Liz Truss and the Conservative Party.

[DynamicSpirit]

I never said "only respecting people whose opinions you agree with". I singled out the hard-right as a group who should not be respected. Not the plain right.

But that still means you're picking out a group of people that you are apparently refusing to respect as human beings, purely because of their political beliefs. I could understand if it was people who have a record of actually behaving in awful ways, but to me it seems completely wrong to disrespect someone purely because of their opinions. After all, unless you're that person's brother or best friend or something, you have no idea what life experiences they have had which have caused them to have those beliefs.

To me Meloni belongs much more in the Trump/Orban/Le Pen camp than the Thatcher/Reagan/Bush/Johnson one. How is she really that different to Trump? I always find it strange when people attack Trump but defend his European equivalents

To my mind, the difference is that Trump has an actual record of constant lying, of routinely throwing other people under a bus in order to further his self-interests, of abusing his office and disregarding democracy in pursuit of power, and of lashing out in a very infantile manner against any criticism. That's very different from merely believing things that I strongly disagree with. On the other hand, Meloni has some beliefs that I very much disagree with, but I'm not aware of any history of her behaving in the kinds of ways that Trump does. For that reason, it seems to me both ethically correct and pragmatically sensible to presume she's a friend and refrain from any judgements until we see what she actually does in office.

 

[jfollows]

I hate to say this, it is worse than Major's government.

I agree with this and the rest of your statement.

I gather they tried to persuade Rishi Sunak to turn up, I suspect his answer might have been along the lines of "how stupid do you think I am?".

EDIT And now Suella Braverman is disappointed in the "coup" she accuses Conservative MPs of having staged! According to her, Michael Gove should have supported Liz Truss in public and kept his views quiet.

 

[Busaholic]

Localish MP to me and ex Secretary of State for the Environment George Eustice (a Sunak supporter) has been on Radio Cornwall explaining why he's not at the Party Conference (many reasons) and offering his opinion that Truss has had a disastrous week. He also said that all six Conservative MPs representing Cornish seats would have voted against Kwarteng's original plans: given that they're not all bosom pals by any means, they're obviously s*** scared about retaining their seats.

 

[SynthD]

Cabinet minister Penny Mordaunt tells me #TimesRadio benefits SHOULD rise with inflation: “I’ve always supported - whether it’s pensions, whether it’s our welfare system - keeping pace with inflation. It makes sense to do so. That’s what I voted for before.”

I saw this tweet from a few comments up and needed to look it up. On TheyWorkForYou you can see she voted for the CPI-based increase of 3% earlier this year, and for a cap of 1% (instead of the higher CPI that year) in 2013. One measure of inflation for pensioners, another for almost everything else in government?

 

[MikeWM]

I hate to say this, it is worse than Major's government.

I think part of the reason is that the Tory MPs didn't actually get rid of Johnson for *policy* reasons, unlike Thatcher. (There *were* reasons to get rid of Johnson for policy reasons, but that's not why they did it!)

Major could get a nice popularity boost simply by abolishing the poll tax, which the vast majority of MPs were keen to see the back of, so he briefly seemed to be doing something sufficiently different that he (just about) got through the 1992 election. Conversely most Tory MPs seem to be in total self-destruct mode at the moment. You're correct that the U-turn on the 45p rate does massive damage to Truss' ability to get anything remotely controversial through.

--

I should also say that the BBC describe her as far-right, so it's not just my own opinions coming into play here. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62659183

The BBC have got into the habit of calling anything they disagree with and want to shut down debate upon 'far-right'. Those of us who protested against Covid restrictions were called 'far-right', but anyone who were actually at the protests would have seen a vast mix of people from all parts of society and a very wide variety of political opinions (much like the Covid section on this forum).

Is she *actually* far-right? I guess we have to wait and see what she does.

 

[jfollows]

MPs are being asked if they'll support increasing benefits in line with earnings rather than in line with inflation (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ng-conservative-party-conference-live-updates):

5m ago14.07 BST
Andrew Mitchell, the former Tory chief whip, has joined those calling for benefits to be uprated in line with inflation, and not just earnings. He told the World at One:

I didn’t come into politics to make poor people poorer. It seems to me that it will be very strange to have dealt and addressed this issue of terrifying rising costs on the one hand, and then not to maintain the real value of the benefits and support that the poorest in society really needs.

