Liz Truss and the Conservative Party.

[birchesgreen]

I look at people like Braverman and all i can see is the first stage of the next leadership contest.

 

[WizCastro197]

I look at people like Braverman and all i can see is the first stage of the next leadership contest.

I am a firm believer that Penny Mordaunt will be next Leader. Hopefully Truss will be about in a few months up to a year.

After all she is technically PM with completely undemocratic means

 

[brad465]

Changing leader once without an election, while annoying is something that sometimes can't be avoided, and shouldn't be a major issue. However, changing leader twice in one parliament, especially were both changes were due to leadership failure, without an election will be seen as too much for many key voters and no matter how good the next leader is, they'll instantly have a popularity hit because of that.

 

[SynthD]

In that case, bring on the next leadership challenge.

Truss has suggested that the tax cuts will come back. That’s where to look for the conspiracy. Her non-MP backers only put her in place to achieve that, so she will keep trying.

 

[Busaholic]

What on Earth is the problem with that tweet? Whatever the disagreement with Meloni's politics, she's just won a general election and looks set to become Prime Minister of a country that is supposedly one of the UK's allies, so the UK Government is going to have to work with her. It'd be pretty churlish and counter-productive not to start by congratulating her on her victory. Telling her to 'go to hell' as you suggest is hardly going to get relations off to a good start.

Or do you imagine the UK Government should just try to make enemies of anyone who's politics we might disapprove of?

''He who sups with the devil should have a long spoon.'' Shakespeare thought enough of this line to include it in two of his plays.

''Ye shall know them by their fruits'' Matthew 7:16, modernised into ''By their friends you shall know them'' though whence that came I've no idea.

Both good enough advice in my book.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

''Ye shall know them by their fruits'' Matthew 7:16, modernised into ''By their friends you shall know them'' though whence that came I've no idea.

Hmmm. Are you sure it's been modernised into 'by their friends....'? I've always known that verse as 'fruits' and understood that to mean a reference to what people actually do (as opposed to what they say). On a quick google, I can't find any serious suggestion that this passage is talking about friends.

And bringing this back onto topic, it seems to me that, judging Meloni by her 'fruits' - in other words, what she does in Government - which don't yet know - is exactly what I was arguing for.

 

[LittleAH]

I look at people like Braverman and all i can see is the first stage of the next leadership contest.

As true as that may be, notably her, Mourdant and Baker doing the rounds at fringe events, it cannot excuse the fact the Tory party is an absolute mess. And as Michael Hesseltine pointed out, once again its down to the division on Europe.

 

[Lost property]

"Once upon a time "....there was a much loved and spoken Tory mantra. something about "not trusting Labour with the economy ! "...recent examples of this mantra being uttered are welcome.

 

[birchesgreen]

As true as that may be, notably her, Mourdant and Baker doing the rounds at fringe events, it cannot excuse the fact the Tory party is an absolute mess. And as Michael Hesseltine pointed out, once again its down to the division on Europe.

Its why it is a mess. They've obviously given up on Truss already and accepted the inevitable defeat. Now they are jockeying for position for the rebuild.

 

[yorksrob]

As true as that may be, notably her, Mourdant and Baker doing the rounds at fringe events, it cannot excuse the fact the Tory party is an absolute mess. And as Michael Hesseltine pointed out, once again its down to the division on Europe.

I was under the impression that it was due to the leadership trying to impose a radical and divisive economic policy without a mandate.

Either way, it all adds up to a mess, as you say.

 

[duncanp]

As true as that may be, notably her, Mourdant and Baker doing the rounds at fringe events, it cannot excuse the fact the Tory party is an absolute mess. And as Michael Hesseltine pointed out, once again its down to the division on Europe.

Heseltine is an embittered old has been.

I really don't think that the current problems with the Conservative party have got anything to do with Brexit, or the UK's future relationship with the EU.

I agree that the party is in an absolute mess, and unless things change will suffer a heavy defeat at the next general election, and any local elections that are held next year.

 

[jfollows]

I think that the problems with the Conservative party have a lot to do with Brexit, because of the deep division in the party that it exposed and because of the way in which Boris Johnson treated the old guard who didn't agree with him.
In the 1990s the right-wing of the party was at loggerheads with the majority of the party, but it was able to bide its time until 2016 and take control.
In the same way, the more moderate part of the party has been sidelined by Brexit but is waiting for a time to strike, which seems increasingly near.
It's not to do with leaving the EU per se, in that I agree, that's a done deal and won't be unravelled for a long while yet, it's not today's argument. But the more general right-wing tendencies are the argument today, and it's the same people pro- and anti-Brexit who are setting out their stalls.

