Howdy, Stranger!

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

Can Liz Truss turn this round? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 15 in General
imageCan Liz Truss turn this round? – politicalbetting.com

Above is the Wikipedia polling chart showing how things have moved in the GB national opinion polls since the December 2019 General Election. The trend lines are local regressions.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,286
    edited September 4
    Ach, a new thread. Just when I was catching up and commenting on the posts on the old thread. Serves me right for not getting up early enough.
  • When do we find out for sure that the mighty Trussians have conquered the valiant Sunakrainians?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,286

    When do we find out for sure that the mighty Trussians have conquered the valiant Sunakrainians?

    *Spoiler alert*
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 4,121
    In short: yes but it’s looking less likely by the day. Truss has copied the Johnsonian playbook of promising all things to all people but is not as skilled a communicator. She would have been better served sticking to core principles and messages rather than the scattergun approach of the recent couple of weeks.

    She is inevitably going to disappoint some people.

    I see a route to a small majority. But to do so Truss needs to grow into the role, be a lucky general with the Ukraine war coming to an end and energy prices starting to come down, and bet the house on some eye-catching policies to help with cost of living and hope that they don’t send the economy out of control. Oh and improve her presentation skills. That is a big ask. Conceivable? Yes. Likely? Probably not.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    Wow.

    Paul Brand
    @PaulBrandITV
    ·
    12m
    Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1566339080312406017
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 4,121

    Wow.

    Paul Brand
    @PaulBrandITV
    ·
    12m
    Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1566339080312406017

    That is quoting out of context. She was essentially making the tax cuts = higher growth = bigger slice of the cake for everyone argument so beloved of Maggie. Many economists disagree with it but it’s not quite the quote that tweet suggests.
  • Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    What is wrong with the right? Glanced at the paper headlines, Trump doubling down calling Biden an enemy of the state and the Sunday Mail, in what has to be one of their most ironic headlines, complains that Johnson and Truss were subject to an unfair steam of criticism.

    I’ve not seen this victim mentality and willingness to double down and argue black is white before. Worrying times.

    What is wrong with other people thinking differently to me? Why, it's almost like they have a totally different world view!
    Have a different world view sure. But don’t incite a mob to storm the Capitol and somehow play the victim. Don’t spend your entire waking hours attacking others and then complain when if someone dares critics your favoured candidate.

    The hypocrisy of certain sections of this new right is a concern. They remind me of a toddler prepared to break everything if they don’t get what they want.
    But the American Left is just as pathetic, hypocritical, wanky. They kvetch about Trump claiming the Dems stole the election, but they spent years claiming Trump stole his election in 2016

    And of course in some significant ways (just not the ones Trump cites) they DID steal the2020 election. They conspired with Facebook to silence the unhelpful Hunter Biden story. They conspired with Fauci, Facebook and Twitter to make the lab leak theory not just invisible but UNSAYABLE - as a "racist conspiracy theory" - for a year. Until Trump, who espoused the theory, was safely gone

    Both sides are appalling and apparently have no intention of moderating. Hence: civil war, perhaps

    After the Roe v Wade reversal, I expect the Dems to do better in the midterms and probably scrape a win with Biden in 2024. But that means four more years of worsening Wokeness. If this comes true the fever will therefore peak in the late 2020s when the GOP will likely sweep to power with an overtly "far right" agenda
    Biden 81 million votes
    Trump 74 million votes

    :innocent:
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,864
    edited September 4



    SNIP

    I see a route to a small majority. But to do so Truss needs to grow into the role, be a lucky general with the Ukraine war coming to an end and energy prices starting to come down, and bet the house on some eye-catching policies to help with cost of living and hope that they don’t send the economy out of control. Oh and improve her presentation skills. That is a big ask. Conceivable? Yes. Likely? Probably not.

    The war seems to me to be the crux of the matter.

    The end of the war will bring a massive boost to whoever is in power. The Tories can choose whether to benefit themselves, or to benefit SKS.

    If the war continues to GE 2024, then the Tories will lose badly. Probably another 1997 that will see them out of power for a decade.

    All the signs from the Tories on pb.com is that they want SKS to get the massive boost.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,148

    Wow.

    Paul Brand
    @PaulBrandITV
    ·
    12m
    Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1566339080312406017

    Wow indeed.

    I read somewhere that you need to have an annual income of ca. £62,000 to avoid fuel stress this winter.

    If so, an awful lot of people are going to be very stressed out. I don't have that income. Even with my husband we don't have that. None of my children even come close to that.

    Let's pray for a mild winter.
  • Money starting to come for Truss, into 1.03 in one market.

    Reminder: at some point, inside information about the count may be leaked.

    Rishi is not very liquid; the price on Liz Truss is a more reliable signal.

    Betfair next prime minister
    1.04 Liz Truss 96%
    23 Rishi Sunak 4%

    Next Conservative leader
    1.03 Liz Truss 97%
    25 Rishi Sunak 4%
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,148

    Wow.

    Paul Brand
    @PaulBrandITV
    ·
    12m
    Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1566339080312406017

    That is quoting out of context. She was essentially making the tax cuts = higher growth = bigger slice of the cake for everyone argument so beloved of Maggie. Many economists disagree with it but it’s not quite the quote that tweet suggests.
    It's the trickle down theory being given another airing. It is hardly a fresh challenge to economic orthodoxy but another run of an orthodoxy which has largely been found wanting when tried.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,482

    When do we find out for sure that the mighty Trussians have conquered the valiant Sunakrainians?

    About six weeks ago.

    (Monday lunchtime).
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,786
    Fpt for @Foxy


    “I nominate you for the @Plato_Says memorial award for disappearing down the alt.right black hole”

    ++++

    Yes, possibly

    That’s what Civil Wars do. They polarise
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,591

    Wow.

    Paul Brand
    @PaulBrandITV
    ·
    12m
    Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1566339080312406017

    It will be quite a tax cut for me, Though I don't see how I need to spend that money to grow the economy as it will go on my utilities bills.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 7,273
    edited September 4
    If Truss returns Brexit to the more honest roots of the people who first funded it and conceived it, it could return as a live issue. If she plans to cut workers' rights , Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens will make hay.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,697
    DougSeal said:

    In short: yes but it’s looking less likely by the day. Truss has copied the Johnsonian playbook of promising all things to all people but is not as skilled a communicator. She would have been better served sticking to core principles and messages rather than the scattergun approach of the recent couple of weeks.

    She is inevitably going to disappoint some people.

    I see a route to a small majority. But to do so Truss needs to grow into the role, be a lucky general with the Ukraine war coming to an end and energy prices starting to come down, and bet the house on some eye-catching policies to help with cost of living and hope that they don’t send the economy out of control. Oh and improve her presentation skills. That is a big ask. Conceivable? Yes. Likely? Probably not.

    There is an assumption that an end to the Ukraine was will be a quick fix for energy prices. If, as we hope, Ukraine does win doesn’t mean some quick rapprochement and the cheap energy taps coming back on. A sullen, chastened, Russia and a distrustful
    West will not result in a happy resumption of the status quo ante.
    Allowing the war to happen in the first place increasingly looks like a major mistake from the West. Should've called Putin's bluff and got troops or a no- fly zone ("training mission") in when the first whispers of an invasion came through. Ignore the squealing Corbynites.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,156
    Cyclefree said:

    Wow.

    Paul Brand
    @PaulBrandITV
    ·
    12m
    Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1566339080312406017

    That is quoting out of context. She was essentially making the tax cuts = higher growth = bigger slice of the cake for everyone argument so beloved of Maggie. Many economists disagree with it but it’s not quite the quote that tweet suggests.
    It's the trickle down theory being given another airing. It is hardly a fresh challenge to economic orthodoxy but another run of an orthodoxy which has largely been found wanting when tried.
    Yes I'm afraid plenty does "trickle down" from the rich onto the poor under laissez faire capitalism but it isn't wealth and opportunity.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,179

    When do we find out for sure that the mighty Trussians have conquered the valiant Sunakrainians?

    About six weeks ago.

    (Monday lunchtime).
    Will Mr Truss and the Trusslets be with her when she moves into Downing Street? She's kept them remarkably quiet so far.

  • Wow.

