[Wellsy]

I don't think she's got any answers and she's not particularly likeable, she doesn't interview well, and she's said some very unpopular things. They lunatic base love her but their choice will be one the public rejects imo.

[petejh]

She's not trying to appeal to the general public, she's talking to the tory membership who will elect her or Sunak. So she's saying things they like to hear. Like Toby says if she's elected then, if she has any sense, she'll probably start talking differently to appeal to a wider general public electorate. That's when their real policies will emerge blinking in the daylight.
It's all bullshit, uttered by wankers, listened to mostly by arseholes, and reported on by cunts. I may have got the order the wrong way around.

[TobyD]

She's not trying to appeal to the general public, she's talking to the tory membership who will elect her or Sunak. So she's saying things they like to hear. Like Toby says if she's elected then, if she has any sense, she'll probably start talking differently to appeal to a wider general public electorate. That's when their real policies will emerge blinking in the daylight.
It's all bullshit, uttered by wankers, listened to mostly by arseholes, and reported on by cunts. I may have got the order the wrong way around.

Sounds about right. Truss is politically clearly not a fool. Look at how long she's had a cabinet job for, and how many different positions she's adopted to suit the situation.

[tommytwotone]

She's not trying to appeal to the general public, she's talking to the tory membership who will elect her or Sunak. So she's saying things they like to hear. Like Toby says if she's elected then, if she has any sense, she'll probably start talking differently to appeal to a wider general public electorate.

If she (or less likely Sunak) had any morals / sense of fair play they would call a GE after they have been installed.

[Wellsy]

I'm aware she's saying what she's saying to appeal to the party, but I don't think she'll be able to reconcile that with the electorate. She'll always be beholden to the party in some way, and she'll always be unlikeable and unpopular in the public at large. Her and the party also don't have any solutions to the problems we face, so she ain't going to alleviate the crises either.

[SA Chris]

If she (or less likely Sunak) had any morals / sense of fair play they would call a GE after they have been installed.

They don't and they won't

[petejh]

This. But also, any politician of any party would be stupid and politically incompetent to call a general election now, in the midst of the current inflationary environment when they don't need to hold one until 2024 at latest. Gives them time for things to calm down, whether or not they're capable of doing anything much to solve the problems.

[spidermonkey09]

This. But also, any politician of any party would be stupid and politically incompetent to call a general election now, in the midst of the current inflationary environment when they don't need to hold one until 2024 at latest. Gives them time for things to calm down, whether or not they're capable of doing anything much to solve the problems.

Plus the fact that the boundary changes slated for 2023 will be in place by 2024 which is worth about 25 seats to the Tories from memory, so there is little to no chance of a GE.

[tommytwotone]

This. But also, any politician of any party would be stupid and politically incompetent to call a general election now, in the midst of the current inflationary environment when they don't need to hold one until 2024 at latest. Gives them time for things to calm down, whether or not they're capable of doing anything much to solve the problems.

If I were leader of the opposition I'd be making the point about the Prime Minister's lack of legitimacy on a weekly basis at PMQs. Not that I guess the current mess is something you would want to inherit.

[petejh]

I expect that when it suits them, plenty of Labour MPs and supporters will argue that people vote for parties and policies, not personalities*. In which case the retort to you would be that, based on the last election, as leader of the opposition you’re in no position to be arguing about legitimacy.


* This however is probably bollocks.

[spidermonkey09]

Given Gordon Brown came into office via a complete stitch up which didn't even involve a leadership contest I think it would be an easy line to counter.

[tommytwotone]

Given Gordon Brown came into office via a complete stitch up which didn't even involve a leadership contest I think it would be an easy line to counter.

Yeah, I mean that was only 15 years ago...the last 2 Tory PMs (over the last 6 years!) who were ushered in via their byzantine leadership process decided the need for a GE to verify their mandate so in terms of recent precedent, I'd be leaning on that!

[seankenny]

Perhaps an unpopular view but voting for an MP and hence a majority party is better than a presidential system precisely because we can change Prime Ministers in-between elections. This gives us a degree of flexibility if the current incumbent runs out of road and allows parties to change tack if the leader becomes untenable. The current Tory madness of appealing to party members rather than the country, good sense or even just Tory voters has been perfectly matched on the left, which is why Labour was saddled with Corbyn even though most of his MPs recognised his uselessness.  And by Brown of course.

I suspect Truss will be a disaster not because she has over promised her right wing, or because she is over-contrarian, but because the Conservatives currently have no idea of the point of government any more.

[teestub]

Perhaps an unpopular view but voting for an MP and hence a majority party is better than a presidential system precisely because we can change Prime Ministers in-between elections.

I think I’ve always misunderstood this, I thought that countries with presidents had them alongside a PM figure (Leader of the House etc.) and they we didn’t have a president because the monarch was still fulfilling that role?

[tommytwotone]

Yeah, as I understand it while the Prime Minister runs the government, Her Maj ultimately has the power to remove them.

In a presidential system, I don't know who wields the power to remove a rogue President (as arguably we've seen with Trump etc)

[seankenny]

Perhaps an unpopular view but voting for an MP and hence a majority party is better than a presidential system precisely because we can change Prime Ministers in-between elections.

