Liz Truss Says She Will Resign as UK Prime Minister 271
Prime Minister Liz Truss announced on Thursday that she would resign, just days after her new finance minister reversed virtually all of her planned tax cuts, sweeping away a free-market fiscal agenda that promised a radical policy shift for Britain but instead plunged the country into weeks of economic and political turmoil. From a report: "I cannot deliver the mandate on which I was elected," she said in brief remarks outside Downing Street. She said she had informed King Charles III that she was resigning as leader of the Conservative Party, and that she would remain leader and prime minister until a successor is chosen within a week.
Her departure, after only six weeks in office, was a shockingly rapid fall from power, and throws her Conservative Party into further disarray, following the messy departure of Boris Johnson from Downing Street over the summer. The announcement came minutes after Ms. Truss held an unscheduled meeting with Graham Brady, the head of a group of Conservative lawmakers known as the 1922 Committee that plays an influential role in selecting the party leader. Ms. Truss's political viability had become tenuous after her proposals for broad unfunded tax cuts roiled markets and sent the pound's value plunging. She suffered a grave blow on Monday, when her newly appointed chancellor of the Exchequer, Jeremy Hunt, said that the government was undoing the last vestiges of Ms. Truss's tax proposals. Financial Times adds: She will go down in history as Britain's shortest-serving prime minister, her government having collapsed in the wake of its failed "mini" budget of last month, which contained $50.6bn of unfunded tax cuts and triggered turmoil in the sterling and gilt markets.
Her departure, after only six weeks in office, was a shockingly rapid fall from power, and throws her Conservative Party into further disarray, following the messy departure of Boris Johnson from Downing Street over the summer. The announcement came minutes after Ms. Truss held an unscheduled meeting with Graham Brady, the head of a group of Conservative lawmakers known as the 1922 Committee that plays an influential role in selecting the party leader. Ms. Truss's political viability had become tenuous after her proposals for broad unfunded tax cuts roiled markets and sent the pound's value plunging. She suffered a grave blow on Monday, when her newly appointed chancellor of the Exchequer, Jeremy Hunt, said that the government was undoing the last vestiges of Ms. Truss's tax proposals. Financial Times adds: She will go down in history as Britain's shortest-serving prime minister, her government having collapsed in the wake of its failed "mini" budget of last month, which contained $50.6bn of unfunded tax cuts and triggered turmoil in the sterling and gilt markets.
Much ado about nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Much ado about nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
In the last 4 months we have had:
- 2 Prime Ministers
- 1 Caretaker Prime Minister
- 4 Chancellors
- 2 Home Secretaries
- 2 monarchs
All this can be traced back to the 2016 brexit referendum. Then PM David Cameron thought he could win it and silence the "Eurosceptics" in the Conservative Party. He lost, and then resigned, leaving a poison chalice for every subsequent Prime Minister. A divided party, facing economic ruin due to brexit, and an impossible deal to be done with the EU that somehow kept the border with Ireland open while allowing the UK to have border controls.
Re:Much ado about nothing (Score:4, Interesting)
What does Brexit have to do with the death of a 96 year old woman?
Re:Much ado about nothing (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing really, although it has been reported that the queen was not in favour of it. Just pointing out the turmoil that the UK has been through in the last few months.
Re: (Score:3)
I distinctly remember a meme with the queen, as her final official action, greeting Truss and a thought bubble going "What the heck? Thatcher's back? Screw this, I'm outta here!"
Re: (Score:2)
What does Brexit have to do with the death of a 96 year old woman?
He's just noting that GB is neck deep in instability. The queen's death and th enew King are just thrown in as a part of the situation, they don't personally have anything to do with Brexit.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Both the EU and the UK would benefit from the UK rejoining. Not only would the EU's finances benefit from a net contributor, but the demonstration that leaving the EU is a stupid idea would help stability and reduce the influence of the far right parties.
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
My opinion? Just so you can tell tell them to fuck off. Kind of as a lesson to the rest of the EU, show them that maybe they shouldn't listen to the vocal minority when it comes to matters of high importance.
Re: Much ado about nothing (Score:2)
Re:Much ado about nothing (Score:5, Interesting)
The olive branch has been extended by President Macron of France. The creation of a new European Political Union group that is outside the EU but has access to the Single Market is basically a way for the UK to recover from brexit without actually re-joining the EU.
