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

[Audax]

true. likewise you cant simply ignore the constitutional, legal basis of representitve democracy.

and removing party logos would a brilliant idea.

Yeah, I'm not ignoring it - said multiple times I understand it. And I also know that in marginal seats the local individual can and does make a difference - plenty of examples could be cited where a marginal seat result has swung on specific campaigning for / against the local candidates. Usually (although not always) on the basis of local issues being more important than the national picture and a candidate tapping into those local issues effectively.

 

[Eric the meek]

A final shout for Liz Truss.

The Bruce Lee of Prime Ministers. Lived fast, resigned 44 days later.

Larry the cat awaits his next lodger.

 

[rippleman]

We're laughing stock, its pretty much been a seamless crisis since the Tories were allowed to govern in 2015 alone.

Just wait for it, a new dawn will soon be here and the last 12 years were nothing to do with them.

Reckon it will be Sunak unless it goes to the membership and it will be Mordaunt . They won't vote for someone of colour

On R4 morning they had a couple of the jam and jerusalem brigade on. Chairwomen (thats what they said they were) of local Tory parties doing a more than passable impression of Hyacinth Bucket. One was asked who she voted for last time. It went (something) like this:

Mrs Bucket: Liz Truss
Interviewer: Why?
Mrs B: Well it was anyone but Rishi wasn't it
Interviewer: Why did you decide to vote for whoever wasn't Rishi?
Mrs B: Er. Er <long pause> er well Rishi broke the law didn't he

It was so bleeding obvious why she and so many of her ilk didn't and probably never would vote for Rishi but she just couldn't quite manage to out herself as a bigot on national radio.

 

[Randy McNob]

Mail spot on as usual

 

[GT49er]

It's called a proxy vote. We might not have Boris or Starmer or Truss etc on our specific ballot paper, and as I said you are absolutely correct in terms of the mechanics of the system. But that's irrelevant when it comes time for the voter to walk in and mark their ballot. When they do that, what matters is what's in the heads: and for the vast majority, they look at the ballot paper and they look to see which party each candidate represents. For an awful lot of them, that's as far as it goes: they see "ah, Joe Bloggs is in the Conservatives. I like Boris and I want Brexit, I'll vote for Joe Bloggs" - do they actually know who Joe Bloggs is, and what Joe Bloggs' politics are? For the majority - nope, they don't. They just vote for the name on the paper that will get them the result they want nationally.

Are you seriously trying to say that we all go to the ballot box and choose who we'll vote for without considering the bigger national picture. If so ... you're deluded. I have never, ever chosen who to vote for on my ballot paper because of the individual named. I have always voted on the basis of which party they represent - either because I want that party (and its leader) to win, or because that party has the biggest chance of defeating the party (and its leader) that I very much *don't* want.

I couldn't give a rats who the Labour or Lib Dem individual is on the ticket when I put my cross in the box. I'll put my cross in the box for whichever party looks most likely to be able to defeat the Tory in my area. End of.

There are some seats out there where voters do vote for an individual - but they are very much in the minority of seats.

But you still actually voted for the candidate on your voting slip, whatever your motives were. Still a fact. You were given a choice of candidates and you voted for one of them, even if you didn't caare who they were.

 

[Bodian]

Quite interesting re-reading the first few pages of this thread - long before anyone anticipated her becoming Prime Minister.

 

[raymondo]

I'm glad I escaped before the transition period ended

Why do you live in 3 places?

 

[Zeberdi]

You can take Liz Truss out of Norwich but it seems you can’t take Norwich out of Liz Truss

(image originally posted on wearebrighton)

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

wrong thread

 

[Weststander]

The ego has left the building.

She displayed arrogance to the last when referring to her economic experiment.

I do love it how Sunak openly stated "some mistakes were made". Just to annoy her and the likes of JRM.

 

[Audax]

But you still actually voted for the candidate on your voting slip, whatever your motives were. Still a fact. You were given a choice of candidates and you voted for one of them, even if you didn't caare who they were.

True.

However.

Who you vote for in your local seat has consequences at a national level, and voters know that. You are only describing step 1 in the UK system and appear to be willfully ignoring what comes after that.

1. Voters in electorates vote for their local MP.
2. (Most) MPs affiliate with a Party (Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, etc).
3. Each Party has a leader.
4. The PM will (almost always) be the leader of whichever party wins the most seats and thus has the most MPs.

You cannot ignore steps 2 through 4. Voters know that who they vote for at a local level has consequences at a national level. Voters know that if they choose a Tory MP locally, that it makes it more likely that the Tory party wins the most seats, and that the leader of the Tory party will be PM. You simply cannot ignore the thought processes that go into how voters choose who they will vote for locally.

It was played out multiple times on the news last night. Journalists talking to voters, and constantly hearing things like "I voted for Boris" (except they weren't in Uxbridge), or "I'll vote Labour next time", and the like. Not one quote in the entire BBC at 10 news mentioned the local MP - it was all at the national level. Including when the talked to MPs ("Boris is the only leader who has a mandate from the electorate").

The legal and constitutional framework stipulates that we vote for a local MP, and the MPs in Parliament choose the PM. Yes, that's correct. But it is also correct that individual voters will follow a decision process that works in reverse - going from step 4 backwards to step 1. They will first consider who they want to be PM, then which Party that potential PM represents, then vote for whichever local candidate also represents that party.

Both can be, and are, simultaneously true and to ignore either is to ignore fundamental elements of what makes the UK political system work (or not work, depending on how you see it).

We see this played out at GE after GE. The party with the most popular leader, the leader viewed most favourably as PM material, almost always wins. The polling numbers of parties tend to follow the polling numbers of their leaders. etc etc etc.