 

[Typhoon]

I was under the impression that it was due to the leadership trying to impose a radical and divisive economic policy without a mandate.

Either way, it all adds up to a mess, as you say.

I was under the impression that it was also due to the leadership having an over-inflated idea of its own abilities, in particular that of convincing, cajoling and coercing its acolytes into following a policy which was bound to be unpopular with the electorate as a whole; and underestimating the number of MPs who actually have a backbone (or, at least, a sense of self-preservation).

If Truss hadn't realised that dressing like Thatcher doesn't give you the skills of Thatcher, maybe she does now.

Much is made of Kwarteng's doctorate in 'Economics'. As Ria Lina revealed on 'Have I Got News for You', it is in Economic History. His thesis was entitled 'Political thought of the recoinage crisis of 1695-7'. That is even before Rees-Mogg's time. Most people alive then would have remembered the previous King Charles.

 

[nw1]

Changing leader once without an election, while annoying is something that sometimes can't be avoided, and shouldn't be a major issue. However, changing leader twice in one parliament, especially were both changes were due to leadership failure, without an election will be seen as too much for many key voters and no matter how good the next leader is, they'll instantly have a popularity hit because of that.

This was the thought I had overnight and was about to post

Truss is clearly toxic and the chances of her winning an election are just a little over zero.

One wonders, in that case, whether it might actually be better for the Tories if they do hold another leadership contest?

Braverman would have absolutely no chance of winning an election, but what about other possible candidates? I think the Tories as a whole have suffered serious reputational damage, so I don't think we'll get a Tory majority whoever wins, but could other candidates give a better seat count for the Tories?

 

[yorksrob]

I was under the impression that it was also due to the leadership having an over-inflated idea of its own abilities, in particular that of convincing, cajoling and coercing its acolytes into following a policy which was bound to be unpopular with the electorate as a whole; and underestimating the number of MPs who actually have a backbone (or, at least, a sense of self-preservation).

If Truss hadn't realised that dressing like Thatcher doesn't give you the skills of Thatcher, maybe she does now.

Much is made of Kwarteng's doctorate in 'Economics'. As Ria Lina revealed on 'Have I Got News for You', it is in Economic History. His thesis was entitled 'Political thought of the recoinage crisis of 1695-7'. That is even before Rees-Mogg's time. Most people alive then would have remembered the previous King Charles.

Truss was the parties choice. That's likely to be different to the electorates.

 

[AlterEgo]

Also worth remembering that the last weak drops of talent in the Tory party were thrown out with the bathwater when Boris made his purge in 2019.

 

[D6130]

Hmmm. Are you sure it's been modernised into 'by their friends....'? I've always known that verse as 'fruits' and understood that to mean a reference to what people actually do (as opposed to what they say). On a quick google, I can't find any serious suggestion that this passage is talking about friends.

And bringing this back onto topic, it seems to me that, judging Meloni by her 'fruits' - in other words, what she does in Government - which don't yet know - is exactly what I was arguing for.

As a light-hearted aside - talking of 'judging Meloni by her fruits' - her surname translates into English as 'Melons'.

Less light-heartedly, our friends and neighbours here in a traditionally left-of-centre part of Tuscany are rather worried about the prospect of a Meloni-Salvini government. There are a lot of African migrant workers employed on the local building sites, farms and vineyards and their absence - should they be sent home - would have a very detrimental effect on the local economy.

(Sorry.... slightly OT - but there is a strong correlation between current political shenanigans in Italy and those in the UK.)

 

[takno]

I think that the problems with the Conservative party have a lot to do with Brexit, because of the deep division in the party that it exposed and because of the way in which Boris Johnson treated the old guard who didn't agree with him.
In the 1990s the right-wing of the party was at loggerheads with the majority of the party, but it was able to bide its time until 2016 and take control.
In the same way, the more moderate part of the party has been sidelined by Brexit but is waiting for a time to strike, which seems increasingly near.
It's not to do with leaving the EU per se, in that I agree, that's a done deal and won't be unravelled for a long while yet, it's not today's argument. But the more general right-wing tendencies are the argument today, and it's the same people pro- and anti-Brexit who are setting out their stalls.

While leaving the EU was an act of deep stupidity which has caused massive and ongoing social and economic damage to the country, it's important not to overstate its importance to the two sides of the rift which make up the Conservative party. At the end of the day it was just collateral damage to them, a brief distraction which didn't even count as a battle won or lost in the overall war.