It would suit the EU, because the UK wouldn't have a direct say in EU politics anymore, and would solve all the issues with the Irish border and decreased trade. It would also suit the UK as brexiters could save face by claiming that was what they wanted all along, and in fairness it is what was promised during the referendum campaign.
Re: (Score:3)
As an American I would strongly welcome a new united European super power. United they would likely be able to solve Europe's problems like Russia in general and the war in Ukraine specifically on their own without our help as they would have a single united military as opposed to the hodgepodge mess of over redundancy that stems from having a few dozen separate militaries. They would also likely prove to be even more valuable as allies against the looming future threat of China in the world that a bunch of
Re: (Score:3)
This would be contrary to the treaty of Rome of 1957. Besides, the majority of EU citizens actually likes the EU so why the fuck would the EU roll back anything just to accomodate a country that was a reluctant member at best? Matter of fact, it would be better if a couple of other reluctant members in eastern Europe leave as well.
Re:Much ado about nothing (Score:4, Insightful)
The real reason Brexit happened was Freedom of Movement of Persons
No. The *real* reason Brexit happened was a 50 year slander campaign against the EU by media proclaiming every silly decision or dumb local idea was somehow due to Evil Brussels (tm) and completely one sided reporting on every concept, agenda, or idea that came from the EU.
You did the same thing just now. Freedom of Movement was something of great benefit to the UK especially given access to seasonal labour, but you just framed it as a bad thing by pointing out those evil Polish moved in (despite the fact there's barely any more Poles in the UK than there are in Germany or France. And somehow they were all plumbers too. Amazing.
Re: (Score:3)
No, and no. It may help if you re-read my comment without prejudice.
The real reason Brexit happened was Freedom of Movement of Persons. There really is no question about that. That "50 year slander campaign against the EU" is certainly real, but even that never proved pivotal. Even after having being hammered with this kind of bullshit for decades, the UK public would still likely have voted to remain.
Had it not been for that totally unprecedented and sudden inrush of people from eastern Europe, precipi
Re: (Score:2)
All this can be traced back to the 2016 brexit referendum.
From the outside, I think the only people that will be able to lead are die-hard eurosceptics like Johnson. The PM must be 100% committed to Brexit. Any doubt will lead down the path of May's tenure.
This really limits the pool of eligible candidates. It seems there are very few people in government that actually think it was a good idea.
“Good idea“ (Score:2)
> It seems there are very few people in government that actually think it was a good idea.
Only an economically illiterate idiot can still think that Brexit was a good idea.
The the next PM will either be a liar or an idiot.
As we have witnessed this is not an exclusive or.
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to get Britain back on track is to get back into the Single Market.
Re: (Score:2)
Johnson's not a die-hard eurosceptic: he's a die-hard opportunist who decided that campaigning for Brexit was more likely than campaigning against it to smooth his path to future leadership of his party.
The rest of your points stand, though. In particular, Boris' purge of moderates and the "red wall" swings mean that the current Tory parliamentary party is more pro-Brexit than it was during May's leadership.
Re: (Score:2)
The 2 monarchs thing can't be traced to Brexit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Brexit is not the ruin (Score:5, Insightful)
The EU is currently seeing lower inflation, and lower energy costs. The Euro is doing better than the Pound.
Brexit directly caused Liz Truss to become PM, and Boris Johnson and Theresa May before her. The last 4 PMs in the UK have resigned in disgrace, two directly due to brexit, the other two due to them being selected by brexit supporters who are by definition economically illiterate.
We haven't even hit the bottom yet.
Re: (Score:2)
The EU is currently seeing lower inflation, and lower energy costs. The Euro is doing better than the Pound.
Brexit directly caused Liz Truss to become PM, and Boris Johnson and Theresa May before her.
I would quibble with "directly" in that there was no specific reason to even consider Johnston as party leader after he fucked up being Foreign Secretary. The reasons he became party leader are more complicated and connected with how corrupt Tory party politics have become. Brexit/EU was a factor, though. May perhaps had some Brexit factor, but not much. She just knew how to work the levers.
