Conservative Party civil war

ElBurroSinNombre said:
The question was inane, 'What do you like about football?' - really? It's just a stupid question.
I think he is very conscious of what he says and doesn't want to give the media any little thing to beat him with. If he had said 'beating Spurs', no doubt the Daily Mail would label him as an anti-Semite!
Click to expand...
It's a very good podcast in which people choose their 3 favourite and 3 least favourite things about football. It's extremely entertaining as generally people choose well observed stuff that makes you think 'oh, yeah!' - like a bloke chose 'the last 5 minutes of half time' as one of his worst things in the last one and talked about how it's like this pointless vacuum of time you just wish away.

Keith didn't get it at all. I don't think he'd listened to it and his choices were so bad they were funny. Stuff like 'goals' and 'walking to the match' and 'the match in general' as he just played it so straight batted as to be pointless.

Is that a bad thing electorally - no, probably not, after an era of personality driven stuff I think a straight bat will probably play pretty well. He was, however, shit on that podcast and the podcast is generally very good.
 
I read plenty of opinions on Liz Truss, virtually all of them stating what a poor politician she is.
From people who have much more of an interest in politics than I have, so more qualified to judge.
It was obvious from those opinions that, to say the least, she wasn't top drawer.
But I was thinking, surely she can't be as bad as what people are saying?
Well it turns out she isn't as bad as what people say. She's actually worse.
 
td53 said:
'generally inprove' is the vaguest rhetoric on earth! 🤣

The problem is, that a party that wins is then under big pressure to actually mend stuff.

I think we're reaching a point where democracy and state needs renewal not just stewardship and we've got to the point where it's been so long since anyone but the right wing had any input into power that we're really struggling for answers.

It's probably since the post war consensus collapsed in the 70s that anything other than various flavours of free market led thinking has had any influence at all. Yeah, we still have benefits and such, but that's only cos there'd be anarchy otherwise. Everything is flogged to tender, the centre is just a talking shop and markets dictate.

If the markets and general world stage are in turmoil, it's not easy.

The easy bit for Labour is now. The harder bit will be to affect actual change in the national interest because, yes, the government are incompetent but to me, there's more to it than just 'getting rid of the Tories' - that's a start, but then what?
Click to expand...

Well of course its vague. As in we’re not going to try anything too fancy because you all know we can’t afford it.

He can’t announce anything costly now even after the bond vigilantes have just had a hissy fit.

Maybe Starmer will get more confident and radical now the polls have shifted so much. I hope so, but a new PM and media sabre rattling might not give as much room for manoeuvre as we might like.
 
glasshalffull said:
Well of course its vague. As in we’re not going to try anything too fancy because you all know we can’t afford it.

He can’t announce anything costly now even after the bond vigilantes have just had a hissy fit.

Maybe Starmer will get more confident and radical now the polls have shifted so much. I hope so, but a new PM and media sabre rattling might not give as much room for manoeuvre as we might like.
Click to expand...

So, we're going to be managed again by the markets and the middle market tabloids. Woo hoo. Keep the red flag flying etc. Can't wait for Austerity lite.

fuck me, it's depressing.
 
td53 said:
So, we're going to be managed again by the markets and the middle market tabloids. Woo hoo. Keep the red flag flying etc. Can't wait for Austerity lite.

fuck me, it's depressing.
Click to expand...
You can't "keep the red flag flying" if inflation is rising and the cost of borrowing goes up. Surely the events of the last few weeks has shown that when you don't have economic confidence we all suffer. This has real, practical effects on people's mortgages and cost of living.
 
RUSTY_2_STANDS said:
I read plenty of opinions on Liz Truss, virtually all of them stating what a poor politician she is.
From people who have much more of an interest in politics than I have, so more qualified to judge.
It was obvious from those opinions that, to say the least, she wasn't top drawer.
But I was thinking, surely she can't be as bad as what people are saying?
Well it turns out she isn't as bad as what people say. She's actually worse.
Click to expand...
There was a tory on the radio saying something interesting last night - he said, basically most MPs know they're not cut out to be PM and will never imagine themselves doing it - they know they could probably run a department or have junior ministerial post, but what he doesn't understand is why on earth it wasn't obvious to Truss that she wasn't PM material and why the people backing her couldn't see it either - it was quite reflective and I think true - most people do know their own limitations. I've turned down promotion chances at work cos I know a particular job is not something I can do, or at least not do well in a way that I'd find satisfaction in. Truss didn't appear to be aware of that sort of thinking at all and that's a bit weird. It's not like she's been a raging success previously and she's been around government for long enough to know what's required.

