Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

Truss: Stabbed In The Back? Or Tripped Over Her Feet? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,794
edited February 2023 in General
imageTruss: Stabbed In The Back? Or Tripped Over Her Feet? – politicalbetting.com

The collapse of Germany at the end of World War One was so sudden, and occurred without a yard of German soil being occupied by French, American or British troops, that a narrative sprung up: the country had not been defeated in battle, but had been stabbed in the back by a conspiracy of financiers, freemasons and Jews.Something similar seems to be happening with memories of the Truss-Kwarteng administration. It didn’t fail, it was stabbed in the back for the crime of being too Conservative, too radical, and for – ultimately – believing in Britain rather than in managed decline. Truss, in this version of events, is another Thatcher, only this time the wets (read “Sunak and city buddies”) won.There are several things strikingly weird about this analysis. Firstly, it casts Truss and Kwarteng as the ones pursuing a brave path against conventional wisdom, as Thatcher did before. And, indeed, Mrs Thatcher did follow a brave path. Upon entering Number 10 in 1979, she cut spending (removing the Double Lock on pensions), and increased taxes (most notably VAT). Her view was that only by righting the fiscal ship, and reducing the deficit, would Britain be able to afford tax cuts in the future.Truss, by contrast, proposed the opposite. Despite debt-to-GDP being well above the levels of 1979 (around 90% vs 40%), she wanted to cut taxes and increase spending. Her policies were not Thatcher or Howe-like, they were a return to the earlier 1970s of Wilson. Callaghan and Heath.Secondly, there was no “conspiracy” in the City. Borrowing rates spiked and the pound fell because investors were spooked that these policies would lead to increased inflation. (Like, you know, happened in the 1970s when they were last tried.) Investors, either in the UK or abroad, are not under any obligation to buy British government debt. If they think inflation (and therefore higher rates) are coming, it is economically rational to want to hold less of it. That’s not a conspiracy, that’s fulfilling their fiduciary duty to their investors.Thirdly, Truss and Kwarteng got themselves in this mess because they didn’t want to hear from people that disagreed with them. Again, the difference with Thatcher could not be greater. Thatcher had regular stand up rows with people she disagreed with; but until the end (when I admit she went slightly mad) she kept critics around her, because she welcomed the intellectual scrutiny. And this stretched from the Civil Service, where she clashed regularly with Robert Armstrong, to Howe, Lawson, Clarke, and Heseltine in the Cabinet.Truss and Kwarteng, by contrast, chose not to get OBR figures on the impact of their policies on the debt and deficit, because they knew the numbers would be bad. They fired Tom Scholar, rather than listen to what he had to say about how the markets would react to their budget.There’s one final piece of the rewriting history that needs to be smacked on the head. This one holds that, actually, Truss and Kwarteng’s only mistake was presentational. Everything in the budget had been trialled, and if they hadn’t been so kind to higher rate taxpayers, then all would have been alright. (It was those damn socialists in the City on minimum wage who were… wait… this makes no sense.)This simply isn’t true. During the election contest, Ms Truss had repeatedly been cautious on energy subsidies. And when she ascended (briefly) to the top, she announced a £150bn plan to freeze household energy bills, while cutting taxes. Nowhere could this be more different to Mrs Thatcher, who famously said “you can’t buck the market”. And who, on assuming power, scrapped the entire mechanism of price planning that she inherited from the Callaghan government.Callaghan misread the markets, (almost) saying “Crisis, What Crisis?”. But at least he got it at the end, telling the Labour Party Conference: “We used to think that you could spend your way out of a recession, and increase employ­ment by cutting taxes and boosting Government spending. I tell you in all candour that that option no longer exists”. Ms Truss still hasn’t got it.

Read the full story here

«13456789

Comments

  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 115,339
    edited February 2023
    First with absolutely no inside information.

    Robert didn't WhatsApp me telling me he's done a header.
  • Options
    BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 5,403
    edited February 2023
    Can this please be reposted with some paragraphs?

    Sorry for the edits; I've been drinking
  • Options
  • Options

    First with absolutely no inside information.

    Robert didn't WhatsApp me telling me he's done a header.

    He's probably had his WhatsApp account taken over via phone number recycling.
    https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/21/accidental_whatsapp_account_takeover/
  • Options
    On-topic, Politico's podcast, the 49 days of Liz Truss, the inside story:-
    https://play.acast.com/s/politicos-westminster-insider/49-days-of-liz-truss-the-inside-story
  • Options
    Why have you done it in an unusual way such that it displays on Vanilla how it does?
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 21,135
    Mary Elizabeth “The” TRUSS

    Mother. Queen. Saviour.

  • Options
    Truss's downfall must be one of the most public humiliations any UK politician has had to suffer, yet does the lady fall quietly into the background? No she does not. Instead she harangues from the sidelines, as if anyone cares and as if she were right all along.

    Is she mental? She doesn't look it but she kind of acts it.
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 21,135

    Why have you done it in an unusual way such that it displays on Vanilla how it does?
    It’s been TRUSSED
  • Options

    Why have you done it in an unusual way such that it displays on Vanilla how it does?
    I haven't done anything, I'm guessing it is a Vanilla glitch.
  • Options
    BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 5,403
    edited February 2023

    Why have you done it in an unusual way such that it displays on Vanilla how it does?
    I haven't done anything, I'm guessing it is a Vanilla glitch.
    Those workers and their tools that get blamed
  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,930
    Everyone fell over backwards to allow Truss a good initial period in office, so it certainly wasn't anyone derailing her. Nor was it some careless stumble. She's just not very good, and borderline mad.
  • Options

    First with absolutely no inside information.

    Robert didn't WhatsApp me telling me he's done a header.

    He's probably had his WhatsApp account taken over via phone number recycling.
    https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/21/accidental_whatsapp_account_takeover/
    I would be so fucked if someone had access to my WhatsApp messages.
  • Options
    geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,298
    re SNP leadership: today, Ash Wednesday, could have been auspicious.
  • Options
    FairlieredFairliered Posts: 4,249
    Omnium said:

    Everyone fell over backwards to allow Truss a good initial period in office, so it certainly wasn't anyone derailing her. Nor was it some careless stumble. She's just not very good, and borderline mad.

    Not very good, and borderline mad sums up the Tory members who voted for her, and still think her policies are right.
  • Options
    geoffw said:

    re SNP leadership: today, Ash Wednesday, could have been auspicious.

    I've given up innuendoes for Lent.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,104
    FPT
    malcolmg said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Eabhal said:

    Carnyx said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Taz , the Scottish NI last year was much higher than pensions

    You want to be careful, malky - irritability and forgetfulness are symptoms of dementia.
    another nasty arsehole , what kind of a creep comes out with stuff like that , GIRUY
    I must say your reasoned assessments of the relative merits of the candidates have been pithy and consistent and entirely logical. Nothing wrong with the old brain.

    I don't think any of the Scots on here rates Mr Yousaf. Not one?

    But maybe we are all old farts on PB.
    I have to say the relentless downer on him from PB types who hate the SNP and indy, and have neither a vote in Scotland or in the leadership election is making me warm to him.
    I think he would be an excellent choice from the Scons point of view
    Yeah, they might break back into the low 20s in polling.
    The thought of SCons & SLab bickering over who gets to be distant second fair breaks my heart.
    The Scons would be the only party supporting the 100,000 plus North Sea jobs and duelling the A9 plus of course they are pro the union
    That's a Harry Potter sequel I wasn't expecting.

    Makes sense I suppose - Rowling lives just off the A9 in Aberfeldy.
    And of course if Kate Forbes won she would be very much on the same page as the Scons apart from on independence
    Parties with one huge and overwhelming constitutional policy, such as the SNP are in a sort of dilemma.

    If you drill down on what they want, they want two constitutional things (I hope).
    1) Scottish independence in
    2) A multi party democracy.

    The second means of course that the first aim intends that all shades of democratically accountable opinion, from Jezza to Lee Anderson to JRM will be held and get elected in the new country.

    And the more the SNP has views other than independence, especially slightly off the wall ones, the more they look like a faction not a national movement.

    Which is why you need the Scotland Liberation Front as well as the Front for the Liberation of Scotland - and possibly The Liberation of Scotland Front too.
    This is just Spiking Separatist Movements 101.

    Canada has a clever one.

    By ensuring that all Government documents must be bilingual in French & English, they created a large number of Francophones whose livelihoods depend on translating documents from English into French (or vice versa). Much (if not all) of the translation is redundant.

    An independent Quebec would be Francophone and have no need of an army of translators. Nor would Anglophone rump Canada need so many translators.

    Hence, the Canadian Government created French speakers with a vested interest in saying 'Non' to an independent Quebec.

    Certainly enough to have changed the result of the last referendum.
    Not entirely sure this specific theory holds water, although the broader point is surely right.

    The UK has made no attempt I can see to persuade the Scottish (or Welsh) bureaucratic elite to maintain the Union.

    This elite tend not be especially business savvy, and have not yet realised, in Scotland’s case, that independence means the end of the its Financial Services industry (just as Brexit obviously implied the slow collapse, or continued collapse if you like, of British manufacturing).
    Yes. See this fascinating FT article (££) on the sad decline of Barcelona. The city not the club

    Much of it is the usual. Crime, grime, Airbnb, illegal immigration, WFH, covid - but there’s an added element. Loads of major firms - even Catalan banks - have shifted HQs, offices and jobs to relatively booming Madrid

    Why? Just the threat of Catalan independence. Too destabilising. Edinburgh would be destroyed by
    Indy


    The Catalans haven't had a proper try at independence. The Scots have - they had to come cap in hand, and we English allowed them to put their cap back on and said that they'd be full partners. (Rather than a French enclave)
    Not that old chesnut yet again , how boring. Next it will eb how do you have a pension , what is your currency. FFS get a grip.
    What is the scottish currency going to be....big clue it wont be the pound unless you are going to just peg your currency to it frankly. I am a big fan of scottish indepedence but fuck off if you think we are going to be your central bank
  • Options
    Has anyone else noticed how Keir says "community"?

    He says com-oo-nity, not com-yoo-nity

    It sounds really odd to me
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 21,135

    Truss's downfall must be one of the most public humiliations any UK politician has had to suffer, yet does the lady fall quietly into the background? No she does not. Instead she harangues from the sidelines, as if anyone cares and as if she were right all along.