    Paul Brand
    @PaulBrandITV
    ·
    12m
    Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1566339080312406017

    That is quoting out of context. She was essentially making the tax cuts = higher growth = bigger slice of the cake for everyone argument so beloved of Maggie. Many economists disagree with it but it’s not quite the quote that tweet suggests.
    Politicians complaining about being unfairly quoted are like fish complaining about water.

    One other challenge for Truss. Realistically, she has two years before the next election. That's not an enormous amount of time to do anything in government. Even less time if Mr, Mrs, Miss, Mx Voter is to see any benefits.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,697

    Wow.

    Paul Brand
    @PaulBrandITV
    ·
    12m
    Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1566339080312406017

    That is quoting out of context. She was essentially making the tax cuts = higher growth = bigger slice of the cake for everyone argument so beloved of Maggie. Many economists disagree with it but it’s not quite the quote that tweet suggests.
    Politicians complaining about being unfairly quoted are like fish complaining about water.

    One other challenge for Truss. Realistically, she has two years before the next election. That's not an enormous amount of time to do anything in government. Even less time if Mr, Mrs, Miss, Mx Voter is to see any benefits.
    I think the next GE comes early next year after a truly horrendous winter. When people can't afford Christmas presents...
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 7,273
    edited September 4
    Truss also knows plenty about trickle-down from the sewage of her free-for-all rivers policy in 2014-15, soon apparently to be extended to other areas of our polity and economy.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,864
    edited September 4
    DougSeal said:

    In short: yes but it’s looking less likely by the day. Truss has copied the Johnsonian playbook of promising all things to all people but is not as skilled a communicator. She would have been better served sticking to core principles and messages rather than the scattergun approach of the recent couple of weeks.

    She is inevitably going to disappoint some people.

    I see a route to a small majority. But to do so Truss needs to grow into the role, be a lucky general with the Ukraine war coming to an end and energy prices starting to come down, and bet the house on some eye-catching policies to help with cost of living and hope that they don’t send the economy out of control. Oh and improve her presentation skills. That is a big ask. Conceivable? Yes. Likely? Probably not.

    There is an assumption that an end to the Ukraine was will be a quick fix for energy prices. If, as we hope, Ukraine does win doesn’t mean some quick rapprochement and the cheap energy taps coming back on. A sullen, chastened, Russia and a distrustful
    West will not result in a happy resumption of the status quo ante.
    There is no quick end to the war for Ukraine, if the goal is to recover all the territory lost since 2014.

    There is no quick end to the war for Russia, if the goal is to recover its "historical" lands.

    If we want the war to end, then both countries will need to compromise. That is always how wars end.

    Ultimately, this is what will happen because Ukrainians and Russians will want to stop dying and because Europe will run out of patience and money.

    The financial costs of this war are being borne very unequally. It is Europe that is being impoverished -- not the USA and not China. It is European industries & businesses & governments that will be bankrupted by energy costs.

    If we want the war to end quickly with a Ukrainian win, then the only sensible course is massive military intervention by NATO on the Ukrainian side.

    That obviously carries huge risks, but it makes more sense than half-hearted support that is currently being offered.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,886
    edited September 4
    Eabhal said:

    Wow.

    Paul Brand
    @PaulBrandITV
    ·
    12m
    Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1566339080312406017

    That is quoting out of context. She was essentially making the tax cuts = higher growth = bigger slice of the cake for everyone argument so beloved of Maggie. Many economists disagree with it but it’s not quite the quote that tweet suggests.
    Politicians complaining about being unfairly quoted are like fish complaining about water.

    One other challenge for Truss. Realistically, she has two years before the next election. That's not an enormous amount of time to do anything in government. Even less time if Mr, Mrs, Miss, Mx Voter is to see any benefits.
    I think the next GE comes early next year after a truly horrendous winter. When people can't afford Christmas presents...
    Why on Earth would the government want an early election, if the winter is terrible and they are presumably miles behind in the polls?

    It’ll be May ‘24 at the earliest, and more likely October ‘24. The only way it’s early, is if there’s more than 40 floor-crossers in the Commons.
  • DougSeal said:

    In short: yes but it’s looking less likely by the day. Truss has copied the Johnsonian playbook of promising all things to all people but is not as skilled a communicator. She would have been better served sticking to core principles and messages rather than the scattergun approach of the recent couple of weeks.

    She is inevitably going to disappoint some people.

    I see a route to a small majority. But to do so Truss needs to grow into the role, be a lucky general with the Ukraine war coming to an end and energy prices starting to come down, and bet the house on some eye-catching policies to help with cost of living and hope that they don’t send the economy out of control. Oh and improve her presentation skills. That is a big ask. Conceivable? Yes. Likely? Probably not.

    There is an assumption that an end to the Ukraine was will be a quick fix for energy prices. If, as we hope, Ukraine does win doesn’t mean some quick rapprochement and the cheap energy taps coming back on. A sullen, chastened, Russia and a distrustful
    West will not result in a happy resumption of the status quo ante.
    There is no quick end to the war for Ukraine, if the goal is to recover all the territory lost since 2014.

    There is no quick end to the war for Russia, if the goal is to recover its "historical" lands.

    If we want the war to end, then both countries will need to compromise. That is always how wars end.

    Ultimately, this is what will happen because Ukrainians and Russians will want to stop dying and because Europe will run out of patience and money.

    The financial costs of this war are being borne very unequally. It is Europe that is being impoverished -- not the USA and not China. It is European industries & businesses & governments that will be bankrupted by energy costs.

    If you want the war to end quickly with a Ukrainian win, then the only sensible course is massive military intervention by NATO on the Ukrainian side.

    That obviously carries huge risks, but it makes more sense than half-hearted support that is currently being offered.
    In that case the Ukrainians have to now demand huge tracts of Russian land, so that they can “compromise” later
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,876

    If Truss returns Brexit to the more honest roots of the people who first funded it and conceived it, it could return as a live issue. If she plans to cut workers' rights , Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens will make hay.

    The roots of most of the people who funded it and conceived it were not honest. They were frightened to death their money laundering activities and oligarch greed would finally be stamped upon by financial rules being proposed by the EU.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,191
    Coming to a Labour Party political broadcast near you 👇 https://twitter.com/bbcpolitics/status/1566345285919510528
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,876
    Foxy said:

    Wow.

    Paul Brand
    @PaulBrandITV
    ·
    12m
    Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1566339080312406017

    It will be quite a tax cut for me, Though I don't see how I need to spend that money to grow the economy as it will go on my utilities bills.
    Agreed, but do you think you need it as much as less well paid people and the unwaged?
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,697
    Sandpit said:

    Eabhal said:

    Wow.

    Paul Brand
    @PaulBrandITV
    ·
    12m
    Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1566339080312406017

    That is quoting out of context. She was essentially making the tax cuts = higher growth = bigger slice of the cake for everyone argument so beloved of Maggie. Many economists disagree with it but it’s not quite the quote that tweet suggests.
    Politicians complaining about being unfairly quoted are like fish complaining about water.

    One other challenge for Truss. Realistically, she has two years before the next election. That's not an enormous amount of time to do anything in government. Even less time if Mr, Mrs, Miss, Mx Voter is to see any benefits.
    I think the next GE comes early next year after a truly horrendous winter. When people can't afford Christmas presents...
    Why on Earth would the government want an early election, if the winter is terrible and they are presumably miles behind in the polls?

    It’ll be May ‘24 at the earliest, and more likely October ‘24. The only way it’s early, is if there’s more than 40 floor-crossers in the Commons.
    If people refuse to pay their energy bills, the economy collapses and we see high unemployment, civil unrest etc, then I think the pressure will be too high. Starmer will call a vote of no confidence, lose, and then demand an election.

    I appreciate that they can technically deny an election till January 2025, but there is no way they can make it that far if they are constantly behind in the polls and people are in the streets.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,968

    If Truss returns Brexit to the more honest roots of the people who first funded it and conceived it, it could return as a live issue. If she plans to cut workers' rights , Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens will make hay.

    The roots of most of the people who funded it and conceived it were not honest. They were frightened to death their money laundering activities and oligarch greed would finally be stamped upon by financial rules being proposed by the EU.
    This was always the most ridiculous of the Remainer conspiracy theories.