From the moment I first heard as PM I was struck that she sounded like someone from the 6th form politics club given a chance to speak on a mock parliament day - I don't mean ideologically, i mean in her mannerisms, her whole essence. MAy had some gravitas (at least before she went 'maybot'), Cameron was smooth as anything, Boris was a charmer - I'm no Tory, but I'll acknowledge they were all big beasts with political nous. Major had his 'everyman' quality, Thatcher was like a force of nature. All of them i disagreed with but in some way, I was impressed with aspects of their performances but Truss just seems so, well, out of her depth. The one she reminds me most of is Ian Duncan Smith who seemed similarly hopelessly wooden and flailing. Hague was shit, but you could tell he was clever. Howard was weird but you could tell he was just a caretaker doing a job.
 
td53 said:
There was a tory on the radio saying something interesting last night - he said, basically most MPs know they're not cut out to be PM and will never imagine themselves doing it - they know they could probably run a department or have junior ministerial post, but what he doesn't understand is why on earth it wasn't obvious to Truss that she wasn't PM material and why the people backing her couldn't see it either - it was quite reflective and I think true - most people do know their own limitations. I've turned down promotion chances at work cos I know a particular job is not something I can do, or at least not do well in a way that I'd find satisfaction in. Truss didn't appear to be aware of that sort of thinking at all and that's a bit weird. It's not like she's been a raging success previously and she's been around government for long enough to know what's required.

From the moment I first heard as PM I was struck that she sounded like someone from the 6th form politics club given a chance to speak on a mock parliament day - I don't mean ideologically, i mean in her mannerisms, her whole essence. MAy had some gravitas (at least before she went 'maybot'), Cameron was smooth as anything, Boris was a charmer - I'm no Tory, but I'll acknowledge they were all big beasts with political nous. Major had his 'everyman' quality, Thatcher was like a force of nature. All of them i disagreed with but in some way, I was impressed with aspects of their performances but Truss just seems so, well, out of her depth. The one she reminds me most of is Ian Duncan Smith who seemed similarly hopelessly wooden and flailing. Hague was shit, but you could tell he was clever. Howard was weird but you could tell he was just a caretaker doing a job.
Click to expand...
She's certainly out of her depth. Well out of it.
 
foggy said:
You can't "keep the red flag flying" if inflation is rising and the cost of borrowing goes up. Surely the events of the last few weeks has shown that when you don't have economic confidence we all suffer. This has real, practical effects on people's mortgages and cost of living.
Click to expand...

As I said above (I think that was this thread...), the challenge comes next. The situation with democracy and the place and purpose of state has never felt so grim to me. Labour's problem will be managing expectations and explaining why and how things are still 'a bit shit' but to be honest, they need to do much better than just recycle 'yeah, 2008 invisible financial things you wouldn't understand the other lot did' and turn it into 'yeah 2022 - invisible financial things the other lot did that you wouldn't understand' because successive generations of politicians blaming the every tightening noose of austerity and not facing up to the need for palpable and real change (and thus probably making themselves quite unpopular in the short term) will just not cut it.

For me, it's not as simple as 'will labour win or lose' so much as, is anyone going to do anything that makes people think that politics has a purpose anymore because, I honestly think we're heading into a dangerous place and constantly explaining away the material decline in the standards of people's lives, the widening inequality and lowering of life expectency and so on 'because markets' is not going to help that.

Labour has to a) decide if 'socialism' is useful. b) if not, what is the alternative (we really should be able to come up with something better than arguing between Marx and Adam Smith by now) because if it just does c) something similar to what Jeremy Hunt would do then, well, I dunno - I can't see the next 5 years being much better than the last 5 years.

To be fair, the Tories have given them the lowest bar I can ever imagine as 'having some electric' and 'being able to afford beans' are kind of people's immediate aspirations so maybe I'm wrong. To be honest, I've felt as if we're on the verge of a global revolution since about 1992 and I'm never right, so there's a very good chance we're seeing the dawning of an era of a new moderate prosperity where PFI becomes FPI and everyone is happy for a bit untill it turns to shit again.
 
td53 said:
As I said above (I think that was this thread...), the challenge comes next. The situation with democracy and the place and purpose of state has never felt so grim to me. Labour's problem will be managing expectations and explaining why and how things are still 'a bit shit' but to be honest, they need to do much better than just recycle 'yeah, 2008 invisible financial things you wouldn't understand the other lot did' and turn it into 'yeah 2022 - invisible financial things the other lot did that you wouldn't understand' because successive generations of politicians blaming the every tightening noose of austerity and not facing up to the need for palpable and real change (and thus probably making themselves quite unpopular in the short term) will just not cut it.

For me, it's not as simple as 'will labour win or lose' so much as, is anyone going to do anything that makes people think that politics has a purpose anymore because, I honestly think we're heading into a dangerous place and constantly explaining away the material decline in the standards of people's lives, the widening inequality and lowering of life expectency and so on 'because markets' is not going to help that.

Labour has to a) decide if 'socialism' is useful. b) if not, what is the alternative (we really should be able to come up with something better than arguing between Marx and Adam Smith by now) because if it just does c) something similar to what Jeremy Hunt would do then, well, I dunno - I can't see the next 5 years being much better than the last 5 years.

