[Politics] Liz Truss **RESIGNS 20/10/2022**

[Not Andy Naylor]

I'm afraid this will be a controversial view, but if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. Our current crop of politicians are mostly second- or third-raters. Very few people of any talent would do such a high-pressure job for so little money. That's why so many of them are desperate to grift any extra they can.

 

[A1X]

[tweet]1572287142856126465[/tweet]

 

[Weststander]

Too short a time for this idea to work, plus City institutions will know that Starmer/Sturgeon will reverse it immediately in December 2024, thus NOT creating inwards investment from overseas into The City.

Badly advised by out of touch right wing idiots such Kwarteng and Duncan-Sh@t. Unable to see the 2024 election woods for the ideological trees. Kwarteng’s persuaded her to hammer an early nail into her political coffin.

We have more common sense and dare I say intelligence.


An interesting radio interview with a city analyst last week, part of their job is to assess future political events. He said they’ve all agreed amongst themselves that Starmer will be PM in Dec 2024.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I'm afraid this will be a controversial view, but if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. Our current crop of politicians are mostly second- or third-raters. Very few people of any talent would do such a high-pressure job for so little money. That's why so many of them are desperate to grift any extra they can.

Yep.

Where I work (academia) we have employed a load of failed business people to run our 'tech transfer/spin out' operations. They procrastinate and spend most of their time identifying possible risks (of having to do some work). Every few years they are all sacked and the 'department' is reconstituted with a different name.

That said, our lot are employees, whereas MPs are volunteers who are elected by the public. It was bad enough having a self serving oaf (Johnson) greasing his way around the parliamentary system and if we start paying them proper money the scope for more venal chancers in power would multiply.

Perhaps it is time we dumped democracy and replaced it with a technocracy of employed talent.

Meanwhile, though, banker bonuses unfrozen? No. Far cough. These fuggers got us into the recession mess in the first place, with their reckless lending. They can do one.

 

[sparkie]

I prefer the analogy that if people voted for guaranteed weight loss, amputation being the only option is better than no weight loss.

Good analogy.

We are basically trying to genetically engineer out any initiative in our population by slavishly doubling down on a bad mistake.

 

[GT49er]

Yep.

Where I work (academia) we have employed a load of failed business people to run our 'tech transfer/spin out' operations. They procrastinate and spend most of their time identifying possible risks (of having to do some work). Every few years they are all sacked and the 'department' is reconstituted with a different name.

That said, our lot are employees, whereas MPs are volunteers who are elected by the public. It was bad enough having a self serving oaf (Johnson) greasing his way around the parliamentary system and if we start paying them proper money the scope for more venal chancers in power would multiply.

Perhaps it is time we dumped democracy and replaced it with a technocracy of employed talent.

Meanwhile, though, banker bonuses unfrozen? No. Far cough. These fuggers got us into the recession mess in the first place, with their reckless lending. They can do one.

......... and sadly they can afford to, whenever they like.

 

[beorhthelm]

Too short a time for this idea to work, plus City institutions will know that Starmer/Sturgeon will reverse it immediately in December 2024, thus NOT creating inwards investment from overseas into The City.

what is the idea though? a lot of talk about one sensitive issue on banker pay, not a lot else. expect bonuses is a smokescreen for other policies.

 

[Weststander]

what is the idea though? a lot of talk about one sensitive issue on banker pay, not a lot else. expect bonuses is a smokescreen for other policies.

The idea, which I’d normally agree with you on in general terms, is to create a larger economic cake to greater overall tax revenues. Within reason.

Proponents of this idea say it’s to take unnecessary shackles off of The City, encouraging the best global talent and financial institutions to be as enthused about London as they are Wall Street. Giving growth.

Now the politics. 27 months is too short a time for this to work, financial institutions currently based in red-tape riven competitor cities overseas or top talents aren’t imho going to relocate here based on that short opportunity. The City, going by that analyst, are assuming a Starmer government one way or another. Truss’s party will not win 326+ seats [victims of the pandemic and its economic effects, Boris, Putin’s attempt to destroy the West, plus that inevitable time-for-a-change fatigue that happens].

This has a bad look to anyone unable to think market economy. Particularly with the cost of living crisis. Starmer and Davey will talk about this every day for 27 months. Kwarteng’s long term argument won’t hold the Average Joe’s attention for 5 seconds.

I understand your question/comment, we await all policies for growth. But in a sound bites age, Starmer or Davey complaining about injustice, will hold the front page.

 

[A1X]

[tweet]1572293275360567298[/tweet]

 

[Pevenseagull]

I'm going to the USA to not open ANY new markets.

But we meant for it to be this shit.

 

[dazzer6666]

Tbf it easily gets awkward when the King of England is approaching you with a gesture that might mean "hug me", "dance with me" or possibly just "hello".

‘What ? You’re my PM ? Naaaahhhhhhhhh, mother wasn’t that stupid’

 

[Greg Bobkin]

Her theory seems to be that bigger bonuses for bankers will reduce the number of food banks.