I'm not sure at all what Brexit had to do with Truss. She was (privately) elected by promising the impossible to gulli
Re: (Score:2)
The EU is currently seeing lower inflation, and lower energy costs. The Euro is doing better than the Pound.
Brexit directly caused Liz Truss to become PM, and Boris Johnson and Theresa May before her. The last 4 PMs in the UK have resigned in disgrace, two directly due to brexit, the other two due to them being selected by brexit supporters who are by definition economically illiterate.
We haven't even hit the bottom yet.
And some folks like myself wonder - is the British electoral system secure? Because it would seem that the exact situation has unfolded with Brexit that anyone with a functioning brain cell would see as obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
is the British electoral system secure?
It is secure. It accurately reflects the number of UK voters that believe cynical and unachievable promises.
I guess the voters are getting exactly what they voted for then, and should be quite pleased with the results of their collective will.
Re:Brexit is not the ruin (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The UK is in trouble precisely because of Brexit: https://www.politico.com/https... [politico.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Nothing to see here - only a massive central bank bailout of a pension fund almost going insolvent and the whipsaw effect of the aftermath [nytimes.com], and the GBP devalued by ~20% in a year. Insert meme of a dog sitting in a burning room saying "this is fine." [here]
Re: (Score:3)
and the gold medal for mental gymnastics goes to Luckyo. you can put it in the display with all your others.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Speaking of democracy, when the PM resigns the ruling party, the Conservatives, get to choose the next one. They chose Theresa May, who called an election and lost her majority. When she resigned they selected Boris Johnson, who did win an election but only by lying. When Johnson was forced to resign because he had been having parties while other people were not allowed to even attend their family member's funerals, Liz Truss was selected by the party.
Now we will get yet another leader who has no mandate, h
Re: (Score:2)
This is not how Westminster parliamentary systems work. Some group of (elected) parliamentarians must propose to form a government, and they must have "the confidence of parliament" i.e. a majority of elected members must be in favour. That confidence can be withdrawn, in which case someone needs to propose a new government.
The "ruling party" typically chooses a new leader who typically becomes the new prime minister only b
Re: (Score:2)
Real question spawning from ignorance about British politics and EU membership: can you communicate to Brussels "We were wrong. We're sorry. Can we come back?" without having to A. have another referendum (which would probably go a different way than the first one) and B. go through the whole process of applying for EU membership?
Seems like a big huge ctrl-Z is in order on Brexit.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Had you not beat me to it I was going to reply:
When she resigned they selected [politician], who did win an election but only by lying
-1, Redundant ?
Re:Much ado about nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Reality here is that previous PM was quite popular because he both knew how to play the media to come off as an endearing and rather comedic guy while being actually quite competent at his job.
I'm going to have to stop you there. He was not competent at his job; he hardly paid any attention to his job. He was a useless lying windbag.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the leftist mind. When people dare to vote incorrectly from their view, it's the fault of the elite that called the vote and clearly anti-democratic.
But when they vote correctly from their view, it's a celebration of just how good democracy is.
Was Newt Gingrich a left winger when he successfully purged the Republican party of moderates, and paved the way for the 2020 Republican party?
Funny how you resort to the same old tired tropes Any and all problems are the result of being left wing.
I despise the far left. But they bear a remarkable similarity to the far right in thinking - just different enemies they point out for their dain bread sycophants.
Re: (Score:3)
While Newt is definitely a scumbag lying piece of shit that impeached a President because he was butthurt, don't give him too much credit here. At best he's the grandfather of today's GOP horseshit. The so-called Tea Party candidates of 2012 and constant demagoguery of one Sarah Palin are more responsible for the reprehensible behavior of today's GOP than Newt is.
Without those dipshits, we wouldn't have the current crop of ultra-dipshits that make the Tea Party look like an actual Tea Party by comparison.
Re: (Score:3)
I have to disagree there... Newt is the origin. The Republicans became "The Party of No" with him, which has been their strategy since. The Tea Party folks came and went, now we have a scary group of religious anti-war vetrans to worry about.
It's almost as if something has been done to the education system to strip people of the knowledge that history repeats itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really looking for a coherent argument that matches easily observable reality from that guy? Your 6-digit UID would imply you're not new around here...
