Perhaps you could enlighten us as to why you think that Truss would be a good PM?
You genuinely think she has the capability to manage the country?
She can't manage to throw out a soundbite without withdrawing it two hours later while denying it.
Strategy is completely beyond her capabilities.
There's plenty of hard evidence in her political career to say she'll be rubbish, with nothing to say she'll be able to provide solutions to the massive problems she's been a party to as part of a comedy cabinet.I don't know how she will do the leader's job. The thing is that you don't either despite your eagerness to tell us what a disastrous PM she will be.
So nothing to do with the Labour Party then?Wiz was misguided enough to want Corblimey as PM in 2019. Latest news on suspended from the Labour Party Corblimey is that he has just made a speech saying that the Western nations are prolonging the war in Ukraine.
Well there must have been plenty of hard evidence that Corbyn would be a legendary PMWiz was misguided enough to want Corblimey as PM in 2019. Latest news on suspended from the Labour Party Corblimey is that he has just made a speech saying that the Western nations are prolonging the war in Ukraine.
The left frothing at the mouth about the next Tory leader.
Nothing to see here move along.
Are you familiar with the concept of totally irrelevant.Well there must have been plenty of hard evidence that Corbyn would be a legendary PM
Are you familiar with the concept of totally irrelevant.
Corbyn was never PM, is not in the Labour Party. Truss, on the other hand, is more than likely to be running the country in a month.
If you think that's good for this country, then you get all you deserve.
I really dont know how you can make that claim of the potential biggest disaster bearing in mind we have just gone through Brexit, which has been proven to be nothing but the biggest disaster political and otherwise to have fallen the country in the last two hundred years. To think there has been anything positive from that signifies that you have to be living in some kind of parallel universe, changing Dartford tunnel signs to yards, and abolish the limit on vacuum cleaner power. Would Corbyn have made Brexit worse - quite probably, but then so did May, by triggering article 50 before understanding what Brexit actually was, so did Johnson by not accepting basic facts of a UK withdrawal from the EU - the Irish Border, EU customs checks etc etc etc etc.Corbyn was one single national vote away from being PM. What is relevant is how close this country came to the biggest disaster in its political history. Having narrowly escaped that, we can now look forward to a new leadership. If Truss succeeds then she'll earn herself another term in office. If not, she and her party will be voted out. Democracy is a beautiful thing. Look at Russia and cherish what we have in this country.
A country with 68m people that gets its leader via a vote of 160,000 people, a county with a 1st past the post where a few marginal seats will gain you power and millions of votes are effectively chucked in the bin due to safe seats, referendum based on poor information and the proroguing of parliament isn't very democratic is it?Corbyn was one single national vote away from being PM. What is relevant is how close this country came to the biggest disaster in its political history. Having narrowly escaped that, we can now look forward to a new leadership. If Truss succeeds then she'll earn herself another term in office. If not, she and her party will be voted out. Democracy is a beautiful thing. Look at Russia and cherish what we have in this country.
Get it into your head. People are not voting for a PM. They did that already and will do so again in a couple of years. They're voting for a leader of their party.A country with 68m people that gets its leader via a vote of 160,000 people, a county with a 1st past the post where a few marginal seats will gain you power and millions of votes are effectively chucked in the bin due to safe seats, referendum based on poor information and the proroguing of parliament isn't very democratic is it?
So how would you change it? Whichever electoral system you look at there are problems. None of them are perfect.A country with 68m people that gets its leader via a vote of 160,000 people, a county with a 1st past the post where a few marginal seats will gain you power and millions of votes are effectively chucked in the bin due to safe seats, referendum based on poor information and the proroguing of parliament isn't very democratic is it?
Explain critical thinking to the sheep like masses?So how would you change it? Whichever electoral system you look at there are problems. None of them are perfect.
That's too much to ask LythamExplain critical thinking to the sheep like masses?
Probably opt for PR at least everyone who votes it counts for something.So how would you change it? Whichever electoral system you look at there are problems. None of them are perfect.
Yes that would probably be the best of a bad bunch. Not without it's problems thoughProbably opt for PR at least everyone who votes it counts for something.
Who will be the leader of the country.Get it into your head. People are not voting for a PM. They did that already and will do so again in a couple of years. They're voting for a leader of their party.
But you voted for him to be PM.Are you familiar with the concept of totally irrelevant.
Corbyn was never PM, is not in the Labour Party. Truss, on the other hand, is more than likely to be running the country in a month.
If you think that's good for this country, then you get all you deserve.
No I didn't. I voted for my local candidate who lost to an ardent Brexiteer, if it makes you feel any better.But you voted for him to be PM.
If you look at the clip above you would conclude that she doesn't have any core beliefs and will say almost anything that is expedient at the time.I don't know how she will do the leader's job. The thing is that you don't either despite your eagerness to tell us what a disastrous PM she will be.
If you look at the clip above you would conclude that she doesn't have any core beliefs and will say almost anything that is expedient at the time.
What do you think of the idea of borrowing to fund tax cuts that is her distinguishing policy?