    You think that people who spent decades campaigning against the EU suddenly supported Brexit because of some minor proposed regulations? Do you think the EU is free of oligarchs or money laundering?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,179

    If Truss returns Brexit to the more honest roots of the people who first funded it and conceived it, it could return as a live issue. If she plans to cut workers' rights , Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens will make hay.

    The roots of most of the people who funded it and conceived it were not honest. They were frightened to death their money laundering activities and oligarch greed would finally be stamped upon by financial rules being proposed by the EU.
    Does that include a certain JRM?

  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,786
    Thought experiment. I suggest the best possible outcome for America now is an obviously valid Trump win in 2024. A win that he doesn’t have to enforce with violence

    Would that be deserved? No. Of course not. He’s a maniac and a brute

    However it would mollify the right in the USA. At a crucial moment. Pulling them back from civil war

    And trump is not obviously a bad politician. He has good instincts - like lab leak. The big issue would be US withdrawal from NATO and isolationism - clearly bad for the UK, tho justifiable from a US perspective

    The likely alternative - a win by an aged Biden and a worsening of Wokeness leads, I think, to civil strife of some kind
  • eekeek Posts: 21,808
    Cyclefree said:

    Wow.

    Paul Brand
    @PaulBrandITV
    ·
    12m
    Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1566339080312406017

    That is quoting out of context. She was essentially making the tax cuts = higher growth = bigger slice of the cake for everyone argument so beloved of Maggie. Many economists disagree with it but it’s not quite the quote that tweet suggests.
    It's the trickle down theory being given another airing. It is hardly a fresh challenge to economic orthodoxy but another run of an orthodoxy which has largely been found wanting when tried.
    It's an hilariously bad time to be playing round with trickle down economics...

    And I would love to know where that £2k figure comes from I make is something like £800 for someone on £100,000....
  • Sandpit said:

    Eabhal said:

    Wow.

    Paul Brand
    @PaulBrandITV
    ·
    12m
    Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1566339080312406017

    That is quoting out of context. She was essentially making the tax cuts = higher growth = bigger slice of the cake for everyone argument so beloved of Maggie. Many economists disagree with it but it’s not quite the quote that tweet suggests.
    Politicians complaining about being unfairly quoted are like fish complaining about water.

    One other challenge for Truss. Realistically, she has two years before the next election. That's not an enormous amount of time to do anything in government. Even less time if Mr, Mrs, Miss, Mx Voter is to see any benefits.
    I think the next GE comes early next year after a truly horrendous winter. When people can't afford Christmas presents...
    Why on Earth would the government want an early election, if the winter is terrible and they are presumably miles behind in the polls?

    It’ll be May ‘24 at the earliest, and more likely October ‘24. The only way it’s early, is if there’s more than 40 floor-crossers in the Commons.
    Normal procedure is for a losing government to hang on in case a miracle occurs. Presumably there does come a point where things get so bad that a government just loses the will to live, but I hate to think how bad that is.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,482
    edited September 4



    SNIP

    I see a route to a small majority. But to do so Truss needs to grow into the role, be a lucky general with the Ukraine war coming to an end and energy prices starting to come down, and bet the house on some eye-catching policies to help with cost of living and hope that they don’t send the economy out of control. Oh and improve her presentation skills. That is a big ask. Conceivable? Yes. Likely? Probably not.

    The war seems to me to be the crux of the matter.

    The end of the war will bring a massive boost to whoever is in power. The Tories can choose whether to benefit themselves, or to benefit SKS.

    If the war continues to GE 2024, then the Tories will lose badly. Probably another 1997 that will see them out of power for a decade.

    All the signs from the Tories on pb.com is that they want SKS to get the massive boost.
    I am more convinced by the moment that Truss is in league with Johnson for a swift BigDog return.

    As her victory has become clearer her policy pontifications have become more absurd. Blue wall, red wall, she's antagonising everyone. This can only mean we all become the more grateful for Johnson when he saves the day.

    Starmer verses a rejuvenated, cleansed, war hero Johnson is a no brainer. We may all be skint but Bozza makes us laugh! And what do they say? Laughter is the best medicine.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,591

    Foxy said:

    Wow.

    Paul Brand
    @PaulBrandITV
    ·
    12m
    Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1566339080312406017

    It will be quite a tax cut for me, Though I don't see how I need to spend that money to grow the economy as it will go on my utilities bills.
    Agreed, but do you think you need it as much as less well paid people and the unwaged?
    I haven't asked for it, but will happily take it as part recompense for a 7% real terms pay cut this year.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,786

    If Truss returns Brexit to the more honest roots of the people who first funded it and conceived it, it could return as a live issue. If she plans to cut workers' rights , Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens will make hay.

    The roots of most of the people who funded it and conceived it were not honest. They were frightened to death their money laundering activities and oligarch greed would finally be stamped upon by financial rules being proposed by the EU.
    This was always the most ridiculous of the Remainer conspiracy theories.

    You think that people who spent decades campaigning against the EU suddenly supported Brexit because of some minor proposed regulations? Do you think the EU is free of oligarchs or money laundering?
    It’s such a whacko theory it’s delicious

    Brexit revealed that about 40% of Britain is clinically insane - like @Daveyboy1961 and @Scott_xP

    Pleasingly, many of them are snooty middle class like the philosopher A C Grayling
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,191
    Rishi gave a better performance than Truss this morning however he didn't answer the questions and there is no doubt in anyone's mind that he will stand down and head back on a fancy plane to California before the rest of the country can say blackout.
    https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/1566351241860579328
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,876
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Wow.

    Paul Brand
    @PaulBrandITV
    ·
    12m
    Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1566339080312406017

    It will be quite a tax cut for me, Though I don't see how I need to spend that money to grow the economy as it will go on my utilities bills.
    Agreed, but do you think you need it as much as less well paid people and the unwaged?
    I haven't asked for it, but will happily take it as part recompense for a 7% real terms pay cut this year.
    I don't blame you, but it does indicate that the NI cut proposed by her is nothing really to do with a response to the fuel bill hike.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,191
    Leon said:

    Brexit revealed that about 40% of Britain is clinically insane

    It was 52% of those that voted...
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,786

    Leon said:

    Thought experiment. I suggest the best possible outcome for America now is an obviously valid Trump win in 2024. A win that he doesn’t have to enforce with violence

    Would that be deserved? No. Of course not. He’s a maniac and a brute

    However it would mollify the right in the USA. At a crucial moment. Pulling them back from civil war

    And trump is not obviously a bad politician. He has good instincts - like lab leak. The big issue would be US withdrawal from NATO and isolationism - clearly bad for the UK, tho justifiable from a US perspective

    The likely alternative - a win by an aged Biden and a worsening of Wokeness leads, I think, to civil strife of some kind

    You don't think that in their triumph they would smash the rights of the defeated?
    A fair question. And my answer is: probably not

    But of course they might. There are no good choices for America now. I’m trying to plot a way out of their current peril
  • Wow.

    Paul Brand
    @PaulBrandITV
    ·
    12m
    Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1566339080312406017

    That is quoting out of context. She was essentially making the tax cuts = higher growth = bigger slice of the cake for everyone argument so beloved of Maggie. Many economists disagree with it but it’s not quite the quote that tweet suggests.
    Having now seem the full 2 minute clip, it's not at all taken out of context.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,808

    Dura_Ace said:

    The first letters are going in to Brady next weekend to start the process of Detrussification according to the Sunday Mirror.

    The position come Christmas will be fascinating. I think we’ll know clearly which way everything is heading (I think we do know now in all honesty, with the supposed cabinet appointments)

    We’ll have Mogg on the airwaves daily telling us all to “get back to the office” because we’re all lazy, unproductive swines, or we’ll have our holidays and pay reduced
    But as @TSE pointed out weeks ago any sane firm is going to put their (expensive to heat) office space out of use and pay people to work from home - with home energy prices capped it's going to be cheaper for a lot of offices to say just work from home - have an extra £200 to pay the extra costs...
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,591

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Wow.

    Paul Brand
    @PaulBrandITV
    ·
    12m
    Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1566339080312406017

    It will be quite a tax cut for me, Though I don't see how I need to spend that money to grow the economy as it will go on my utilities bills.
    Agreed, but do you think you need it as much as less well paid people and the unwaged?
    I haven't asked for it, but will happily take it as part recompense for a 7% real terms pay cut this year.
    I don't blame you, but it does indicate that the NI cut proposed by her is nothing really to do with a response to the fuel bill hike.
    She also seems unclear on where the funding for health and social care is to come from when the surcharge goes.

