Miz-Trust..... everyone else is to blame
- Thread starter Ollygon
- Start date
tangysider
Well-known member
Right or Left wing, politics is all about the short term sticking plasters and point scoring. All politicians should agree where they would like the country to be in 20 to 30 years time, but realize that will never happen. No industry could ever servive the YoYo decision making, so the fact the country is in a mess should not surprise anyone
ElBurroSinNombre
Well-known member
She is completely nuts.
In her speech, she labelled Sunak as the head of the anti-growth coalition, it's a real blue on blue guerilla war!
She also said that she didn't crash the economy, it was all somebody else's fault - a ridiculous denial of something that is clearly true.
I am not really sure why anybody would still take her seriously. If she has an iota of self awareness she would quietly disappear from public life and apologise for the misery that her ridiculous and reckless government inflicted on so many people in such a short time.
Thank god that she is no longer anywhere near the levers of power and never will be again.
Lib Dem Treasury spokesperson Sarah Olney puts it very well;
Liz Truss’ refusal to apologise to the families who have seen their finances ruined by her botched budget shows just how out of touch she is. To rub salt in the wound, Truss and her fellow Conservative ministers pocketed thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ cash in handouts after causing an economic car crash and fleeing the scene of the crime.
The British public will never forget this shambolic Conservative government for trashing the economy and sending mortgage rates spiralling. It is time to change the rules over ministerial severance pay for good so that Liz Truss and other former Conservative ministers cannot again profit from their own failure.
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
But that's one of her key problems Elburro....she hasn't any self awareness.
If only she would disappear, EBSN!
However I suspect that the people controlling her are also hard line free market, low regulation, low tax, supply side economic supporters who cannot let their tarnished ideology die with her and her catastrophic reign.
Apparently all the Tufton Street boys were there today (led by Matthew Elliott), along with leading Brexiteers (Farage, Frost, Minford, Forte etc); they desperately want to re-inflate their trickle down economic ideology again, so the finger is now being pointed at everyone from the BBC to Mark Carney to left wing politicians!
The Tax Payers Alliance and the IEA and such like cannot let the `Britannia Unchained` ideology die, so Truss must be seen to be reinvented as more sinned against than sinning.
And she is thick-skinned and deluded enough to go along with it.
How the f*** did we get to this?
braymarina
Well-known member
Was it 49 days in the job, well not quite in more hanging on, then trolleys off with £115k(?) a year for life? Lovely jubbly Rodders.
ElBurroSinNombre
Well-known member
I think she really is completely thick / deluded - and has been used as a useful idiot by Tufton Street.
Rory Stewart worked under her in DEFRA - she features in a chapter of his new book that was released on the podcast 'The rest is politics'. He said that she tends to over-simplify things (eg. 'I'm going for growth' - as if no-one had ever thought of growing the economy before) and thinks that being in government is all about image. When she went to Australia to negotiate a trade deal she was apparently more interested in photo-ops than negotiating.
How on earth could she have become PM? - the system needs to be changed if this can happen (for all parties btw. - I personally wouldn't like a Corbyn to be foisted on the UK in a similar way and the effect on the markets would probably have been similar).
TSSeasider
Well-known member
We need to do something to stimulate growth - but are we able to do that without compromising or net zero ambitions.
Her approach was naive at best.
Wrong ideas at the wrong time - that's a lesson about listening to all sides and not just those who agree with you.
Her approach was naive at best.
Wrong ideas at the wrong time - that's a lesson about listening to all sides and not just those who agree with you.
Costero Poderoso
Well-known member
The argument for growth might be the actual problem. Constantly chasing economic growth is driving boom and bust in short and medium term cycles, particularly when allied to a supply side driven consumptive based economic model, it also drives the economy away from productive activity to non producive rentier models, further increasing boom and bust and reducing wealth distribution because the margins and the risk in productive activities in a heavily debt based economy, as all modern economies are, is just too risky to undertake.
Truss' ideas were never viable even in the 80s, they have been demonstrated as poppycock over and over again.