To be fair, the Tories have given them the lowest bar I can ever imagine as 'having some electric' and 'being able to afford beans' are kind of people's immediate aspirations so maybe I'm wrong. To be honest, I've felt as if we're on the verge of a global revolution since about 1992 and I'm never right, so there's a very good chance we're seeing the dawning of an era of a new moderate prosperity where PFI becomes FPI and everyone is happy for a bit untill it turns to shit again.
Click to expand...
The cost of your mortgage isn't invisible. These aren't wishy washy macro ideas think tanks talk about. Interest rates rising because of Government lack of credibility costs everyone who owns a home or rents. Hundreds extra out of their bank every month. A falling pound costs businesses and everyone as inflation rises. The British people may not be fully engaged in politics every day, the ins and outs. But the one thing that, en masse, captures everyone's attention in an incredibly strong way is financial insecurity.

The fact is, Labour cannot make real progressive change unless they have the confidence of the country to manage the economy. We saw that with Jeremy Corbyn. The 2017 manifesto was full great ideas the public supported, however they didn't actually trust Labour to carry it out. We have seen a more left wing party with 'bold' ideas - even ones that have large majority support - lose two elections, one by a landslide. If you don't have confidence you can run the economy that's it, it's over, you have no chance. In contrast, look at what Labour were able to achieve when they had power. Income inequality rose substantially over decades since Thatcher, it was only in 1997 that it declinesd, reversing huge trends in Britain and around the world. That, to me, isn't 'Tory lite'. That, to me, is something worth voting for.
 
foggy said:
The cost of your mortgage isn't invisible. These aren't wishy washy macro ideas think tanks talk about. Interest rates rising because of Government lack of credibility costs everyone who owns a home or rents. Hundreds extra out of their bank every month. A falling pound costs businesses and everyone as inflation rises. The British people may not be fully engaged in politics every day, the ins and outs. But the one thing that, en masse, captures everyone's attention in an incredibly strong way is financial insecurity.

The fact is, Labour cannot make real progressive change unless they have the confidence of the country to manage the economy. We saw that with Jeremy Corbyn. The 2017 manifesto was full great ideas the public supported, however they didn't actually trust Labour to carry it out. We have seen a more left wing party with 'bold' ideas - even ones that have large majority support - lose two elections, one by a landslide. If you don't have confidence you can run the economy that's it, it's over, you have no chance. In contrast, look at what Labour were able to achieve when they had power. Income inequality rose substantially over decades since Thatcher, it was only in 1997 that it declinesd, reversing huge trends in Britain and around the world. That, to me, isn't 'Tory lite'. That, to me, is something worth voting for.
Click to expand...

Hmm, To a point you are spot on, but the 2019 defeat was really a defeat on Brexit and Corbyn himself, as opposed to the ideas was probably the central problem. Stick Burnham or someone in Corbyn's place and you probably win 2017 on that manifesto - Is confidence about policy or about people? (it's about both...)

The Tories have absolutely ruined their credibility. Labour will win and will have that credibility by default for a time. Keith is suitably grey and doesn't scare people. That's not a question. I think we're arguing perhaps slightly at cross purposes but what I'm saying is, the legacy of Thatcherism is that Britain is in thrall to 'the markets' in so many ways - the notion that we would become a financial centre, the fact we are no longer energy self sufficient, the fact that our manufacturing base has been eroded to a point where we don't make shit like rails for our railways, the fact that even our own services are imported is problematic. We're completely and utterly wrapped up in the simplistic thinking of the 80s which is summed up as 'this is expensive - I bet we can get a better deal somewhere else' which, to a point works, but then you eventually just have an economy that offers increasingly useless things and a global market where you're over a barrel

That's the heart of the problem. We need to address this. We really, really do. It's not coal mines and shipyards we need but we need *something* and the irony is, that we're saying we can't invest in things that make us less dependent on the whims of the market because the market might not like it. Maybe that's the green industry stuff. I don't know. I'm not convinced that it works on it's own without more wider thinking.

What I find mental is that the markets have rejected the free market approach. That in itself should embolden any government looking to do something else. I think, deep down, what people want to believe is that when they vote, the government is then able to enact policy that improves their lives. I think we're stuck in an era where governments make endless excuses (the EU stop us, the 2008 crash stops us, the ** invisible woke marxist tranny tree huggers stop us) and we're increasingly hearing 'the markets stop us' and that's problematic for the idea of democracy. That's my central concern - not whether Labour win or lose. I've never voted Tory, I never will vote Tory. I don't think any relative of mine ever has or ever will do - but we have to have a higher benchmark that 'can we win the election' and I think the stakes are unusually high and potentially existential if we continue to walk the same path as we have for the last 40+ years.