    It really looks like a force 12 shitstorm over the next year or two.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,876

    If Truss returns Brexit to the more honest roots of the people who first funded it and conceived it, it could return as a live issue. If she plans to cut workers' rights , Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens will make hay.

    The roots of most of the people who funded it and conceived it were not honest. They were frightened to death their money laundering activities and oligarch greed would finally be stamped upon by financial rules being proposed by the EU.
    Does that include a certain JRM?

    yes
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,465

    DougSeal said:

    In short: yes but it’s looking less likely by the day. Truss has copied the Johnsonian playbook of promising all things to all people but is not as skilled a communicator. She would have been better served sticking to core principles and messages rather than the scattergun approach of the recent couple of weeks.

    She is inevitably going to disappoint some people.

    I see a route to a small majority. But to do so Truss needs to grow into the role, be a lucky general with the Ukraine war coming to an end and energy prices starting to come down, and bet the house on some eye-catching policies to help with cost of living and hope that they don’t send the economy out of control. Oh and improve her presentation skills. That is a big ask. Conceivable? Yes. Likely? Probably not.

    There is an assumption that an end to the Ukraine was will be a quick fix for energy prices. If, as we hope, Ukraine does win doesn’t mean some quick rapprochement and the cheap energy taps coming back on. A sullen, chastened, Russia and a distrustful
    West will not result in a happy resumption of the status quo ante.
    There is no quick end to the war for Ukraine, if the goal is to recover all the territory lost since 2014.

    There is no quick end to the war for Russia, if the goal is to recover its "historical" lands.

    If we want the war to end, then both countries will need to compromise. That is always how wars end.

    Ultimately, this is what will happen because Ukrainians and Russians will want to stop dying and because Europe will run out of patience and money.

    The financial costs of this war are being borne very unequally. It is Europe that is being impoverished -- not the USA and not China. It is European industries & businesses & governments that will be bankrupted by energy costs.

    If we want the war to end quickly with a Ukrainian win, then the only sensible course is massive military intervention by NATO on the Ukrainian side.

    That obviously carries huge risks, but it makes more sense than half-hearted support that is currently being offered.
    Compromise not always how wars end. I'm not even sure it's *usually* how wars end. Wars also end by one side losing. That's how WW2 ended (both the Germany part and the Japan part), and how the Falklands War ended, and effectively how both US and the Russian wars in Afghanistan ended.

    The practical problem with Ukraine giving up territory is that it's not obvious why Putin doesn't just take what he's got, build up the logistics as far as the border, give it a couple of years to rearm and then try again. If someone's got a way to guarantee "this much but no further" then it might be rational for both Ukraine and the other western countries to agree, but the history of such attempts isn't great.

    Direct military intervention by NATO could plausibly be very expensive for NATO members because it might result in World War 3, which would be substantially worse for EU states than expensive energy prices.
  • Quite a good article on Truss from BBC Russia

    (auto translated)

    "One property of Liz Truss, according to British journalists, can, if not prevent her from defeating Rishi Sunak, then at least cause trouble in the future: she is a rather bad speaker.

    Bad by the standards of great Britain - a country where many, and not only politicians or journalists, are perfectly able to speak, because they study here to speak in front of the public and conduct debates here from childhood, even at school.

    But if Truss says something not prepared in advance, there may be surprises."

    https://www.bbc.com/russian/features-62585435
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,786
    The more I think about it, the more I believe the Biden “semi fascist” speech was a crazy mistake

    Standing in front of a blood red backdrop, flanked by marines, saying the Republicans are fascist, is basically saying: “republicans must never win. They are not American. I am America”

    It’s the equivalent of Charles II dissolving Parliament in 1629
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,228
    eek said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Wow.

    Paul Brand
    @PaulBrandITV
    ·
    12m
    Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1566339080312406017

    That is quoting out of context. She was essentially making the tax cuts = higher growth = bigger slice of the cake for everyone argument so beloved of Maggie. Many economists disagree with it but it’s not quite the quote that tweet suggests.
    It's the trickle down theory being given another airing. It is hardly a fresh challenge to economic orthodoxy but another run of an orthodoxy which has largely been found wanting when tried.
    It's an hilariously bad time to be playing round with trickle down economics...

    And I would love to know where that £2k figure comes from I make is something like £800 for someone on £100,000....
    2 earner household.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,191
    Leon said:

    The more I think about it, the more I believe the Biden “semi fascist” speech was a crazy mistake

    Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy demanded an apology after Biden called MAGA leaders' behavior semi-fascist. Dana Milbank's "apology" in response is worth sharing.

    https://twitter.com/AnitaBart/status/1566090348421840896/photo/1
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,191
    Had dinner with someone from the Foreign Office last night. What’s Truss going to be like as PM I asked. “A f*cking disaster” was the reply.
    https://twitter.com/EmmaKennedy/status/1566324937819922432
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,968
    Scott_xP said:

    Had dinner with someone from the Foreign Office last night. What’s Truss going to be like as PM I asked. “A f*cking disaster” was the reply.
    https://twitter.com/EmmaKennedy/status/1566324937819922432

    Emma Kennedy would hardly be likely to have dinner with someone who thought otherwise.
  • Leon said:

    The more I think about it, the more I believe the Biden “semi fascist” speech was a crazy mistake

    Standing in front of a blood red backdrop, flanked by marines, saying the Republicans are fascist, is basically saying: “republicans must never win. They are not American. I am America”

    It’s the equivalent of Charles II dissolving Parliament in 1629

    Hardly. It's the current version of the GOP which is the problem, not the institution itself. Started with the tea party insurrection and has led us here where lies are truth and losing is being cheated.

    Doesn't always have to stay like that...
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,551
    Leon said:

    The more I think about it, the more I believe the Biden “semi fascist” speech was a crazy mistake

    Standing in front of a blood red backdrop, flanked by marines, saying the Republicans are fascist, is basically saying: “republicans must never win. They are not American. I am America”

    It’s the equivalent of Charles II dissolving Parliament in 1629

    Biden did not say that . He was pointing out the current Republican Party are not fit to govern given many are inciting violence and continue to peddle lies about the 2020 election . Most sane people would agree with that. The only candidates in the mid terms promising to overturn results they don’t like are from the Republican Party .
  • I don't know who this Russian is that I'm sharing a tweet from, but I hadn't heard his "old joke" before and it did make me chuckle

    Юстас Алексу
    @Vladimi03721352
    Вот эта дамочка будет следующим премьером Британии.

    Смотришь на это фото и вспоминаешь старый анекдот : английская еда и английские женщины сделали британцев лучшими моряками в мире.

    This lady will be the next Prime Minister of Britain.

    You look at this photo and remember the old joke: English food and English women made the British the best sailors in the world.

    https://twitter.com/Vladimi03721352/status/1566126231250239491
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,591

    If Truss returns Brexit to the more honest roots of the people who first funded it and conceived it, it could return as a live issue. If she plans to cut workers' rights , Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens will make hay.

    The roots of most of the people who funded it and conceived it were not honest. They were frightened to death their money laundering activities and oligarch greed would finally be stamped upon by financial rules being proposed by the EU.
    This was always the most ridiculous of the Remainer conspiracy theories.

    You think that people who spent decades campaigning against the EU suddenly supported Brexit because of some minor proposed regulations? Do you think the EU is free of oligarchs or money laundering?
    Indeed it was always nonsense.

    Though these next two years will demonstrate that a freemarketeer Brexit clashes in a major way with the insular, protectionist Brexit and Lexit that many voted for. It is clear which side Truss is on.

    Whether that leads to support for a Corbynesque Lexit or to support for the growing Rejoin movement is yet to be seen.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,043
    I expect Truss to get a bounce. The big question is if she can take the lead as recent new PMs taking over with their party in power like Major, Brown and May and Johnson did.