    Is she mental? She doesn't look it but she kind of acts it.

    I spoke to a former Tory MP at the start of the month who was quite close to Truss.

    She genuinely believes she had a mandate* to change the country and there was an institutional coup d'état against her.

    *She seems to not grasp 80,000 votes from Tory members isn't a mandate to change the country.
    If you are ever short of mild amusement, simply read back the sycophantic PB Tory love-in for THE TRUSS before her ascension.

  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,871

    First with absolutely no inside information.

    Robert didn't WhatsApp me telling me he's done a header.

    He's probably had his WhatsApp account taken over via phone number recycling.
    https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/21/accidental_whatsapp_account_takeover/
    I would be so fucked if someone had access to my WhatsApp messages.
    I see several met officers have been fucked over for this.
    I think it’s a grey area. A friends brother in law is in the West Mids police, dealing with paedophiles. He has to deal with scum day in, day out, horrible stuff. He regularly sends Whatsapp messages that originate among his colleagues that cross lines, often majorly. My colleague at the uni sends them to me. We are probably all contravening some law, somewhere. My Dad, ex Guards and then 30 years in the police says that officers need black humour to deal with stuff. In the old days that was in the pub, telling jokes about things Joe Public would be horrified at. Now it’s on Whatsapp. At what point are people not allowed to tell shit, distasteful jokes among friends?
  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,930

    Omnium said:

    Everyone fell over backwards to allow Truss a good initial period in office, so it certainly wasn't anyone derailing her. Nor was it some careless stumble. She's just not very good, and borderline mad.

    Not very good, and borderline mad sums up the Tory members who voted for her, and still think her policies are right.
    Well I voted for her. Admittedly I did so only when it was clear she'd win anyway, and thus a bigger vote would be helpful. (She was nearly my last choice of the initial runners)

    Her policies were fine if funded. She might even have managed to implement them if she'd presented a very clear budget with the costs. What she actually did was commit to spending and stuck the funding in the back room and hoped nobody would notice. Even Labour haven't done that before.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,945
    The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes.
    It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.

    This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,104
    edited February 2023
    DavidL said:

    The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes.
    It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.

    This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.

    All of the west is in the same place this way...interest rates are high, borrowing repayments are taking a toll. This is why social democracy is a dead duck. We cant keep sliding debt to generations unborn
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,988

    The sad truth is that Margaret Thatcher was just much brighter than Liz Truss.

    True, but Truss also seems to be, well, bat-shit.

    Those who had worked with her did actually warn as much.

    It’s actually an indictment of Cameron that she found her way into any sort of power. The best I can say about her is that she was less useless in Trade than Liam Fox, but the jury is still out on the Aussie trade deal, frankly.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,988
    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Everyone fell over backwards to allow Truss a good initial period in office, so it certainly wasn't anyone derailing her. Nor was it some careless stumble. She's just not very good, and borderline mad.

    Not very good, and borderline mad sums up the Tory members who voted for her, and still think her policies are right.
    Well I voted for her.
    Quelle surprise.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,653
    Pagan2 said:

    DavidL said:

    The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes.
    It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.

    This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.

    All of the west is in the same place this way...interest rates are high, borrowing repayments are taking a toll. This is why social democracy is a dead duck. We cant keep sliding debt to generations unborn
    That's not strictly true: there are Western, developed, countries, that have trade surpluses and low government debt-to-GDP.

    They just happen to be countries that follow very prudent economic policies, including encouraging domestic saving, rather than splurging on tax cuts and spending increases.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,988

    Truss's downfall must be one of the most public humiliations any UK politician has had to suffer, yet does the lady fall quietly into the background? No she does not. Instead she harangues from the sidelines, as if anyone cares and as if she were right all along.

    Is she mental? She doesn't look it but she kind of acts it.

    I spoke to a former Tory MP at the start of the month who was quite close to Truss.

    She genuinely believes she had a mandate* to change the country and there was an institutional coup d'état against her.

    *She seems to not grasp 80,000 votes from Tory members isn't a mandate to change the country.
    If you are ever short of mild amusement, simply read back the sycophantic PB Tory love-in for THE TRUSS before her ascension.

    Why go back? Some on here are still unrepentant!
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes.
    It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.

    This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.

    And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.

    Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.

    The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,104
    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DavidL said:

    The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes.
    It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.

    This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.

    All of the west is in the same place this way...interest rates are high, borrowing repayments are taking a toll. This is why social democracy is a dead duck. We cant keep sliding debt to generations unborn
    That's not strictly true: there are Western, developed, countries, that have trade surpluses and low government debt-to-GDP.

    They just happen to be countries that follow very prudent economic policies, including encouraging domestic saving, rather than splurging on tax cuts and spending increases.
    They are few and far between and often lying....such as the uk where they claim debt is somewhere round 90% of gdp but goes to about 200% when you include all the stuff they forgot to mention such as public sector pension liabilities
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,529
    The other major mistake was to think that the secret to sustainable growth was tax cuts at a time that public infrastructure had got into such a parlous state and governments around the world (well, specifically the US) were about to splurge billions on interventionist industrial policy.

    Of the tax cuts / foregone rises, ditching the CT rise was arguable but had some merit, ditching the health and social care levy probably a good idea if it were replaced by a fairer income tax rise, the 45p rate cut was just pointless gesturing and the investment zones an ill thought out policy. None would be that bad on their own in different times but together at once while spending hundreds of billions on an energy price guarantee yet planning further cuts in investment was just daft.
  • Options

    First with absolutely no inside information.

    Robert didn't WhatsApp me telling me he's done a header.

    He's probably had his WhatsApp account taken over via phone number recycling.
    https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/21/accidental_whatsapp_account_takeover/
    I would be so fucked if someone had access to my WhatsApp messages.
    I see several met officers have been fucked over for this.
    I think it’s a grey area. A friends brother in law is in the West Mids police, dealing with paedophiles. He has to deal with scum day in, day out, horrible stuff. He regularly sends Whatsapp messages that originate among his colleagues that cross lines, often majorly. My colleague at the uni sends them to me. We are probably all contravening some law, somewhere. My Dad, ex Guards and then 30 years in the police says that officers need black humour to deal with stuff. In the old days that was in the pub, telling jokes about things Joe Public would be horrified at. Now it’s on Whatsapp. At what point are people not allowed to tell shit, distasteful jokes among friends?
    It's a grey area.

    As the judge who sentenced Wayne Couzens noted the police have unique powers and a role that means they need to be judged to a higher standard.

    Imagine you were the victim of a racist assault and it then transpired the coppers investigating regularly used racial slurs.

    As for me, for example if someone looked at my phone they would see I have friends who regularly use homophobic slurs which I never call out and I occasionally reply with 'OMG, I feel so guilty for laughing at that.'

    The reality is I have a lot of gay friends, who use terms I would never use, so in that context those messages are fine.

    Same as me, who make people feel guilty for making people laugh at inappropriate jokes.

    I have been compared to Jimmy Carr on multiple occasions.
  • Options

    The sad truth is that Margaret Thatcher was just much brighter than Liz Truss.

    True, but Truss also seems to be, well, bat-shit.

    Those who had worked with her did actually warn as much.

    It’s actually an indictment of Cameron that she found her way into any sort of power. The best I can say about her is that she was less useless in Trade than Liam Fox, but the jury is still out on the Aussie trade deal, frankly.
    Effective and controllable in the right department but not at the top.

    I suspect Ben Wallace would have crashed and burned quickly too.

    Funnily enough, I think Michael Gove could do the job.
  • Options
    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    malcolmg said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Eabhal said:

    Carnyx said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Taz , the Scottish NI last year was much higher than pensions

    You want to be careful, malky - irritability and forgetfulness are symptoms of dementia.
    another nasty arsehole , what kind of a creep comes out with stuff like that , GIRUY
    I must say your reasoned assessments of the relative merits of the candidates have been pithy and consistent and entirely logical. Nothing wrong with the old brain.

    I don't think any of the Scots on here rates Mr Yousaf. Not one?

    But maybe we are all old farts on PB.
    I have to say the relentless downer on him from PB types who hate the SNP and indy, and have neither a vote in Scotland or in the leadership election is making me warm to him.
    I think he would be an excellent choice from the Scons point of view
    Yeah, they might break back into the low 20s in polling.
    The thought of SCons & SLab bickering over who gets to be distant second fair breaks my heart.
    The Scons would be the only party supporting the 100,000 plus North Sea jobs and duelling the A9 plus of course they are pro the union
    That's a Harry Potter sequel I wasn't expecting.

    Makes sense I suppose - Rowling lives just off the A9 in Aberfeldy.
    And of course if Kate Forbes won she would be very much on the same page as the Scons apart from on independence
    Parties with one huge and overwhelming constitutional policy, such as the SNP are in a sort of dilemma.

    If you drill down on what they want, they want two constitutional things (I hope).
    1) Scottish independence in
    2) A multi party democracy.

    The second means of course that the first aim intends that all shades of democratically accountable opinion, from Jezza to Lee Anderson to JRM will be held and get elected in the new country.

    And the more the SNP has views other than independence, especially slightly off the wall ones, the more they look like a faction not a national movement.

    Which is why you need the Scotland Liberation Front as well as the Front for the Liberation of Scotland - and possibly The Liberation of Scotland Front too.
    This is just Spiking Separatist Movements 101.

    Canada has a clever one.

    By ensuring that all Government documents must be bilingual in French & English, they created a large number of Francophones whose livelihoods depend on translating documents from English into French (or vice versa). Much (if not all) of the translation is redundant.

    An independent Quebec would be Francophone and have no need of an army of translators. Nor would Anglophone rump Canada need so many translators.

    Hence, the Canadian Government created French speakers with a vested interest in saying 'Non' to an independent Quebec.

    Certainly enough to have changed the result of the last referendum.
    Not entirely sure this specific theory holds water, although the broader point is surely right.

    The UK has made no attempt I can see to persuade the Scottish (or Welsh) bureaucratic elite to maintain the Union.