I'm not arguing that we need state communism, my 'red flag' comment was just a glib remark but I am arguing that we definitely don't need 'just a safe hand on the tiller' and yes, I agree that under the surface there's some interesting ideas in Labour but I'm still not convinced they quite understand the scale of what we need to do - I am however, convinced that they will do it far more responsibly and diligently than the Tories of the the most recent era and that, to be honest, is exactly the feeling of 1997.
 
td53 said:
Hmm, To a point you are spot on, but the 2019 defeat was really a defeat on Brexit and Corbyn himself, as opposed to the ideas was probably the central problem. Stick Burnham or someone in Corbyn's place and you probably win 2017 on that manifesto - Is confidence about policy or about people? (it's about both...)

The Tories have absolutely ruined their credibility. Labour will win and will have that credibility by default for a time. Keith is suitably grey and doesn't scare people. That's not a question. I think we're arguing perhaps slightly at cross purposes but what I'm saying is, the legacy of Thatcherism is that Britain is in thrall to 'the markets' in so many ways - the notion that we would become a financial centre, the fact we are no longer energy self sufficient, the fact that our manufacturing base has been eroded to a point where we don't make shit like rails for our railways, the fact that even our own services are imported is problematic. We're completely and utterly wrapped up in the simplistic thinking of the 80s which is summed up as 'this is expensive - I bet we can get a better deal somewhere else' which, to a point works, but then you eventually just have an economy that offers increasingly useless things and a global market where you're over a barrel

That's the heart of the problem. We need to address this. We really, really do. It's not coal mines and shipyards we need but we need *something* and the irony is, that we're saying we can't invest in things that make us less dependent on the whims of the market because the market might not like it. Maybe that's the green industry stuff. I don't know. I'm not convinced that it works on it's own without more wider thinking.

What I find mental is that the markets have rejected the free market approach. That in itself should embolden any government looking to do something else. I think, deep down, what people want to believe is that when they vote, the government is then able to enact policy that improves their lives. I think we're stuck in an era where governments make endless excuses (the EU stop us, the 2008 crash stops us, the ** invisible woke marxist tranny tree huggers stop us) and we're increasingly hearing 'the markets stop us' and that's problematic for the idea of democracy. That's my central concern - not whether Labour win or lose. I've never voted Tory, I never will vote Tory. I don't think any relative of mine ever has or ever will do - but we have to have a higher benchmark that 'can we win the election' and I think the stakes are unusually high and potentially existential if we continue to walk the same path as we have for the last 40+ years.

I'm not arguing that we need state communism, my 'red flag' comment was just a glib remark but I am arguing that we definitely don't need 'just a safe hand on the tiller' and yes, I agree that under the surface there's some interesting ideas in Labour but I'm still not convinced they quite understand the scale of what we need to do - I am however, convinced that they will do it far more responsibly and diligently than the Tories of the the most recent era and that, to be honest, is exactly the feeling of 1997.
Click to expand...
I don't think the short-termism in decision making is the only problem, although I agree that it is a very big one.

For me, successive Governments over a very long period - forty years or so - have been completely unable and unwilling to have an honest conversation with the electorate about tax. We've pursued the mantra of low taxation to an extreme degree and have seen decades of under-investment in public services and infrastructure. Many of those chickens have not only come home to roost, but are now defecating all over the floor of the hen house.

The current bunch who have been running the agenda for the Tories since just before Brexit seem unable to grasp the concept that a Conservative Government needs to tax and spend to at least some degree in order to provide a platform for entrepreneurial activity of the kind they are so in thrall to. Good government is about balance - and currently what we have is dogma, instead.

I wouldn't mind, but the lunatics in the ERG are hankering after a world that has long gone. The likes of Baker, Redwood and Rees-Mogg want to take us back to an era when there were four dollars to the pound, Ealing Studios were in their pomp and you could spend your day off wanking over fantasy cinematic nannies like Margaret Rutherford.....
 
td53 said:
So, we're going to be managed again by the markets and the middle market tabloids. Woo hoo. Keep the red flag flying etc. Can't wait for Austerity lite.

fuck me, it's depressing.
Click to expand...

Got to get hold of the reins. Can’t afford to let the Tories have another term whatever happens.
The UK might well have run out of borrowing road by the time that happens though.

From there things like changing the voting system, regional devolution, changes to government contracting and procurement, a greener energy system, and some financial redistribution IMO might provide a longer term framework for progress, and prevent the Right from dismantling everything again the first chance they get.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
The likes of Baker, Redwood and Rees-Mogg want to take us back to an era when there were four dollars to the pound, Ealing Studios were in their pomp and you could spend your day off wanking over fantasy cinematic nannies like Margaret Rutherford.....
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with spending your days off like that even in 2022.
 
td53 said:
Hmm, To a point you are spot on, but the 2019 defeat was really a defeat on Brexit and Corbyn himself, as opposed to the ideas was probably the central problem. Stick Burnham or someone in Corbyn's place and you probably win 2017 on that manifesto - Is confidence about policy or about people? (it's about both...)