    The speculation yesterday was an October 2023 general election, which while earlier than required would not really count as snap
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,043
    Leon said:

    The more I think about it, the more I believe the Biden “semi fascist” speech was a crazy mistake

    Standing in front of a blood red backdrop, flanked by marines, saying the Republicans are fascist, is basically saying: “republicans must never win. They are not American. I am America”

    It’s the equivalent of Charles II dissolving Parliament in 1629

    Charles 1st I think you mean, Charles IInd was not monarch until 1660 after Cromwell's Protectorate
  • eekeek Posts: 21,808

    eek said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Wow.

    Paul Brand
    @PaulBrandITV
    ·
    12m
    Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1566339080312406017

    That is quoting out of context. She was essentially making the tax cuts = higher growth = bigger slice of the cake for everyone argument so beloved of Maggie. Many economists disagree with it but it’s not quite the quote that tweet suggests.
    It's the trickle down theory being given another airing. It is hardly a fresh challenge to economic orthodoxy but another run of an orthodoxy which has largely been found wanting when tried.
    It's an hilariously bad time to be playing round with trickle down economics...

    And I would love to know where that £2k figure comes from I make is something like £800 for someone on £100,000....
    2 earner household.
    2 very high earners and even then I can’t see it..
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,043
    Leon said:

    Thought experiment. I suggest the best possible outcome for America now is an obviously valid Trump win in 2024. A win that he doesn’t have to enforce with violence

    Would that be deserved? No. Of course not. He’s a maniac and a brute

    However it would mollify the right in the USA. At a crucial moment. Pulling them back from civil war

    And trump is not obviously a bad politician. He has good instincts - like lab leak. The big issue would be US withdrawal from NATO and isolationism - clearly bad for the UK, tho justifiable from a US perspective

    The likely alternative - a win by an aged Biden and a worsening of Wokeness leads, I think, to civil strife of some kind

    Or a younger, centrist Democrat like Buttigieg or O'Rourke could win. Macron to Biden's Hollande and Trump's Sarkozy.

    Remember after Hollande won in France in 2012 plenty of early polls pointed to a Sarkozy return in 2017
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,926
    Scott_xP said:

    Had dinner with someone from the Foreign Office last night. What’s Truss going to be like as PM I asked. “A f*cking disaster” was the reply.
    https://twitter.com/EmmaKennedy/status/1566324937819922432

    Yes we all know that the word “disaster” is the prevalent one used in describing Truss. What’s still not clear to me is exactly why.

    I’ll speculate. I think Truss has inadvertently tapped into sub conscious sexism in British society. Were she a man who had held multiple cabinet roles (including Foreign Sec) without much in the way of either scandalous underperformance or spectacular achievement, with a relatively successful private sector career behind them, wooden presentation skills and right wing economic instincts, we wouldn’t call them “a disaster”.

    We would call them Jeremy Hunt. The same Jeremy Hunt that the soft left now seems to think is some sort of Tory elder statesman and the only sane member of the Conservative Party.

    Give her a chance. If she’s shit then we’ll all vote her out in very short order!
  • Interesting strategy to say that giving rich people tax cuts is fair.

    Liz is a liability
  • Judging by her comments on National Insurance cuts today, it seems that Liz Truss's big problem with Labour's energy price cap freeze is almost certainly that it gives those on the lowest incomes far too much.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,043

    DougSeal said:

    In short: yes but it’s looking less likely by the day. Truss has copied the Johnsonian playbook of promising all things to all people but is not as skilled a communicator. She would have been better served sticking to core principles and messages rather than the scattergun approach of the recent couple of weeks.

    She is inevitably going to disappoint some people.

    I see a route to a small majority. But to do so Truss needs to grow into the role, be a lucky general with the Ukraine war coming to an end and energy prices starting to come down, and bet the house on some eye-catching policies to help with cost of living and hope that they don’t send the economy out of control. Oh and improve her presentation skills. That is a big ask. Conceivable? Yes. Likely? Probably not.

    There is an assumption that an end to the Ukraine was will be a quick fix for energy prices. If, as we hope, Ukraine does win doesn’t mean some quick rapprochement and the cheap energy taps coming back on. A sullen, chastened, Russia and a distrustful
    West will not result in a happy resumption of the status quo ante.
    There is no quick end to the war for Ukraine, if the goal is to recover all the territory lost since 2014.

    There is no quick end to the war for Russia, if the goal is to recover its "historical" lands.

    If we want the war to end, then both countries will need to compromise. That is always how wars end.

    Ultimately, this is what will happen because Ukrainians and Russians will want to stop dying and because Europe will run out of patience and money.

    The financial costs of this war are being borne very unequally. It is Europe that is being impoverished -- not the USA and not China. It is European industries & businesses & governments that will be bankrupted by energy costs.

    If we want the war to end quickly with a Ukrainian win, then the only sensible course is massive military intervention by NATO on the Ukrainian side.

    That obviously carries huge risks, but it makes more sense than half-hearted support that is currently being offered.
    No, that just risks WW3.

    Better would be switching from sanctions, which in the short term at least are not hitting Russia, to more weapons supplies for Ukraine

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19698308/russia-uk-prices-sanctions-food/
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,286

    Wow.

    Paul Brand
    @PaulBrandITV
    ·
    12m
    Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1566339080312406017

    Hard to judge without context but I suspect most socialists would agree with her. The true disparities in this country come from wealth, not income. It is the appreciation of capital assets, principally homes but not exclusively so, that has created division in our society. This has been greatly accentuated by QE which has proven to be a tax on earnings whilst capital assets grew exponentially in nominal terms.

    The fact that these gains have either been taxed not at all (houses) or very lightly (CGT -Entrepreneur Reliefs= diddly squat) whilst incomes have been penalised has allowed the rich to get much richer and kept the poor in their place. The aspirational middle classes have been squeezed out as creating capital from income so savagely taxed is almost impossible. Thatcher's dream of a shareholding, property owning democracy is dead. The death of these dreams is the Tories' biggest problems and it serves them right.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,786
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    The more I think about it, the more I believe the Biden “semi fascist” speech was a crazy mistake

    Standing in front of a blood red backdrop, flanked by marines, saying the Republicans are fascist, is basically saying: “republicans must never win. They are not American. I am America”

    It’s the equivalent of Charles II dissolving Parliament in 1629

    Charles 1st I think you mean, Charles IInd was not monarch until 1660 after Cromwell's Protectorate

    Charles 1 indeed. My typo
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,591
    eek said:

    eek said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Wow.

    Paul Brand
    @PaulBrandITV
    ·
    12m
    Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1566339080312406017

    That is quoting out of context. She was essentially making the tax cuts = higher growth = bigger slice of the cake for everyone argument so beloved of Maggie. Many economists disagree with it but it’s not quite the quote that tweet suggests.
    It's the trickle down theory being given another airing. It is hardly a fresh challenge to economic orthodoxy but another run of an orthodoxy which has largely been found wanting when tried.
    It's an hilariously bad time to be playing round with trickle down economics...

    And I would love to know where that £2k figure comes from I make is something like £800 for someone on £100,000....
    2 earner household.
    2 very high earners and even then I can’t see it..
    Perhaps one TV political editor? 🤔
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,191
    moonshine said:

    Yes we all know that the word “disaster” is the prevalent one used in describing Truss. What’s still not clear to me is exactly why.

    It's because she says, and does, really stupid shit.

    "With me, what you see is what you get," says Liz Truss, who in the space of her political career has gone from an anti-monarchist Lib Dem, to a Cameroon Remain-supporting Conservative, to a hardline Brexiteer.
    https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1566345535866474496
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,786
    edited September 4
    DougSeal said:

    Leon said:

    Thought experiment. I suggest the best possible outcome for America now is an obviously valid Trump win in 2024. A win that he doesn’t have to enforce with violence

    Would that be deserved? No. Of course not. He’s a maniac and a brute

    However it would mollify the right in the USA. At a crucial moment. Pulling them back from civil war

    And trump is not obviously a bad politician. He has good instincts - like lab leak. The big issue would be US withdrawal from NATO and isolationism - clearly bad for the UK, tho justifiable from a US perspective

    The likely alternative - a win by an aged Biden and a worsening of Wokeness leads, I think, to civil strife of some kind

    You’ve really gone full alt-right. A Trump win would mean that 2024 is the last open US general election. Sure, elections would happen, but in largely the same way that elections in China happen.

