Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Liz Truss **RESIGNS 20/10/2022**
- Thread starter Ethelwulf
- Start date
Tom Bombadil
Well-known member
But this thread isn't about the home secretary it's about Liz Truss a politician you seem unable to defend. In the spirit of debate could you please stop derailing the thread and get back on track. Do you agree that Liz Truss has performed poorly as foreign secretary or can you point us tin the direction of anything which counters this argument
Baker lite
Banned
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.
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,776
Maybe you could point out the racist abuse so we can get the mods to quite rightly ban them ?
It should be very easy to quote the posts, because we certainly wouldn't want woke snowflakes trying to make up things and then pretend that cancelling them is the way ahead would we
Toot, Toot
Tom Bombadil
Well-known member
So that's a no then, to being able to defend Liz Truss
Pretty pink fairy
Banned
- Jan 30, 2008
- 31,981
Standard fare on here Bl call someone a name
that seems to be the way forward for some on here Regards
DF
rogersix
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2014
- 8,202
so wrong thread then
are you doing your utmost to avoid abusive language, purely because of the threat of a permanent ban?
rogersix
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2014
- 8,202
rogersix
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2014
- 8,202
Standard fare on here Bl call someone a name
Regards
DF
like nonce you mean? is that the sort of thing you're on about?
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
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.
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.
Baker lite
Banned
Maybe you could point out the racist abuse so we can get the mods to quite rightly ban them ?
It should be very easy to quote the posts, because we certainly wouldn't want woke snowflakes trying to make up things and then pretend that cancelling them is the way ahead would we
View attachment 145598
Toot, Toot
Several posters, in the past have called the Home Secretary Uncle Tom, in my opinion that is racist, it may not be racist in the eyes of others but to me it is. All about opinions watters old son.
Good news is, we can all agree to be civil from now on eh[emoji1303]
Kettles on[emoji1303]
Do you think using pet names for other posters contributes to the robust debate you have committed to or have you relapsed already?
Baker lite
Banned
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.
Going so soon without debating robustly with me? Oh well....
You be kind too.... be sensible and brave as well. You can do it.
Last edited:
- Apr 5, 2014
- 25,928
Standard fare on here Bl call someone a name
Regards
DF
Have you never called anyone a name in here ?
Fat Boy Fat
New member
- Aug 21, 2020
- 1,077
Agree, there are few "statesmen/women" left, people of principle who have something they believe in - mind you that didn't work out too well for Jeremy Corbyn, did it.?
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.
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.
Pretty pink fairy
Banned
- Jan 30, 2008
- 31,981