Personally I think it is immoral. Saddling our children with debt for free money now. It is also an inflationary measure at a time when we need to get inflation under control. This is one reason why I think she will be a poor PM. Do you support her plan?
You voted for a Labour candidate who in turn would have put Corbyn in as PM had the vote gone the right way for them.No I didn't. I voted for my local candidate who lost to an ardent Brexiteer, if it makes you feel any better.
Not because she's a Tory, because she's promising the earth to all and sundry with absolutely no rationale for how it will be paid for, changing her mind by the hour and a track record in a series of Government jobs as an idiot.You voted for a Labour candidate who in turn would have put Corbyn in as PM had the vote gone the right way for them.
You don't know what sort of job Corbyn would have done as PM and neither do I. We can only guess based on what we see and perceive.
And likewise neither of us know what sort of job Truss will do.
I actually agree with you in that I don't rate Truss just like I didn't rate Corbyn. But that could be totally wrong.
So you don't actually know about Truss, because your opinion is formed purely because she's a Tory.
And you'd have that same opinion whoever the Tories chose as leader.
I would tend to agree with that she won't be very good. A disaster? I don't know that and like I said previously, neither do you.Not because she's a Tory, because she's promising the earth to all and sundry with absolutely no rationale for how it will be paid for, changing her mind by the hour and a track record in a series of Government jobs as an idiot.
She will be a disaster for this country, just as we head into a recession that doesn't look to have an ending, inflation shooting up and massive issues with Brexit.
Apart from that, I'm sure she'll do a great job.
You could put God in as leader of the Tory Party and they'd still find something to criticise.
Core beliefs might not actually be a particularly good thing, as it leads to the kind of dogmatic thinking that infected Thatcher, and is / was a big component of the lack of the populations trust in Corbyn. Core beliefs tend to be faith based not evidence based, but my issue with Truss is not that she flip-flops per se, its that she cant demonstrate any understanding of the positions she takes or even any understanding of why she holds those positions, it all comes down to whichever way the wind is blowing, as you say expedience, to appeal to The Daily Mail et al and their readers. Sunak is probably much smarter, but he is a dogmatic libertarian who's core belief is market forces to regulate economic and social society, which is empirically proven to be wrong.If you look at the clip above you would conclude that she doesn't have any core beliefs and will say almost anything that is expedient at the time.
What do you think of the idea of borrowing to fund tax cuts that is her distinguishing policy?
Personally I think it is immoral. Saddling our children with debt for free money now. It is also an inflationary measure at a time when we need to get inflation under control. This is one reason why I think she will be a poor PM. Do you support her plan?
all hail the Hitch"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully"
Sound's like their ideal leader to me.
This is what you get from Tories. Self interested twats to a man or woman
Rishi literally boasted about taking money from the poor to give to richer towns
The ex-chancellor's comments were branded 'weird and dumb' by members of his own party.metro.co.uk
Interesting and thought provoking , balanced post this. It’s exactly this kind of debate that we should be having instead of the current trend - by all Parties and they’re associated Social Media Trolls- of name calling, scratching eyes out and dirt-digging. I’m not saying some of this didn’t happen in the past but it is amped up to a particular shrill, hyperbolic level now.Core beliefs might not actually be a particularly good thing, as it leads to the kind of dogmatic thinking that infected Thatcher, and is / was a big component of the lack of the populations trust in Corbyn. Core beliefs tend to be faith based not evidence based, but my issue with Truss is not that she flip-flops per se, its that she cant demonstrate any understanding of the positions she takes or even any understanding of why she holds those positions, it all comes down to whichever way the wind is blowing, as you say expedience, to appeal to The Daily Mail et al and their readers. Sunak is probably much smarter, but he is a dogmatic libertarian who's core belief is market forces to regulate economic and social society, which is empirically proven to be wrong.
Borrowing to fund tax cuts isnt necesarily immoral but it is stupid, because tax cuts do literally nothing for economic growth and productivity, if she was to borrow for actual productive purposes it would be different. Until we can break the cycle of thinking about market forces, and supply side economics (tax cuts, deregulation, reduced rights et al) and its associated social issues eg the need for between 4-6% unemployment and for at least 20% of the workforce to be in low paid INSECURE employment (with few rights) to maintain low wages, then its almost impossible to build something more equitable or even something that is at its core a stable model. Even the so called left are incapable of addressing the core issues, in that they will simply tinker at the edges of freemarket supply side economics with maybe a Keynsian bias to it.
Corbyn had some good ideas or they would have been if we were still living in 1982 or maybe even 1952, but that world doesnt exist, and Corbyns dogmatic traditionalist socialiam is not appropriate or even functional today.
Prime Ministers are appointed, not elected. Moreover, it wasn't the electorate that made sure it was 'call me Dave' in Downing Street, it was the Lib Dems wot won it for the Tories.I believe Cameron was voted in by the populous, albeit he had a coalition government. The same couldn't be said for Gordon Brown who like Boris and May was voted in by the Party.