Mitchell also said government whips were currently in discussion with MPs to find out how much support there would be for a decision to uprate benefits just in line with earnings.

So Liz Truss has lost out to her MPs, hasn't she? Government policy being decided by polling MPs in the first place. I don't think this is how it's meant to be done!

 

[Typhoon]

I agree with this and the rest of your statement.

I gather they tried to persuade Rishi Sunak to turn up, I suspect his answer might have been along the lines of "how stupid do you think I am?".

How stupid are 'they'? What would happen if Sunak arrived in the conference hall and a better response than Kwarteng? It would be everywhere - news programmes. LBC, Times Radio - it might even get in on GB News, YouTube, 'Have I got News for You' and any other satirical programme worth its salt for a start.

Who is advising Truss? They may have a degree from Oxford in 'Greats' but they appeared to have obtained a U in GCSE Common Sense.

Sunak did the right thing for himself and for the party.

Localish MP to me and ex Secretary of State for the Environment George Eustice (a Sunak supporter) has been on Radio Cornwall explaining why he's not at the Party Conference (many reasons) and offering his opinion that Truss has had a disastrous week. He also said that all six Conservative MPs representing Cornish seats would have voted against Kwarteng's original plans: given that they're not all bosom pals by any means, they're obviously s*** scared about retaining their seats.

I'm not surprised. Even if it wasn't the prospect of unemployment that drove them in that direction, most, if not all, will know their constituents and not many will have benefitted from the cut in the 45% tax rate. Many, if not most, MPs of any particular persuasion will veer towards policies that they believe will help their constituents; on some, they may be wrong or deluded, nevertheless it is what they think. There are the pea-brained who open their mouths and utters drivel (like Jake Berry), but they are in the minority.

Speaking to Sky News’ Sophy Ridge yesterday, Berry said: “People know that when their bills arrive they can either cut their consumption, or they can go out there and get higher salary or higher wages, they can go out there and get that new job.

“That’s the approach the government is taking.

“We are saying: ‘look let’s create growth so households can afford their bills,’ as well as the brilliant work we’re doing on energy bills.”

So, his ideal would be for the lower paid NHS and care workers to go and work in supermarkets instead?

Major could get a nice popularity boost simply by abolishing the poll tax, which the vast majority of MPs were keen to see the back of, so he briefly seemed to be doing something sufficiently different that he (just about) got through the 1992 election.

Majority of 21 when the polls were predicting Labour majority or largest party. Not bad!

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

MPs are being asked if they'll support increasing benefits in line with earnings rather than in line with inflation (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ng-conservative-party-conference-live-updates):

So Liz Truss has lost out to her MPs, hasn't she? Government policy being decided by polling MPs in the first place. I don't think this is how it's meant to be done!

Why not this is proper consensual politics where the views of MPs are sought as part of informing govt policy.

If Truss is to progress the so called Growth Plan she needs MPs on side so my take is she will use her speech tomorrow to confirm all benefits will be uplifted in line with inflation so she can pull a rug out from underneath Labour and sterilise anymore debate about this. Essentially she has stress tested what the limits are here before getting on with the job.

 

[jon0844]

Obviously there was something wrong with it because, classic Liz, she's only gone and u-turned by deleting it.

Liz isn't really someone anyone wants to defend for whatever her gaffe-of-the-day is, because when she U-turns or deletes her messages, it leaves those who defended her looking a bit silly.

Soon I can't imagine anyone defending her for anything on Twitter.

 

[brad465]

There's a real popcorn fest going on at the moment, with Mourdant attacking the idea of benefits not rising in line with inflation, Braverman accusing MPs of a coup against Truss to force a u-turn on 45p tax rate, Dorries wading in with demands for a General Election if Truss wants a mandate for her policies, and a number of backbench interventions here and there. Tomorrow's speech by Truss is going to be very interesting to say the least.