I am now coming around to the idea that in a consumptive economy, and we are not getting away from consumptive based economics ant time soon, there has to be maximal participation and in order to achieve that maximal participation there has to be a sustainable model, and growth, the way the markets want growth isnt sustainable, the model now is reducing consumptive participation by around 1% per year and has been for at least the last twenty years.
I was listening to a US politician talking in congress and berating net zero as it would cost (I think the figure was something like) 50 trillion dollars over the next ten years or so but what he and many others including the environmental groups dont talk about is that that is 50 trillion dollars of economic activity . . . AND it's productive activity which has a chain of activity and a wealth distribution back to workers, the issue is that the models of net zero are being hijacked by markets with a view to rentier models and what would be monopolised industries.
There are now quite a few more people coming around to teh idea of shrinking the economy in order to provide a better distribution of wealth, the problem is we may have already gone too far towards the capital bias, rentier systems, and markets calling the shots to come back from it.
TSSeasider
Well-known member
I agree with much of that.
Mark_GT
Well-known member
It's not how big you are, it's how productive you are. Ask anyone who worked at Carillion,.
Investing in sustainability is critical too. As the government botches its latest offshore wind auction and costs jobs in locations only just recovering from years of economic decay.
Investing in sustainability is critical too. As the government botches its latest offshore wind auction and costs jobs in locations only just recovering from years of economic decay.
Macseasider
Well-known member
Utterly utterly deluded. Sadly for the conservative party she has her followers within the party.
southshore
Well-known member
Actually she did wonders for Annuity rates, which was obviously her intention.
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
Not naive TSS, vain and arrogant.
Wilburrabbit
Well-known member
Still promoting porky markets then
Tangerinenick
Well-known member
Classic example of a career politician with neither the integrity nor ability to do the job.
Goldfinger
Well-known member
She couldn't find her own arse using both hands.
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
One of Labour's 5 missions: to make Britain a clean energy superpower. Good quality, long term jobs, with business and unions working together for the benefit of the country. Easy to scoff at for the cynical no nothings; hard to achieve. But when was anything worthwhile, easy?
Wizaard
Well-known member
Whereas selling off everything has really served us well.
Avanti getting a new long contract because of 'much improved service' has to be the biggest joke yet.
Another contract to someone's friends more like.
Tangerinenick
Well-known member
Labour need to amend their renters charter and then they might get my vote.
Archibald Knox
Well-known member
Liz Truss was married in 2000. By 2004, she was having an 18-month affair with fellow MP Mark Field. The timing was such that she had to swear to her husband that their children were his. If her husband couldn’t trust her... why should the country?
Last edited:
Newholland
Well-known member
Hate is a strong and mostly inappropriate word.
Don’t agree with her...don’t particularly like the way she comes across on TV ( never having met her) ... she appears foolish... but hate nope.
Fair enough, I think we can understand I'm using it somewhat colloquially, although a great many people I'm sure would go as far as to say that hated her, or at least hated what she was doing and her time in office. She is the least popular Prime Minister in polling history
Newholland
Well-known member
“or at least hated what she was doing and her time in office”...
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
I think we need to look at the wider picture when voting. Will their ideas broadly benefit the country? I think they will. In any case, I don't believe that good landlords have anything to fear from Labour's renters charter.
Truth is I’ve lost faith with all governments and the money men behind them. They spend billions on wars, were happy to shut the world economy down for 2 years. The UK is 2 trillion in debt the US apparently 30 trillion in debt and yet Truss suggests tax cuts and we have world financial meltdown.
Costero Poderoso
Well-known member
Getting to net zero is in the UK about 4 trillion pounds of economic activity over a decade or so (the costs are reported to be about 4 trillion), with the knock on effects going forward beyond the decade. One of the big problems is the current infrastructure is a) privately owned, and hence pofitised and b) predominently foreign owned and hence seen by owners as favourably profitisable (rather than gouging customers in their home countries). Ive also still not seen a good argument where a sustainable energy model can plug into a traditional carbon based infrastructure.
Because successive governments have prioritised capital over everything for nearly fifty years and the rentier model is fundamentally ingrained into UK economics the new infratstructure for clean energy is massively problematic and doesnt need to be.