    This elite tend not be especially business savvy, and have not yet realised, in Scotland’s case, that independence means the end of the its Financial Services industry (just as Brexit obviously implied the slow collapse, or continued collapse if you like, of British manufacturing).
    Yes. See this fascinating FT article (££) on the sad decline of Barcelona. The city not the club

    Much of it is the usual. Crime, grime, Airbnb, illegal immigration, WFH, covid - but there’s an added element. Loads of major firms - even Catalan banks - have shifted HQs, offices and jobs to relatively booming Madrid

    Why? Just the threat of Catalan independence. Too destabilising. Edinburgh would be destroyed by
    Indy


    The Catalans haven't had a proper try at independence. The Scots have - they had to come cap in hand, and we English allowed them to put their cap back on and said that they'd be full partners. (Rather than a French enclave)
    Not that old chesnut yet again , how boring. Next it will eb how do you have a pension , what is your currency. FFS get a grip.
    What is the scottish currency going to be....big clue it wont be the pound unless you are going to just peg your currency to it frankly. I am a big fan of scottish indepedence but fuck off if you think we are going to be your central bank
    You don't have to solve every issue on Day 1. Ireland kept their pound at 1 to 1 with the UK's pound for over 50 years.
  • Options
    BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,480
    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Everyone fell over backwards to allow Truss a good initial period in office, so it certainly wasn't anyone derailing her. Nor was it some careless stumble. She's just not very good, and borderline mad.

    Not very good, and borderline mad sums up the Tory members who voted for her, and still think her policies are right.
    Well I voted for her. Admittedly I did so only when it was clear she'd win anyway, and thus a bigger vote would be helpful. (She was nearly my last choice of the initial runners)

    Her policies were fine if funded. She might even have managed to implement them if she'd presented a very clear budget with the costs. What she actually did was commit to spending and stuck the funding in the back room and hoped nobody would notice. Even Labour haven't done that before.
    C'mon. It was perfectly clear all along that she was a dud, on par with IDS. But people just won't be told. We can see the same happening with the SNP who, unless something unexpected happens, are going to end up with Humsa Yousaf as leader. Likewise Labour with Ed Milliband. It takes something just a bit special to be a successful or even half-ways competent leader.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 32,938
    DavidL said:

    The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes.
    It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.

    This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.

    Pah! There's plenty of room for manoeuvre. We could tax at French levels for a start.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,104

    The sad truth is that Margaret Thatcher was just much brighter than Liz Truss.

    True, but Truss also seems to be, well, bat-shit.

    Those who had worked with her did actually warn as much.

    It’s actually an indictment of Cameron that she found her way into any sort of power. The best I can say about her is that she was less useless in Trade than Liam Fox, but the jury is still out on the Aussie trade deal, frankly.
    Effective and controllable in the right department but not at the top.

    I suspect Ben Wallace would have crashed and burned quickly too.

    Funnily enough, I think Michael Gove could do the job.
    All our politicians currently are absolutely useless, the sooner we put them out of all of our misery the better
  • Options
    This is why the current iteration of the Tory Party needs to die.


  • Options

    The sad truth is that Margaret Thatcher was just much brighter than Liz Truss.

    True, but Truss also seems to be, well, bat-shit.

    Those who had worked with her did actually warn as much.

    It’s actually an indictment of Cameron that she found her way into any sort of power. The best I can say about her is that she was less useless in Trade than Liam Fox, but the jury is still out on the Aussie trade deal, frankly.
    Effective and controllable in the right department but not at the top.

    I suspect Ben Wallace would have crashed and burned quickly too.

    Funnily enough, I think Michael Gove could do the job.
    Jeremy Hunt could do it.

    Unfortunately the Tories aren't going to choose someone who backed Remain.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 32,938
    Good thread header RCS. Important to call out the 'stabbed in the back' myth for the fiction it is.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,104
    One thing good about scottish indepence by the way is we could deport the scally's born in scotland as they leave prison at least and make them live in wick
  • Options
    ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,059

    DavidL said:

    The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes.
    It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.

    This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.

    And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.

    Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.

    The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
    I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,529
    edited February 2023

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Everyone fell over backwards to allow Truss a good initial period in office, so it certainly wasn't anyone derailing her. Nor was it some careless stumble. She's just not very good, and borderline mad.

    Not very good, and borderline mad sums up the Tory members who voted for her, and still think her policies are right.
    Well I voted for her. Admittedly I did so only when it was clear she'd win anyway, and thus a bigger vote would be helpful. (She was nearly my last choice of the initial runners)

    Her policies were fine if funded. She might even have managed to implement them if she'd presented a very clear budget with the costs. What she actually did was commit to spending and stuck the funding in the back room and hoped nobody would notice. Even Labour haven't done that before.
    C'mon. It was perfectly clear all along that she was a dud, on par with IDS. But people just won't be told. We can see the same happening with the SNP who, unless something unexpected happens, are going to end up with Humsa Yousaf as leader. Likewise Labour with Ed Milliband. It takes something just a bit special to be a successful or even half-ways competent leader.
    Miliband doesn’t belong in that list. He was underwhelming and the wrong choice, but nowhere near IDS levels. Swinson sadly probably needs to be added for the sheer hubris of the next PM stuff in 2019. Miliband was more at the May, Ming or Hague level. Like Hague he’s got better with age too.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,988

    This is why the current iteration of the Tory Party needs to die.


    The shocking thing is that we are all quite desensitised to it. We now actively expect the Home Sec to be some kind of half-witted demagogue.

    This is why I think the Tories deserve total oblivion in 24. The normal pieties about a “healthy opposition” don’t hold. The Tories, and their supporters, are beneath contempt.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,871

    First with absolutely no inside information.

    Robert didn't WhatsApp me telling me he's done a header.

    He's probably had his WhatsApp account taken over via phone number recycling.
    https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/21/accidental_whatsapp_account_takeover/
    I would be so fucked if someone had access to my WhatsApp messages.
    I see several met officers have been fucked over for this.
    I think it’s a grey area. A friends brother in law is in the West Mids police, dealing with paedophiles. He has to deal with scum day in, day out, horrible stuff. He regularly sends Whatsapp messages that originate among his colleagues that cross lines, often majorly. My colleague at the uni sends them to me. We are probably all contravening some law, somewhere. My Dad, ex Guards and then 30 years in the police says that officers need black humour to deal with stuff. In the old days that was in the pub, telling jokes about things Joe Public would be horrified at. Now it’s on Whatsapp. At what point are people not allowed to tell shit, distasteful jokes among friends?
    It's a grey area.

    As the judge who sentenced Wayne Couzens noted the police have unique powers and a role that means they need to be judged to a higher standard.

    Imagine you were the victim of a racist assault and it then transpired the coppers investigating regularly used racial slurs.

    As for me, for example if someone looked at my phone they would see I have friends who regularly use homophobic slurs which I never call out and I occasionally reply with 'OMG, I feel so guilty for laughing at that.'

    The reality is I have a lot of gay friends, who use terms I would never use, so in that context those messages are fine.

    Same as me, who make people feel guilty for making people laugh at inappropriate jokes.

    I have been compared to Jimmy Carr on multiple occasions.
    Sure, context is important. I do fear that we enter a new puritanical age as was presaged in Scotland by one of the candidates to lead the SNP.
  • Options

    First with absolutely no inside information.

    Robert didn't WhatsApp me telling me he's done a header.

    He's probably had his WhatsApp account taken over via phone number recycling.
    https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/21/accidental_whatsapp_account_takeover/
    I would be so fucked if someone had access to my WhatsApp messages.
    I see several met officers have been fucked over for this.
    I think it’s a grey area. A friends brother in law is in the West Mids police, dealing with paedophiles. He has to deal with scum day in, day out, horrible stuff. He regularly sends Whatsapp messages that originate among his colleagues that cross lines, often majorly. My colleague at the uni sends them to me. We are probably all contravening some law, somewhere. My Dad, ex Guards and then 30 years in the police says that officers need black humour to deal with stuff. In the old days that was in the pub, telling jokes about things Joe Public would be horrified at. Now it’s on Whatsapp. At what point are people not allowed to tell shit, distasteful jokes among friends?
    It's a grey area.

    As the judge who sentenced Wayne Couzens noted the police have unique powers and a role that means they need to be judged to a higher standard.

    Imagine you were the victim of a racist assault and it then transpired the coppers investigating regularly used racial slurs.

    As for me, for example if someone looked at my phone they would see I have friends who regularly use homophobic slurs which I never call out and I occasionally reply with 'OMG, I feel so guilty for laughing at that.'

    The reality is I have a lot of gay friends, who use terms I would never use, so in that context those messages are fine.

    Same as me, who make people feel guilty for making people laugh at inappropriate jokes.

    I have been compared to Jimmy Carr on multiple occasions.
    I think on things like this it's a case of he who is without sin should cast the first stone.

    If you looked hard enough you could probably do anyone for discrimination somewhere down the line regardless of political affiliation. Because that's being human.

    Context, degree, motive and character matter hugely in interpreting what someone said and why and yet society today demands black & white biblical judgements, and scalps.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,653
    Richardr said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    malcolmg said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Eabhal said:

    Carnyx said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Taz , the Scottish NI last year was much higher than pensions

    You want to be careful, malky - irritability and forgetfulness are symptoms of dementia.
    another nasty arsehole , what kind of a creep comes out with stuff like that , GIRUY
    I must say your reasoned assessments of the relative merits of the candidates have been pithy and consistent and entirely logical. Nothing wrong with the old brain.

    I don't think any of the Scots on here rates Mr Yousaf. Not one?

    But maybe we are all old farts on PB.
    I have to say the relentless downer on him from PB types who hate the SNP and indy, and have neither a vote in Scotland or in the leadership election is making me warm to him.
    I think he would be an excellent choice from the Scons point of view
    Yeah, they might break back into the low 20s in polling.
    The thought of SCons & SLab bickering over who gets to be distant second fair breaks my heart.
    The Scons would be the only party supporting the 100,000 plus North Sea jobs and duelling the A9 plus of course they are pro the union
    That's a Harry Potter sequel I wasn't expecting.

    Makes sense I suppose - Rowling lives just off the A9 in Aberfeldy.
    And of course if Kate Forbes won she would be very much on the same page as the Scons apart from on independence
    Parties with one huge and overwhelming constitutional policy, such as the SNP are in a sort of dilemma.

    If you drill down on what they want, they want two constitutional things (I hope).
    1) Scottish independence in
    2) A multi party democracy.

    The second means of course that the first aim intends that all shades of democratically accountable opinion, from Jezza to Lee Anderson to JRM will be held and get elected in the new country.