 

[jfollows]

Why not this is proper consensual politics where the views of MPs are sought as part of informing govt policy.

If that's what it is, then it makes sense.
Eric Pickles, whilst acknowledging that he's no longer in the Commons, is reported (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ng-conservative-party-conference-live-updates) as saying that the numbers against only uprating in line with earnings and not in line with inflation are even greater than those against the 45% rate abolition.

The next big issue is with regard to the uprating of benefits, and I obviously I’m out of it – I don’t know what’s happening in the Commons – but I was just recently talking to somebody who does know what’s happening, and it was her estimation that the numbers against not uprating were greater than those that were against the 45% income tax [cut].

To me it looks like an out-of-touch PM floating ideas to see which ones might fly or not, there's a touch of desperation about it. However it does mean that they might not make the wrong decision here this time.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Oct 2022 ==

It also points to a real schism developing in the parliamentary Conservative party if a government with a large majority can't get its policies through Parliament because of its own MPs. That's pretty unique if so - John Major had his problems in the 1990s because of his MPs but he didn't have a large majority to help. If the government comes out with policies which get voted down by its own MPs, as has been threatened, then things have come to a pretty pass. Presumably some part of this is accounted for by newly-elected MPs from "traditional" Labour seats who see their re-election chances ebbing away by the day, and if they're seen as a party which gives away money to rich people but takes it back from poor people this won't be helpful, and I think that characterisation is appropriate with the current mess caused by Liz Truss and others.

 

[nw1]

There's a real popcorn fest going on at the moment, with Mourdant attacking the idea of benefits not rising in line with inflation, Braverman accusing MPs of a coup against Truss to force a u-turn on 45p tax rate, Dorries wading in with demands for a General Election if Truss wants a mandate for her policies, and a number of backbench interventions here and there. Tomorrow's speech by Truss is going to be very interesting to say the least.

Yes, please, Nadine. About the most sensible thing you've said

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Oct 2022 ==

Yes - the way things are looking, they're going to be getting a kicking from the electorate, so I expect them to put that off for as long as possible.

Of course, possible that circumstances might lead to so much public pressure for an election that one will happen considerably earlier than that, particularly if Truss messes up in the coming months. Personally, I think we should be looking at an election in spring or early summer next year. The Tories are fond of wittering on about "the will of the people" when it suits them: why don't they seek it now? As I said, Dorries is right. For once.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Oct 2022 ==

But that still means you're picking out a group of people that you are apparently refusing to respect as human beings, purely because of their political beliefs. I could understand if it was people who have a record of actually behaving in awful ways, but to me it seems completely wrong to disrespect someone purely because of their opinions. After all, unless you're that person's brother or best friend or something, you have no idea what life experiences they have had which have caused them to have those beliefs.



To my mind, the difference is that Trump has an actual record of constant lying, of routinely throwing other people under a bus in order to further his self-interests, of abusing his office and disregarding democracy in pursuit of power, and of lashing out in a very infantile manner against any criticism. That's very different from merely believing things that I strongly disagree with. On the other hand, Meloni has some beliefs that I very much disagree with, but I'm not aware of any history of her behaving in the kinds of ways that Trump does. For that reason, it seems to me both ethically correct and pragmatically sensible to presume she's a friend and refrain from any judgements until we see what she actually does in office.

OK I see where you're coming from but I think it's best just to agree to disagree on this one. I have certain "red lines" when it comes to beliefs I find morally acceptable, and for me, Meloni (and the rather similar Le Pen) are on the "wrong" side of them and I find their beliefs rather difficult to stomach.

 

[AlterEgo]

There's a real popcorn fest going on at the moment, with Mourdant attacking the idea of benefits not rising in line with inflation, Braverman accusing MPs of a coup against Truss to force a u-turn on 45p tax rate, Dorries wading in with demands for a General Election if Truss wants a mandate for her policies, and a number of backbench interventions here and there. Tomorrow's speech by Truss is going to be very interesting to say the least.

The conference is a complete dumpster fire isn’t it? Makes Labour look like a united front!

