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

[Argartu]

I do sometimes wonder what LittleFinger Gove's end game is, is he trying to be PM himself and just playing the long game?

Or am I overestimating him and he's just content to be vaguely in the public eye and on the public payroll for as long as he can.

He's a shoo-in for next editor of the Times if he keeps his profile high and his nose clean. (at least in public) Seems like he's rocking the boat for the fun of it at the moment.

 

[pb21]

I can only assume it's the advisers that are the problem. No single MP, cabinet minister or even PM can know everything, but their advisers should be doing better than this.

As others have pointed out, advisors advise and politicians decide.

Furthermore, they (Kwarteng and Truss) sacked the most senior civil servant in the Treasury, i.e. the incumbent advisor, when they didn't need too, and refused to listen to the OBR, which they should've done.

This hasn't been a fault of poor advice, its the fault of incompetence and/or hubris.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

It does feel like Gove has played this very well. Kept out of the last leadership contest, and now seen as the 'only adult in the room' within the party.

Gosh, though. Prepared to sit on his hands while a series of lunatics and half-wits **** up the country, just so he can appear at the eleventh hour and save the day?

If true, what a dirty rotter (as Steve Jones might have put it).

Even Machiavelli would accept that the best way to take over a ship isn't to wait till the ****er has sunk.

I, personally, would love to see Gove agitate to take over the tory mad house. It can only hasten their demise.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

As others have pointed out, advisors advise and politicians decide.

Furthermore, they (Kwarteng and Truss) sacked the most senior civil servant in the Treasury, i.e. the incumbent advisor, when they didn't need too, and refused to listen to the OBR, which they should've done.

This hasn't been a fault of poor advice, its the fault of incompetence and/or hubris.

Well yes, it's nothing to do with the advisers, they either sacked or ignored the advisers.

As you say, entirely the fault of Truss and Kwarteng. Astonishing arrogance married to breathtaking stupidity

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Robins Nest
Dick Emery
Dave Allen
Love thy Neighbour
On the Buses

will the pleasure never end ..??...well , yes it did love island , naked and afraid , strictly , ffs cut my head off....!!

Love thy neighbour? Seriously? Christ.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Theresa May was Home Secretary under David Cameron and introduced the hostile environment for 'foreigners'. The Windrush scandal happened under her watch but she managed to get Amber Rudd to take the can for that, while she became PM.

She had vans going round with placards like Go Home. The Home Office broke the Equalities Law with this policy.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...alities-law-with-hostile-environment-measures

People were being deported illegally. Sitting in Limbo was a tv drama based on a true story of one Jamaican man, Anthony Bryan. I cried throughout, it was so powerful.

This. She was nasty. People were fooled into thinking that underneath her lack of charisma beat a warm heart. Alas.

 

[clapham_gull]

That hung parliament ended with the Lib Dems being wiped out in 2015. The Conservatives have to carry the can for the David Cameron's mess themselves.

All parties reach the point where they just need to go into opposition and have some fresh air for a while. They don't normally get through 4 leaders to get there though.

And the Conservatives played them like a fiddle. Some senior Lib Dem MPs weren't even issued equipment for ages.

They allowed then to take the brunt for some unpopular decisions and took credit for others that were Lib Dem ideas. It's taken them years to recover.

 

[Pavilionaire]

What a fuxking shambles. The Chancellor didn't just decrease the additional rate of income tax from 45% to 40% but he also abolished the Additional Rates for dividends too. Yet there is no information on HMRC's website about dividend tax for the rich.

Rishi had increased that top rate of tax from 38.1% to 39.35%. Kwarteng then cut that back down to 32.5% in the Mini-Budget. So what is the rate going to be in 6 months' time - 32.5%, 38.1% or 39.35%? Answers on a postcard.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

And the Conservatives played them like a fiddle. Some senior Lib Dem MPs weren't even issued equipment for ages.

They allowed then to take the brunt for some unpopular decisions and took credit for others that were Lib Dem ideas. It's taken them years to recover.

But if we had PR, then.......

 

[clapham_gull]

But if we had PR, then.......

But we don't and the system isn't set up internally for such an occurrence.

Labour got more votes than the Lib Dems (obviously) but were kicked out of power.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

But if we had PR, then.......

If we had PR in 2015 then the Lib Dems would have won about 51 seats with just under 8% of the vote.
Just 6 fewer than they won in 2010, with 23% of the vote.

That's not actually true, because it would depend on which system you used. But does emphasise just what a crap decision it was to not insist on voting reform as part of the coalition agreement.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

If we had PR in 2015 then the Lib Dems would have won about 51 seats with just under 8% of the vote.
Just 6 fewer than they won in 2010, with 23% of the vote.

That's not actually true, because it would depend on which system you used. But does emphasise just what a crap decision it was to not insist on voting reform as part of the coalition agreement.