 

[Audax]

Minus 70. -70. The whole range is only -100 to +100. Can she manage to drag it even lower next week?

For the record, the answer was yes, yes she could. She finishes out her time as PM by achieving a net favourability rating of -77.

 

[GT49er]

True.

However.

Who you vote for in your local seat has consequences at a national level, and voters know that. You are only describing step 1 in the UK system and appear to be willfully ignoring what comes after that.

1. Voters in electorates vote for their local MP.
2. (Most) MPs affiliate with a Party (Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, etc).
3. Each Party has a leader.
4. The PM will (almost always) be the leader of whichever party wins the most seats and thus has the most MPs.

You cannot ignore steps 2 through 4. Voters know that who they vote for at a local level has consequences at a national level. Voters know that if they choose a Tory MP locally, that it makes it more likely that the Tory party wins the most seats, and that the leader of the Tory party will be PM. You simply cannot ignore the thought processes that go into how voters choose who they will vote for locally.

It was played out multiple times on the news last night. Journalists talking to voters, and constantly hearing things like "I voted for Boris" (except they weren't in Uxbridge), or "I'll vote Labour next time", and the like. Not one quote in the entire BBC at 10 news mentioned the local MP - it was all at the national level. Including when the talked to MPs ("Boris is the only leader who has a mandate from the electorate").

The legal and constitutional framework stipulates that we vote for a local MP, and the MPs in Parliament choose the PM. Yes, that's correct. But it is also correct that individual voters will follow a decision process that works in reverse - going from step 4 backwards to step 1. They will first consider who they want to be PM, then which Party that potential PM represents, then vote for whichever local candidate also represents that party.

Both can be, and are, simultaneously true and to ignore either is to ignore fundamental elements of what makes the UK political system work (or not work, depending on how you see it).

We see this played out at GE after GE. The party with the most popular leader, the leader viewed most favourably as PM material, almost always wins. The polling numbers of parties tend to follow the polling numbers of their leaders. etc etc etc.

"True" is the only part of that that is relevant! What I said was/is true. Yes, I know - we all know - all the rest of it, and don't need a lecture, but the simple fact is that our vote is physically made for one person on a ballot paper. What happens after that does not alter the physical fact!

I voted for Mr. X, the local candidate, on my ballot paper. Yes, I was hoping it would ultimately resut in Mr. Y becoming PM, but that doesn't alter the fact that I voted for Mr. X.

 

[vegster]

She leaves just as how she arrived, without a sodding clue and not having learned anything from her actions.

 

[Machiavelli]

The ego has left the building.

She displayed arrogance to the last when referring to her economic experiment.

I do love it how Sunak openly stated "some mistakes were made". Just to annoy her and the likes of JRM.

I don't think she's egotistical, more an ideologue. That failed spectacularly under her watch. Yes, it was a daft experiment, but she's not wrong in the diagnosis that motivated it, which is the UK (and much of the affluent world) is in a low-growth regime.
Her ideological convictions that were foisted on us has ensured that 'growth, growth, growth' will be lower, lower, lower in the short term at the very least.
And the good news is JRM has resigned. He'll peddle his poison from the back benches. Like Truss' predecessor, the (ex)Minister for the 18th century has an ego.

 

[Machiavelli]

Did she vote for Brexit or something?

Interesting that you thought this was one of her NSC-designated 'crimes'. You may now be aware that she didn't vote for Brexit but, since then, has got fully behind the project, and unleashed a 'fiscal event' seeking to achieve 'the benefits of Brexit'. That 'fiscal event' has actually downgraded the central aim of it, which was 'growth, growth, growth'.
Most commentators think that there's a simple measure that could be taken to improve growth, and that's to rejoin the Customs Union and the Single Market (see Norway's arrangement, as an example). While simple, any politician attempting to do this will attract the wrath of our press, and comments such as yours -- which are incorrect.

 

[GT49er]

Interesting that you thought this was one of her NSC-designated 'crimes'. You may now be aware that she didn't vote for Brexit but, since then, has got fully behind the project, and unleashed a 'fiscal event' seeking to achieve 'the benefits of Brexit'. That 'fiscal event' has actually downgraded the central aim of it, which was 'growth, growth, growth'.
Most commentators think that there's a simple measure that could be taken to improve growth, and that's to rejoin the Customs Union and the Single Market (see Norway's arrangement, as an example). While simple, any politician attempting to do this will attract the wrath of our press, and comments such as yours -- which are incorrect.

Bollocks. My post was a question, niot a comment, so by definition cannot be 'incorrect'.

 

[Springal]

He writes exactly as you’d expect

 

[Weststander]

I don't think she's egotistical, more an ideologue. That failed spectacularly under her watch. Yes, it was a daft experiment, but she's not wrong in the diagnosis that motivated it, which is the UK (and much of the affluent world) is in a low-growth regime.
Her ideological convictions that were foisted on us has ensured that 'growth, growth, growth' will be lower, lower, lower in the short term at the very least.
And the good news is JRM has resigned. He'll peddle his poison from the back benches. Like Truss' predecessor, the (ex)Minister for the 18th century has an ego.

She was also another opportunist. Other the years being a staunch Cameroon, then a Boris Brexiteer. Politicians are adept at this, at local and nation level, survival and power instincts.

Her tenure reminds me of Keegan’s and McLaren’s as England boss, out of their depth. But unlike Truss and McLaren, Keegan un-pushed resigned and immediately said to the press that he wasn’t quite good enough at that level.

It wasn’t just failing to take into account the financial markets, she lacked empathy and feel. The old sods in the constituencies who voted for her because she wasn’t Sunak shouldn’t have that power over us all.