    And the more the SNP has views other than independence, especially slightly off the wall ones, the more they look like a faction not a national movement.

    Which is why you need the Scotland Liberation Front as well as the Front for the Liberation of Scotland - and possibly The Liberation of Scotland Front too.
    This is just Spiking Separatist Movements 101.

    Canada has a clever one.

    By ensuring that all Government documents must be bilingual in French & English, they created a large number of Francophones whose livelihoods depend on translating documents from English into French (or vice versa). Much (if not all) of the translation is redundant.

    An independent Quebec would be Francophone and have no need of an army of translators. Nor would Anglophone rump Canada need so many translators.

    Hence, the Canadian Government created French speakers with a vested interest in saying 'Non' to an independent Quebec.

    Certainly enough to have changed the result of the last referendum.
    Not entirely sure this specific theory holds water, although the broader point is surely right.

    The UK has made no attempt I can see to persuade the Scottish (or Welsh) bureaucratic elite to maintain the Union.

    This elite tend not be especially business savvy, and have not yet realised, in Scotland’s case, that independence means the end of the its Financial Services industry (just as Brexit obviously implied the slow collapse, or continued collapse if you like, of British manufacturing).
    Yes. See this fascinating FT article (££) on the sad decline of Barcelona. The city not the club

    Much of it is the usual. Crime, grime, Airbnb, illegal immigration, WFH, covid - but there’s an added element. Loads of major firms - even Catalan banks - have shifted HQs, offices and jobs to relatively booming Madrid

    Why? Just the threat of Catalan independence. Too destabilising. Edinburgh would be destroyed by
    Indy


    The Catalans haven't had a proper try at independence. The Scots have - they had to come cap in hand, and we English allowed them to put their cap back on and said that they'd be full partners. (Rather than a French enclave)
    Not that old chesnut yet again , how boring. Next it will eb how do you have a pension , what is your currency. FFS get a grip.
    What is the scottish currency going to be....big clue it wont be the pound unless you are going to just peg your currency to it frankly. I am a big fan of scottish indepedence but fuck off if you think we are going to be your central bank
    You don't have to solve every issue on Day 1. Ireland kept their pound at 1 to 1 with the UK's pound for over 50 years.
    And Estonia built their economy on a peg to the Deutschmark.

    But such a strategy is not an easy one. It requires you to hold government spending down, and do avoid running a trade deficit, because you are no longer have control of your destiny.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,945

    The sad truth is that Margaret Thatcher was just much brighter than Liz Truss.

    True, but Truss also seems to be, well, bat-shit.

    Those who had worked with her did actually warn as much.

    It’s actually an indictment of Cameron that she found her way into any sort of power. The best I can say about her is that she was less useless in Trade than Liam Fox, but the jury is still out on the Aussie trade deal, frankly.
    Effective and controllable in the right department but not at the top.

    I suspect Ben Wallace would have crashed and burned quickly too.

    Funnily enough, I think Michael Gove could do the job.
    It’s a seriously tough job. You need to be diligent, disciplined and above all lucky to be ok at it. Most fall short in some criteria.

    Yousaf, however, is going for a full house of flaws. It doesn’t bode well for the country.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,104

    DavidL said:

    The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes.
    It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.

    This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.

    And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.

    Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.

    The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
    I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
    You do realise after 5 years of a starmer governement everything is going to be worse I hope, it would also be worse under a lib dem or tory governement so not a party political point. I suspect the economy wont pick up regardless of who is in charge till 2035ish.

    If things go down hill under labour too I fully expect the governement after to be neither tory or labour but some extremist shits from left or right
  • Options
    BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,480
    Richardr said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    malcolmg said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Eabhal said:

    Carnyx said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Taz , the Scottish NI last year was much higher than pensions

    You want to be careful, malky - irritability and forgetfulness are symptoms of dementia.
    another nasty arsehole , what kind of a creep comes out with stuff like that , GIRUY
    I must say your reasoned assessments of the relative merits of the candidates have been pithy and consistent and entirely logical. Nothing wrong with the old brain.

    I don't think any of the Scots on here rates Mr Yousaf. Not one?

    But maybe we are all old farts on PB.
    I have to say the relentless downer on him from PB types who hate the SNP and indy, and have neither a vote in Scotland or in the leadership election is making me warm to him.
    I think he would be an excellent choice from the Scons point of view
    Yeah, they might break back into the low 20s in polling.
    The thought of SCons & SLab bickering over who gets to be distant second fair breaks my heart.
    The Scons would be the only party supporting the 100,000 plus North Sea jobs and duelling the A9 plus of course they are pro the union
    That's a Harry Potter sequel I wasn't expecting.

    Makes sense I suppose - Rowling lives just off the A9 in Aberfeldy.
    And of course if Kate Forbes won she would be very much on the same page as the Scons apart from on independence
    Parties with one huge and overwhelming constitutional policy, such as the SNP are in a sort of dilemma.

    If you drill down on what they want, they want two constitutional things (I hope).
    1) Scottish independence in
    2) A multi party democracy.

    The second means of course that the first aim intends that all shades of democratically accountable opinion, from Jezza to Lee Anderson to JRM will be held and get elected in the new country.

    And the more the SNP has views other than independence, especially slightly off the wall ones, the more they look like a faction not a national movement.

    Which is why you need the Scotland Liberation Front as well as the Front for the Liberation of Scotland - and possibly The Liberation of Scotland Front too.
    This is just Spiking Separatist Movements 101.

    Canada has a clever one.

    By ensuring that all Government documents must be bilingual in French & English, they created a large number of Francophones whose livelihoods depend on translating documents from English into French (or vice versa). Much (if not all) of the translation is redundant.

    An independent Quebec would be Francophone and have no need of an army of translators. Nor would Anglophone rump Canada need so many translators.

    Hence, the Canadian Government created French speakers with a vested interest in saying 'Non' to an independent Quebec.

    Certainly enough to have changed the result of the last referendum.
    Not entirely sure this specific theory holds water, although the broader point is surely right.

    The UK has made no attempt I can see to persuade the Scottish (or Welsh) bureaucratic elite to maintain the Union.

    This elite tend not be especially business savvy, and have not yet realised, in Scotland’s case, that independence means the end of the its Financial Services industry (just as Brexit obviously implied the slow collapse, or continued collapse if you like, of British manufacturing).
    Yes. See this fascinating FT article (££) on the sad decline of Barcelona. The city not the club

    Much of it is the usual. Crime, grime, Airbnb, illegal immigration, WFH, covid - but there’s an added element. Loads of major firms - even Catalan banks - have shifted HQs, offices and jobs to relatively booming Madrid

    Why? Just the threat of Catalan independence. Too destabilising. Edinburgh would be destroyed by
    Indy


    The Catalans haven't had a proper try at independence. The Scots have - they had to come cap in hand, and we English allowed them to put their cap back on and said that they'd be full partners. (Rather than a French enclave)
    Not that old chesnut yet again , how boring. Next it will eb how do you have a pension , what is your currency. FFS get a grip.
    What is the scottish currency going to be....big clue it wont be the pound unless you are going to just peg your currency to it frankly. I am a big fan of scottish indepedence but fuck off if you think we are going to be your central bank
    You don't have to solve every issue on Day 1. Ireland kept their pound at 1 to 1 with the UK's pound for over 50 years.
    Sigh. An Indy Scotland would be outside both the UK and the EU for who knows how many years. It will have a huge borrowing requirement, have to fund its own untested currency, while slashing public spending and upending the expectations of the poor mutts who had voted for independence. It won't be a pretty sight. But as you say, "You don't have to solve every issue on Day 1." So that's OK, then.
  • Options
    ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,086
    Crypto-scam-time!....

    https://twitter.com/Tree_of_Alpha/status/1628466657789202440

    "Twitter has started adding packs for "Twitter Coins" as of 10 minutes ago.
    The first pack showing is 150 coins for $1.99, and the only current purchasing option is via Stripe.

    I bought one pack and got 215 coins for it, currently checking to see what I can get with that."
  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,930

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Everyone fell over backwards to allow Truss a good initial period in office, so it certainly wasn't anyone derailing her. Nor was it some careless stumble. She's just not very good, and borderline mad.

    Not very good, and borderline mad sums up the Tory members who voted for her, and still think her policies are right.
    Well I voted for her. Admittedly I did so only when it was clear she'd win anyway, and thus a bigger vote would be helpful. (She was nearly my last choice of the initial runners)

    Her policies were fine if funded. She might even have managed to implement them if she'd presented a very clear budget with the costs. What she actually did was commit to spending and stuck the funding in the back room and hoped nobody would notice. Even Labour haven't done that before.
    C'mon. It was perfectly clear all along that she was a dud, on par with IDS. But people just won't be told. We can see the same happening with the SNP who, unless something unexpected happens, are going to end up with Humsa Yousaf as leader. Likewise Labour with Ed Milliband. It takes something just a bit special to be a successful or even half-ways competent leader.
    I really think that Truss was an especially hopeless case. Worse still, she seems till to believe that she's an answer to our ills. I voted for her, as I've said, because I thought a bigger mandate for a future leader would help the Tory party, and despite my reservations about Truss, she couldn't be so bad, could she? It turns out that yes she was.

  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,104

    Richardr said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    malcolmg said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Eabhal said:

    Carnyx said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Taz , the Scottish NI last year was much higher than pensions

    You want to be careful, malky - irritability and forgetfulness are symptoms of dementia.
    another nasty arsehole , what kind of a creep comes out with stuff like that , GIRUY
    I must say your reasoned assessments of the relative merits of the candidates have been pithy and consistent and entirely logical. Nothing wrong with the old brain.

    I don't think any of the Scots on here rates Mr Yousaf. Not one?

    But maybe we are all old farts on PB.
    I have to say the relentless downer on him from PB types who hate the SNP and indy, and have neither a vote in Scotland or in the leadership election is making me warm to him.
    I think he would be an excellent choice from the Scons point of view
    Yeah, they might break back into the low 20s in polling.
    The thought of SCons & SLab bickering over who gets to be distant second fair breaks my heart.
    The Scons would be the only party supporting the 100,000 plus North Sea jobs and duelling the A9 plus of course they are pro the union
    That's a Harry Potter sequel I wasn't expecting.