To you an [MENTION=865]clapham_gull[/MENTION], I do not favour PR. Not remotely.

 

[clapham_gull]

If we had PR in 2015 then the Lib Dems would have won about 51 seats with just under 8% of the vote.
Just 6 fewer than they won in 2010, with 23% of the vote.

That's not actually true, because it would depend on which system you used. But does emphasise just what a crap decision it was to not insist on voting reform as part of the coalition agreement.

They negotiated a referendum which they lost after most their colleagues in Government came out at full force against it.

Where they strategically (as a political force) made the biggest mistake was not going into coalition into Government with Labour. The leadership (at the time) were far more amenable to show support in the referendum.

Even if the whole thing had collapsed after a year they had a better chance of getting the voting system changed.

However the Lib Dems had a red line over Brown continuing as Prime Minister and destroyed themselves in "power".

 

[clapham_gull]

To you an [MENTION=865]clapham_gull[/MENTION], I do not favour PR. Not remotely.

Neither do I, but I don't think the example of the Tory / Lib Dem coalition is a good one.

I'd just to see the system we have up here for the Mayor introduced nationally.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

If we had PR in 2015 then the Lib Dems would have won about 51 seats with just under 8% of the vote.
Just 6 fewer than they won in 2010, with 23% of the vote.

That's not actually true, because it would depend on which system you used. But does emphasise just what a crap decision it was to not insist on voting reform as part of the coalition agreement.

It was a crap decision for the LibDems, certainly. The only way minority parties can get a tiny fisted grasp on the cup of glory is via PR. I say, if you are a minority party then sort yourself out if you want a 'say' and don't expect a 'say' until you have a majority. Diluting the FPTP majority with charity seats for minority parties is a recipe for weak government, carve ups and decisions taken in secret in the modern equivalent of in smoke-filled rooms. Sweaty palm-filled WhatsApp groups, perhaps.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

To you an [MENTION=865]clapham_gull[/MENTION], I do not favour PR. Not remotely.

I know, this conversation comes up roughly every 3months and always goes the same way.

Somebody suggests PR
You say you're against it
Somebody (possibly a different person) explains a particular system like STV
You say you're slightly more pro the idea now you've looked into it
Pause for 3months and repeat

I meant it was a crap decision from their own political perspective. I happen to disagree with you re PR, but having had this conversation before I'm not going to waste both of our time by arguing over it

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

They negotiated a referendum which they lost after most their colleagues in Government came out at full force against it.

Where they strategically (as a political force) made the biggest mistake was not going into coalition into Government with Labour. The leadership (at the time) were far more amenable to show support in the referendum.

Even if the whole thing had collapsed after a year they had a better chance of getting the voting system changed.

However the Lib Dems had a red line over Brown continuing as Prime Minister and destroyed themselves in "power".

I've got sympathy for Clegg's position on this. That the first attempt at forming a government should be with the party with the most seats and the most votes. The second and third biggest parties ruling together would always struggle for legitimacy.

The Lib Dem's actually got quite a lot of what they wanted out of that coalition agreement, given they had 50 odd and the Tories had 300 odd. The best example was getting a vote on the electoral system being changed through. A potentially transformative moment in British politics.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Neither do I, but I don't think the example of the Tory / Lib Dem coalition is a good one.

I'd just to see the system we have up here for the Mayor introduced nationally.

Fair enough, and quite.

So what system do you have up there for mayor? I assume you support the notion of one representative per seat (since you presumably have only one mayor)?

I'm in an important work teams meeting right now, which means I will be available for immediate responses in any ongoing NSC conversation

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I've got sympathy for Clegg's position on this. That the first attempt at forming a government should be with the party with the most seats and the most votes. The second and third biggest parties ruling together would always struggle for legitimacy.

The Lib Dem's actually got quite a lot of what they wanted out of that coalition agreement, given they had 50 odd and the Tories had 300 odd. The best example was getting a vote on the electoral system being changed through. A potentially transformative moment in British politics.

Scapegoated, left bereft of the support of the outraged wing of their membership, and cast into electoral oblivion for a generation? Not sure that's what they wanted....

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

It was a crap decision for the LibDems, certainly. The only way minority parties can get a tiny fisted grasp on the cup of glory is via PR. I say, if you are a minority party then sort yourself out if you want a 'say' and don't expect a 'say' until you have a majority. Diluting the FPTP majority with charity seats for minority parties is a recipe for weak government, carve ups and decisions taken in secret in the modern equivalent of in smoke-filled rooms. Sweaty palm-filled WhatsApp groups, perhaps.

Or it's a recipe for bonkers power crazed, incompetent people, who remarkably have been elected Prime Minister or appointed Chancellor (though I can't think of any recent examples) to have some checks placed on their extraordinary ineptitude