Common sense prevails.

    I imagine that, as part of the discussions, somebody somewhere will be explaining the terms of the Defence Production Act of 1950 to Musk.

    Its terms might be summarised as: Play nice, or the government will take your toys away from you.
    Exactly. Told the brute: fuck with UKR (beyond giving rhetorical blowjobs to Putin & Trump) and see what happens - punk.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,366

    Phil said:

    ' Yet over the past 18 months she topped the ConHome surveys on who should be PM.'

    That surely tells you more about ConHome than who should be PM.

    It is not for nothing that miscreants on this site are sent there as a punishment.

    To be fair, I think none of us thought she'd be this bad.

    She had a decent record under several Tory PMs going all the way back to Cameron.
    That her weaknesses weren’t revealed during the election process says bad things about either the process or the electorate.

    Personally, I suspect the latter: Truss was the darling of the conservative press & the party membership has been reduced (like most UK political parties) to a rump of dedicated obsessives. Neither of these constituencies were really interested in the quality of the candidates, only in whether they were sufficiently commited to a particular ideological line of thought. Truss had a clear message on that front & therefore won easily.

    The left shouldn’t crow about this though: Corbyn was only a few years ago after all. Somehow we need to get back to the point where the parties believe that sense in a politician matters as much or more than ideology. Ideological purity without
    sense leads to disaster, regardless of which end of the political spectrum we’re talking about.

    Agreed. Good managers are hard to find. A PM who had no distinct ideology but who could manage would be a vast improvement on the clowns, nutters and incompetents who we’ve had to suffer of late.

    You seem to be talking about Harold Wilson without necessarily knowing it.

    I recall him as being rather dull, and politics back then was relatively dull. It was widely and I think correctly thought that in substance there was little ideological difference between Labour and the Conservatives.

    Wilson is rarely viewed as a great PM, although of late history has tended to be kind to him. Kept us out of 'Nam if nothing else.
    Wilson kept us out of Vietnam, as you say, and it was under Wilson that we began our progress to a more modern society with an end to sex discrimination, abolition of capital punishment, and legalisation of homosexuality. Founding the Open University and Radio One were the icing on the cake.
  • ohnotnow said:

    Are we looking at a Liz as nominal PM until the local elections in May, then replaced by Hunt/Sunak/Mordaunt if it looks bad, and dragging onwards and gently downwards if not?

    As good a guess as any, Not.

    And welcome.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,366
    Andy_JS said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    net rating one month after becoming PM

    Tony Blair +65
    Theresa May +35
    David Cameron +31
    Gordon Brown +20
    John Major +15
    Margaret Thatcher +2
    Boris Johnson -18
    Liz Truss -51

    Ipsos-MORI

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1580894324786532353

    Golly

    Maybe it's anti-woman sentiment. Every female PM seems to be unpopular: Thatcher, May, Truss.
    Except for Theresa May on those figures.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Alistair said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Very little talk about the next PM market which is never usually the case.

    The funny thing about that Nick Watt tweet from earlier is it could be read a number of ways. Maybe the senior figures are loyalists of Kwasi Kwarteng who've been enraged by his sacking?

    Rishi 2.34 Keir and Hunt both about 6.

    Lay the arse off Sunak.
    2.34? fucking hell.
    That was a back price. Just laid at 2.9.
  • barrykennabarrykenna Posts: 206
    I am playing Devil's Advocate a bit here - and fully expect to be shot down , but in reading the very dismissive comments of her news conference - particularly her failure to only take four questions - it does occur to me that until at least the mid- 1950s senior politicians of all parties only appeared in front of newsreel cameras or radio microphones when they had something they wished to say. I do not recall seeing footage or hearing recordings of Churchill - Attlee - Chamberlain - Baldwin - Macdonald - Lloyd George et al being interviewed by any reporters. Would not someone such as Truss - who clearly lacks modern media skills - be advised to revert to the practices of her more distant predecessors?
  • Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Evening all,

    Strayed awfully close to @Leon territory by going to London Zoo to watch the three young tiger cubs.