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all. I just happen to derive enjoyment from poking at extremists online.
Who knows though, maybe at some point the man behind Luckyo will have a moment of clarity at some point in is his life and realize that his batshit ultra partisanship everyone has been pointing out isnt the way to get anything positive in this world done. I'm not holding my breath though :)
Re: Much ado about nothing (Score:5, Interesting)
Because he broke his own lockdown rules and lied about it repeatedly. But the real reason was fear amongst the Parliamentary Party that Boris's antics and general demeanor would lead to electoral defeat. Of course, his replacement and her Mini-budget has probably guaranteed that now.
Re: Much ado about nothing (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure the largest reason that he resigned was Brexit. Basically, he got it through based on a lot of promises about the virtues of economic freedom that were obviously unattainable at the time and I think that has become more and more obvious in hindsight to Britons.
Re: Much ado about nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, at this point, it's a poison chalice. The Tories would be better off selecting Michael Gove as a caretaker, keep Hunt as Chancellor, and at least try to steady the waters. I cannot see the Tories coming back from this one. This is their Black Wednesday, and like John Major's government, it will lurch along for a few more years, held hostage by internal wars, the markets and an electorate that has lost all confidence. The best they can hope for now is that the Tories can cling on to 150 seats, because right now, if an election were held tomorrow, the Tories very likely would win less than 100 seats, and the Liberal Democrats would become His Majesty's Opposition.
And if people don't think that can happen, I'll point to the 1993 Canadian election, where Canada's Conservative Party went from a solid majority with 163 seats to two seats in what still stands as one of the most brutal collapses of a governing party's fortunes in modern democratic history. Once voters lose faith in a party, whatever that party does to try to win back favor becomes almost irrelevant. The Tories in the UK are very close to a similar death pall, and the best that can be hoped for now is not to win the next election, but come out of it intact and with a decent parliamentary rump that can be rebuilt into a contender.
a massive multi-billion pound black hole (Score:3)
Billions of pounds in not massive for a black hole.
In fact it would be unstable and quickly disappear in a puff of Hawking radiation
A massive black hole is millions of billions times the mass of our sun.
Re: Much ado about nothing (Score:5, Informative)
It was a combination of things. Lying about the parties he attended was pretty bad, especially as a lot of people had lost family members and been unable to attend their funerals. There was that famous photo of the queen on her own at her husband/cousin's funeral.
On the brexit front he lied about his "oven ready deal" that won him the election. It was far from being ready, and he had no solution to the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. The economic damage was becoming very apparent too.
The fishing industry had been used as an example of how the UK would benefit from being outside the EU, and able to set its own fishing quotas. In reality the fishing industry has been wrecked by brexit, because most of what they catch is not eaten in the UK. It's exported to Europe, which now means tariffs, food standards checks, and delays. They have also lost access to some of their fishing grounds, because they were only accessibly under reciprocal access agreements that were not renewed.
What really finished him was Labour taking a lead in the polls. It was about 10 points when he resigned.
Under Truss that lead increased to 40 points. They had to adjust the scale on the graph. If a General Election was called tomorrow, the Conservatives would be wiped out. Down to a handful of MPs, overtaken by the Scottish National Party who would become the official opposition.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly what happened in Canada in 1993. The Tories fell to two seats, and the Bloc Quebecois, a separatist party, became official opposition. Total party collapses don't happen often, and have never happened to the UK Tories before, but between Brexit and a never-ending internecine war within the party itself, the conditions are primed for an electoral collapse. Someone like Michael Gove might be able to at least been non-controversial and preserve some sort of nominal unity, but put Johnson back in there
Re: (Score:2)
The last time this happened in the UK was to the Liberals (now Liberal Democrats): 49% of the vote in the 1906 election, down to 24% in 1929, and then a collapse to 6.5% in the 1931 election. They didn't start to recover until 1983, when they got back up to about 25%.
People mentioning Canada haven't pointed out that the Progressive Conservatives never recovered. They were subsumed in to the more right-wing western Canadian Reform party, now under the name Alliance. It's hard to imagine things going that
Re: (Score:2)
Politics is the same the world over. You can get away with anything as long as you still poll well. The contrapositive is that you could be Jesus Christ himself and still get forced out if you can't keep the numbers up.