There will never be a way to settle the differences between the delusional wing who actually think Tory government represents moderation commonsense and tradition, and the absolute nutcase wing who want a revolution but are too lazy to even figure out why.

Obviously for those of us having our lives shattered in the middle some of the collateral damage is quite important, but we really shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that the machinations of the Tory party or the government they mismanage are for or about us.

 

[Typhoon]

Truss was the parties choice. That's likely to be different to the electorates.

True, but you would have thought that they had learnt from Labour. A leader, and their policies, have to be acceptable to both the party and the electorate as a whole. They might have got away with it if Corbyn had still been in charge, but Labour have got a leader who looks like a pillar of society and doesn't say anything that you can apply the 'red menace' label to.

Meanwhile the government claim that they have saved people from higher energy bills; whilst that is true, the bill payer will look at last month's bill and this month's bill and notice that it has gone up - a lot. I am assuming the bill won't have a line saying that it could have gone up to an even bigger figure. They will see a wage slip that is marginally better one month to another but nowhere near enough to cover the increased food prices, never mind energy bills. They will be reminded of the proposed 'big tax cut for the rich', never mind that in the scheme of things, it doesn't make a fat lot of difference. It looks bad, and talk of a better future won't get many votes from those that are suffering today.

 

[nlogax]

True, but you would have thought that they had learnt from Labour.

It's become strikingly clear that Conservative members are unable to learn anything from recent political history and their party's litany of failures. Certainly it's one major difference from Labour members who seem to (mostly) accept that the Corbyn years were abysmal and hugely damaging to Labour's ambitions.

 

[SuspectUsual]

It’s an interesting debate about whether “too much” democracy can be a bad thing.

Allowing the party membership the final decision on who the Tory leader should be extended the number of voters from low hundreds to about 160,000 but resulted in Truss being elected rather than Sunak.

Now you’d expect the parliamentary party to know the candidates best, and know what they’re *really* like rather than the public facing version that deals in soundbites and promises when there’s an election to be fought.

The same happened with Jeremy Corbyn - he got the fewest votes from the parliamentary party, but the most from the rank and file membership, and proved to be a pretty disastrous choice.

 

[kristiang85]

Now you’d expect the parliamentary party to know the candidates best, and know what they’re *really* like rather than the public facing version that deals in soundbites and promises when there’s an election to be fought.

Whilst I agree, there is also the danger of votes going for what's in the MPs' best interests rather than the country's, thus the membership votes. Its how we ended up with Truss and Sunak; had the conservative members been voting from the start, the results would have been somewhat different.

Maybe there should be a 'panel' of an equal amount of randomly selected party members to parliamentary party voters in the first rounds.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It’s an interesting debate about whether “too much” democracy can be a bad thing.

Allowing the party membership the final decision on who the Tory leader should be extended the number of voters from low hundreds to about 160,000 but resulted in Truss being elected rather than Sunak.

Now you’d expect the parliamentary party to know the candidates best, and know what they’re *really* like rather than the public facing version that deals in soundbites and promises when there’s an election to be fought.

The same happened with Jeremy Corbyn - he got the fewest votes from the parliamentary party, but the most from the rank and file membership, and proved to be a pretty disastrous choice.

Maybe the old electoral college idea that Labour used to have wasn't such a bad idea in principle after all: Labour spoiled the idea by having a section for union block votes, but if you did it as, 50% for members, 50% for MPs, then maybe there'd be something in it.

 

[jfollows]

Liz Truss said that she's the first prime minister to have gone to a comprehensive school.
Unfortunately it appears that Gordon Brown went to a comprehensive school (Kircaldy High School), and Theresa May's school (Holton Park Girls' Grammar School) became a comprehensive school in 1971 (Wheatley Park Comprehensive School) whilst she was there.

EDIT But it's a stupid class-riddled nineteenth century argument anyway. I went to a grammar school, but my brother went to a comprehensive school, they both served our needs at the time. I'd have hated public school, but probably my parents hated the idea more than I did. But so what - it wasn't Liz Truss's idea to go to her school, like me she was sent there by her parents, and I can't imagine at the time she was given a choice. I do admit I tend to despise people who went to public school a little, but if anything I feel sorry for them and look down on them.

