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

[studio150]

Opinion on Liz Truss' latest blunder...

During the second world war, a poster famously read “Careless Talk Cost Lives” – based on the premise that German spies might be in the pub listening out for secret ops being divulged over a pint of beer.

Over the past three days, some careless talk at the top of government has served to underline how difficult it is in a modern war for ministers to get their messaging right. Run of the mill ministerial blunders in domestic politics can be tidied up with little consequence, but in a propaganda battle such as this, minor errors and misspeaks can be ruthlessly exploited by Moscow to justify escalation or to sow division.

That requires ministers to stick to the broad government script while trying to sound more diverting than an answerphone message. It also requires an unbelievably quick mopping up operation since, in the first major war fully to engage western social media, a lie can be retweeting itself halfway around the world before the truth has got its counter-tweet ready. Hence it took a few hours for the home office minister Kevin Foster to delete his tweet proposing that desperate Ukrainians could come to the UK if they tried some fruit picking. Even on Monday, the home secretary, Priti Patel, was struggling to reconcile her policy with the handling of individual cases.

More seriously, the foreign secretary, Liz Truss found her endorsement of British citizens answering Ukraine’s urging to enlist and join an international brigade may have seemed an innocent endorsement of Kyiv’s call. Equally her warning, now frequently made, that Russia may extend its offensive into Nato territory has been picked up by Moscow to justify Russia’s deterrence forces – including nuclear weapons – being put on high alert.

It may have been a specious Russian effort to justify an unjustifiable escalation, a point made by Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP leader and no soul sister of Truss, but it also shows the minefield in which politicians are currently walking.

In an interview on BBC One’s Sunday Morning programme, the UK foreign secretary had replied “absolutely” when asked whether she would back anyone wanting to volunteer to help the Ukrainians fighting for their freedom.

It took the defence secretary Ben Wallace 24 hours to point out Truss’s own department’s travel advice urges British citizens not to travel to Ukraine, and if British people wanted to help, it would be better either to donate financially or even enlist to join the British army.

The messaging became worse when the prime minister’s official spokesperson said western sanctions “are to bring down the Putin regime” at a daily briefing on Monday.

He said: “The measures we are introducing, that large parts of the world are introducing, are to bring down the Putin regime.

“We have introduced widespread sanctions, we aim to inflict financial pain on Putin and his regime to stymie the Russian war machine as it attempts to subjugate a democratic European country.”

Downing Street quickly explained the spokesperson had misspoken, explaining: “We’re not seeking anything in terms of regime change. What we’re talking about here clearly is how we stop Russia seeking to subjugate a democratic country.”

But again some damage was done since the item was zipping across the newswires, seeping into international media, and being gratefully grasped by Russia to prove this is about a Nato conspiracy to unseat their leader.

At root, there is an occasional British intellectual confusion that needs clarifying and policing. Boris Johnson has been at the forefront of those, saying that the west must not only actively help the Ukrainian resistance, but also ensure that Putin fails and is seen to fail, in essence to serve a lesson to autocrats worldwide that the age of impunity cannot chalk up such a famous victory.

As the west made clear in the case of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria, it is not seeking regime change, but instead for the regime to change. Some will say the distinction is bogus, but it is the difference between legality and illegality. Above all, it is about making sure Conservative politicians, brought to power by playing to a domestic gallery, realise the global gallery is listening just as hard.

Would have been better just to post the link to the Guardian article rather than pasting.

The problem with this Government is that they are so used to not telling to the truth that they just can't stop.

 

[Seagull58]

I think it's pointless trying to make this a party politics thread - let's attack or defend Truss because she's a Tory - that's an irrelevance when it comes to serious matters of foreign policy. There are issues we will take a stance based on the policies we prefer, like fiscal policy, public spending, law and order and so on. Then are matters of good governance, which we would expect any government to handle responsibly, like the pandemic, the war, corruption. Criticism or praise in these areas is purely a matter of competence, statesmanship and honesty.