    But have I missed much today? :lol:

    I think Leon lives near the zoo, rather than in it. Though he's certainly a bit of a wild animal.
    @Leon can sometimes be seen at the zoo, throwing Ukrainian refugee children into the Lion and Tiger enclosures.
    You have to find an accomodation with the big cats. You can't just deny them small children. They'd be humiliated.
    Not so, Alistair.

    They are man-eaters. Don't touch women or children.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,148
    edited October 14

    Phil said:

    ' Yet over the past 18 months she topped the ConHome surveys on who should be PM.'

    That surely tells you more about ConHome than who should be PM.

    It is not for nothing that miscreants on this site are sent there as a punishment.

    To be fair, I think none of us thought she'd be this bad.

    She had a decent record under several Tory PMs going all the way back to Cameron.
    That her weaknesses weren’t revealed during the election process says bad things about either the process or the electorate.

    Personally, I suspect the latter: Truss was the darling of the conservative press & the party membership has been reduced (like most UK political parties) to a rump of dedicated obsessives. Neither of these constituencies were really interested in the quality of the candidates, only in whether they were sufficiently commited to a particular ideological line of thought. Truss had a clear message on that front & therefore won easily.

    The left shouldn’t crow about this though: Corbyn was only a few years ago after all. Somehow we need to get back to the point where the parties believe that sense in a politician matters as much or more than ideology. Ideological purity without
    sense leads to disaster, regardless of which end of the political spectrum we’re talking about.

    Agreed. Good managers are hard to find. A PM who had no distinct ideology but who could manage would be a vast improvement on the clowns, nutters and incompetents who we’ve had to suffer of late.

    You seem to be talking about Harold Wilson without necessarily knowing it.

    I recall him as being rather dull, and politics back then was relatively dull. It was widely and I think correctly thought that in substance there was little ideological difference between Labour and the Conservatives.

    Wilson is rarely viewed as a great PM, although of late history has tended to be kind to him. Kept us out of 'Nam if nothing else.
    Wilson kept us out of Vietnam, as you say, and it was under Wilson that we began our progress to a more modern society with an end to sex discrimination, abolition of capital punishment, and legalisation of homosexuality. Founding the Open University and Radio One were the icing on the cake.
    Wilson also began the process of replacing grammar schools with comprehensives. Abortion was legalised under his government too.

    The Wilson government shifted us culturally and socially more to the liberal left than any post war government, even if the Attlee government shifted us more left economically
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Andy_JS said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    net rating one month after becoming PM

    Tony Blair +65
    Theresa May +35
    David Cameron +31
    Gordon Brown +20
    John Major +15
    Margaret Thatcher +2
    Boris Johnson -18
    Liz Truss -51

    Ipsos-MORI

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1580894324786532353

    Golly

    Maybe it's anti-woman sentiment. Every female PM seems to be unpopular: Thatcher, May, Truss.
    May 2nd out of 8, Thatcher was divisive from the get go, Truss is Truss. The PB witch hunt for misogyny is tiresome.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,644
    Kwarteng is the shortest-serving Chancellor since Ian MacLeod in 1970 (30 days).
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    I am playing Devil's Advocate a bit here - and fully expect to be shot down , but in reading the very dismissive comments of her news conference - particularly her failure to only take four questions - it does occur to me that until at least the mid- 1950s senior politicians of all parties only appeared in front of newsreel cameras or radio microphones when they had something they wished to say. I do not recall seeing footage or hearing recordings of Churchill - Attlee - Chamberlain - Baldwin - Macdonald - Lloyd George et al being interviewed by any reporters. Would not someone such as Truss - who clearly lacks modern media skills - be advised to revert to the practices of her more distant predecessors?

    No.
  • barrykennabarrykenna Posts: 206
    HYUFD said:

    Phil said:

    ' Yet over the past 18 months she topped the ConHome surveys on who should be PM.'