    Makes sense I suppose - Rowling lives just off the A9 in Aberfeldy.
    And of course if Kate Forbes won she would be very much on the same page as the Scons apart from on independence
    Parties with one huge and overwhelming constitutional policy, such as the SNP are in a sort of dilemma.

    If you drill down on what they want, they want two constitutional things (I hope).
    1) Scottish independence in
    2) A multi party democracy.

    The second means of course that the first aim intends that all shades of democratically accountable opinion, from Jezza to Lee Anderson to JRM will be held and get elected in the new country.

    And the more the SNP has views other than independence, especially slightly off the wall ones, the more they look like a faction not a national movement.

    Which is why you need the Scotland Liberation Front as well as the Front for the Liberation of Scotland - and possibly The Liberation of Scotland Front too.
    This is just Spiking Separatist Movements 101.

    Canada has a clever one.

    By ensuring that all Government documents must be bilingual in French & English, they created a large number of Francophones whose livelihoods depend on translating documents from English into French (or vice versa). Much (if not all) of the translation is redundant.

    An independent Quebec would be Francophone and have no need of an army of translators. Nor would Anglophone rump Canada need so many translators.

    Hence, the Canadian Government created French speakers with a vested interest in saying 'Non' to an independent Quebec.

    Certainly enough to have changed the result of the last referendum.
    Not entirely sure this specific theory holds water, although the broader point is surely right.

    The UK has made no attempt I can see to persuade the Scottish (or Welsh) bureaucratic elite to maintain the Union.

    This elite tend not be especially business savvy, and have not yet realised, in Scotland’s case, that independence means the end of the its Financial Services industry (just as Brexit obviously implied the slow collapse, or continued collapse if you like, of British manufacturing).
    Yes. See this fascinating FT article (££) on the sad decline of Barcelona. The city not the club

    Much of it is the usual. Crime, grime, Airbnb, illegal immigration, WFH, covid - but there’s an added element. Loads of major firms - even Catalan banks - have shifted HQs, offices and jobs to relatively booming Madrid

    Why? Just the threat of Catalan independence. Too destabilising. Edinburgh would be destroyed by
    Indy


    The Catalans haven't had a proper try at independence. The Scots have - they had to come cap in hand, and we English allowed them to put their cap back on and said that they'd be full partners. (Rather than a French enclave)
    Not that old chesnut yet again , how boring. Next it will eb how do you have a pension , what is your currency. FFS get a grip.
    What is the scottish currency going to be....big clue it wont be the pound unless you are going to just peg your currency to it frankly. I am a big fan of scottish indepedence but fuck off if you think we are going to be your central bank
    You don't have to solve every issue on Day 1. Ireland kept their pound at 1 to 1 with the UK's pound for over 50 years.
    Sigh. An Indy Scotland would be outside both the UK and the EU for who knows how many years. It will have a huge borrowing requirement, have to fund its own untested currency, while slashing public spending and upending the expectations of the poor mutts who had voted for independence. It won't be a pretty sight. But as you say, "You don't have to solve every issue on Day 1." So that's OK, then.
    What I said was not a go at scottish independence, as I said I support it. However they have to be realistic and as a member of rump uk I fully expect it to negotiate hard and not give anything away they don't have to just like the eu didn't to britain. Rump UK negotiators need to do what's best for us not what is best for scotland who are by then a foreign country just like france is
  • Options
    ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,059
    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Everyone fell over backwards to allow Truss a good initial period in office, so it certainly wasn't anyone derailing her. Nor was it some careless stumble. She's just not very good, and borderline mad.

    Not very good, and borderline mad sums up the Tory members who voted for her, and still think her policies are right.
    Well I voted for her. Admittedly I did so only when it was clear she'd win anyway, and thus a bigger vote would be helpful. (She was nearly my last choice of the initial runners)

    Her policies were fine if funded. She might even have managed to implement them if she'd presented a very clear budget with the costs. What she actually did was commit to spending and stuck the funding in the back room and hoped nobody would notice. Even Labour haven't done that before.
    C'mon. It was perfectly clear all along that she was a dud, on par with IDS. But people just won't be told. We can see the same happening with the SNP who, unless something unexpected happens, are going to end up with Humsa Yousaf as leader. Likewise Labour with Ed Milliband. It takes something just a bit special to be a successful or even half-ways competent leader.
    I really think that Truss was an especially hopeless case. Worse still, she seems till to believe that she's an answer to our ills. I voted for her, as I've said, because I thought a bigger mandate for a future leader would help the Tory party, and despite my reservations about Truss, she couldn't be so bad, could she? It turns out that yes she was.

    Her Dad was right about her all along. And he would have known her better than anyone else.
  • Options
    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    malcolmg said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Eabhal said:

    Carnyx said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Taz , the Scottish NI last year was much higher than pensions

    You want to be careful, malky - irritability and forgetfulness are symptoms of dementia.
    another nasty arsehole , what kind of a creep comes out with stuff like that , GIRUY
    I must say your reasoned assessments of the relative merits of the candidates have been pithy and consistent and entirely logical. Nothing wrong with the old brain.

    I don't think any of the Scots on here rates Mr Yousaf. Not one?

    But maybe we are all old farts on PB.
    I have to say the relentless downer on him from PB types who hate the SNP and indy, and have neither a vote in Scotland or in the leadership election is making me warm to him.
    I think he would be an excellent choice from the Scons point of view
    Yeah, they might break back into the low 20s in polling.
    The thought of SCons & SLab bickering over who gets to be distant second fair breaks my heart.
    The Scons would be the only party supporting the 100,000 plus North Sea jobs and duelling the A9 plus of course they are pro the union
    That's a Harry Potter sequel I wasn't expecting.

    Makes sense I suppose - Rowling lives just off the A9 in Aberfeldy.
    And of course if Kate Forbes won she would be very much on the same page as the Scons apart from on independence
    Parties with one huge and overwhelming constitutional policy, such as the SNP are in a sort of dilemma.

    If you drill down on what they want, they want two constitutional things (I hope).
    1) Scottish independence in
    2) A multi party democracy.

    The second means of course that the first aim intends that all shades of democratically accountable opinion, from Jezza to Lee Anderson to JRM will be held and get elected in the new country.

    And the more the SNP has views other than independence, especially slightly off the wall ones, the more they look like a faction not a national movement.

    Which is why you need the Scotland Liberation Front as well as the Front for the Liberation of Scotland - and possibly The Liberation of Scotland Front too.
    This is just Spiking Separatist Movements 101.

    Canada has a clever one.

    By ensuring that all Government documents must be bilingual in French & English, they created a large number of Francophones whose livelihoods depend on translating documents from English into French (or vice versa). Much (if not all) of the translation is redundant.

    An independent Quebec would be Francophone and have no need of an army of translators. Nor would Anglophone rump Canada need so many translators.

    Hence, the Canadian Government created French speakers with a vested interest in saying 'Non' to an independent Quebec.

    Certainly enough to have changed the result of the last referendum.
    Not entirely sure this specific theory holds water, although the broader point is surely right.

    The UK has made no attempt I can see to persuade the Scottish (or Welsh) bureaucratic elite to maintain the Union.

    This elite tend not be especially business savvy, and have not yet realised, in Scotland’s case, that independence means the end of the its Financial Services industry (just as Brexit obviously implied the slow collapse, or continued collapse if you like, of British manufacturing).
    Yes. See this fascinating FT article (££) on the sad decline of Barcelona. The city not the club

    Much of it is the usual. Crime, grime, Airbnb, illegal immigration, WFH, covid - but there’s an added element. Loads of major firms - even Catalan banks - have shifted HQs, offices and jobs to relatively booming Madrid

    Why? Just the threat of Catalan independence. Too destabilising. Edinburgh would be destroyed by
    Indy


    The Catalans haven't had a proper try at independence. The Scots have - they had to come cap in hand, and we English allowed them to put their cap back on and said that they'd be full partners. (Rather than a French enclave)
    Not that old chesnut yet again , how boring. Next it will eb how do you have a pension , what is your currency. FFS get a grip.
    What is the scottish currency going to be....big clue it wont be the pound unless you are going to just peg your currency to it frankly. I am a big fan of scottish indepedence but fuck off if you think we are going to be your central bank
    If Scotland doesn't share the currency, it doesn't have to share the National Debt.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 49,022
    edited February 2023

    This is why the current iteration of the Tory Party needs to die.


    The shocking thing is that we are all quite desensitised to it. We now actively expect the Home Sec to be some kind of half-witted demagogue.

    This is why I think the Tories deserve total oblivion in 24. The normal pieties about a “healthy opposition” don’t hold. The Tories, and their supporters, are beneath contempt.
    Oh for the days of New Labour when we could hold our heads high in the world:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6424377.stm

    "A clampdown has been launched targeting "foreigners [who] come to this country illegitimately and steal our benefits", home secretary John Reid has said.

    The plan is to stop illegal immigrants getting housing, healthcare or work.

    He said the UK was now "throwing out" record numbers of asylum seekers and he hoped to make life "constrained and uncomfortable" for illegal immigrants."
  • Options
    Angus Robertson has got to be value, surely?
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,796
    Days are getting longer. It was still light at nearly 6. Before we know it will be the Equinox we’ll be bathing in butter again.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 32,938
    Pagan2 said:

    DavidL said:

    The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes.
    It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.

    This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.

    And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.

    Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.

    The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
    I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
    You do realise after 5 years of a starmer governement everything is going to be worse I hope, it would also be worse under a lib dem or tory governement so not a party political point. I suspect the economy wont pick up regardless of who is in charge till 2035ish.

    If things go down hill under labour too I fully expect the governement after to be neither tory or labour but some extremist shits from left or right
    Why do you think 'everything is going to be worse' regardless of who is in power. And why do you think it will pick up around 2035?
  • Options

    DavidL said:

    The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes.
    It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.

    This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.

    And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.

    Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.

    The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
    I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
    Because they want to win.

    Not a great bench behind Starmer/Reeves though, is it?

    When the storms get a bit choppy they'll run into very similar party management issues.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,988

    This is why the current iteration of the Tory Party needs to die.


    The shocking thing is that we are all quite desensitised to it. We now actively expect the Home Sec to be some kind of half-witted demagogue.