On the matter of Ukraine, can't say Truss, Wallace or Patel are excelling themselves here at all, whereas Boris has been up to the task and a leader in getting serious sanctions implemented and getting support to Ukraine.

Overall though, our relationship with Russia has collapsed ever since Blair left office. Successive leaders from Cameron to May to Johnson have left our relations with Russia in tatters, and not because we've outsmarted them or are a threat to them but because we have got engaged in petty spats. It may not be possible to have good relations but France and others have shown you can maintain civility and dialogue.

I think it matters. If we want to have a role in ending this we need to be able to talk to them and be taken seriously. Truss and Wallace's rhetoric does nothing to rebuild any trust and just angers them, so of course we're the easy punching bag when they let off steam.

Maybe it matters, maybe it doesn't. I can't help thinking though that if Putin does decide to send off one of his big nukes in a final piece of '**** the world' theatre before he exits this planet, the first city he'll choose to aim at will be London.

Berlin or Brussels are much more likely targets.

 

[Lever]

She does not need need me to defend her, she’s a successful woman in her own right, and she probably won’t be to upset by a few far left blowhards calling her names.
I’ll leave this here now.
#Bekind.

What does 'need need' mean? Does Liz Truss 'need need' you to comment at all?

 

[Pavilionaire]

Truss is by far the worst Foreign Secretary in my lifetime.

She is dangerously bad at her job. I am not a Conservative but from what I've seen Ben Wallace would have been a much better choice, and Tobias Ellwood would also make a good Defence Minister.

I genuinely believe Boris is surrounding himself with dullards in order that he diesn't have any credible rivals for the PM position.

 

[Mayonaise]

Truss is by far the worst Foreign Secretary in my lifetime.

She is dangerously bad at her job. I am not a Conservative but from what I've seen Ben Wallace would have been a much better choice, and Tobias Ellwood would also make a good Defence Minister.

I genuinely believe Boris is surrounding himself with dullards in order that he diesn't have any credible rivals for the PM position.

Are you forgetting that Boris himself was foreign secretary?

 

[johanngull]

Opinion on Liz Truss' latest blunder...

.[/I]

Should you not be posting just a snippet of an article and a link rather than the whole thing, so the author and newspaper get recognition?

 

[Pavilionaire]

Are you forgetting that Boris himself was foreign secretary?

Indeed, but at least he can be charming, witty and funny. Truss cannot think on her feet and her grasp of her brief is pitiful.

 

[GT49er]

Opinion on Liz Truss' latest blunder...

During the second world war, a poster famously read “Careless Talk Cost Lives” – based on the premise that German spies might be in the pub listening out for secret ops being divulged over a pint of beer.

Over the past three days, some careless talk at the top of government has served to underline how difficult it is in a modern war for ministers to get their messaging right. Run of the mill ministerial blunders in domestic politics can be tidied up with little consequence, but in a propaganda battle such as this, minor errors and misspeaks can be ruthlessly exploited by Moscow to justify escalation or to sow division.

That requires ministers to stick to the broad government script while trying to sound more diverting than an answerphone message. It also requires an unbelievably quick mopping up operation since, in the first major war fully to engage western social media, a lie can be retweeting itself halfway around the world before the truth has got its counter-tweet ready. Hence it took a few hours for the home office minister Kevin Foster to delete his tweet proposing that desperate Ukrainians could come to the UK if they tried some fruit picking. Even on Monday, the home secretary, Priti Patel, was struggling to reconcile her policy with the handling of individual cases.

More seriously, the foreign secretary, Liz Truss found her endorsement of British citizens answering Ukraine’s urging to enlist and join an international brigade may have seemed an innocent endorsement of Kyiv’s call. Equally her warning, now frequently made, that Russia may extend its offensive into Nato territory has been picked up by Moscow to justify Russia’s deterrence forces – including nuclear weapons – being put on high alert.

It may have been a specious Russian effort to justify an unjustifiable escalation, a point made by Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP leader and no soul sister of Truss, but it also shows the minefield in which politicians are currently walking.