    That surely tells you more about ConHome than who should be PM.

    It is not for nothing that miscreants on this site are sent there as a punishment.

    To be fair, I think none of us thought she'd be this bad.

    She had a decent record under several Tory PMs going all the way back to Cameron.
    That her weaknesses weren’t revealed during the election process says bad things about either the process or the electorate.

    Personally, I suspect the latter: Truss was the darling of the conservative press & the party membership has been reduced (like most UK political parties) to a rump of dedicated obsessives. Neither of these constituencies were really interested in the quality of the candidates, only in whether they were sufficiently commited to a particular ideological line of thought. Truss had a clear message on that front & therefore won easily.

    The left shouldn’t crow about this though: Corbyn was only a few years ago after all. Somehow we need to get back to the point where the parties believe that sense in a politician matters as much or more than ideology. Ideological purity without
    sense leads to disaster, regardless of which end of the political spectrum we’re talking about.

    Agreed. Good managers are hard to find. A PM who had no distinct ideology but who could manage would be a vast improvement on the clowns, nutters and incompetents who we’ve had to suffer of late.

    You seem to be talking about Harold Wilson without necessarily knowing it.

    I recall him as being rather dull, and politics back then was relatively dull. It was widely and I think correctly thought that in substance there was little ideological difference between Labour and the Conservatives.

    Wilson is rarely viewed as a great PM, although of late history has tended to be kind to him. Kept us out of 'Nam if nothing else.
    Wilson kept us out of Vietnam, as you say, and it was under Wilson that we began our progress to a more modern society with an end to sex discrimination, abolition of capital punishment, and legalisation of homosexuality. Founding the Open University and Radio One were the icing on the cake.
    Wilson also began the process of replacing grammar schools with comprehensives.

    The Wilson government shifted us culturally and socially more to the liberal left than any post war government, even if the Attlee government shifted us more left economically
    Largely due to Private Members' Bills though - Capital Punishment - Abortion - Homosexuality.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Alistair said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Very little talk about the next PM market which is never usually the case.

    The funny thing about that Nick Watt tweet from earlier is it could be read a number of ways. Maybe the senior figures are loyalists of Kwasi Kwarteng who've been enraged by his sacking?

    Rishi 2.34 Keir and Hunt both about 6.

    Lay the arse off Sunak.
    2.34? fucking hell.
    That was a back price. Just laid at 2.9.
    And backed Hunt for pocket change.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,364
    Andy_JS said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    net rating one month after becoming PM

    Tony Blair +65
    Theresa May +35
    David Cameron +31
    Gordon Brown +20
    John Major +15
    Margaret Thatcher +2
    Boris Johnson -18
    Liz Truss -51

    Ipsos-MORI

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1580894324786532353

    Golly

    Maybe it's anti-woman sentiment. Every female PM seems to be unpopular: Thatcher, May, Truss.
    Huh? Has Theresa May transitioned? She's in 2nd place FFS. And Thatch was the longest serving of the lot ultimately. Unless something remarkable happens...
  • barrykennabarrykenna Posts: 206
    Ishmael_Z said:

    I am playing Devil's Advocate a bit here - and fully expect to be shot down , but in reading the very dismissive comments of her news conference - particularly her failure to only take four questions - it does occur to me that until at least the mid- 1950s senior politicians of all parties only appeared in front of newsreel cameras or radio microphones when they had something they wished to say. I do not recall seeing footage or hearing recordings of Churchill - Attlee - Chamberlain - Baldwin - Macdonald - Lloyd George et al being interviewed by any reporters. Would not someone such as Truss - who clearly lacks modern media skills - be advised to revert to the practices of her more distant predecessors?

    No.
    Some argue that Johnson largely got away with that approach in the 2019 campaign.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,644
    kle4 said:

    Truss will be in post until at least 2023. She will want her wikipedia to list her as PM from 2022-23.