    This is why I think the Tories deserve total oblivion in 24. The normal pieties about a “healthy opposition” don’t hold. The Tories, and their supporters, are beneath contempt.
    Oh for the days of New Labour when we could hold our heads high in the world:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6424377.stm

    "A clampdown has been launched targeting "foreigners [who] come to this country illegitimately and steal our benefits", home secretary John Reid has said.

    The plan is to stop illegal immigrants getting housing, healthcare or work.

    He said the UK was now "throwing out" record numbers of asylum seekers and he hoped to make life "constrained and uncomfortable" for illegal immigrants."
    I’m certainly not here to argue that New Labour was profoundly liberal.

    But the Tories have plumbed new depths.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,003

    This is why the current iteration of the Tory Party needs to die.


    Careful. When Sue Ellen becomes Prime Minister you will be sent to the same football stadium for re-education as Keir Starmer and myself.
  • Options
    TresTres Posts: 2,325
    Could Stephen Flynn think again?
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,988

    DavidL said:

    The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes.
    It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.

    This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.

    And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.

    Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.

    The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
    I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
    Because they want to win.

    Not a great bench behind Starmer/Reeves though, is it?

    When the storms get a bit choppy they'll run into very similar party management issues.
    What, really, is wrong with the bench behind Starmer/Reeves?

    Admittedly it’s not Churchill’s War Cabinet, but the idea they are all crap after Starmer and Reeves doesn’t really withstand analysis.

    I actually think they are one of the stronger Opposition front benches we’ve seen (you and are approx the same age, I think).
  • Options
    Pagan2 said:

    The sad truth is that Margaret Thatcher was just much brighter than Liz Truss.

    True, but Truss also seems to be, well, bat-shit.

    Those who had worked with her did actually warn as much.

    It’s actually an indictment of Cameron that she found her way into any sort of power. The best I can say about her is that she was less useless in Trade than Liam Fox, but the jury is still out on the Aussie trade deal, frankly.
    Effective and controllable in the right department but not at the top.

    I suspect Ben Wallace would have crashed and burned quickly too.

    Funnily enough, I think Michael Gove could do the job.
    All our politicians currently are absolutely useless, the sooner we put them out of all of our misery the better
    I think the ones who start with PPE, then student unions, then go to work in the party/think-tanks upon graduation and then become MPs are the biggest problem.

    Never done anything but politics and live in a bubble.

    Maybe we should select/vote based on real-world experience instead.
  • Options
    geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,298
     
    Tres said:

    Could Stephen Flynn think again?

    Strong assumption there.

  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,339

    Not a great bench behind Starmer/Reeves though, is it?

    When the storms get a bit choppy they'll run into very similar party management issues.

    But they are going to get a huge influx at the next election. I am not sure how many retreads there will be, but if folk like Wee Dougie are looking for seats then Starmer has a better chance of putting together a reasonable cabinet than Rishi.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,988

    Angus Robertson has got to be value, surely?

    Yes, but you’re letting the cat out of the bag.

    There must be a decent - say 20% chance - he “reluctantly” concedes to standing.
  • Options
    maxhmaxh Posts: 926
    DavidL said:

    The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes.
    It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.

    This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.

    All that being so clearly true, it seems much more plausible to me that the Trussterfuck was a deliberate ploy to tie the hands of the clearly incoming Labour government into further wrecking our public services for the benefit of anonymous donors to the IEA and the like. I bet we’d find Truss and Kwarteng were carefully advised by eg private healthcare companies.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,104

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    malcolmg said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Eabhal said:

    Carnyx said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Taz , the Scottish NI last year was much higher than pensions

    You want to be careful, malky - irritability and forgetfulness are symptoms of dementia.
    another nasty arsehole , what kind of a creep comes out with stuff like that , GIRUY
    I must say your reasoned assessments of the relative merits of the candidates have been pithy and consistent and entirely logical. Nothing wrong with the old brain.

    I don't think any of the Scots on here rates Mr Yousaf. Not one?

    But maybe we are all old farts on PB.
    I have to say the relentless downer on him from PB types who hate the SNP and indy, and have neither a vote in Scotland or in the leadership election is making me warm to him.
    I think he would be an excellent choice from the Scons point of view
    Yeah, they might break back into the low 20s in polling.
    The thought of SCons & SLab bickering over who gets to be distant second fair breaks my heart.
    The Scons would be the only party supporting the 100,000 plus North Sea jobs and duelling the A9 plus of course they are pro the union
    That's a Harry Potter sequel I wasn't expecting.

    Makes sense I suppose - Rowling lives just off the A9 in Aberfeldy.
    And of course if Kate Forbes won she would be very much on the same page as the Scons apart from on independence
    Parties with one huge and overwhelming constitutional policy, such as the SNP are in a sort of dilemma.

    If you drill down on what they want, they want two constitutional things (I hope).
    1) Scottish independence in
    2) A multi party democracy.

    The second means of course that the first aim intends that all shades of democratically accountable opinion, from Jezza to Lee Anderson to JRM will be held and get elected in the new country.

    And the more the SNP has views other than independence, especially slightly off the wall ones, the more they look like a faction not a national movement.

    Which is why you need the Scotland Liberation Front as well as the Front for the Liberation of Scotland - and possibly The Liberation of Scotland Front too.
    This is just Spiking Separatist Movements 101.

    Canada has a clever one.

    By ensuring that all Government documents must be bilingual in French & English, they created a large number of Francophones whose livelihoods depend on translating documents from English into French (or vice versa). Much (if not all) of the translation is redundant.

    An independent Quebec would be Francophone and have no need of an army of translators. Nor would Anglophone rump Canada need so many translators.

    Hence, the Canadian Government created French speakers with a vested interest in saying 'Non' to an independent Quebec.

    Certainly enough to have changed the result of the last referendum.
    Not entirely sure this specific theory holds water, although the broader point is surely right.

    The UK has made no attempt I can see to persuade the Scottish (or Welsh) bureaucratic elite to maintain the Union.

    This elite tend not be especially business savvy, and have not yet realised, in Scotland’s case, that independence means the end of the its Financial Services industry (just as Brexit obviously implied the slow collapse, or continued collapse if you like, of British manufacturing).
    Yes. See this fascinating FT article (££) on the sad decline of Barcelona. The city not the club

    Much of it is the usual. Crime, grime, Airbnb, illegal immigration, WFH, covid - but there’s an added element. Loads of major firms - even Catalan banks - have shifted HQs, offices and jobs to relatively booming Madrid

    Why? Just the threat of Catalan independence. Too destabilising. Edinburgh would be destroyed by
    Indy


    The Catalans haven't had a proper try at independence. The Scots have - they had to come cap in hand, and we English allowed them to put their cap back on and said that they'd be full partners. (Rather than a French enclave)
    Not that old chesnut yet again , how boring. Next it will eb how do you have a pension , what is your currency. FFS get a grip.
    What is the scottish currency going to be....big clue it wont be the pound unless you are going to just peg your currency to it frankly. I am a big fan of scottish indepedence but fuck off if you think we are going to be your central bank
    If Scotland doesn't share the currency, it doesn't have to share the National Debt.
    How do you work that out, plenty of countries have split had different currencies after and still split the national debt
  • Options

    DavidL said:

    The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes.
    It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.

    This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.

    And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.

    Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.

    The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
    I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
    Because they want to win.

    Not a great bench behind Starmer/Reeves though, is it?

    When the storms get a bit choppy they'll run into very similar party management issues.
    What, really, is wrong with the bench behind Starmer/Reeves?

    Admittedly it’s not Churchill’s War Cabinet, but the idea they are all crap after Starmer and Reeves doesn’t really withstand analysis.

    I actually think they are one of the stronger Opposition front benches we’ve seen (you and are approx the same age, I think).
    It's as weak on talent on the Tory benches. Remember Anneliese Dodds? And Yvette Cooper is massively overrated.

    The fact you can't see this is simply a function of your enthusiasm for a change in government.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,104

    Pagan2 said:

    DavidL said:

    The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes.
    It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.

    This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.

    And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.

    Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.

    The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
    I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
    You do realise after 5 years of a starmer governement everything is going to be worse I hope, it would also be worse under a lib dem or tory governement so not a party political point. I suspect the economy wont pick up regardless of who is in charge till 2035ish.

    If things go down hill under labour too I fully expect the governement after to be neither tory or labour but some extremist shits from left or right
    Why do you think 'everything is going to be worse' regardless of who is in power. And why do you think it will pick up around 2035?
    I think it will be worse because we have had centrist politics since 1992 and this is where it is landed us where the bottom 50% of the country is shafted....sorry you think more of the same is going to change it? No it's not the poor will continue to get ever poorer....the rich will get ever richer then the poor are going to turn round and eat you alive
  • Options

    Angus Robertson has got to be value, surely?

    Yes, but you’re letting the cat out of the bag.

    There must be a decent - say 20% chance - he “reluctantly” concedes to standing.
    Well, he's 25/1 at the moment.

    Stonking value if those are the real odds.

    I've bought a tenner.
  • Options
    BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,480
    Tres said:

    Could Stephen Flynn think again?

    I think being at Westminster at this stage of the Scottish Parliament's cycle puts him out of contention.

    It will be interesting to see if Kate withdraws now, esp after Swinney's comments. Or if she fights on to the bitter end.

    The defenestration of Kate Forbes in this way is gonna leave a very sour taste in the mouths of quite a few folk. Particularly if Humza is the beneficiary. Extraordinarily poor optics.
  • Options
    pingping Posts: 3,787
    edited February 2023

    Truss's downfall must be one of the most public humiliations any UK politician has had to suffer, yet does the lady fall quietly into the background? No she does not. Instead she harangues from the sidelines, as if anyone cares and as if she were right all along.

    Is she mental? She doesn't look it but she kind of acts it.

    I spoke to a former Tory MP at the start of the month who was quite close to Truss.

    She genuinely believes she had a mandate* to change the country and there was an institutional coup d'état against her.

    *She seems to not grasp 80,000 votes from Tory members isn't a mandate to change the country.
    I recon there’s a 10-15% chance the Tory party never again holds power.

    They’re a disgrace to our democracy.

    Starmer should change the law to force a GE within 30 days if ever a serving PM is bought down/resigns/dies mid-term.
  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,930

    DavidL said:

    The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes.
    It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.

    This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.

    And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.

    Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.

    The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
    I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
    Because they want to win.

    Not a great bench behind Starmer/Reeves though, is it?