Re: (Score:2)
Historic! Historically BAD. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Historic! Historically BAD. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is kind of a sensationalist way to put it, but true in general.
Liberals (or what we call liberals in the US and the UK) push money towards the lower income brackets who then spend it, and the economy gets better for everyone.
Conservatives push money to the very rich and screw the lower income brackets. Money goes out of the government coffers and stagnates. Debt goes up, services go down, and the economy goes down the toilet. Short-term gain for a few, and long-term loss for (almost) everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Liberals (or what we call liberals in the US and the UK) push money towards the lower income brackets who then spend it, and the economy gets better for everyone.
The last time Liberals were in government in the UK they were in coalition with the Tories and did exactly the opposite of that.
The last time they were in government on their own was 1915.
"Liberal" in the UK doesn't have anything to do with "liberal" in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Liberal as a proper noun is whatever it is. Liberal (lowercase when not at the beginning of a sentence) is an adjective.
Pretty much all political parties you're familiar with are liberal by the classical definition because they don't advocate absolute monarchy and are in favour of individual rights. By a modern, relative, definition, the UK's Labour party would represent most of "the liberals." Since they're basically a coalition of social democrats and democratic socialists I believe in the US they would b
Re:Historic! Historically BAD. (Score:5, Funny)
That's the problem with conservatives. They always run out of other people's money.
Reagen trippled the economy (Score:2)
Speaking of economies, Carter's was downright pitiful, Clinton gave us the dot com bubble and the housing collapse (twofer) and Biden is making Carter look like an economic genius.
Biden's efforts to buy the next 2 elections is probably going to be his downfall. All that spending is not helping normal Americans, it's just driving even more inflation.
Re:Historic! Historically BAD. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. That's just the way people historically see it. Look at the numbers in detail (including slope -- so when the conservatives has screwed the economy and leave, and when the liberals provide a boom then are pushed out), and you'll see that the parent post is absolutely right. Nothing destroys a good economy like putting in the "conservatives" in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. That's just the way people historically see it. Look at the numbers in detail (including slope -- so when the conservatives has screwed the economy and leave, and when the liberals provide a boom then are pushed out), and you'll see that the parent post is absolutely right. Nothing destroys a good economy like putting in the "conservatives" in the US.
At least in the USA, a search of the recession timings shows that you are correct. The "conservatives" screw the pooch, blame everything on the "liberals" when the shit hits the fan, then come back later to mess things up again.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And since presidents have full reign over the economy, that's absolutely something to blame on him.
Simple minds need simple explanations, no matter whether they are correct.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why the hell do you think that I have anything to do with the democrats in your country?
Yeah, I know, a political system that is not black and white is too complicated... please stay where you are.
Re: (Score:3)
Jimmy Carter's economic policies had nothing to do with the economic mess during his administration, let alone having anything to do with his defeat.
Paul Volcker's economic policies were what (necessarily) tanked the economy in a bid to get inflation under control. It hurt, but it worked.
Re:Historic! Historically BAD. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Historic! Historically BAD. (Score:5, Informative)
and Republicans do the responsible thing by lowering the deficit
BWAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAH AHHAHAHAHA hah heeh heee heh...
Tell us another one. With jokes like that, you deserve an HBO special.
Additions to US debt by the last 8 Republican presidents:
Hoover: $5.7 billion in only 4 years in 1920's dollars
Eisenhower: $22.8 billion in 1950s dollars
Nixon: $121.1 billion to the national debt in only 5 years in pre-stagflation 1970s dollars
Ford: $223.7 billion added to the debt in only 4 years
Reagan: $1.86 trillion added to debt, a whopping 186% increase
George H. W. Bush: $1.55 trillion added to debt in only 4 years
George W Bush: $5.85 trillion added to debt, a doubling of the debt from when he took office, including squandering a budget surplus he inherited.
Donald Trump: $6.7 trillion added to debt in only 4 years
You have to go back to Calvin Coolidge to find the last Republican president that actually lowered the national debt. And yes, I know that deficit != debt, except that deficits CAUSE the debt and you can watch per-year deficits rise with each President since Coolidge, regardless of party, with the notable exception of Bill Clinton (not a Republican).