    Canning was the shortest-serving PM (as in single-term), 119 days, though he did happen to pass away on day 119.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,148
    Rishi to save Brexit?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,366

    I am playing Devil's Advocate a bit here - and fully expect to be shot down , but in reading the very dismissive comments of her news conference - particularly her failure to only take four questions - it does occur to me that until at least the mid- 1950s senior politicians of all parties only appeared in front of newsreel cameras or radio microphones when they had something they wished to say. I do not recall seeing footage or hearing recordings of Churchill - Attlee - Chamberlain - Baldwin - Macdonald - Lloyd George et al being interviewed by any reporters. Would not someone such as Truss - who clearly lacks modern media skills - be advised to revert to the practices of her more distant predecessors?

    They've tried it. Remember Boris hiding in a fridge and refusing interviews? Being interviewed is not the same as public speaking, but both are learned skills, and Liz Truss has learned neither. What she (and other aspiring leaders) should do is practise these skills, and if necessary pay for training.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,366

    HYUFD said:

    Phil said:

    ' Yet over the past 18 months she topped the ConHome surveys on who should be PM.'

    That surely tells you more about ConHome than who should be PM.

    It is not for nothing that miscreants on this site are sent there as a punishment.

    To be fair, I think none of us thought she'd be this bad.

    She had a decent record under several Tory PMs going all the way back to Cameron.
    That her weaknesses weren’t revealed during the election process says bad things about either the process or the electorate.

    Personally, I suspect the latter: Truss was the darling of the conservative press & the party membership has been reduced (like most UK political parties) to a rump of dedicated obsessives. Neither of these constituencies were really interested in the quality of the candidates, only in whether they were sufficiently commited to a particular ideological line of thought. Truss had a clear message on that front & therefore won easily.

    The left shouldn’t crow about this though: Corbyn was only a few years ago after all. Somehow we need to get back to the point where the parties believe that sense in a politician matters as much or more than ideology. Ideological purity without
    sense leads to disaster, regardless of which end of the political spectrum we’re talking about.

    Agreed. Good managers are hard to find. A PM who had no distinct ideology but who could manage would be a vast improvement on the clowns, nutters and incompetents who we’ve had to suffer of late.

    You seem to be talking about Harold Wilson without necessarily knowing it.

    I recall him as being rather dull, and politics back then was relatively dull. It was widely and I think correctly thought that in substance there was little ideological difference between Labour and the Conservatives.

    Wilson is rarely viewed as a great PM, although of late history has tended to be kind to him. Kept us out of 'Nam if nothing else.
    Wilson kept us out of Vietnam, as you say, and it was under Wilson that we began our progress to a more modern society with an end to sex discrimination, abolition of capital punishment, and legalisation of homosexuality. Founding the Open University and Radio One were the icing on the cake.
    Wilson also began the process of replacing grammar schools with comprehensives.

    The Wilson government shifted us culturally and socially more to the liberal left than any post war government, even if the Attlee government shifted us more left economically
    Largely due to Private Members' Bills though - Capital Punishment - Abortion - Homosexuality.
    Private members bills encouraged by the government. I'd not read too much into it.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286
    .

    Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Evening all,

    Strayed awfully close to @Leon territory by going to London Zoo to watch the three young tiger cubs.

    But have I missed much today? :lol:

    I think Leon lives near the zoo, rather than in it. Though he's certainly a bit of a wild animal.
    @Leon can sometimes be seen at the zoo, throwing Ukrainian refugee children into the Lion and Tiger enclosures.
    You have to find an accomodation with the big cats. You can't just deny them small children. They'd be humiliated.
    Not so, Alistair.

    They are man-eaters. Don't touch women or children.
    The famous twentieth century naturalist Stanley Holloway reported differently.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,768
    edited October 14
    Andy_JS said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    net rating one month after becoming PM

    Tony Blair +65
    Theresa May +35
    David Cameron +31
    Gordon Brown +20
    John Major +15
    Margaret Thatcher +2
    Boris Johnson -18
    Liz Truss -51

    Ipsos-MORI

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1580894324786532353

    Golly

    Maybe it's anti-woman sentiment. Every female PM seems to be unpopular: Thatcher, May, Truss.
    Except for May.