    “Woke” is something that keeps you awake at night but it is a straw man, a shibboleth for you chaps of the alt-right. “Woke” - the imaginary enemy. While Trump forces 10 year old rape victims to give birth, fixes the electoral system so only Republicans can win, casts opposition as “Enemies of the State” (as he did yesterday) you’ll still be banging on about sodding pronouns and statues.
    You literally think Woke is just pronouns and statues even as they saw the breasts off 15
    year olds. You’re a dangerous cretin
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,665
    edited September 4

    Wow.

    Paul Brand
    @PaulBrandITV
    ·
    12m
    Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1566339080312406017

    That is quoting out of context. She was essentially making the tax cuts = higher growth = bigger slice of the cake for everyone argument so beloved of Maggie. Many economists disagree with it but it’s not quite the quote that tweet suggests.
    Having now seem the full 2 minute clip, it's not at all taken out of context.
    I agree. She said the higher paid benefiting the most was “fair”, so I don’t get this whole “taken out of the context” stuff.

    She is quite clearly against redistribution and all for trickle down
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478

    I don't know who this Russian is that I'm sharing a tweet from, but I hadn't heard his "old joke" before and it did make me chuckle

    Юстас Алексу
    @Vladimi03721352
    Вот эта дамочка будет следующим премьером Британии.

    Смотришь на это фото и вспоминаешь старый анекдот : английская еда и английские женщины сделали британцев лучшими моряками в мире.

    This lady will be the next Prime Minister of Britain.

    You look at this photo and remember the old joke: English food and English women made the British the best sailors in the world.

    https://twitter.com/Vladimi03721352/status/1566126231250239491

    Well, I've never heard that one before. She's awful. It made me think of the plaintive Dylan song "boots of Spanish leather".

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1KxthvX1Ms
  • DougSeal said:

    Leon said:

    Thought experiment. I suggest the best possible outcome for America now is an obviously valid Trump win in 2024. A win that he doesn’t have to enforce with violence

    Would that be deserved? No. Of course not. He’s a maniac and a brute

    However it would mollify the right in the USA. At a crucial moment. Pulling them back from civil war

    And trump is not obviously a bad politician. He has good instincts - like lab leak. The big issue would be US withdrawal from NATO and isolationism - clearly bad for the UK, tho justifiable from a US perspective

    The likely alternative - a win by an aged Biden and a worsening of Wokeness leads, I think, to civil strife of some kind

    You’ve really gone full alt-right. A Trump win would mean that 2024 is the last open US general election. Sure, elections would happen, but in largely the same way that elections in China happen.

    “Woke” is something that keeps you awake at night but it is a straw man, a shibboleth for you chaps of the alt-right. “Woke” - the imaginary enemy. While Trump forces 10 year old rape victims to give birth, fixes the electoral system so only Republicans can win, casts opposition as “Enemies of the State” (as he did yesterday) you’ll still be banging on about sodding pronouns and statues.
    Possibly the greatest put down in PB history.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,043
    DavidL said:

    Wow.

    Paul Brand
    @PaulBrandITV
    ·
    12m
    Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1566339080312406017

    Hard to judge without context but I suspect most socialists would agree with her. The true disparities in this country come from wealth, not income. It is the appreciation of capital assets, principally homes but not exclusively so, that has created division in our society. This has been greatly accentuated by QE which has proven to be a tax on earnings whilst capital assets grew exponentially in nominal terms.

    The fact that these gains have either been taxed not at all (houses) or very lightly (CGT -Entrepreneur Reliefs= diddly squat) whilst incomes have been penalised has allowed the rich to get much richer and kept the poor in their place. The aspirational middle classes have been squeezed out as creating capital from income so savagely taxed is almost impossible. Thatcher's dream of a shareholding, property owning democracy is dead. The death of these dreams is the Tories' biggest problems and it serves them right.
    Most of us still own property, certainly over 40, hence we have less wealth inequality even than say Sweden or Germany. Average incomes however have not risen much since 2008 while City wages and CEO wages have boomed.

    And if you think the left welcome Truss' proposed NI cut benefitting the highest earners most I suggest you haven't read Twitter this morning

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,591
    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    The more I think about it, the more I believe the Biden “semi fascist” speech was a crazy mistake

    Standing in front of a blood red backdrop, flanked by marines, saying the Republicans are fascist, is basically saying: “republicans must never win. They are not American. I am America”

    It’s the equivalent of Charles II dissolving Parliament in 1629

    Hardly. It's the current version of the GOP which is the problem, not the institution itself. Started with the tea party insurrection and has led us here where lies are truth and losing is being cheated.

    Doesn't always have to stay like that...
    It is an unusually naive post from @Leon. A Trump victory in 2024 would be dangerously like the election of Hitler in January 33. Not because Trump is a Nazi or a war monger but because he has no respect for democratic principles or rules.

    The evidence that the current Republican party has no respect for institutions, the rule of law, election results and dissent is simply overwhelming. A Trump victory, giving him access to the levers of power once again, is very likely to be fatal to a working democracy in the United States. The threat is real and Biden was right to point it out, even if his backdrop was seriously silly.
    Yes very much a 1933 result, when more mainstream conservatives thought they would be in control of the demagogue.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,665
    I stand to benefit quite substantially from Truss tax cuts, but I really don’t think I should at the expense of the lowest paid. I think quite a large proportion of people will be thinking the same
  • Wow.

    Paul Brand
    @PaulBrandITV
    ·
    12m
    Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1566339080312406017

    That is quoting out of context. She was essentially making the tax cuts = higher growth = bigger slice of the cake for everyone argument so beloved of Maggie. Many economists disagree with it but it’s not quite the quote that tweet suggests.
    Having now seem the full 2 minute clip, it's not at all taken out of context.
    I agree. She said the higher paid benefiting the most was “fair”, so I don’t get this whole “taken out of the context” stuff.

    She is quite clearly against redistributed and all for trickle down
    The new approach from the Truss fandom is to claim anything they don't like is "out of context" or "misinterpreted". She is literally doing a Trump.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,786
    Gallantry demands that I defend La Truss

    She can look terrible in photos. But she can also look quite mmmmyes


  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,482
    Leon said:

    DougSeal said:

    Leon said:

    Thought experiment. I suggest the best possible outcome for America now is an obviously valid Trump win in 2024. A win that he doesn’t have to enforce with violence

    Would that be deserved? No. Of course not. He’s a maniac and a brute

    However it would mollify the right in the USA. At a crucial moment. Pulling them back from civil war

    And trump is not obviously a bad politician. He has good instincts - like lab leak. The big issue would be US withdrawal from NATO and isolationism - clearly bad for the UK, tho justifiable from a US perspective

    The likely alternative - a win by an aged Biden and a worsening of Wokeness leads, I think, to civil strife of some kind

    You’ve really gone full alt-right. A Trump win would mean that 2024 is the last open US general election. Sure, elections would happen, but in largely the same way that elections in China happen.

    “Woke” is something that keeps you awake at night but it is a straw man, a shibboleth for you chaps of the alt-right. “Woke” - the imaginary enemy. While Trump forces 10 year old rape victims to give birth, fixes the electoral system so only Republicans can win, casts opposition as “Enemies of the State” (as he did yesterday) you’ll still be banging on about sodding pronouns and statues.
    You literally think Woke is just pronouns and statues even as they saw the breasts off 15
    year olds. You’re a dangerous cretin
    A post that demonstrates fully that you just lost that argument.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,864
    edited September 4

    DougSeal said:

    In short: yes but it’s looking less likely by the day. Truss has copied the Johnsonian playbook of promising all things to all people but is not as skilled a communicator. She would have been better served sticking to core principles and messages rather than the scattergun approach of the recent couple of weeks.

    She is inevitably going to disappoint some people.

    I see a route to a small majority. But to do so Truss needs to grow into the role, be a lucky general with the Ukraine war coming to an end and energy prices starting to come down, and bet the house on some eye-catching policies to help with cost of living and hope that they don’t send the economy out of control. Oh and improve her presentation skills. That is a big ask. Conceivable? Yes. Likely? Probably not.

    There is an assumption that an end to the Ukraine was will be a quick fix for energy prices. If, as we hope, Ukraine does win doesn’t mean some quick rapprochement and the cheap energy taps coming back on. A sullen, chastened, Russia and a distrustful
    West will not result in a happy resumption of the status quo ante.
    There is no quick end to the war for Ukraine, if the goal is to recover all the territory lost since 2014.