The Tories have absolutely ruined their credibility. Labour will win and will have that credibility by default for a time. Keith is suitably grey and doesn't scare people. That's not a question. I think we're arguing perhaps slightly at cross purposes but what I'm saying is, the legacy of Thatcherism is that Britain is in thrall to 'the markets' in so many ways - the notion that we would become a financial centre, the fact we are no longer energy self sufficient, the fact that our manufacturing base has been eroded to a point where we don't make shit like rails for our railways, the fact that even our own services are imported is problematic. We're completely and utterly wrapped up in the simplistic thinking of the 80s which is summed up as 'this is expensive - I bet we can get a better deal somewhere else' which, to a point works, but then you eventually just have an economy that offers increasingly useless things and a global market where you're over a barrel

That's the heart of the problem. We need to address this. We really, really do. It's not coal mines and shipyards we need but we need *something* and the irony is, that we're saying we can't invest in things that make us less dependent on the whims of the market because the market might not like it. Maybe that's the green industry stuff. I don't know. I'm not convinced that it works on it's own without more wider thinking.

What I find mental is that the markets have rejected the free market approach. That in itself should embolden any government looking to do something else. I think, deep down, what people want to believe is that when they vote, the government is then able to enact policy that improves their lives. I think we're stuck in an era where governments make endless excuses (the EU stop us, the 2008 crash stops us, the ** invisible woke marxist tranny tree huggers stop us) and we're increasingly hearing 'the markets stop us' and that's problematic for the idea of democracy. That's my central concern - not whether Labour win or lose. I've never voted Tory, I never will vote Tory. I don't think any relative of mine ever has or ever will do - but we have to have a higher benchmark that 'can we win the election' and I think the stakes are unusually high and potentially existential if we continue to walk the same path as we have for the last 40+ years.

I'm not arguing that we need state communism, my 'red flag' comment was just a glib remark but I am arguing that we definitely don't need 'just a safe hand on the tiller' and yes, I agree that under the surface there's some interesting ideas in Labour but I'm still not convinced they quite understand the scale of what we need to do - I am however, convinced that they will do it far more responsibly and diligently than the Tories of the the most recent era and that, to be honest, is exactly the feeling of 1997.
Click to expand...

Well I agree we should make more stuff here. That's why I'm happy with the announcement of Great British Energy. Green energy will revolutionise our economy, and Labour are streets ahead of the Tories on that, and actually want British companies and workers to profit, not French or Chinese corporations. They are also for the renationalisation of railway services. And, I suspect, will eventually campaign on water too, although that is just my opinion.
 
foggy said:
Well I agree we should make more stuff here. That's why I'm happy with the announcement of Great British Energy. Green energy will revolutionise our economy, and Labour are streets ahead of the Tories on that, and actually want British companies and workers to profit, not French or Chinese corporations. They are also for the renationalisation of railway services. And, I suspect, will eventually campaign on water too, although that is just my opinion.
Click to expand...
Starmer hasn't actually endorsed the nationalisation of railways has he? Burnham did at the conference, but afaik that was just his opinion and he's not in the policy making group. I could be wrong.
 
td53 said:
Starmer hasn't actually endorsed the nationalisation of railways has he? Burnham did at the conference, but afaik that was just his opinion and he's not in the policy making group. I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
He's been wishy washy on it before but Louise Haigh for Shadow Transport sec has been fighting for it for a long time and announced at the Labour Conference they would nationalise as current contracts expire.
 
foggy said:
He's been wishy washy on it before but Louise Haigh for Shadow Transport sec has been fighting for it for a long time and announced at the Labour Conference they would nationalise as current contracts expire.
Click to expand...
Ah, ok. Ta. I'm only going for it if they paint the trains blue though.
 
foggy said:
He's been wishy washy on it before but Louise Haigh for Shadow Transport sec has been fighting for it for a long time and announced at the Labour Conference they would nationalise as current contracts expire.
Click to expand...
I think Starmer is keeping his powder dry.
Another policy that may be unveiled after an election is to join the EU single market. An immediate 4-5% boost to the economy and the pound will strengthen. we will do it sooner or later, it's too tempting, a risk free massive boost.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
I think Starmer is keeping his powder dry.
Another policy that may be unveiled after an election is to join the EU single market. An immediate 4-5% boost to the economy and the pound will strengthen. we will do it sooner or later, it's too tempting, a risk free massive boost.
Click to expand...

Would be a ballsy (and correct) move
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
He would need to hold a referendum. But it will be done by somebody sooner or later. It doesn't interfere with Brexit - it's just a functional Brexit.
Click to expand...
I don't think that is necessary or wise, although it has large public majority support now. Just put in in the manifesto and do it.
 
I can't believe that Graham Brady has just said that the same group of radicalised old aged pensioners, golf club bores and general weirdos are going to be able to have a say in who is the next PM (i.e. the Conservative party members). They have fucked up so badly once, why should they be trusted again? No wonder that Braverman thinks she has a chance.

Latest : JOHNSON IS GOING TO STAND !!!

FFS - Election now
 
Johnson will be testing the water here, finding out if it's popular or not. It would be incredible if they voted him back in within the MPs - that would be an absolute farce in terms of the perception of the party and their credibility in decision making.
 