Won't happen? It's already happened. He's brought it in as Chancellor. This is why places like Redditch and Maidstone were the first to get levelling up money.This is Rishi Sunak signing off his defeat in the battle to be Tory leader. It's not a Tory plan any more than it's a Labour plan and it won't become party policy. Keep slagging off the Tories for things that won't happen though.
Good example was Gordon Brown, post world banking crash, continuing to fund large public projects, to try to, and achieve, a soft economic landing. The Tories got in and promptly put us into recession.Borrowing to fund tax cuts isnt necesarily immoral but it is stupid, because tax cuts do literally nothing for economic growth and productivity, if she was to borrow for actual productive purposes it would be different.
Liz Truss has been no more responsible for Tory levelling up policy than Keir Starmer, but you carry on blaming her.Won't happen? It's already happened. He's brought it in as Chancellor. This is why places like Redditch and Maidstone were the first to get levelling up money.
You're clearly not familiar with the concept of Cabinet responsibility. She was and is part of the Cabinet that have approved these deals.Liz Truss has been no more responsible for Tory levelling up policy than Keir Starmer, but you carry on blaming her.
You describe Tories as "Self interested twats to a man or woman". Sounds like you have some serious issues you need to deal with.
Give over. You've clearly not watched any Cabinet meeting broadcasts.You're clearly not familiar with the concept of Cabinet responsibility. She was and is part of the Cabinet that have approved these deals.
That's because there aren't any.Give over. You've clearly not watched any Cabinet meeting broadcasts.
Go on then. Explain to me how the current Foreign Secretary and recent Chancellor bear absolutely no responsibility for any Governmrnt decision made since 2019?Another class debate full of insightful problem solving issues like it or lump it one of them will be PM , get over it and stop moaning. You will get your day in the sun to post your X in the box soon enough.
i wouldn't necesarily agree that Brown put a great deal of money into productive uses, he predominently injected massive amounts of capital (post banking crash) into the banks who then used it to prop up assets and their own bonuses. Its also notable that Brown was a grand proponent of off balance sheet accounting for an awful lot if not all major government projects whilst he was in office, and those debts will be a liability and a cost until i think its around 2030 ish, at which point something has to be done about them.Good example was Gordon Brown, post world banking crash, continuing to fund large public projects, to try to, and achieve, a soft economic landing. The Tories got in and promptly put us into recession.
Do not forget, all those Sunak supporters, our ex chancellor was not only a green card holder whilst an MP, he also made his fortune by contriving, with his mates, to wreck the world's economy by betting against Banks ability to survive a liquidity issue. He is, and always has been, part of the problem.
Well first you have to show me where I said they didn’tGo on then. Explain to me how the current Foreign Secretary and recent Chancellor bear absolutely no responsibility for any Governmrnt decision made since 2019?
Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Kathryn Stone launched an inquiry into Keir Starmer's activities following accusations of non-declaration of earnings, gifts, benefits or hospitality. After finding evidence of non-declaration Ms Stone extended her search to 12 months and found the Leader of the Opposition failed to register eight interests, five more than the ones alleged in the original complaint. She found Sir Keir had breached paragraph 14 of the House of Commons' Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament.This is what you get from Tories. Self interested twats to a man or woman
kier starmer is not an individual to be trusted, he has proven through his whole career that he is complicit in all kinds of immoral and dubious behaviour of government and state entities. At heart he is functionary doing whatever his masters tell him. If he got into power he would be about as effective as any of the undesirables that the Tories put up. Hes another one whose flip flopping is driven by media profile and Like Liz Truss has i think little comprehension of why he takes certain "policy" routes. The thing that really bothers me about starmer is as a human rights "activist" (in his own past words) just how much he has abandoned clear breaches of human rights that he had very many opportunities and the position and authority to resolve. I think he is an individual without much in the way of concience and is more than happy to lie in a very calculating way openly.Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Kathryn Stone launched an inquiry into Keir Starmer's activities following accusations of non-declaration of earnings, gifts, benefits or hospitality. After finding evidence of non-declaration Ms Stone extended her search to 12 months and found the Leader of the Opposition failed to register eight interests, five more than the ones alleged in the original complaint. She found Sir Keir had breached paragraph 14 of the House of Commons' Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament. No self-interest there then. I'd say one failure to declare could be described as careless but eight must surely be intentional.
Spot on. Or more succinctly, he's a Grade A **.kier starmer is not an individual to be trusted, he has proven through his whole career that he is complicit in all kinds of immoral and dubious behaviour of government and state entities. At heart he is functionary doing whatever his masters tell him. If he got into power he would be about as effective as any of the undesirables that the Tories put up. Hes another one whose flip flopping is driven by media profile and Like Liz Truss has i think little comprehension of why he takes certain "policy" routes. The thing that really bothers me about starmer is as a human rights "activist" (in his own past words) just how much he has abandoned clear breaches of human rights that he had very many opportunities and the position and authority to resolve. I think he is an individual without much in the way of concience and is more than happy to lie in a very calculating way openly.