    When the storms get a bit choppy they'll run into very similar party management issues.
    They'll have 150 new faces to call upon. (I've actually tried somewhat to spot obvious plants into future Labour seats, but I've not had any success at all.)

    SKS's main problem is how he loses (entirely) the denizens of the left.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,104
    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    DavidL said:

    The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes.
    It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.

    This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.

    And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.

    Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.

    The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
    I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
    You do realise after 5 years of a starmer governement everything is going to be worse I hope, it would also be worse under a lib dem or tory governement so not a party political point. I suspect the economy wont pick up regardless of who is in charge till 2035ish.

    If things go down hill under labour too I fully expect the governement after to be neither tory or labour but some extremist shits from left or right
    Why do you think 'everything is going to be worse' regardless of who is in power. And why do you think it will pick up around 2035?
    I think it will be worse because we have had centrist politics since 1992 and this is where it is landed us where the bottom 50% of the country is shafted....sorry you think more of the same is going to change it? No it's not the poor will continue to get ever poorer....the rich will get ever richer then the poor are going to turn round and eat you alive
    Question really be to you....why do you think more centrist policies are going to improve anything for the bottom 50% when for the last 30 years they havent....shouldn't you be going by now....hmmm the poor are getting poorer maybe this isn't fucking working and we are just shits because it works for me
  • Options

    First with absolutely no inside information.

    Robert didn't WhatsApp me telling me he's done a header.

    He's probably had his WhatsApp account taken over via phone number recycling.
    https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/21/accidental_whatsapp_account_takeover/
    I would be so fucked if someone had access to my WhatsApp messages.
    I see several met officers have been fucked over for this.
    I think it’s a grey area. A friends brother in law is in the West Mids police, dealing with paedophiles. He has to deal with scum day in, day out, horrible stuff. He regularly sends Whatsapp messages that originate among his colleagues that cross lines, often majorly. My colleague at the uni sends them to me. We are probably all contravening some law, somewhere. My Dad, ex Guards and then 30 years in the police says that officers need black humour to deal with stuff. In the old days that was in the pub, telling jokes about things Joe Public would be horrified at. Now it’s on Whatsapp. At what point are people not allowed to tell shit, distasteful jokes among friends?
    It's a grey area.

    As the judge who sentenced Wayne Couzens noted the police have unique powers and a role that means they need to be judged to a higher standard.

    Imagine you were the victim of a racist assault and it then transpired the coppers investigating regularly used racial slurs.

    As for me, for example if someone looked at my phone they would see I have friends who regularly use homophobic slurs which I never call out and I occasionally reply with 'OMG, I feel so guilty for laughing at that.'

    The reality is I have a lot of gay friends, who use terms I would never use, so in that context those messages are fine.

    Same as me, who make people feel guilty for making people laugh at inappropriate jokes.

    I have been compared to Jimmy Carr on multiple occasions.
    Compared to Jimmy Carr on political correctness?
    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/alSLpf1MlXo
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,003

    DavidL said:

    The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes.
    It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.

    This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.

    And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.

    Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.

    The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
    I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
    Because they want to win.

    Not a great bench behind Starmer/Reeves though, is it?

    When the storms get a bit choppy they'll run into very similar party management issues.
    What, really, is wrong with the bench behind Starmer/Reeves?

    Admittedly it’s not Churchill’s War Cabinet, but the idea they are all crap after Starmer and Reeves doesn’t really withstand analysis.

    I actually think they are one of the stronger Opposition front benches we’ve seen (you and are approx the same age, I think).
    It's as weak on talent on the Tory benches. Remember Anneliese Dodds? And Yvette Cooper is massively overrated.

    The fact you can't see this is simply a function of your enthusiasm for a change in government.
    I suspect you are underestimating some of the available Shadow Cabinet talent although like Johnson, Corbyn ejected the most capable of MPs from his Party.

    Let's face it, most of your smarter MPs are languishing on the back benches.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,302
    Yes, I know it's Tom Harwood, but it's an on the money comment.

    This morning the government was due to publish its Action Plan to speed up Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects.

    Although now I've learned that the government's plan to speed things up has itself been delayed. Poetic.


    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1627960622297018369?cxt=HHwWgsCzhfHj1pctAAAA
  • Options

    DavidL said:

    The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes.
    It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.

    This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.

    And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.

    Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.

    The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
    I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
    Because they want to win.

    Not a great bench behind Starmer/Reeves though, is it?

    When the storms get a bit choppy they'll run into very similar party management issues.
    What, really, is wrong with the bench behind Starmer/Reeves?

    Admittedly it’s not Churchill’s War Cabinet, but the idea they are all crap after Starmer and Reeves doesn’t really withstand analysis.

    I actually think they are one of the stronger Opposition front benches we’ve seen (you and are approx the same age, I think).
    It's as weak on talent on the Tory benches. Remember Anneliese Dodds? And Yvette Cooper is massively overrated.

    The fact you can't see this is simply a function of your enthusiasm for a change in government.
    I suspect you are underestimating some of the available Shadow Cabinet talent although like Johnson, Corbyn ejected the most capable of MPs from his Party.

    Let's face it, most of your smarter MPs are languishing on the back benches.
    Erm, who did Corbyn eject? The purge was often predicted but never materialised. Boris, on the other hand, threw out any number of Conservatives, including former ministers. Even David Cameron used the expenses scandal to rid himself of those who were not his supporters.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,988
    edited February 2023

    DavidL said:

    The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes.
    It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.

    This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.

    And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.

    Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.

    The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
    I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
    Because they want to win.

    Not a great bench behind Starmer/Reeves though, is it?

    When the storms get a bit choppy they'll run into very similar party management issues.
    What, really, is wrong with the bench behind Starmer/Reeves?

    Admittedly it’s not Churchill’s War Cabinet, but the idea they are all crap after Starmer and Reeves doesn’t really withstand analysis.

    I actually think they are one of the stronger Opposition front benches we’ve seen (you and are approx the same age, I think).
    It's as weak on talent on the Tory benches. Remember Anneliese Dodds? And Yvette Cooper is massively overrated.

    The fact you can't see this is simply a function of your enthusiasm for a change in government.
    No, I think you’re being unduly harsh.
    I’m not a Labour voter, and I am likely to become one of their biggest critics as soon as there is a change in government.

    Dodds is a wonk. No especial harm in that. She was in the wrong role, and has now been moved. I haven’t been so impressed, but I’m withholding judgment.

    Cooper might be overrated, I don’t especially rate her, save that she looks like the pinnacle of competence compared to the current lot.

    Looking at the front bench…

    I - with certain allowances - broadly rate* Starmer, Reeves, Cooper, Lammy, Phillipson, Nandy, Healy, Ashworth, Allin-Khan, Reynolds, Miliband and Streeting and Debbonaire.

    You also have Benn and Bryant kicking about, and Angela Smith.

    *As in, don’t think WTF, which is high praise from me.

    Rayner I personally don’t rate. I admire her story, though, and I accept she maybe reaches certain demographics. Thornberry I also think has presentational issues. I’m not convinced by Reed, Murray or Haigh.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,988
    kle4 said:

    Yes, I know it's Tom Harwood, but it's an on the money comment.

    This morning the government was due to publish its Action Plan to speed up Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects.

    Although now I've learned that the government's plan to speed things up has itself been delayed. Poetic.


    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1627960622297018369?cxt=HHwWgsCzhfHj1pctAAAA

    The integrated foreign policy and defence review has also been delayed for some months.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,811
    TimS said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Everyone fell over backwards to allow Truss a good initial period in office, so it certainly wasn't anyone derailing her. Nor was it some careless stumble. She's just not very good, and borderline mad.

    Not very good, and borderline mad sums up the Tory members who voted for her, and still think her policies are right.
    Well I voted for her. Admittedly I did so only when it was clear she'd win anyway, and thus a bigger vote would be helpful. (She was nearly my last choice of the initial runners)

    Her policies were fine if funded. She might even have managed to implement them if she'd presented a very clear budget with the costs. What she actually did was commit to spending and stuck the funding in the back room and hoped nobody would notice. Even Labour haven't done that before.
    C'mon. It was perfectly clear all along that she was a dud, on par with IDS. But people just won't be told. We can see the same happening with the SNP who, unless something unexpected happens, are going to end up with Humsa Yousaf as leader. Likewise Labour with Ed Milliband. It takes something just a bit special to be a successful or even half-ways competent leader.
    Miliband doesn’t belong in that list. He was underwhelming and the wrong choice, but nowhere near IDS levels. Swinson sadly probably needs to be added for the sheer hubris of the next PM stuff in 2019. Miliband was more at the May, Ming or Hague level. Like Hague he’s got better with age too.
    Imagine how awful the last decade would have been with a Coalition of Chaos under Ed Miliband.
  • Options

    First with absolutely no inside information.

    Robert didn't WhatsApp me telling me he's done a header.

    He's probably had his WhatsApp account taken over via phone number recycling.
    https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/21/accidental_whatsapp_account_takeover/
    I would be so fucked if someone had access to my WhatsApp messages.
    I see several met officers have been fucked over for this.
    I think it’s a grey area. A friends brother in law is in the West Mids police, dealing with paedophiles. He has to deal with scum day in, day out, horrible stuff. He regularly sends Whatsapp messages that originate among his colleagues that cross lines, often majorly. My colleague at the uni sends them to me. We are probably all contravening some law, somewhere. My Dad, ex Guards and then 30 years in the police says that officers need black humour to deal with stuff. In the old days that was in the pub, telling jokes about things Joe Public would be horrified at. Now it’s on Whatsapp. At what point are people not allowed to tell shit, distasteful jokes among friends?
    It's a grey area.

    As the judge who sentenced Wayne Couzens noted the police have unique powers and a role that means they need to be judged to a higher standard.

    Imagine you were the victim of a racist assault and it then transpired the coppers investigating regularly used racial slurs.

    As for me, for example if someone looked at my phone they would see I have friends who regularly use homophobic slurs which I never call out and I occasionally reply with 'OMG, I feel so guilty for laughing at that.'

    The reality is I have a lot of gay friends, who use terms I would never use, so in that context those messages are fine.

    Same as me, who make people feel guilty for making people laugh at inappropriate jokes.