    There is no quick end to the war for Russia, if the goal is to recover its "historical" lands.

    If we want the war to end, then both countries will need to compromise. That is always how wars end.

    Ultimately, this is what will happen because Ukrainians and Russians will want to stop dying and because Europe will run out of patience and money.

    The financial costs of this war are being borne very unequally. It is Europe that is being impoverished -- not the USA and not China. It is European industries & businesses & governments that will be bankrupted by energy costs.

    If we want the war to end quickly with a Ukrainian win, then the only sensible course is massive military intervention by NATO on the Ukrainian side.

    That obviously carries huge risks, but it makes more sense than half-hearted support that is currently being offered.
    Compromise not always how wars end. I'm not even sure it's *usually* how wars end. Wars also end by one side losing. That's how WW2 ended (both the Germany part and the Japan part), and how the Falklands War ended, and effectively how both US and the Russian wars in Afghanistan ended.

    The practical problem with Ukraine giving up territory is that it's not obvious why Putin doesn't just take what he's got, build up the logistics as far as the border, give it a couple of years to rearm and then try again. If someone's got a way to guarantee "this much but no further" then it might be rational for both Ukraine and the other western countries to agree, but the history of such attempts isn't great.

    Direct military intervention by NATO could plausibly be very expensive for NATO members because it might result in World War 3, which would be substantially worse for EU states than expensive energy prices.
    Wars do sometimes end up with one side definitely losing -- and WW2 is a good example.

    The Falklands War is another (though as the claim to the Malvinas has not been withdrawn, it is perhaps premature to regard this matter as "over"). Like most boundary disputes, there is enormous resilience to achieving a resolution.

    This War at present seems to bear little resemblance to either WW2 or the Falklands War. I don't think the invasion of Russia is even remotely possible without nuclear holocaust -- as of course would be necessary for the parallel with WW2. And the War is nothing like the Falklands conflict, which was very limited in its scope to some desolate, underpopulated islands.

    The US and Russian Wars in Afghanistan are better parallels, though I think the Iran-Iraq War is still closer still. It has two reasonably matched armies fighting a war about where the boundary of their countries should be.

    The Russian War in Afghanistan lasted a decade. The US war lasted for closer to two decades. The Iran-Iraq War lasted 8 years.

    I think these are reasonable estimates for how long this war will take, if matters continue as present.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,191
    Apparently #ThickLizzy is trending
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489

    DougSeal said:

    In short: yes but it’s looking less likely by the day. Truss has copied the Johnsonian playbook of promising all things to all people but is not as skilled a communicator. She would have been better served sticking to core principles and messages rather than the scattergun approach of the recent couple of weeks.

    She is inevitably going to disappoint some people.

    I see a route to a small majority. But to do so Truss needs to grow into the role, be a lucky general with the Ukraine war coming to an end and energy prices starting to come down, and bet the house on some eye-catching policies to help with cost of living and hope that they don’t send the economy out of control. Oh and improve her presentation skills. That is a big ask. Conceivable? Yes. Likely? Probably not.

    There is an assumption that an end to the Ukraine was will be a quick fix for energy prices. If, as we hope, Ukraine does win doesn’t mean some quick rapprochement and the cheap energy taps coming back on. A sullen, chastened, Russia and a distrustful
    West will not result in a happy resumption of the status quo ante.
    There is no quick end to the war for Ukraine, if the goal is to recover all the territory lost since 2014.

    There is no quick end to the war for Russia, if the goal is to recover its "historical" lands.

    If we want the war to end, then both countries will need to compromise. That is always how wars end.

    Ultimately, this is what will happen because Ukrainians and Russians will want to stop dying and because Europe will run out of patience and money.

    The financial costs of this war are being borne very unequally. It is Europe that is being impoverished -- not the USA and not China. It is European industries & businesses & governments that will be bankrupted by energy costs.

    If we want the war to end quickly with a Ukrainian win, then the only sensible course is massive military intervention by NATO on the Ukrainian side.

    That obviously carries huge risks, but it makes more sense than half-hearted support that is currently being offered.
    The half hearted military support of Ukraine combined with a an economic war that will cost Europe, and mush of the wider world dearly is a terrible mistake.

    We, the west, and Europe in particular should have given the Ukrainians the weapons they need, in the quantities they needed to win this, combined with training. It may be too late now, I don't know, I hope not, but we have fought this totally the wrong way.

    Promising to spend an extra 100 billion euros to upgrade your own armed forces over the next few years, is a lot more expensive and a lot less effective than spending 10 billion over a copole of months.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,849
    DavidL said:

    Wow.

    Paul Brand
    @PaulBrandITV
    ·
    12m
    Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1566339080312406017

    Hard to judge without context but I suspect most socialists would agree with her. The true disparities in this country come from wealth, not income. It is the appreciation of capital assets, principally homes but not exclusively so, that has created division in our society. This has been greatly accentuated by QE which has proven to be a tax on earnings whilst capital assets grew exponentially in nominal terms.

    The fact that these gains have either been taxed not at all (houses) or very lightly (CGT -Entrepreneur Reliefs= diddly squat) whilst incomes have been penalised has allowed the rich to get much richer and kept the poor in their place. The aspirational middle classes have been squeezed out as creating capital from income so savagely taxed is almost impossible. Thatcher's dream of a shareholding, property owning democracy is dead. The death of these dreams is the Tories' biggest problems and it serves them right.
    I agree with you, but I'm not convinced that Truss does. She merely thinks that regressive income tax/NI is OK - I see no interest in reducing wealth inequality.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,886
    Leon said:

    The more I think about it, the more I believe the Biden “semi fascist” speech was a crazy mistake

    Standing in front of a blood red backdrop, flanked by marines, saying the Republicans are fascist, is basically saying: “republicans must never win. They are not American. I am America”

    It’s the equivalent of Charles II dissolving Parliament in 1629

    It was a very wierd speech, in content as well as in setting. The sort of thing that you’d expect to hear from Trump, rather than someone trying to bring America back together. It was the Basket of Deplorables on steroids, and is likely to get more Republicans turning out in November than Democrats.
  • Apparently I will gain upwards of £1000 a year on Truss's proposals.

    I don't need the money, I already earn well and I am not going to struggle in an incoming crisis. I have savings, investments and a secure job.

    Why on Earth are they giving tax cuts to me, I am not going to spend money, I am going to save it.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,786
    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    The more I think about it, the more I believe the Biden “semi fascist” speech was a crazy mistake

    Standing in front of a blood red backdrop, flanked by marines, saying the Republicans are fascist, is basically saying: “republicans must never win. They are not American. I am America”

    It’s the equivalent of Charles II dissolving Parliament in 1629

    Hardly. It's the current version of the GOP which is the problem, not the institution itself. Started with the tea party insurrection and has led us here where lies are truth and losing is being cheated.

    Doesn't always have to stay like that...
    It is an unusually naive post from @Leon. A Trump victory in 2024 would be dangerously like the election of Hitler in January 33. Not because Trump is a Nazi or a war monger but because he has no respect for democratic principles or rules.

    The evidence that the current Republican party has no respect for institutions, the rule of law, election results and dissent is simply overwhelming. A Trump victory, giving him access to the levers of power once again, is very likely to be fatal to a working democracy in the United States. The threat is real and Biden was right to point it out, even if his backdrop was seriously silly.
    I see Wokeness as more dangerous long term to the entire west, than a “legitimate” Trump victory

    You are free to disagree. But I take this position not of naivety but cold hearted realpolitik

    America is in danger of destroying the Enlightenment whichever way it turns - Trump or Biden

    Of course the best outcome is trump dropping dead - so sad - and de Santis winning
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 13,922
    edited September 4

    Wow.

    Paul Brand
    @PaulBrandITV
    ·
    12m
    Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1566339080312406017

    That is quoting out of context. She was essentially making the tax cuts = higher growth = bigger slice of the cake for everyone argument so beloved of Maggie. Many economists disagree with it but it’s not quite the quote that tweet suggests.
    Don't think it is out of context. Truss gave her reply to a clear and reasonable question. Her justification was included in an accurate and succinct tweet.