 

[SuspectUsual]

And now we have Braverman telling people her dream would be to have a photo on the front page of the Daily Telegraph of a plane load of migrants leaving for Rwanda

 

[BenS123]

The petition to call a general election has reached half a million signatures

Archived Petition: Call an immediate general election to end the chaos of the current government

Call an immediate general election so that the people can decide who should lead us through the unprecedented crises threatening the UK.

petition.parliament.uk

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Of course, possible that circumstances might lead to so much public pressure for an election that one will happen considerably earlier than that, particularly if Truss messes up in the coming months. Personally, I think we should be looking at an election in spring or early summer next year.

Aint going to happen unless her own MPs suddenly have a bout of morality

The Tories are fond of wittering on about "the will of the people" when it suits them: why don't they seek it now? As I said, Dorries is right. For once.

I know its quite extraordinary how shes gone from being an imbecile from my perspective to someone with wisdom

 

[DelayRepay]

Any talk of a General Election is fantasy; the Conservatives know they would lose at this point. Kier Starmer would be the Prime Minister. So there will be no General Election regardless of petitions and regardless of what Tory party members or MPs think.

I know some on here don't have much time for Kier, and I've never really 'warmed' to him, but when he spoke at the Labour conference last week he sounded like a PM in waiting. I'm absolutely confident he'd do a better job than this bunch of clowns.

 

[SuspectUsual]

I know some on here don't have much time for Kier, and I've never really 'warmed' to him, but when he spoke at the Labour conference last week he sounded like a PM in waiting. I'm absolutely confident he'd do a better job than this bunch of clowns.

It isn't part of the Prime Minister's job description for us to warm to him/her; its for them to lead the country in a responsible manner. In fact, you could argue that us "warming" to them is actually a bad sign, because it could mean they're more concerned with style than substance. And yes, your second sentence is spot on.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Any talk of a General Election is fantasy; the Conservatives know they would lose at this point. Kier Starmer would be the Prime Minister. So there will be no General Election regardless of petitions and regardless of what Tory party members or MPs think.

absolutely there's no way even the like of Gove or Dorries are really going to force an early election all they doing is getting policy moderated to ensure the Tories have a chance of competing at the next general election

 

[DelayRepay]

It isn't part of the Prime Minister's job description for us to warm to him/her; its for them to lead the country in a responsible manner. In fact, you could argue that us "warming" to them is actually a bad sign, because it could mean they're more concerned with style than substance. And yes, your second sentence is spot on.

Perhaps 'warm' was the wrong word. Perhaps I should have said 'trust' - an old fashioned word that I've not used to describe a Prime Minister for a long, long time.

 

[Busaholic]

So Cruella de Braverman considers MPs opposing some of a Prime Minister's policies and threatening to vote in Parliament against them to be an attempted coup!! Those are Trumpist words and views, and shows she has contempt for parliamentary democracy. It was difficult to believe that Priti Patel could be replaced by anyone more objectionable in their political views, but, lo, it has come to pass! Her personal views also seem designed to stir up controversy, maybe not a bad thing in itself, but if they pander to and are designed to weaponise far-right supporters in who-knows-what 'cause' then they're very concerning indeed. She's not as thick as Patel, Grayling or Dorries, but neither is she nearly as clever as she obviously believes she is. This woman is as mad for power as Johnson and Truss, and the British electorate must ensure it never happens through their complacency.

 

[DarloRich]

Just to clarify Tory policy: Tax cuts for the richest, benefit cuts for the poorest. Loads of borrowing and public service cuts to pay for the former coupled with rising interest rates impacting your mortgage and a cost of living crisis they don't care about!

Still reckon they are on your side? It is ok to admit they took you for a fool and ok to admit you were wrong to support them. Learn from it. Don't give them your vote or your trust ever again. They don't deserve it.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

So Cruella de Braverman considers MPs opposing some of a Prime Minister's policies and threatening to vote in Parliament against them to be an attempted coup!! Those are Trumpist words and views, and shows she has contempt for parliamentary democracy. It was difficult to believe that Priti Patel could be replaced by anyone more objectionable in their political views, but, lo, it has come to pass! Her personal views also seem designed to stir up controversy, maybe not a bad thing in itself, but if they pander to and are designed to weaponise far-right supporters in who-knows-what 'cause' then they're very concerning indeed. She's not as thick as Patel, Grayling or Dorries, but neither is she nearly as clever as she obviously believes she is. This woman is as mad for power as Johnson and Truss, and the British electorate must ensure it never happens through their complacency.