The issue is how do you wind down traditional carbon based businesses without doing what Thatcher did to industry in the early eighties. At the moment its being done by persuading existing businesses to convert with financial sweetners when their models (operational and financial) are entirely unsuitable for a clean energy model
That's not what happened. Liz Truss suggested unfunded tax cuts, with tens of billions of pounds of borrowing to cover the deficit. If you think debt is bad then you must also think Liz Truss wanting to pay for tax cuts with debt is bad, and it's hardly a surprise that the market reacted quite similarly.
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
Because of the inhibitors you mention, achieving net zero cannot be seen as a one term initiative by Government. Labour intends to set things in motion with Great British Energy, a new, publicly-owned clean energy company. The aim has to be to wean the British economy away from the privatised, rentier model by making a success of the new company and showing the electorate that it can work.
What industries are you thinking of? The most carbon intensive are probably transport, concrete and farming. Transport is already miles ahead of targets in terms of electrification. As for concrete and farming, my understanding is they are well aware you can't decarbonise these things. Cows will always produce methane and concrete manufacturing will always produce carbon dioxide. The work to make these industries net zero is about implementing carbon capture and storage at the point of creation (as opposed to the far more fanciful idea of just sucking it out of the atmosphere once its up there). Storing co2 in underground caves and mines and using mineralisation to store the co2 within the concrete are innovations withing the industry, it isn't transforming it into some unrecognisable thing that transforms communities and economies like Thatcher did. Expectations are this sort of thing will start to become much more widespread by 2028.
Costero Poderoso
Well-known member
im all for it and ive read the statement of intent, which is alll fine and dandy but there isnt a great deal of detail in the proposal, intent great - actual implementation who knows particularly when over lets say a decade you have to take possibly hundreds of thousands of jobs from traditional energy and create them in the new sectors. Its the education and training around it which needs to be in place immediately, its the production capability which needs to be in place and the UK isnt very good at setting up production, its good at being a middle man for foreign investment.
The tories are obviously quite happy to turn the country and the planet into a burnt wasteland as long as the current generation think they can keep their wealth and status.
A multi term policy is just not something that modern politics can deal with, everything has to be short term to appeal to the 25 to 30% of the electorate that has sway at the polls and is terminally self interested. Labour has to get away from the false narratives of immigration, and gender and other media cat calls and im just not sure that Starmer has the neccesary support in his own party or the actual capability to implement in any other way than one that largely mitigates to the status quo.
i hope im wrong
Costero Poderoso
Well-known member
im specifically talking about energy, production and distribution; I probably should have used fossil fuel model rather than carbon based). The infrastructure for energy is based on certain types of financial and operational models, which is specifically prioritised to market (stock market) needs, its the same with all utilities. I had an alert a couple months ago from an nvestment house with an advisary for UK energy stock being undervalued and a good buy to hang on to for for twelve months or so until stock met its true value.
Transport might be miles ahead of targets, the targets being largely arbitrary, and also largely signaling intent, but i understand that the signal has to be made to force companies and the public into line. Im personally not convinced that plug in electric cars are viable long term, you could talk about hydrogen cells which seem more more viable for normal transport but from what i have read and been told by professionals in this arena that i work with in some of our genral eco advisary, the costs associated with hydrogen cells and the energy use in creating them is not really sustainable at the moment and is still more than a decade from being viable, they may be wrong of course.
Its not quite the same as what thatcher did in that there were communities entirely reliant on ship building, or steel or automotive or coal that were decimated, intentionally; but over all the energy industries there will be a fairly sudden loss of jobs as those industries are wound down, it may take 50 years in which case the whole thing is window dressing because in order for it to be effective it needs to happen over a decade. if it is done in a decade models for building production capacity, education training and changes in the financial system need to be in place.
It will change energy infrastructure completely in my opinion because ive yet to see a model where you plug in renewable energy models succesfully into the current infrastructure, without putting basic energy security at risk.
EV numbers aren't "arbritrary", they are projected to account for two-thirds of all new car sales in 2030 and that number is taken into account in terms of global net zero projections. The IEA is continuously amending their projections and outcome scenarios based on where we have progressed and where we have fallen behind. The targets are there to help project how much the Earth will warm by, and thanks to higher than expected EV sales and Solar installation the IEA has recently said 1.5c is not off the table, a few years ago there wasn't considered to be any chance of achieving it. EV success has been a major factor. All the data gets fed into the projections.