    The real context is that people are facing disastrously big increases in their fuel bills. The "wow" is that Truss seems to think this a serious response to the crisis.
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478

    Toms said:

    I don't know who this Russian is that I'm sharing a tweet from, but I hadn't heard his "old joke" before and it did make me chuckle

    Юстас Алексу
    @Vladimi03721352
    Вот эта дамочка будет следующим премьером Британии.

    Смотришь на это фото и вспоминаешь старый анекдот : английская еда и английские женщины сделали британцев лучшими моряками в мире.

    This lady will be the next Prime Minister of Britain.

    You look at this photo and remember the old joke: English food and English women made the British the best sailors in the world.

    https://twitter.com/Vladimi03721352/status/1566126231250239491

    Well, I've never heard that one before. She's awful. It made me think of the plaintive Dylan song "boots of Spanish leather".

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1KxthvX1Ms
    Sorry, this is sexist bollocks. Take a zillion photos of anyone and you can come up with a shot that looks like that. There are lots of reasons to be wary of Truss, but her looks are not one of them.
    I'm not going by the photo but by free association. Yes, looks are quite irrelevant. But awful is as awful does.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,786

    Leon said:

    DougSeal said:

    Leon said:

    Thought experiment. I suggest the best possible outcome for America now is an obviously valid Trump win in 2024. A win that he doesn’t have to enforce with violence

    Would that be deserved? No. Of course not. He’s a maniac and a brute

    However it would mollify the right in the USA. At a crucial moment. Pulling them back from civil war

    And trump is not obviously a bad politician. He has good instincts - like lab leak. The big issue would be US withdrawal from NATO and isolationism - clearly bad for the UK, tho justifiable from a US perspective

    The likely alternative - a win by an aged Biden and a worsening of Wokeness leads, I think, to civil strife of some kind

    You’ve really gone full alt-right. A Trump win would mean that 2024 is the last open US general election. Sure, elections would happen, but in largely the same way that elections in China happen.

    “Woke” is something that keeps you awake at night but it is a straw man, a shibboleth for you chaps of the alt-right. “Woke” - the imaginary enemy. While Trump forces 10 year old rape victims to give birth, fixes the electoral system so only Republicans can win, casts opposition as “Enemies of the State” (as he did yesterday) you’ll still be banging on about sodding pronouns and statues.
    You literally think Woke is just pronouns and statues even as they saw the breasts off 15
    year olds. You’re a dangerous cretin
    A post that demonstrates fully that you just lost that argument.
    A comment that proves you don’t even UNDERSTAND the argument
  • Toms said:

    I don't know who this Russian is that I'm sharing a tweet from, but I hadn't heard his "old joke" before and it did make me chuckle

    Юстас Алексу
    @Vladimi03721352
    Вот эта дамочка будет следующим премьером Британии.

    Смотришь на это фото и вспоминаешь старый анекдот : английская еда и английские женщины сделали британцев лучшими моряками в мире.

    This lady will be the next Prime Minister of Britain.

    You look at this photo and remember the old joke: English food and English women made the British the best sailors in the world.

    https://twitter.com/Vladimi03721352/status/1566126231250239491

    Well, I've never heard that one before. She's awful. It made me think of the plaintive Dylan song "boots of Spanish leather".

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1KxthvX1Ms
    Sorry, this is sexist bollocks. Take a zillion photos of anyone and you can come up with a shot that looks like that. There are lots of reasons to be wary of Truss, but her looks are not one of them.
    I agree. I only included the photo because it was the one the Russian chose to illustrate the Russian joke. And it wasn't a bad choice for that, except she wasn't also eating.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,043
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Wow.

    Paul Brand
    @PaulBrandITV
    ·
    12m
    Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1566339080312406017

    Hard to judge without context but I suspect most socialists would agree with her. The true disparities in this country come from wealth, not income. It is the appreciation of capital assets, principally homes but not exclusively so, that has created division in our society. This has been greatly accentuated by QE which has proven to be a tax on earnings whilst capital assets grew exponentially in nominal terms.

    The fact that these gains have either been taxed not at all (houses) or very lightly (CGT -Entrepreneur Reliefs= diddly squat) whilst incomes have been penalised has allowed the rich to get much richer and kept the poor in their place. The aspirational middle classes have been squeezed out as creating capital from income so savagely taxed is almost impossible. Thatcher's dream of a shareholding, property owning democracy is dead. The death of these dreams is the Tories' biggest problems and it serves them right.
    Most of us still own property, certainly over 40, hence we have less wealth inequality even than say Sweden or Germany. Average incomes however have not risen much since 2008 while City wages and CEO wages have boomed.

    And if you think the left welcome Truss' proposed NI cut benefitting the highest earners most I suggest you haven't read Twitter this morning

    In terms of income inequality the UK has more income inequality than any western nation after the USA.

    In terms of wealth inequality though we are about middle of western nations

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1566355997312094209?s=20&t=S8S1frmSBF3M5wzfzSbuDQ

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_inequality
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,156
    Leon said:

    Thought experiment. I suggest the best possible outcome for America now is an obviously valid Trump win in 2024. A win that he doesn’t have to enforce with violence

    Would that be deserved? No. Of course not. He’s a maniac and a brute

    However it would mollify the right in the USA. At a crucial moment. Pulling them back from civil war

    And trump is not obviously a bad politician. He has good instincts - like lab leak. The big issue would be US withdrawal from NATO and isolationism - clearly bad for the UK, tho justifiable from a US perspective

    The likely alternative - a win by an aged Biden and a worsening of Wokeness leads, I think, to civil strife of some kind

    Why not stop typing this 'too silly to engage with' content and pop out for some oysters?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,286
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Wow.

    Paul Brand
    @PaulBrandITV
    ·
    12m
    Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1566339080312406017

    Hard to judge without context but I suspect most socialists would agree with her. The true disparities in this country come from wealth, not income. It is the appreciation of capital assets, principally homes but not exclusively so, that has created division in our society. This has been greatly accentuated by QE which has proven to be a tax on earnings whilst capital assets grew exponentially in nominal terms.

    The fact that these gains have either been taxed not at all (houses) or very lightly (CGT -Entrepreneur Reliefs= diddly squat) whilst incomes have been penalised has allowed the rich to get much richer and kept the poor in their place. The aspirational middle classes have been squeezed out as creating capital from income so savagely taxed is almost impossible. Thatcher's dream of a shareholding, property owning democracy is dead. The death of these dreams is the Tories' biggest problems and it serves them right.
    Most of us still own property, certainly over 40, hence we have less wealth inequality even than say Sweden or Germany. Average incomes however have not risen much since 2008 while City wages and CEO wages have boomed.

    And if you think the left welcome Truss' proposed NI cut benefitting the highest earners most I suggest you haven't read Twitter this morning

    That is not what I said and the cut in NI is a terrible idea. Sunak had already excluded the low to medium paid from it in his budget so it is almost entirely a benefit for the better paid which is the exact opposite of what is required right now given the CoL crisis.

    But you are right that many over the age of 40 have at least got some modest foothold in the appreciating assets game. It is why the Tories still poll reasonably well with them but barely exist in those younger who have missed out. If the Tories want a future they need to massively increase housebuilding so that the value of property falls in real if not nominal terms and becomes more affordable to the young.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,786

    Toms said:

    I don't know who this Russian is that I'm sharing a tweet from, but I hadn't heard his "old joke" before and it did make me chuckle

    Юстас Алексу
    @Vladimi03721352
    Вот эта дамочка будет следующим премьером Британии.

    Смотришь на это фото и вспоминаешь старый анекдот : английская еда и английские женщины сделали британцев лучшими моряками в мире.

    This lady will be the next Prime Minister of Britain.

    You look at this photo and remember the old joke: English food and English women made the British the best sailors in the world.

    https://twitter.com/Vladimi03721352/status/1566126231250239491

    Well, I've never heard that one before. She's awful. It made me think of the plaintive Dylan song "boots of Spanish leather".

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1KxthvX1Ms
    Sorry, this is sexist bollocks. Take a zillion photos of anyone and you can come up with a shot that looks like that. There are lots of reasons to be wary of Truss, but her looks are not one of them.
    Yes I agree.
This discussion has been closed.