Indeed she is the real danger amongst this lot

 

[GusB]

I'm watching Truss being interviewed by Peston on the ITV evening news just now. It's painful to watch.

 

[Yew]

I think there's a good possibility, if the polling doesn't improve (and it may well do, of course), because there's no point in going to nigh-on-certain defeat in August if you can string it out until January. Notwithstanding the further harm having a completely dead government in charge for five months will do, but I don't think they care about that.

Does anyone remember the phrase "A strong and stable government in the national interest"?

 

[brad465]

I can't post a link at the moment, but video footage is circulating on Twitter of multiple audience members asleep while Therese Coffey is speaking (with multiple references to her surname irony).

 

[DelayRepay]

Does anyone remember the phrase "A strong and stable government in the national interest"?

Was that Cameron? 'A strong and stable government under me, or a coalition of chaos led by Ed Miliband' or something along those lines.

Wonder what the world would look like now if we'd made a different choice in 2015. No Brexit, therefore no May, no Johnson, no Truss.

 

[nw1]

Was that Cameron? 'A strong and stable government under me, or a coalition of chaos led by Ed Miliband' or something along those lines.

Wonder what the world would look like now if we'd made a different choice in 2015. No Brexit, therefore no May, no Johnson, no Truss.

Guess the prime minister now would be Miliband on a second term, or perhaps George Osborne if the Tories then won in 2020 (as he seemed to be touted as the likely replacement to Cameron).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Oct 2022 ==

I can't post a link at the moment, but video footage is circulating on Twitter of multiple audience members asleep while Therese Coffey is speaking (with multiple references to her surname irony).

Maybe she should squawk "(I've Had) The Time Of My Life" to wake them up.

 

[Busaholic]

This sounds like a conspiracy theory, even to myself, but in the manner of Sherlock Holmes I've been through the other possibilities and eliminated them all, and I have to conclude that the real hard-on Truss supporters from the start must have been secretly wishing for a fairly immediate end to Tory rule for the time being. It is so obvious that Truss was utterly unsuitable for the highest office, she's the equivalent of Chauncy Gardiner in the film 'Being There', chanting slogans which, if they ever had true meaning, have long lost it. She speaks slowly like Gardiner, and the wait for what she spouts shows she is painfully slow-witted. There was an excruciating 'interview' by Nick Robinson this morning, towards the conclusion of which he said he'd seen 'mugs bearing the legend In Liz We Trust' at the Conference, and then she shot back (five seconds later) with 'no, Nick, they say In Liz We Truss'. Doh!!! As great a sense of humour as Thatcher.

So who is it who wanted Truss, other than Kwarteng, Coffey and a couple of others guaranteed nice jobs should she win? Johnson is the first obvious one, on the basis that he believed he'd been forced out unfairly and (a) might well consider a comeback Sinatra style, (b) she hadn't 'betrayed' him and was therefore worthy of his behind-the-scenes support, with everything deniable, (c) was much more likely to secure members' votes than Baddenoch and Braverman, to name but two, when the inevitable conclusion came with the contest against the treacherous (in his view) Sunak. I've got some ideas about others who might be involved, but as they encompass making small fortunes on the 'markets' at the expense of the bulk of the population, I better not name my better-known suspects.

Oh, I'm fresh out of tinfoil!

 

[Gloster]

Of course you could have the possibility that the ERG and the hard core Brexiteers have pushed her forward as they know that she will mess things up. They can then claim, when the country goes into an economic nosedive, that it is all her fault and nothing, absolutely nothing, I tell you, to do with Brexit. As a bonus they can then claim that the dire economic situation means that it is necessary to do away with all unnecessary costs, such as benefits, subsidies, protections, human rights, etc.

All the result of my bored imagination. I could come up with another one if required.