    The more obvious link that is staring you in the face is that the only 2 PMs in negative territory, and seriously negative territory at that, have been the 2 foisted upon us by the "Get Brexit Done" election.

    I had forgotten that Johnson had been that unpopular a month into his short attempt at running the country.

    I wonder if Truss is the only new leader to fail to get any sort of bounce or honeymoon period
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,245

    Jeremy Hunt is now the de facto prime minister

    The new chancellor will be running the show, and Truss will be a sort of ‘PRINO’ – prime minister in name only

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-hunt-chancellor-liz-truss-new-prime-minister-b2202928.html

    Similar to the Cheney-W administration in USA.

    EXCEPT that nobody expects the Hunt-Truss "administration" to last 8 years. Eight weeks maybe?
    8 days.
    There was an excellent German TV series called 8 Days a few years ago about a comet about to obliterate the Earth.

    That was still positively light-hearted relative to the sense of doom around Truss at the moment.
    Liz Truss is rapidly overtaking Jim Murphy as my all-time favourite politician.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,366

    Phil said:

    ' Yet over the past 18 months she topped the ConHome surveys on who should be PM.'

    That surely tells you more about ConHome than who should be PM.

    It is not for nothing that miscreants on this site are sent there as a punishment.

    To be fair, I think none of us thought she'd be this bad.

    She had a decent record under several Tory PMs going all the way back to Cameron.
    That her weaknesses weren’t revealed during the election process says bad things about either the process or the electorate.

    Personally, I suspect the latter: Truss was the darling of the conservative press & the party membership has been reduced (like most UK political parties) to a rump of dedicated obsessives. Neither of these constituencies were really interested in the quality of the candidates, only in whether they were sufficiently commited to a particular ideological line of thought. Truss had a clear message on that front & therefore won easily.

    The left shouldn’t crow about this though: Corbyn was only a few years ago after all. Somehow we need to get back to the point where the parties believe that sense in a politician matters as much or more than ideology. Ideological purity without
    sense leads to disaster, regardless of which end of the political spectrum we’re talking about.

    Agreed. Good managers are hard to find. A PM who had no distinct ideology but who could manage would be a vast improvement on the clowns, nutters and incompetents who we’ve had to suffer of late.

    You seem to be talking about Harold Wilson without necessarily knowing it.

    I recall him as being rather dull, and politics back then was relatively dull. It was widely and I think correctly thought that in substance there was little ideological difference between Labour and the Conservatives.

    Wilson is rarely viewed as a great PM, although of late history has tended to be kind to him. Kept us out of 'Nam if nothing else.
    Wilson kept us out of Vietnam, as you say, and it was under Wilson that we began our progress to a more modern society with an end to sex discrimination, abolition of capital punishment, and legalisation of homosexuality. Founding the Open University and Radio One were the icing on the cake.
    He was particularly proud of the OU, and with good reason.
    iirc Wilson's son became a maths professor at the OU. Jobs for the boys!
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,819

    I am playing Devil's Advocate a bit here - and fully expect to be shot down , but in reading the very dismissive comments of her news conference - particularly her failure to only take four questions - it does occur to me that until at least the mid- 1950s senior politicians of all parties only appeared in front of newsreel cameras or radio microphones when they had something they wished to say. I do not recall seeing footage or hearing recordings of Churchill - Attlee - Chamberlain - Baldwin - Macdonald - Lloyd George et al being interviewed by any reporters. Would not someone such as Truss - who clearly lacks modern media skills - be advised to revert to the practices of her more distant predecessors?

    If we are going back to the 1950’s Liz would have been doing the ironing before the kids came home from school and she cooked up some bread and dripping (I assume you cook that) so, no.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 1,326
    dixiedean said:

    She has two remarkable achievements.
    Firstly. She has managed to somehow become personally responsible for rising mortgage rates. Which have been climbing for a fair while. And would be doing so whatever anyone did.
    Secondly. She has managed to implement a huge energy bailout without anyone really noticing, let alone giving her any credit.
    Takes rare political skill.