Re: (Score:2)
The US has an ultra-conservative and a moderate-conservative party. It's not like you can really escape the downfall.
Re: Historic! Historically BAD. (Score:2)
Nice try but deeply flawed thinking.
The political parties in the US exist to keep the people divided, to prevent the people from accessing government office, and to serve the interests of the wealthy.
What you are pointing to is called "window dressing."
Re:Historic! Historically BAD. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really. Reagan presided over a rising debt-fueled economy that Clinton (with help from the tech boom) had to right.
Bush Jr. helped tank the U.S. economy with is "less regulation" mantra that let the real estate bubble happen.
The former alleged president presided over the tax cuts which fed directly into the current inflation. He also screwed up the U.S. international relations and peed all over the Pacific trade deal, now China is picking up those pieces.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. Reagan presided over a rising debt-fueled economy that Clinton (with help from the tech boom) had to right.
Bush Jr. helped tank the U.S. economy with is "less regulation" mantra that let the real estate bubble happen.
The former alleged president presided over the tax cuts which fed directly into the current inflation. He also screwed up the U.S. international relations and peed all over the Pacific trade deal, now China is picking up those pieces.
One interesting thing is that The US republicans would tell you they are financially conservative.
Then they go out and spend like Drunken Sailors at Miss Trixie's family bordello.
Then they cut taxes for some.
A recipe for disaster we have seen play out over and over. People who paid attention do not realize just how closely we took the entire world into a depression that would make the 1930's one look like a cakewalk.
Meanwhile, I was listening to Republicant's yap about how the problem was caused
Make Britain Great Again (Score:3)
Re:Make Britain Great Again (Score:5, Insightful)
That is all you need to know to understand conservative economic policy.
Re:Make Britain Great Again (Score:4, Insightful)
Trickle down won't go away. Whoever takes over, they will be a Tory selected by Tories. Wealth transfer to the rich is their core policy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It was hilarious watching Brexit backfire on the dumb shits who voted for it. Like all the expats in Spain who had to apply for a visa or be deported. Or how the cell phone companies immediately brought back international roaming charges. Hey this isn't what we voted for they cried!
Re: (Score:2)
It is funny.
What's less funny is that these morons will keep voting for this shit until it destroys the country. But at least I'm not British or live there so as long as it's not a humanitarian disaster, it's still pretty amusing.
So the lettuce won (Score:4, Informative)
I hope Truss doesn't take that one too personal.
Re: So the lettuce won (Score:5, Funny)
It's an iceberg lettuce yet it romaines.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess nobody in England gives a toss about how she takes it as long as she fucks off.
Fire them all into the sun (Score:3)
Having then selected the least appropriate prime minister we've arguably ever had, they now want to install the loser of said contest. Jesus wept. The entire nation is now effectively held hostage by the collective mental breakdown of the 'natural party of government'. With no means to force a general election, us mug punters have to wait two years for an election while whichever ineffectual toad 'wins' their unwanted unpopularity contest clock watches until the bell tolls for their grotesque parody leadership. The mother of parliaments. What a joke.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's worse than that. If Boris Johnson stands again, there's a decent possibility he might actually be back in Number 10 by the end of next week. Sunak would probably have been the best choice all along, but the fiscal and economic situation that Britain faces today is entirely different than the situation six weeks ago. And while the markets seem happier that Truss is gone, there's still a massive multi-billion pound black hole in the middle of the British government's finances which is, no matter who is P
Re: (Score:2)
Look at how long it took Labour to rebuild trust after Thatcher defeated them. That's what the Tories are in for.
It may ultimately be a good thing. This is the death of the Brexiteer Tory Party, the Eurosceptic policies have comprehensively failed and everyone associated with brexit is tainted. The harder they fail, the closer we get to undoing some of the damage done by brexit.
Unfortunately I think we still have a fair way to go before we hit rock bottom, i.e. the point at which rejoining the Single Market
Re: (Score:2)
Kwarteng was the idiot who set the finances on fire. Truss was the idiot who approved of him doing it. That's what happens when you have a diversity hire as chief of national finance and another diversity hire checking his results as a PM.