Boris standing for leader? That's hilarious. Without doubt he has more charisma in his little finger than Keir Starmer has in his whole body and, as he keeps showing, voters love charisma.
 
tommytwojags said:
Votes and approval are different things.
Click to expand...
Lost 485 council seats in May and the Tiverton and Honerton by-election with the largest ever majority overturned in a by-election, as well as Wakefield with a 13% swing, as well as North Shropshire with a 34% swing
 
I'm convinced Boris is just in this for the lols and the headlines. There will be comeback but this is a dreadful time for him to do it. He might as well let someone like Sunak burn themselves out on the wreckage and then swan in in 4 or 5 years when everyone has actually forgotten his shambles. 6 weeks isn't long enough.
 
td53 said:
There was a tory on the radio saying something interesting last night - he said, basically most MPs know they're not cut out to be PM and will never imagine themselves doing it - they know they could probably run a department or have junior ministerial post, but what he doesn't understand is why on earth it wasn't obvious to Truss that she wasn't PM material and why the people backing her couldn't see it either - it was quite reflective and I think true - most people do know their own limitations. I've turned down promotion chances at work cos I know a particular job is not something I can do, or at least not do well in a way that I'd find satisfaction in. Truss didn't appear to be aware of that sort of thinking at all and that's a bit weird. It's not like she's been a raging success previously and she's been around government for long enough to know what's required.

From the moment I first heard as PM I was struck that she sounded like someone from the 6th form politics club given a chance to speak on a mock parliament day - I don't mean ideologically, i mean in her mannerisms, her whole essence. MAy had some gravitas (at least before she went 'maybot'), Cameron was smooth as anything, Boris was a charmer - I'm no Tory, but I'll acknowledge they were all big beasts with political nous. Major had his 'everyman' quality, Thatcher was like a force of nature. All of them i disagreed with but in some way, I was impressed with aspects of their performances but Truss just seems so, well, out of her depth. The one she reminds me most of is Ian Duncan Smith who seemed similarly hopelessly wooden and flailing. Hague was shit, but you could tell he was clever. Howard was weird but you could tell he was just a caretaker doing a job.
Click to expand...
I'd put Johnson in the same camp as Truss, an egotistical, narcissist unaware of their own limitations and over estimating their so called talents. I'll concede that Johnson had some superficial charm if you like the bumbling, privileged public schoolboy thing but he has no more ability to be PM than Truss.
Sad thing is he could be back in charge by the end of the month with an even greater sense that he is the reincarnation of Winston Churchill and the nations saviour!!
Unfortunately he will be just as entitled, lazy, duplicitous and cowardly as he was before!!
 
gjr69 said:
I'd put Johnson in the same camp as Truss, an egotistical, narcissist unaware of their own limitations and over estimating their so called talents. I'll concede that Johnson had some superficial charm if you like the bumbling, privileged public schoolboy thing but he has no more ability to be PM than Truss.
Sad thing is he could be back in charge by the end of the month with an even greater sense that he is the reincarnation of Winston Churchill and the nations saviour!!
Unfortunately he will be just as entitled, lazy, duplicitous and cowardly as he was before!!
Click to expand...
He has undeniable political nous regardless of his shortcomings as a person
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
I think Starmer is keeping his powder dry.
Another policy that may be unveiled after an election is to join the EU single market. An immediate 4-5% boost to the economy and the pound will strengthen. we will do it sooner or later, it's too tempting, a risk free massive boost.
Click to expand...
I suspect the manifesto will say 'we will improve relationship with our European partners, improve the current trade agreement and resolve the NI protocol issue.'

After being elected I don't think we will formally join the single market but will sign a new agreement that will be the single market in all but name.
 
td53 said:
He has undeniable political nous regardless of his shortcomings as a person
Click to expand...
By political nous I'm guessing you mean the ability to get elected because I struggle to see much that he has done as an MP, the mayor of London or PM to make life better for people in an everyday sense.
Him jumping on the Brexit bandwagon has made life worse for most of the population.
 
gjr69 said:
By political nous I'm guessing you mean the ability to get elected because I struggle to see much that he has done as an MP, the mayor of London or PM to make life better for people in an everyday sense.
Him jumping on the Brexit bandwagon has made life worse for most of the population.
Click to expand...
Yes, all of that. He is, none the less politically able. Being 'good at politics' and doing 'good things' are totally different.
 
td53 said:
There was a tory on the radio saying something interesting last night - he said, basically most MPs know they're not cut out to be PM and will never imagine themselves doing it - they know they could probably run a department or have junior ministerial post, but what he doesn't understand is why on earth it wasn't obvious to Truss that she wasn't PM material and why the people backing her couldn't see it either - it was quite reflective and I think true - most people do know their own limitations. I've turned down promotion chances at work cos I know a particular job is not something I can do, or at least not do well in a way that I'd find satisfaction in. Truss didn't appear to be aware of that sort of thinking at all and that's a bit weird. It's not like she's been a raging success previously and she's been around government for long enough to know what's required.

