Categories
Liz Truss attempts to be relevant – politicalbetting.com
Liz Truss attempts to be relevant – politicalbetting.com
You can't expect economic growth and prosperity when companies are more focused on meeting meaningless diversity quotas and complying with radical climate change standards, rather than engaging in competition and generating money for their employees and the country. pic.twitter.com/flF9TSSxzq
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The biggest arse ache at work when it comes to not achieving growth is the absolute turd that is the current Brexit deal, then a government that tried to ignore the markets.
I never knew.
This was some time ago, presumably?
Unless they are a profit sharing co-operative they don't do that anyway do they?
Or is payment of a wage for a task done an act of kindly altruism?
Or can the Heritage Foundation simply not express itself in plain English?
Twitter’s latest data shows revenue from political advertising since early March was more than 50 times higher than the company had previously reported.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/12/twitter-releases-more-political-ad-data-after-politico-report-00091667
I mean, if I had ever messed up that badly at work, I doubt I would have wanted to show my face ever again.
Icarus gets a better press.
Of course she wasn't entirely wrong about all things, and she may not be so hopelessly wrong in the future, but the 'Liz Truss says' brand is simply the worst brand in politics ever. (There may have been slightly worse popes, but they're sometimes infallibly bad)
Still utterly delusional.
What's My Line? Election Day Special
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll_l5_lLifg
Must say, LT but a pimple on the hind-end of creation, compared to Margaret Chase Smith.
OR even Karl Mundt!
Except she doesn't seem that sorry.
If she had sounded more convincing then just saying 'Growth is a good thing' then looking like a deer in headlights when asked about tax cuts she might have done a better job.
BTW, the Heritage Foundation is SO 20th century. About as influential in today's debates as the Mickey Mouse Club.
BTW (also FYI) following election of You Know Who, the HF has gone full MAGA.
For example (from their wiki page):
"Heritage Action opposed the $40 billion military aid package for Ukraine passed in May 2022 after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, breaking from its previous positions of support for such aid. The Heritage Foundation's foreign policy director at the time, Luke Coffey, said he was ordered to retract his earlier statements supporting aid to Ukraine. Coffey subsequently left the Heritage Foundation."
Political leaders have to expect opposition to their ideas, and overcome them if they believe it to be a good idea. Some good ideas will fail when they don't manage it. Many bad ideas will also fail when they don't manage it, and occasionally we get lucky and they do manage to get a good idea through.
Truss didn't manage it. Things are crappy enough she could improve her reputation by saying she wanted to do things differently (even as she presented as the continuity candidate in the leadership contest in every other way). But if she seems like she is complaining about the fact people opposed her plans she will find that hard.
It is hard to exaggerate the extent to which, having been given this golden ticket of being PM, she blew it by hubris, incompetence and disdain.
To get to be PM and overlook the fact that implementation of radical change in a parliamentary democracy is difficult political art is as big a fail, if not bigger, than Cameron's failure to prepare a plan for Brexit.
Now it's just a clapped-out clique of MAGA-maniacs. And Putin suck-ups.
I suspect her fat fee will be some recompense.
A PM being ousted so swiftly is utterly unprecented - I don't think she needs to be permanently ostracised, but I do think the rebuttal that she was defeated by the forces of the deep state or establushment or anti growth coalition or whatever it is called to be a bit misplaced, since unless she was a once in a century talent all PMs face challenges, and none of them collapsed instantly in the face of that. At some level that is on her.
Her biggest opponents were the money markets. Hardly a bastion of wokeness. She’s deluded as to why she failed.
It's just that (unfunded) shock & awe tax cuts - seemingly alone - were a pretty crazy way to do it, unless she could demonstrate it would be self-funding in fairly short order to the satisfaction of the markets lending the money.
The rest is dogma.
I could say all sorts of stuff. Nazis. Pineapple. Innuendo. Betting tips.
I've got it all.
Such as the Heritage Foundation, in its day. Which came and went a while back.
She's got to roll back down the political hill or what is the penalty for pushing such ridiculous policies?