In its global warming targets, the IEA also assumes we will be producing oil and gas in to the 2040s. That does not make it 'window dressing'. Even the institution perhaps most involved/invested in getting us to net zero recognised and states we must continue existing oil and gas production so as not to destroy communities and also to ensure energy security and avoid supply/demand imbalances. It's when new licenses are signed, such as the Tories are doing, when it becomes problematic.
In terms of jobs, we are already going through a revolution. Off-shore wind has created tens of thousands of new jobs over the last few years and by 2030 that will be over 100,000.
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
In the lead up to the 1997 GE I was invited (as a Labour member) to a speech by John Prescott at the Cliffs Hotel. It was basically a rehearsal for the same speech the following day in the Empress Ballroom to the Labour North Conference. One of the topics that I vividly remember was Prescott insisting that a Labour Government could not introduce all of its programme in one term of office and that the whole election strategy was based on being in office for at least two terms.
Clearly, neither Starmer nor Rayner are adopting this position....yet. There is much contaminated water to flow under the bridge before the election plan is launched. Nevertheless, the size and scope of Labour's mission statements tells me that this cannot be a strategy based on one term give-aways. Yes, a certain amount of goodwill needs to carry over to 2029 but I also think that after the 2024 GE the Tories are going to fall into full-on civil war. Finally, the shape of the next Parliament will be important. I anticipate an overall Labour majority but not a large one. However, I see the Opposition being more evenly distributed between the Tories, Lib Dems and SNP as I suspect that the Lib Dems will rout the Conservatives in the South West and the Home Counties.
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
"...as opposed to the far more fanciful idea of just sucking it [CO2] out of the atmosphere once its up there."
You mean, like trees and the sea do.
I mean like man made factories that people had hoped would be able to suck vastly higher quantities out of the air than trees. We don't have enough land to plant enough trees to do the job. We would have turn every acre of agricultural land into forests and even then it might not be enough
RUSTY_2_STANDS
Well-known member
There's a long way to go yet until the next GE. I wouldn't be at all surprised at a hung parliament, with Labour the biggest party. Which is what you get when there's such a dearth of talent in both government and opposition
Archibald Knox
Well-known member
That might be the best thing if the price of the Lib Dem’s forming another coalition would be to force through Proportional Representation resulting in an almost permanent natural anti-Tory majority. If only Labour has the imagination and guts to do it.
That would forever cast the small minority of RW Conservatives into limbo, never again given the power to wreck our country as they have done for the past 13 years.
I do think debt can be bad but where’s the billions put aside for wars and lock downs.
The markets didn’t have to react the way they did but it was probably in their best interests to do so.
The market reacted the way it did because Liz Truss announced radical changes without giving notice, as part of a 'mini budget' instead of the usual Spring budget, she hadn't ran it by the Office for Budget Responsibility and she hadn't given any indication of how she was going to pay for the tens of billions handed back to the highest earners other than borrowing. You are making it sound like some global conspiracy when in reality it was an entirely predictable reaction to a shock to a market usually based on long term planning and stability that doesn't like it when people make drastic unfunded policy decisions that would double yearly debt.
Tangerinemoss
Well-known member
It also killed off the UK's reputation for transparent budgeting, leading to the International Markets downgrading their trust. This has lead to higher mortgages, even with Bank Rates lower than the US.
So we all agree the markets/financial institutions run the world economy, play the game and you’ll be ok, try anything we don’t like and your ucked - exactly my point
RUSTY_2_STANDS
Well-known member
Well with the heavy defeat and demise of Corbyn, it's certainly kicked the far left in to touch and left true socialists in limbo.
So it's certainly not beyond the realms it could happen to the far right.
But Labour have had to reinvent themselves as a more centrist moderate party and kick out the hard left extremists, in order to stand a chance of being elected.
So the Conservatives would probably have to do the same.
Of course then you'd have both the two main parties in the centre ground with similar policies. At least in days gone by you had 'clear blue water' (as it's described) between the two and it was easier to form an opinion on which one to vote for.