From the moment I first heard as PM I was struck that she sounded like someone from the 6th form politics club given a chance to speak on a mock parliament day - I don't mean ideologically, i mean in her mannerisms, her whole essence. MAy had some gravitas (at least before she went 'maybot'), Cameron was smooth as anything, Boris was a charmer - I'm no Tory, but I'll acknowledge they were all big beasts with political nous. Major had his 'everyman' quality, Thatcher was like a force of nature. All of them i disagreed with but in some way, I was impressed with aspects of their performances but Truss just seems so, well, out of her depth. The one she reminds me most of is Ian Duncan Smith who seemed similarly hopelessly wooden and flailing. Hague was shit, but you could tell he was clever. Howard was weird but you could tell he was just a caretaker doing a job.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't believe that first statement, it might be applicable to that particular Tory but I would say almost every politician harbours the desire to be PM. About 3% of the human population suffers from some form of personality disorder, psychopathic, sociopathic or narcissism. Amongst heads of corporations and boardrooms the ratio goes up to around the 7% mark, amongst politicians I think I remember it being higher, and individuals with those disorders don't have a great deal of capability to be reflective or know their boundaries.

I've met a few senior politicians, MInisters, dep PMs, a PM and a regional governor (not the UK) and worked directly for some of them. I was in awe the first time I presented to a senior politician but like presenting to the majority of big company CEO's they underwhelmed me, in most cases a complete inability to grasp basic concepts, without dumbing them down to the level sun "journalist" explanations. Of all the ones i've met two have impressed me, and one wasn't really a traditional politician but worked hard to understand what was being told to him, and wasn't afraid to ask questions. the other was a bone fide expert in what he was talking about. I once had the misfortune to meet May who did a pretty good impression of being the dumbest person I've ever met, and was thoroughly obtuse and full of her own self importance. When she became PM I really did think we had scoured the barrel dry.

as much as I disliked Thatcher i think she was the last UK leader who had the qualities required of a PM, John Major might have been a great PM if he had had the strength of character to fight the battles he needed or wanted to fight. Blair was an imposter, polished and a polished liar and might have set in motion the standard operating model for modern UK politics; spin, half truths and outright lies, whenever he was caught off script his lack of capability and ability to think through problems always showed. Brown - good god - how did he make it into the public eye. Cameron was your archetypical upper class twit, basically a throwback to the 18th century where the least bright of the family children go into politics. I find it difficult to believe that Johnson can be taken seriously by anyone, he's amusing as a bumbling clown on panel shows, but the minute you think mayor of London or FFS the PM, its like nah, yer avin a fekin laugh.

None of them ever really succeed at anything before becoming PM, May had been a disaster in every government role she had, Boris was a disaster as London Mayor and home secretary, Truss has been a fuck up in every role she's had, Cameron had no experience of running a department or even a shadow department.

If politicians think they can get backing to be PM they think they can do the job, that is the qualification, backing. Braverman, Patel, Javid, Zahawi, Shapps , Tugendhat who might be a decent MP, but if any of them turned up to run your kids birthday party you would be asking for your money back.

I despair at times at the incompetence that gets exhibited in government, not just in the UK either its a global problem. I've just heard that Penny Mordaunt is being considered as the "ideal" leader, someone who still believes and promotes a lot of the fantasy of Brexit.

Whoever comes in is going to have to deal with the realities of Brexit as a starting point, and that means accepting the reality, the problem isn't Macron or the EU commission or a myriad of other fantasies being paraded across screen and newspapers. as soon as the reality of having to do something hits and policy is developed then there will be more infighting.

I have to say I think it will be the same if Labour are in power, if Kier Starmer is PM he will have a mountain of hard left MPs clamouring to bring him down.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
I wouldn't believe that first statement, it might be applicable to that particular Tory but I would say almost every politician harbours the desire to be PM. About 3% of the human population suffers from some form of personality disorder, psychopathic, sociopathic or narcissism. Amongst heads of corporations and boardrooms the ratio goes up to around the 7% mark, amongst politicians I think I remember it being higher, and individuals with those disorders don't have a great deal of capability to be reflective or know their boundaries.

I've met a few senior politicians, MInisters, dep PMs, a PM and a regional governor (not the UK) and worked directly for some of them. I was in awe the first time I presented to a senior politician but like presenting to the majority of big company CEO's they underwhelmed me, in most cases a complete inability to grasp basic concepts, without dumbing them down to the level sun "journalist" explanations. Of all the ones i've met two have impressed me, and one wasn't really a traditional politician but worked hard to understand what was being told to him, and wasn't afraid to ask questions. the other was a bone fide expert in what he was talking about. I once had the misfortune to meet May who did a pretty good impression of being the dumbest person I've ever met, and was thoroughly obtuse and full of her own self importance. When she became PM I really did think we had scoured the barrel dry.

as much as I disliked Thatcher i think she was the last UK leader who had the qualities required of a PM, John Major might have been a great PM if he had had the strength of character to fight the battles he needed or wanted to fight. Blair was an imposter, polished and a polished liar and might have set in motion the standard operating model for modern UK politics; spin, half truths and outright lies, whenever he was caught off script his lack of capability and ability to think through problems always showed. Brown - good god - how did he make it into the public eye. Cameron was your archetypical upper class twit, basically a throwback to the 18th century where the least bright of the family children go into politics. I find it difficult to believe that Johnson can be taken seriously by anyone, he's amusing as a bumbling clown on panel shows, but the minute you think mayor of London or FFS the PM, its like nah, yer avin a fekin laugh.