I think I’ve always misunderstood this, I thought that countries with presidents had them alongside a PM figure (Leader of the House etc.) and they we didn’t have a president because the monarch was still fulfilling that role?

The Presidents of France and the US get - as far as I understand it - a personal mandate to rule from the electorate, and the head of state role also has executive powers. Whereas we vote for MPs to be our representatives and then they vote for a leader, mediated by a party system which gives members a day (too much say in my view).

I remember reading that parliamentary systems are thought to be a bit more stable than presidential ones, and that the US view (or at least the view of its policy making class) generally supported this assessment, being as they installed parliamentary systems in Germany, Japan and Iraq.

[mrjonathanr]

I don’t see how the systems are too similar given that the queen is a figurehead head of state who abstains from anything legislative (apart from secretly in her own narrow interest, of course), whereas a president has a mandate and seeks to I,plement an agenda. Of course that might lead to deadlock where the president and the house majority are from different parties.

[TobyD]

Perhaps an unpopular view but voting for an MP and hence a majority party is better than a presidential system precisely because we can change Prime Ministers in-between elections.

I think I’ve always misunderstood this, I thought that countries with presidents had them alongside a PM figure (Leader of the House etc.) and they we didn’t have a president because the monarch was still fulfilling that role?

The Presidents of France and the US get - as far as I understand it - a personal mandate to rule from the electorate, and the head of state role also has executive powers. Whereas we vote for MPs to be our representatives and then they vote for a leader, mediated by a party system which gives members a day (too much say in my view).

I remember reading that parliamentary systems are thought to be a bit more stable than presidential ones, and that the US view (or at least the view of its policy making class) generally supported this assessment, being as they installed parliamentary systems in Germany, Japan and Iraq.

I think that parties giving their members a vote on the leadership is an awful thing.  It produces the likes of Corbyn and Johnson,  and often leaders who don't have the support of their MPs. 

The British PM has far too much unregulated power, its become almost presidential without the checks and balances which are present in actual presidencies.  This leads to,  for example Johnson trying to put his mates into every quango going,  or the house of lords,  or both. The PM decides when to have an election,  when by elections are held, and so on... none of which the US president can. Bad as Trump was, he really didn't get very much done. The fact that Johnson hasn't either has more to do with the fact he is lazy and incompetent than anything else.

On Truss, I think you're all underestimating her, I think she is if anything,  a more worrying prospect than Johnson. 

[TobyD]

https://news.sky.com/story/michael-gove-backs-rishi-sunak-for-tory-leader-as-he-accuses-liz-truss-of-taking-holiday-from-reality-12677032

[Wellsy]

If Gove thinks you are mental you may be fucking insane

[teestub]

https://news.sky.com/story/michael-gove-backs-rishi-sunak-for-tory-leader-as-he-accuses-liz-truss-of-taking-holiday-from-reality-12677032

"I cannot see how safeguarding the stock options of FTSE 100 executives should ever take precedence over supporting the poorest in our society, but at a time of want it cannot be the right priority."

Things you can say when you’re not getting anywhere near the Tory front benches again! And from someone who initially backed Kemi Badenoch?!

[TobyD]

If Gove thinks you are mental you may be fucking insane

Underestimating Truss is a mistake,  I don't think she's insane,  she's more dangerous than that. You can see how committed to social equality she is though, JRMogg is mooted as her levelling up minister...

[TobyD]

On the other hand, this is from Matthew Paris' Times article today:

In Times columns I’ve offered my first impressions of this candidate. They were that she was intellectually shallow, her convictions wafer-thin; that she was driven by ambition pure and simple; that her manner was wooden and her ability to communicate convincingly to an electorate wider than the narrow band of Tory activists was virtually non-existent; that she was dangerously impulsive and headstrong, with a self-belief unattended by precaution; and that her leadership of the Conservative Party and our country would be a tragedy for both. “There’s nothing there,” I wrote last December, “nothing beyond a leaping self-confidence that’s almost endearing in its wide-eyed disregard for the forces of political gravity.” I likened any decision to follow Johnson with Truss to the doner kebab which, after a night on the tiles, momentarily seems like a good idea — until you open the bread pouch.
Liz Truss is a planet-sized mass of overconfidence and ambition teetering upon a pinhead of a political brain. It must all come crashing down. Her biggest job has been foreign secretary. Does she join her new best friend, Tom Tugendhat, in condemning the UN security council for its criticism of illegal Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory? Does she really want to “review” (as she’s suggested) Britain’s decision not to join the Americans in moving our embassy to Jerusalem? What did she mean by saying Britain’s civil service culture “strays into antisemitism”? These explosive hip shots are only indicative.


Ouch.

[seankenny]

On Truss, I think you're all underestimating her, I think she is if anything,  a more worrying prospect than Johnson.

Truss is very likely to be an extremely bad PM with many of Johnson’s faults and some more of her own. But I think the type of damage she will do will be dictated by events: she will be so busy dealing very badly with the various upcoming crises that she won’t have the time or energy to put in too many damaging ideas of her own. Governmental capacity is a thing (good piece here on how crises limited Obama’s room to act - https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/barack-obama-was-a-successful-president).

She’ll still manage to do a few very stupid and damaging things with possibly long term consequences. But mostly sins of omission. Maybe?

[mrjonathanr]

And knee-jerk culture war nonsense to shore up support and distract from failing to cope with reality.