    The second of those was partly a London Bridge thing though, wasn’t it?
  • barrykennabarrykenna Posts: 206
    I have seen film footage of Attlee stepping off an aircraft to be greeted by a reporter who asked whether he had any comments to make. His reply was 'No'.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,620

    HYUFD said:

    Phil said:

    ' Yet over the past 18 months she topped the ConHome surveys on who should be PM.'

    That surely tells you more about ConHome than who should be PM.

    It is not for nothing that miscreants on this site are sent there as a punishment.

    To be fair, I think none of us thought she'd be this bad.

    She had a decent record under several Tory PMs going all the way back to Cameron.
    That her weaknesses weren’t revealed during the election process says bad things about either the process or the electorate.

    Personally, I suspect the latter: Truss was the darling of the conservative press & the party membership has been reduced (like most UK political parties) to a rump of dedicated obsessives. Neither of these constituencies were really interested in the quality of the candidates, only in whether they were sufficiently commited to a particular ideological line of thought. Truss had a clear message on that front & therefore won easily.

    The left shouldn’t crow about this though: Corbyn was only a few years ago after all. Somehow we need to get back to the point where the parties believe that sense in a politician matters as much or more than ideology. Ideological purity without
    sense leads to disaster, regardless of which end of the political spectrum we’re talking about.

    Agreed. Good managers are hard to find. A PM who had no distinct ideology but who could manage would be a vast improvement on the clowns, nutters and incompetents who we’ve had to suffer of late.

    You seem to be talking about Harold Wilson without necessarily knowing it.

    I recall him as being rather dull, and politics back then was relatively dull. It was widely and I think correctly thought that in substance there was little ideological difference between Labour and the Conservatives.

    Wilson is rarely viewed as a great PM, although of late history has tended to be kind to him. Kept us out of 'Nam if nothing else.
    Wilson kept us out of Vietnam, as you say, and it was under Wilson that we began our progress to a more modern society with an end to sex discrimination, abolition of capital punishment, and legalisation of homosexuality. Founding the Open University and Radio One were the icing on the cake.
    Wilson also began the process of replacing grammar schools with comprehensives.

    The Wilson government shifted us culturally and socially more to the liberal left than any post war government, even if the Attlee government shifted us more left economically
    Largely due to Private Members' Bills though - Capital Punishment - Abortion - Homosexuality.
    Given time for debate by the Wilson government though, so at least tacit support.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,322

    I am playing Devil's Advocate a bit here - and fully expect to be shot down , but in reading the very dismissive comments of her news conference - particularly her failure to only take four questions - it does occur to me that until at least the mid- 1950s senior politicians of all parties only appeared in front of newsreel cameras or radio microphones when they had something they wished to say. I do not recall seeing footage or hearing recordings of Churchill - Attlee - Chamberlain - Baldwin - Macdonald - Lloyd George et al being interviewed by any reporters. Would not someone such as Truss - who clearly lacks modern media skills - be advised to revert to the practices of her more distant predecessors?

    We no longer live in the 1950s. To handle the modern media you need modern media skills. Ms Truss clearly lacks such skills.

  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    I have seen film footage of Attlee stepping off an aircraft to be greeted by a reporter who asked whether he had any comments to make. His reply was 'No'.

    Ultra cool but that was then, this is now.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819
    carnforth said:

    dixiedean said:

    She has two remarkable achievements.
    Firstly. She has managed to somehow become personally responsible for rising mortgage rates. Which have been climbing for a fair while. And would be doing so whatever anyone did.
    Secondly. She has managed to implement a huge energy bailout without anyone really noticing, let alone giving her any credit.
    Takes rare political skill.