In an interview on BBC One’s Sunday Morning programme, the UK foreign secretary had replied “absolutely” when asked whether she would back anyone wanting to volunteer to help the Ukrainians fighting for their freedom.

It took the defence secretary Ben Wallace 24 hours to point out Truss’s own department’s travel advice urges British citizens not to travel to Ukraine, and if British people wanted to help, it would be better either to donate financially or even enlist to join the British army.

The messaging became worse when the prime minister’s official spokesperson said western sanctions “are to bring down the Putin regime” at a daily briefing on Monday.

He said: “The measures we are introducing, that large parts of the world are introducing, are to bring down the Putin regime.

“We have introduced widespread sanctions, we aim to inflict financial pain on Putin and his regime to stymie the Russian war machine as it attempts to subjugate a democratic European country.”

Downing Street quickly explained the spokesperson had misspoken, explaining: “We’re not seeking anything in terms of regime change. What we’re talking about here clearly is how we stop Russia seeking to subjugate a democratic country.”

But again some damage was done since the item was zipping across the newswires, seeping into international media, and being gratefully grasped by Russia to prove this is about a Nato conspiracy to unseat their leader.

At root, there is an occasional British intellectual confusion that needs clarifying and policing. Boris Johnson has been at the forefront of those, saying that the west must not only actively help the Ukrainian resistance, but also ensure that Putin fails and is seen to fail, in essence to serve a lesson to autocrats worldwide that the age of impunity cannot chalk up such a famous victory.

As the west made clear in the case of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria, it is not seeking regime change, but instead for the regime to change. Some will say the distinction is bogus, but it is the difference between legality and illegality. Above all, it is about making sure Conservative politicians, brought to power by playing to a domestic gallery, realise the global gallery is listening just as hard.

Sadly for you, in this case Liz Truss has called it right. Unless of course you think all the brave men who went to Spain to fight Franco's fascists 80 odd years ago shoud have been apologised for by the then defence secretary too.

 

[Cotton Socks]

Always refreshing to see the tolerant left still walk among us.
I would imagine if this thread was targeting a Leftwaffe MP it would be tossed into the pit by the prefects. Debate robustly, but please, keep away from the sexiest abuse eh?.

We have a foreign secretary who has less geography knowledge than I, and is less diplomatic than I am on a football forum. I'm not being racist, sexist or any other 'ist' as we are very similar in 'ist's'.I don't care what colour rosette she wears, she is shit at her job!!

 

[Easy 10]

Sadly for you, in this case Liz Truss has called it right. Unless of course you think all the brave men who went to Spain to fight Franco's fascists 80 odd years ago shoud have been apologised for by the then defence secretary too.

Sorry, but what happened 80 years ago, in a different war, in a different time bears absolutely no relation to what is happening right now.

It was entirely reckless for Truss to wholly endorse a bunch of have-a-go weekend warriors to slope of to Millets for some outdoor clothing, browse the central aisle at Lidls for a rake and a bargain leaf blower, then jump on a ferry with their selfie-sticks for a jolly old adventure to "bolster" the Ukrainians in the defence of their cities, whilst under assault and bombardment from Putins goons.

As Tobias Ellwood rightly said - they'll more likely end up getting proper military troops killed trying to save them.

Unfortunately, Truss's mouth is always about 30 seconds ahead of her brain. And thats being generous.

 

[sydney]

Do you think the UK are a big player in these sanctions and moves against Putin?

They've probably not heard of her.

No , we are however slap, bang in the firing line ......there is so much conflicting information on this conflict it is virtually impossible for the man/woman/other on the street to understand exactly what has lead to this point.

 

[GT49er]

Sorry, but what happened 80 years ago, in a different war, in a different time bears absolutely no relation to what is happening right now.

It was entirely reckless for Truss to wholly endorse a bunch of have-a-go weekend warriors to slope of to Millets for some outdoor clothing, browse the central aisle at Lidls for a rake and a bargain leaf blower, then jump on a ferry with their selfie-sticks for a jolly old adventure to "bolster" the Ukrainians in the defence of their cities, whilst under assault and bombardment from Putins goons.