It was hilarious how she actually didn't even show up to answer for firing him after she realized what she did with hiring him and promptly fired him. Her excuse of "being detained on urgent business" to not attend that one was genuinely hilarious. People had a lot of laug
Re: (Score:2)
The point of the top tier leader is that he gets input from all interested parties with their (often mutually exclusive) suggestions, and decides which suggestions to implement. This is not only to decide which directions to take organisation in, but also to ensure that there are minimal to no mutually exclusive motions being accepted.
That is why top tier leadership is so critical to success in any large organisation. No matter what that organisation is, and no matter how talented the people below them, suc
Re: (Score:3)
The Tories can't lead now. Johnson purged anyone good back in 2019, to win an election. The only even half way competent one is Sunak, but if he has a gram of sense he won't take the job now. Any opportunity to avoid this winter being a disaster has long since passed. They are a maximum of two years from an election, not enough time to save the party.
Re: (Score:3)
within a week of her effective premiership, set the nations finances on fire.
Noe, now be fair. It was 10 days, 8 of which were taken up with the business of the Queen's funeral. So, er, more like 2 days never mind as you were.
Re: (Score:3)
This country is an absolute and irredeemable shambles. The Conservative party recently spent weeks engaged in a leadership contest and found Liz Truss, a person so badly out of her depth that within a week of her effective premiership, set the nations finances on fire.
Having then selected the least appropriate prime minister we've arguably ever had, they now want to install the loser of said contest. Jesus wept.
You can't have it both ways, you can't say they selected the worst candidate (which they did) and then complain that one of the other candidates will get the job instead. By your own definition that candidate will be better. If it's Sunak. Mordant is on a level with Truss, as were most of the rest. Sunak was at least a mediocre disappointment, which makes him a stellar choice compared to the others. At least he can fucking count. This is a depressingly low bar.
The Glass Cliff claims another (Score:2)
Got to have a good scapegoat when you know things are going to get worse.
What power? (Score:2)
She's never had any power. She was so low profile during the first month of her premiership that you could mistake her for a back office admin clerk; hardly noticeable. She's yet another one of those politicians who are good at rhetorics, winning debates and empty promises but who don't have what it takes to deliver.
Re:What power? (Score:4, Interesting)
When asked about what the UK will do to help with impending skyrocketing energy bills that will occur in the next few months, Truss immediately turned down any suggestions that would help reduce the costs which affect the profit of energy companies.
"I don’t think ‘profit’ is a dirty word. The fact it’s become a dirty word in our society is a massive problem.” She said on TV.
"The nicest thing the Queen of England ever did for anyone was die the week that woman became prime minister. Because for at least a week, she’s not going to get justifiably destroyed for answers like that.” John Oliver responded.
Please note (Score:2)
that she has been seen using a smartphone several times. Possibly she owns a computer.
News for nerds.
How long 'til the next election? (Score:2)
I mean, if the Tories keep this game of musical chairs going for a while, they may not have a candidate left when election day comes.
Natural result (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course no one even remotely close in terms of ideology to those people is ever up for election in the UK or in the US for that matter as well. What both countries do have though is plenty of conservatives who are happy to continue to try to con people into thinking that trickle down economics actually helps anyone but the already wealthy.
Nice try though.
It's not going to work (Score:2)
They want the economy to get a good wash, but don't make it wet.
more failed Reaganomics (Score:5, Informative)
Bye, Felicia! (Score:2)
Brexit (Score:2)
Time for the nationalists to be ass-fucked, and go crawling back to the EU begging for a second chance. I might have an old speech I wrote to my ex they can use.
Worst politicians ever (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you always been a flaming asshole or is this a recent development in your "personality" ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The monarchy doesn't set the agenda. It tweaks it a bit, and revelations over the last decade have shown that it's more than people knew, but since the so-called Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights it's Parliament which sets the agenda. However, the question of what that agenda should be is part of the problem: Truss' resignation speech makes it quite clear that she thought that the "mandate" she got from a vote of the 172437 party members (141725 of whom voted, 81326 for her) allowed her to pursue a
Re: (Score:2)
I don't even live in the UK and I know that's not the way the system works over there. The Monarchy does not have the power to set any kind of agenda.
Perhaps take a moment and learn how a small portion of your government actually works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] .