Yeah, OK mate.

She inspires less confidence in me every time she opens her mouth.

 

[studio150]

She inspires less confidence in me every time she opens her mouth.

I'm way past that stage, as I had no confidence in her some time ago.

All of the probable changes coming on Friday, will only make the rich richer, the gap between poor and rice wider, lead to higher inflation and interest rates, and no produce any meaningful growth.

It just seems to be a race tot he bottom and pandering to the far right of the Tories.

There will only be one happy person on Friday and that will be Johnson as he loses his tag as worst ever prime minister.

 

[The Clamp]

Once people understand that the Tories are not a political party but the political arm of the elite they may then realise they will ONLY EVER act in the interests of big business. That is literally the reason they fought for power.

If you want to find out what something is designed to do, what it's primary function is, don't look at what they tell you it does, look at what it actually does.

The Tory's tell us they are there to help the poorest families yet they propose a tax cut that benefits wealthy people by £1,500 per year and poor people....63 pence per year. Yes, £0.63p

This model is repeated time and again by the Tory's. Looking after the interests of the wealthy is there primary objective.

Liz Truss is a puppet PM, she'll do what she is told. She is deranged.

 

[Pevenseagull]

Once people understand that the Tories are not a political party but the political arm of the elite they may then realise they will ONLY EVER act in the interests of big business. That is literally the reason they fought for power.

If you want to find out what something is designed to do, what it's primary function is, don't look at what they tell you it does, look at what it actually does.

The Tory's tell us they are there to help the poorest families yet they propose a tax cut that benefits wealthy people by £1,500 per year and poor people....63 pence per year. Yes, £0.63p

This model is repeated time and again by the Tory's. Looking after the interests of the wealthy is there primary objective.

Liz Truss is a puppet PM, she'll do what she is told. She is deranged.

At least Nadine Dorries was honest. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SSP8hvD3yM0

 

[Brovion]

I'm afraid this will be a controversial view, but if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. Our current crop of politicians are mostly second- or third-raters. Very few people of any talent would do such a high-pressure job for so little money. That's why so many of them are desperate to grift any extra they can.

It's worth its own thread (as it will derail this), but I completely agree. I'd at least quadruple all politicians pay, not because the current lot deserve it but because it will hopefully bring in a way higher calibre of people. Currently as you say we've got third-rate minds running the country, or people like Sunak who don't need the money and treat it as a kind of hobby.

To take it further I'm not averse to the idea of political parties being publicly-funded rather than relying on large donations. Private donors, from Bernie Ecclestone for Labour through umpteen Tories, give money expecting (and getting) favours and honours in return. The larger your donation the more influence you have. It is corruption in its purest form.

Anyway, that's well O/T and I know it will divide opinion: 50% of you are thinking 'No', and the other 50% are thinking 'Hell, no!'

 

[Brovion]

I for one am completely reassured that while 30 odd years of evidence suggest the trickle down effect is complete fallacy that Truss will so truly embrace monetarism that it actually works.

Indeed. At least that fat lying useless **** Johnson paid lip service to the idea of 'levelling up', Truss isn't even doing that. She's very much an adherent to the old view that if the 'rich get richer then we all benefit'. There's only one problem with that old theory; to quote Captain Blackadder: "It was bollocks."

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Her theory seems to be that bigger bonuses for bankers will reduce the number of food banks.

Yeah, OK mate.

She inspires less confidence in me every time she opens her mouth.

Apparently she is going to tell the UN today to cut taxes to allow trickle down theory to work.

Everybody else knows trickle down theory doesn’t work.

President Biden is “sick and tired” of people advocating trickle down theory.

What have we done to deserve this?

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

It's worth its own thread (as it will derail this), but I completely agree. I'd at least quadruple all politicians pay, not because the current lot deserve it but because it will hopefully bring in a way higher calibre of people. Currently as you say we've got third-rate minds running the country, or people like Sunak who don't need the money and treat it as a kind of hobby.

To take it further I'm not averse to the idea of political parties being publicly-funded rather than relying on large donations. Private donors, from Bernie Ecclestone for Labour through umpteen Tories, give money expecting (and getting) favours and honours in return. The larger your donation the more influence you have. It is corruption in its purest form.

Anyway, that's well O/T and I know it will divide opinion: 50% of you are thinking 'No', and the other 50% are thinking 'Hell, no!'

Sorry to disappoint you, but I’m thinking “yes”!

 

[Hugo Rune]

Indeed. At least that fat lying useless **** Johnson paid lip service to the idea of 'levelling up', Truss isn't even doing that. She's very much an adherent to the old view that if the 'rich get richer then we all benefit'. There's only one problem with that old theory; to quote Captain Blackadder: "It was bollocks."

I think you are being generous here.

Her view is that if the rich get richer, herself and the Tory party benefit with increased support from Tory party donors and the media. She does not give a **** about anyone else benefiting. With enough of the media onside, she can have a good crack at the next election.