Bottom line - isn't it just the case that Boris Johnson had support from his party and from the electorate, although my opinion of him was that he's a liar and not fit for the job, but he had support in places where it matters. Liz Truss only has support from her recent electorate - the Conservative party at large - and hasn't got support from her MPs or from the wider electorate. Can she change this? I don't think so. So she's doomed, along with the electoral prospects of her party. But it'll take a long time before this comes to pass.

 

[nw1]

As a light-hearted aside - talking of 'judging Meloni by her fruits' - her surname translates into English as 'Melons'.

Georgia Melons. Doubt anyone would get that name in the UK!
Makes me think of a certain top five hit of the Madchester genre from 1990.

Less light-heartedly, our friends and neighbours here in a traditionally left-of-centre part of Tuscany are rather worried about the prospect of a Meloni-Salvini government. There are a lot of African migrant workers employed on the local building sites, farms and vineyards and their absence - should they be sent home - would have a very detrimental effect on the local economy.

One of the many reasons why I object strongly to the politics of the likes of Meloni and Salvini, whose message seems to be very much Trump-style "Make Italy Great Again", but maybe we need another thread to discuss this issue as it is indeed somewhat OT here!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Oct 2022 ==

Liz Truss said that she's the first prime minister to have gone to a comprehensive school.
Unfortunately it appears that Gordon Brown went to a comprehensive school (Kircaldy High School), and Theresa May's school (Holton Park Girls' Grammar School) became a comprehensive school in 1971 (Wheatley Park Comprehensive School) whilst she was there.

EDIT But it's a stupid class-riddled nineteenth century argument anyway. I went to a grammar school, but my brother went to a comprehensive school, they both served our needs at the time. I'd have hated public school, but probably my parents hated the idea more than I did. But so what - it wasn't Liz Truss's idea to go to her school, like me she was sent there by her parents, and I can't imagine at the time she was given a choice. I do admit I tend to despise people who went to public school a little, but if anything I feel sorry for them and look down on them.

Bottom line - isn't it just the case that Boris Johnson had support from his party and from the electorate, although my opinion of him was that he's a liar and not fit for the job, but he had support in places where it matters. Liz Truss only has support from her recent electorate - the Conservative party at large - and hasn't got support from her MPs or from the wider electorate. Can she change this? I don't think so. So she's doomed, along with the electoral prospects of her party. But it'll take a long time before this comes to pass.

As I've said already I'm a bit more optimistic. First of all I very much doubt Truss will still be PM by the end of 2023; I suspect it'll be either another Tory (Sunak???), or Starmer. If there's a big crisis and another VONC (and I think a VONC is really quite likely) it might be decided that an election is the best response if yet another leadership contest is seen by the Tories as a bad thing.

For one thing, if Truss constantly messes up, and is perceived as doing little to help people, public anger might grow and pressure may well mount to force an election. There are comparisons with Major, but they aren't fully valid in my view: Major arguably wasn't doing that terrible a job. He (perhaps unjustly, and I say this as a non-Tory) got the blame for Black Wednesday and after that his government had basically lost the next election. But the Major government wasn't terrible - certainly not as inept as that of Truss - so it wasn't such a big deal having Major in power for so long even though he wasn't popular. Truss, unlike Major, appears to be actively making bad decisions and is actively incompetent, and therefore really needs to go much more urgently.


But more generally, five years (or, it seems, five years, one month and ten days) is way too long for a maximum term of a government. This really needs to change.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Oct 2022 ==

Heseltine is an embittered old has been.

Really? I'd consider him (along with Major and Clarke) amongst the Tories (or ex-Tories in his case) I have the most time for. He comes across mature, thoughtful and intelligent. Quite unlike Truss and most of the current shower.

I really don't think that the current problems with the Conservative party have got anything to do with Brexit, or the UK's future relationship with the EU.

I would agree there though, more to do with arrogance, egotism and dogma.

I agree that the party is in an absolute mess, and unless things change will suffer a heavy defeat at the next general election, and any local elections that are held next year.

I would also agree with that.

 

[Busaholic]

The Conservative Party has been here before, in fairly recent memory for the old-in-the-tooth like me. Ken Clarke, Michael Portillo and Iain Duncan Smith fought it out to succeed John Major as party leader after Major resoundingly lost the General Election in 1997. Ken Clarke, like Rishi Sunak, got far more votes from MPs than the other two but, crucially, Duncan Smith secured one more than Portillo and went through to the 'final' against Clarke. It was obvious even to a visiting alien that Clarke was far more competent than Duncan Smith and would make a better leader except that was not the main consideration for so many anti-European MPs who could not countenance someone so vocally pro-European leading them; also many blamed Clarke for being the first to tell Margaret Thatcher her time was up (cf Sunak/Johnson). The vast majority of Portillo supporters then backed Duncan Smith on the ABC principle - Anyone But Clarke. The membership had no say in those days, which had the benefit of keeping the contest short, and the Tories got Duncan Smith, whom they deserved. Not very long before they realised their ghastly (from their point of view) mistake.