What a pathetic insult to a number of very brave - if reckless - people committed to, and willing to die for, a just cause. I thought better of you.

 

[Lever]

Sadly for you, in this case Liz Truss has called it right. Unless of course you think all the brave men who went to Spain to fight Franco's fascists 80 odd years ago shoud have been apologised for by the then defence secretary too.

Strange response.

Truss was recklessly imprecise. She didn't stipulate these 'volunteers' should be professionally trained soldiers rather than simply ideological participants, who are more likely to get injured (or killed) without significant contribution and endanger Ukrainian medical services.

I put this out for discussion and you responded. Why should sadness come into it? The 'sadness' lies in the horror of this war; meanwhile we have the luxury of free debate and commentary and need to employ our words carefully while enjoying that privilege rather than making mocking assumptions and citing historical wars to back up those postulations....

Volunteers in the Spanish Civil War brought attention to what went on there and we remember it for that reason. Emotionally, I get that - but Franco still won and many people were casual victims.

Why speculate on what I think 'shoud' happen and why try and seize the moral high ground?

 

[Lever]

Would have been better just to post the link to the Guardian article rather than pasting.

The problem with this Government is that they are so used to not telling to the truth that they just can't stop.

Fair enough and apologies. I was keen for posters to reflect and debate on the content, rather than dismiss it as simply 'Guardian reader' material.

 

[Lever]

Should you not be posting just a snippet of an article and a link rather than the whole thing, so the author and newspaper get recognition?

Fair comment and apologies. As I wrote above, I thought some would simply ignore an article written in The Guardian, rather than reflect and debate on the content. You're right though, I should have acknowledged the writer.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Berlin or Brussels are much more likely targets.

Maybe. I think those would be more tactical strikes. I reckon - if he did it - he will aim more for punishment

 

[beorhthelm]

Sorry, but what happened 80 years ago, in a different war, in a different time bears absolutely no relation to what is happening right now.

It was entirely reckless for Truss to wholly endorse a bunch of have-a-go weekend warriors to slope of to Millets for some outdoor clothing, browse the central aisle at Lidls for a rake and a bargain leaf blower, then jump on a ferry with their selfie-sticks for a jolly old adventure to "bolster" the Ukrainians in the defence of their cities, whilst under assault and bombardment from Putins goons.

As Tobias Ellwood rightly said - they'll more likely end up getting proper military troops killed trying to save them.

Unfortunately, Truss's mouth is always about 30 seconds ahead of her brain. And thats being generous.

Truss didnt say any of that though. thats your imagery. asked if she supported the call from Zelenskyy for people to join an international legion, she said yes (in a lot of waffle). that was it, no qualification or specification.

is everyone saying they dont support anyone going to join the International Legion Ukraine?

 

[Lever]

Truss didnt say any of that though. thats your imagery. asked if she supported the call from Zelenskyy for people to join an international legion, she said yes (in a lot of waffle). that was it, no qualification or specification.

is everyone saying they dont support anyone going to join the International Legion Ukraine?

No, that is not what everyone is saying. Please look closely again at the various comments; it is more about cool heads leading to effective action rather than solely emotional outcry, precipitate rhetoric/responses, leading to further tragedy. Carefully crafted language from our leading politicians rather than 'shooting off at the mouth' is essential now.

 

[Baldseagull]

She may well turn out to be useless, have a bit of respect though, she is a wife, a mother, a daughter, there is no reason to abuse her. I think the thread was derailed when someone decided to call her a ****.
Truly abhorrent.

You have a very high threshold for evidence, if you have not made your mind up yet.

 

[Baldseagull]

Sadly for you, in this case Liz Truss has called it right. Unless of course you think all the brave men who went to Spain to fight Franco's fascists 80 odd years ago shoud have been apologised for by the then defence secretary too.

Sadly, since then UK law has changed and going off to fight for a foreign entity against a state the UK is not at war with is illegal. Morally I agree with her, legally she cannot say that it is ok to go fight for Ukraine as a UK citizen.