Anyone spoiling Picard for me will see me a deliver a righteous anger that you would mistake me for Jules Winnfield.
"Hey girls, look at my machinery!"
The people who think this political failure requires her to maintain a trappist silence forever (who also happen to be people who were vigorously opposed to her agenda) have said their bit - I'm not sure what new they think they're bringing to the conversation.
Until the vote it wasn't an eventuality, and after the vote Cameron wasn't PM
Where she showed herself manifestly unsuited to the job, however, was in not understanding, via incompetence or hubris, that the markets wouldn't give her a free pass just because she had a new plan.
Anyone can be genuinely innovative if they ignore the consequences of their actions and don't plan to address any likely criticism in advance and this is where she failed and failed badly.
All the markets needed, all we needed was a "costed" plan which explained where the money would come from. It might have strained credibility but at least we would have seen her workings. And, given the subject of his PhD I cannot believe that Kwasi didn't have some workings somewhere.
But, please, let's not debate it again.
Until latter 20th century, few inside OR outside the Beltway even pretended that Supremes were ipso facto legal giants.
Was argument on behalf of a few, for example Oliver Wendell Holmes. But NOT the norm, which was MUCH more oriented to politically-connected and/or -relevant lawyers, including many who had little experience as judges, or even in conventional legal practice.
In the US some are substantial bases of political power and influence.
At least Truss was able to form a cabinet!
Truss and Kwarteng made the classic error of assuming the world stands still and just as no one told Jeremy Corbin it wasn’t 1979 any more, no one told Truss it wasn’t 1986.
Her message of fundamentalist capitalism played well once but the world has changed and the notion people would happily accept being a little wealthier in order for the very rich to become a lot wealthier just wouldn’t fly in the post-pandemic world where notions of fairness reign supreme.
The public recoil from the immediate policy announcements told us we were no longer Thatcher’s children and that Thatcherism had gone the way of democratic socialism.
Truss can list some of them too. It's the formation and implementation of solutions that counts when you are PM. Epic fail.
🚨Joe Biden gaffe alert: @POTUS just said his rugby player cousin @KearneyRob “beat the hell out of the Black and Tans”….instead of the @AllBlacks
https://twitter.com/SMurphyTV/status/1646234858187010048
That's the first horsehair wig I've seen.
But if they generate more money, does that go to the employee?
Certainly not automatically. And quite usually not at all.
I can't think of any American worse suited to appeal to the Unionists.
My tax cuts… faced coordinated resistance. And we didn’t just face coordinated resistance from within the Conservative Party, or even inside the British corporate establishment. We faced it from the IMF, and even President Biden. So, my warning to you here today is it’s not enough just to have the right ideas. It’s not enough even to have broad support for those ideas. We need to be able to take on those who resist change, and who don’t want change. And we need to be able to ensure that we’re winning the argument enough to do that…”
https://order-order.com/2023/04/12/truss-rips-corporate-establishment-for-downfall/
Pretty clear she is referencing her time in office. She is not philosophising in a vaccum.
Such nonsense just comes over as deluded.
It was because it fitted in with their own ideology. Which they believed the markets shared. So would bend the facts to their views.
But they don't have an ideology. Very few outside active politics do.
But neither a legal academic, nor a judge, which is the norm.
There’s actually a reasonable argument for having someone less specialised in constitutional law on the court, but I doubt it would get much traction.
I see this story and I think "bless". I kind of wish she'd stuck around for longer because it seems unfair Sunak's Tories aren't suffering more in the polls for the sheer stupidity of that short period of government., coming as it did after 2 years of Britain Trump.
Back in 2019 there was a poll of Tory members which showed a majority were prepared to see Northern Ireland leave the UK if they could get their Brexit.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/06/18/most-conservative-members-would-see-party-destroye
Reality 1: business is hopelessly woke and part of the new elite (TM Matt Goodwin) holding back Britain. Or
Reality 2: the private sector is always right, unlike those woke lazy public sector layabouts who are holding back Britain.
or actually they don't, because they're very comfortable with doublethink when it suits them.
Supply and demand - all capitalists understand how that works.
Anyone think it's likely?