None of them ever really succeed at anything before becoming PM, May had been a disaster in every government role she had, Boris was a disaster as London Mayor and home secretary, Truss has been a fuck up in every role she's had, Cameron had no experience of running a department or even a shadow department.

If politicians think they can get backing to be PM they think they can do the job, that is the qualification, backing. Braverman, Patel, Javid, Zahawi, Shapps , Tugendhat who might be a decent MP, but if any of them turned up to run your kids birthday party you would be asking for your money back.

I despair at times at the incompetence that gets exhibited in government, not just in the UK either its a global problem. I've just heard that Penny Mordaunt is being considered as the "ideal" leader, someone who still believes and promotes a lot of the fantasy of Brexit.

Whoever comes in is going to have to deal with the realities of Brexit as a starting point, and that means accepting the reality, the problem isn't Macron or the EU commission or a myriad of other fantasies being paraded across screen and newspapers. as soon as the reality of having to do something hits and policy is developed then there will be more infighting.

I have to say I think it will be the same if Labour are in power, if Kier Starmer is PM he will have a mountain of hard left MPs clamouring to bring him down.
Click to expand...
That's a depressingly accurate summary.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
I wouldn't believe that first statement, it might be applicable to that particular Tory but I would say almost every politician harbours the desire to be PM. About 3% of the human population suffers from some form of personality disorder, psychopathic, sociopathic or narcissism. Amongst heads of corporations and boardrooms the ratio goes up to around the 7% mark, amongst politicians I think I remember it being higher, and individuals with those disorders don't have a great deal of capability to be reflective or know their boundaries.

I've met a few senior politicians, MInisters, dep PMs, a PM and a regional governor (not the UK) and worked directly for some of them. I was in awe the first time I presented to a senior politician but like presenting to the majority of big company CEO's they underwhelmed me, in most cases a complete inability to grasp basic concepts, without dumbing them down to the level sun "journalist" explanations. Of all the ones i've met two have impressed me, and one wasn't really a traditional politician but worked hard to understand what was being told to him, and wasn't afraid to ask questions. the other was a bone fide expert in what he was talking about. I once had the misfortune to meet May who did a pretty good impression of being the dumbest person I've ever met, and was thoroughly obtuse and full of her own self importance. When she became PM I really did think we had scoured the barrel dry.

as much as I disliked Thatcher i think she was the last UK leader who had the qualities required of a PM, John Major might have been a great PM if he had had the strength of character to fight the battles he needed or wanted to fight. Blair was an imposter, polished and a polished liar and might have set in motion the standard operating model for modern UK politics; spin, half truths and outright lies, whenever he was caught off script his lack of capability and ability to think through problems always showed. Brown - good god - how did he make it into the public eye. Cameron was your archetypical upper class twit, basically a throwback to the 18th century where the least bright of the family children go into politics. I find it difficult to believe that Johnson can be taken seriously by anyone, he's amusing as a bumbling clown on panel shows, but the minute you think mayor of London or FFS the PM, its like nah, yer avin a fekin laugh.

None of them ever really succeed at anything before becoming PM, May had been a disaster in every government role she had, Boris was a disaster as London Mayor and home secretary, Truss has been a fuck up in every role she's had, Cameron had no experience of running a department or even a shadow department.

If politicians think they can get backing to be PM they think they can do the job, that is the qualification, backing. Braverman, Patel, Javid, Zahawi, Shapps , Tugendhat who might be a decent MP, but if any of them turned up to run your kids birthday party you would be asking for your money back.

I despair at times at the incompetence that gets exhibited in government, not just in the UK either its a global problem. I've just heard that Penny Mordaunt is being considered as the "ideal" leader, someone who still believes and promotes a lot of the fantasy of Brexit.

Whoever comes in is going to have to deal with the realities of Brexit as a starting point, and that means accepting the reality, the problem isn't Macron or the EU commission or a myriad of other fantasies being paraded across screen and newspapers. as soon as the reality of having to do something hits and policy is developed then there will be more infighting.

I have to say I think it will be the same if Labour are in power, if Kier Starmer is PM he will have a mountain of hard left MPs clamouring to bring him down.
Click to expand...
The three best (most effective) Ministers I ever worked with never made it to Secretary of State level. Only one of them reached the Cabinet. Seniority does not necessarily imply competence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top