The one major difference between then and now is that IDS never got dumped on us as P.M., so never got round to foisting his objectionable ideas and policies outside his own circle of hangers-on and dodgy political dealers.

 

[Irascible]

EDIT But it's a stupid class-riddled nineteenth century argument anyway.

Fits the current Tory party perfectly, though. Anachronistic, and an unresearched lie.

I went to a grammar school, but my brother went to a comprehensive school, they both served our needs at the time. I'd have hated public school, but probably my parents hated the idea more than I did. But so what - it wasn't Liz Truss's idea to go to her school, like me she was sent there by her parents, and I can't imagine at the time she was given a choice. I do admit I tend to despise people who went to public school a little, but if anything I feel sorry for them and look down on them.

I was forced into the local pubbie school on a freebie scholarship, & detested it and about 70% of the people there. I probably got a slightly better education than the local comp, but I was so fed up with the place by A-levels that I almost failed them all anyway - if I'd been able to get out of it without having to pay for my entire time there I'd have been off down the local sixth-form college pronto. Kept in contact with one guy from there for about a year after until we both split for other parts of the country, and haven't talked to anyone since - so much for old boys networks.

-

Been trying to think of a PM who I've lived through who hasn't turned out to have been an unmitigated disaster & not come up with anything yet - Blair's first term was probably the least abysmal but that didn't really last, and I can remember Callaghan so that'll date me a bit. Then I tried to go back before I was born & can't really find one either, although admittedly I don't really know much about Victorian government. I think we might just have to settle for apparently least destructive at this point, which is probably whoever appears most boring.

 

[DelayRepay]

Been trying to think of a PM who I've lived through who hasn't turned out to have been an unmitigated disaster & not come up with anything yet - Blair's first term was probably the least abysmal but that didn't really last, and I can remember Callaghan so that'll date me a bit. Then I tried to go back before I was born & can't really find one either, although admittedly I don't really know much about Victorian government. I think we might just have to settle for apparently least destructive at this point, which is probably whoever appears most boring.

The first PM I remember was Thatcher. Coming from Yorkshire mining stock, it is fair to say she was not well liked! But I would not describe her term as an unmitigated disaster in the sense that she mostly achieved what she set out to do.

The best Prime Minister of my lifetime? Blair, until the point he decided to take us into an illegal and unjustified war. I think history would remember him very differently if it hadn't been for that.

 

[GS250]

The first PM I remember was Thatcher. Coming from Yorkshire mining stock, it is fair to say she was not well liked! But I would not describe her term as an unmitigated disaster in the sense that she mostly achieved what she set out to do.

The best Prime Minister of my lifetime? Blair, until the point he decided to take us into an illegal and unjustified war. I think history would remember him very differently if it hadn't been for that.

Agreed. Both Blair and Thatcher were excellent Leaders no matter what you think of their politics.

Blair did inherit a country that was in a fairly decent state though. Things were pretty damn good in the mid-late 90's I'd say. Affordable living but with the tech items we now take for granted starting to appear in some form and becoming affordable. Cars were also starting to become extremely reliable and affordable to many. Foreign holidays were now taken for granted. There was also a thriving pub scene back then. Without doubt Blair was very pro EU and I genuinely believe he wanted to be part of the ECU. However....he listened to his advisors who generally wanted no part of it. He also realised it would cost him a lot of votes at the next election. If only the advise on Iraq was better eh? Or was he just going along with the whole American best of buddies theme? I thought his Government's biggest mistake was going against EU advice not to limit migration from the former Warsaw Pact countries to the UK once FOM become a serious player in 2004. This inevitably led to the anti-EU feeling building up in large parts of England.

However...Blair was a colossus compared to the likes of Truss and Starmer.

 

[LittleAH]

Heseltine is an embittered old has been.

I really don't think that the current problems with the Conservative party have got anything to do with Brexit, or the UK's future relationship with the EU.

I agree that the party is in an absolute mess, and unless things change will suffer a heavy defeat at the next general election, and any local elections that are held next year.

He's correct. What you have is an economic policy built upon the idea of Singapore-on-Thames.