    The second of those was partly a London Bridge thing though, wasn’t it?
    No, if it had been the only thing announced on the 23rd everything would have been fine - it was the kitchen sink announcement that resulted in the 45% cut followed by interest rates taking over the news
  • barrykennabarrykenna Posts: 206
    boulay said:

    I am playing Devil's Advocate a bit here - and fully expect to be shot down , but in reading the very dismissive comments of her news conference - particularly her failure to only take four questions - it does occur to me that until at least the mid- 1950s senior politicians of all parties only appeared in front of newsreel cameras or radio microphones when they had something they wished to say. I do not recall seeing footage or hearing recordings of Churchill - Attlee - Chamberlain - Baldwin - Macdonald - Lloyd George et al being interviewed by any reporters. Would not someone such as Truss - who clearly lacks modern media skills - be advised to revert to the practices of her more distant predecessors?

    If we are going back to the 1950’s Liz would have been doing the ironing before the kids came home from school and she cooked up some bread and dripping (I assume you cook that) so, no.
    Not really. By that time we had senior political figures such as Barbara Castle - Bessie Braddock - Edith Summerskill and Megan Lloyd George.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    OllyT said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    net rating one month after becoming PM

    Tony Blair +65
    Theresa May +35
    David Cameron +31
    Gordon Brown +20
    John Major +15
    Margaret Thatcher +2
    Boris Johnson -18
    Liz Truss -51

    Ipsos-MORI

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1580894324786532353

    Golly

    Maybe it's anti-woman sentiment. Every female PM seems to be unpopular: Thatcher, May, Truss.
    Except for May.

    The more obvious link that is staring you in the face is that the only 2 PMs in negative territory, and seriously negative territory at that, have been the 2 foisted upon us by the "Get Brexit Done" election.

    I had forgotten that Johnson had been that unpopular a month into his short attempt at running the country.

    I wonder if Truss is the only new leader to fail to get any sort of bounce or honeymoon period
    He was a disaster before GE2019, a true Rudolph the red nosed reindeer pivot point.

  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,245
    - “She simply does not have the personality or political skills to do the job…”

    The First Minister did try to warn them.

    Nicola Sturgeon says Liz Truss asked her ‘how to get into Vogue’
    - Scottish first minister said Truss ‘looked a little bit as if she’d swallowed a wasp’ when she told her she had been in Vogue twice

    “I remember it because there we were at the world’s biggest climate change conference in Glasgow, world leaders about to arrive. That was the main topic of conversation she was interested in pursuing. And once we’d exhausted that it kind of dried up.”
    “I’m sure we’ll have many more conversations about many more substantive things,” she added. “I’m sure she’ll be in Vogue before too long.”
    The Guardian has approached Vogue for comment on whether Truss is to appear in a future issue.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/10/nicola-sturgeon-says-liz-truss-asked-her-how-to-get-into-vogue
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 1,326
    edited October 14
    eek said:

    carnforth said:

    dixiedean said:

    She has two remarkable achievements.
    Firstly. She has managed to somehow become personally responsible for rising mortgage rates. Which have been climbing for a fair while. And would be doing so whatever anyone did.
    Secondly. She has managed to implement a huge energy bailout without anyone really noticing, let alone giving her any credit.
    Takes rare political skill.

    The second of those was partly a London Bridge thing though, wasn’t it?
    No, if it had been the only thing announced on the 23rd everything would have been fine - it was the kitchen sink announcement that resulted in the 45% cut followed by interest rates taking over the news
    The energy scheme for households and businesses was announced on the 8th.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w172yk6dg2x0bbd
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,204
    Trusses speech today was quite astounding.
    She keeps saying that her main aim in politics is to 'go for growth'. But this is essentially a platitude. And her plan for growth has just failed, before it even got started.
    There was no real acknowledgement of the fact she had sacked the chancellor or explanation of the reasons why.
    And then she just fell back on robotic answers in the Q and A session.
    This is all very annoying for people who are looking to politicians for answers about the cost of living problems. I don't think she can go on for very long, even as a zombie prime minister.
This discussion has been closed.