    I have been compared to Jimmy Carr on multiple occasions.
    Compared to Jimmy Carr on political correctness?
    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/alSLpf1MlXo
    That is me.
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 13,104


    What, really, is wrong with the bench behind Starmer/Reeves?

    Admittedly it’s not Churchill’s War Cabinet, but the idea they are all crap after Starmer and Reeves doesn’t really withstand analysis.

    I actually think they are one of the stronger Opposition front benches we’ve seen (you and are approx the same age, I think).

    It's as weak on talent on the Tory benches. Remember Anneliese Dodds? And Yvette Cooper is massively overrated.

    The fact you can't see this is simply a function of your enthusiasm for a change in government.
    One could also argue your constant negativity toward Labour is a function of your desire not to see a change in Government.

    After a long period out of power, it's often said the Opposition front bench "lacks experience" and won't be ready for the challenges of Government. The same was said of the Labour frontbench in the mid-90s nd the Conservative frontbench in the mid-2000s.

    To be fair, in each instance and indeed now, there are vestiges of the last time the Party was in Government in key positions. Yvette Cooper was in the Brown Cabinet just as William Hague served under John Major. The other aspect of experience is the Opposition has contact with the Civil Service - after all, the Service has to implement the policies of the incoming Government so it's useful to have established and experienced Shadow Ministers in place who can quickly move into the key departments.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,104

    DavidL said:

    The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes.
    It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.

    This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.

    And this is a real strategic risk for Labour, which, revealingly, none of its fans seem very interested in recognising yet alone discussing.

    Labour really has to deliver in office, for all our sakes.

    The last thing we need is a radical populist leftwing party gaining serious traction here (a British Sinn Fein) because of mass disillusionment with both main political parties, because that will start to confiscate private property.
    I think Starmer/ Reeves should make a decent fist of it as, to be fair, Sunak/ Hunt are doing presently. The worry in both cases is the loons who stand in the wings. Labour have been more successful in marginalising their loonies than the Tories have recently been.
    Because they want to win.

    Not a great bench behind Starmer/Reeves though, is it?

    When the storms get a bit choppy they'll run into very similar party management issues.
    What, really, is wrong with the bench behind Starmer/Reeves?

    Admittedly it’s not Churchill’s War Cabinet, but the idea they are all crap after Starmer and Reeves doesn’t really withstand analysis.

    I actually think they are one of the stronger Opposition front benches we’ve seen (you and are approx the same age, I think).
    It's as weak on talent on the Tory benches. Remember Anneliese Dodds? And Yvette Cooper is massively overrated.

    The fact you can't see this is simply a function of your enthusiasm for a change in government.
    I suspect you are underestimating some of the available Shadow Cabinet talent although like Johnson, Corbyn ejected the most capable of MPs from his Party.

    Let's face it, most of your smarter MPs are languishing on the back benches.
    Most mp's aren't smarter as most were elected when they didnt have to actually think. We took away the eu crutch now they are lost and shown to be totally vacant with neither ideals nor ideas and that is all parties.

    We can only hope that now they actually need to do something for a living as the eu is not going to make law for them that they give up and we actually get some thinkers and doer's in parliament rather than the idiots we have in all parties now
  • Options
    maxh said:

    DavidL said:

    The key delusion of Truss and Kwarteng was that the UK government still had freedom of manoeuvre in respect of markets and economic policy. Sadly, a government whose debt is approaching 100% of GDP and which has run a trade deficit for more than 20 consecutive years simply doesn’t have that sovereignty to do what it likes.
    It needs to behave and by behave I mean act in the manner the market expects. If it doesn’t all hell breaks loose.

    This was very bad news for Truss but it is even worse news for the next Labour government due late next year. Those who decry “austerity” , as practiced by Osborne and his successors, are likely to be particularly disappointed when the Labour government finds it must do more of the same. Rich countries can suit themselves. Our economic failures over the last 25 years means we are no longer in that category.

    All that being so clearly true, it seems much more plausible to me that the Trussterfuck was a deliberate ploy to tie the hands of the clearly incoming Labour government into further wrecking our public services for the benefit of anonymous donors to the IEA and the like. I bet we’d find Truss and Kwarteng were carefully advised by eg private healthcare companies.
    My fear is that private healthcare companies are carefully advising the Blairites who are carefully advising Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,529

    TimS said:

    The other major mistake was to think that the secret to sustainable growth was tax cuts at a time that public infrastructure had got into such a parlous state and governments around the world (well, specifically the US) were about to splurge billions on interventionist industrial policy.

    Of the tax cuts / foregone rises, ditching the CT rise was arguable but had some merit, ditching the health and social care levy probably a good idea if it were replaced by a fairer income tax rise, the 45p rate cut was just pointless gesturing and the investment zones an ill thought out policy. None would be that bad on their own in different times but together at once while spending hundreds of billions on an energy price guarantee yet planning further cuts in investment was just daft.

    And also the whole "what we need is to grow the economy, why don't we grow the economy?" thing. Were Kwasi and Liz expecting the entire political establishment to slap their forheads in amazement before wandering off home muttering "of course- why didn't we think of that?" and realising that their foolishness meant they should never do politics again?

    There are strands of politics, left and right, that seem to assume that wanting an outcome is enough, that if people say "hold on, there might be bad side effects", it's because they are bad people who don't want good things. And for a lot of the last decade, those voices seem to be getting louder.
    Ah, remember the anti-growth coalition!
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,302

    TimS said:

    The other major mistake was to think that the secret to sustainable growth was tax cuts at a time that public infrastructure had got into such a parlous state and governments around the world (well, specifically the US) were about to splurge billions on interventionist industrial policy.

    Of the tax cuts / foregone rises, ditching the CT rise was arguable but had some merit, ditching the health and social care levy probably a good idea if it were replaced by a fairer income tax rise, the 45p rate cut was just pointless gesturing and the investment zones an ill thought out policy. None would be that bad on their own in different times but together at once while spending hundreds of billions on an energy price guarantee yet planning further cuts in investment was just daft.

    And also the whole "what we need is to grow the economy, why don't we grow the economy?" thing. Were Kwasi and Liz expecting the entire political establishment to slap their forheads in amazement before wandering off home muttering "of course- why didn't we think of that?" and realising that their foolishness meant they should never do politics again?

    There are strands of politics, left and right, that seem to assume that wanting an outcome is enough, that if people say "hold on, there might be bad side effects", it's because they are bad people who don't want good things. And for a lot of the last decade, those voices seem to be getting louder.
    This really hits the nail on the head for me. If no one (no one rational at least) could disagree with a stated aim it is probably a pretty generic one, and not very practically useful, like 'I believe in this country' or 'Growth is good'. People also do not like paying taxes (and if you are well off enough you can avail yourself of totally necessary workarounds to pay less sometimes), so lots and lots of people would eagerly hear a message about lower taxes and go for growth.

    But the implementation was clearly rushed, with a stunned surprise of any pushback, and now a retreat to conspiracies about shadowy cabals who are opposed to Trussite growth for some unclear reason. It's not a promising look.
  • Options
    kle4 said:

    Yes, I know it's Tom Harwood, but it's an on the money comment.

    This morning the government was due to publish its Action Plan to speed up Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects.

    Although now I've learned that the government's plan to speed things up has itself been delayed. Poetic.


    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1627960622297018369?cxt=HHwWgsCzhfHj1pctAAAA

    This is what frustrates me so much about Brexit.

    It absolute bandwidth it has taken up means so many other pressing problems aren't being fixed whilst Rishi has to appease the DUP and ERG.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,988
    Actually, I think Truss’s single (good) point is that the country needs growth.

    Of course it sounds stupid and obvious, but it appears it is not obvious, judging by British economic policy of recent* years.

    *Take your pick. At least since 2016, probably since 2010, maybe even since 1979 or 1879!
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,811

    Pagan2 said:

    The sad truth is that Margaret Thatcher was just much brighter than Liz Truss.

    True, but Truss also seems to be, well, bat-shit.

    Those who had worked with her did actually warn as much.

    It’s actually an indictment of Cameron that she found her way into any sort of power. The best I can say about her is that she was less useless in Trade than Liam Fox, but the jury is still out on the Aussie trade deal, frankly.
    Effective and controllable in the right department but not at the top.

    I suspect Ben Wallace would have crashed and burned quickly too.

    Funnily enough, I think Michael Gove could do the job.
    All our politicians currently are absolutely useless, the sooner we put them out of all of our misery the better
    I think the ones who start with PPE, then student unions, then go to work in the party/think-tanks upon graduation and then become MPs are the biggest problem.

    Never done anything but politics and live in a bubble.

    Maybe we should select/vote based on real-world experience instead.
    So, Sunak or Starmer then? Or possibly Truss?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,945

    First with absolutely no inside information.

    Robert didn't WhatsApp me telling me he's done a header.

    He's probably had his WhatsApp account taken over via phone number recycling.
    https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/21/accidental_whatsapp_account_takeover/
    I would be so fucked if someone had access to my WhatsApp messages.
    I see several met officers have been fucked over for this.
    I think it’s a grey area. A friends brother in law is in the West Mids police, dealing with paedophiles. He has to deal with scum day in, day out, horrible stuff. He regularly sends Whatsapp messages that originate among his colleagues that cross lines, often majorly. My colleague at the uni sends them to me. We are probably all contravening some law, somewhere. My Dad, ex Guards and then 30 years in the police says that officers need black humour to deal with stuff. In the old days that was in the pub, telling jokes about things Joe Public would be horrified at. Now it’s on Whatsapp. At what point are people not allowed to tell shit, distasteful jokes among friends?
    I would say at the point those distasteful jokes enter the public domain and appal those who are turning to those same officers for help and support. Its not really that complicated.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,302

    kle4 said:

    Yes, I know it's Tom Harwood, but it's an on the money comment.

    This morning the government was due to publish its Action Plan to speed up Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects.

    Although now I've learned that the government's plan to speed things up has itself been delayed. Poetic.


    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1627960622297018369?cxt=HHwWgsCzhfHj1pctAAAA

    This is what frustrates me so much about Brexit.

    It absolute bandwidth it has taken up means so many other pressing problems aren't being fixed whilst Rishi has to appease the DUP and ERG.
    On this one I don't think Brexit would have made a difference - opposition to development, big or small, and trying to figure out a way around that for a government, knows no party colours.
  • Options
    Supports: enjoy Portugal
This discussion has been closed.