The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[bannedfromHandV]

14 minutes ago, bickster said:

She didn't top the MP's poll even in the final round

Get that but she was originally put forward by serving Tory MP’s right? 

[ml1dch]

5 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Get that but she was originally put forward by serving Tory MP’s right? 

She was nominated by an original 20 in order to stand. In the first round of MP voting, she got the backing of 30 more. That steadily increased as other candidates were eliminated and their support transferred to her, until 113 MPs backed her against the 137 who backed Sunak.

Edited September 29, 2022 by ml1dch

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Get that but she was originally put forward by serving Tory MP’s right? 

Obviously. She's an ERG puppet

I said this a while ago but when you have a spare minute, have a look at the current list of Tory MPs. Look at the one's you've never heard of (which will be an awful lot) and then look how long they've actually been in parliament. A considerable number will have a) been there a very long time and b) never held a position of even minor importance. Lots of Tory MPs are just incapable of anything other than collecting a paycheck, claiming expenses and walking through the right door at the right time.

[bannedfromHandV]

2 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

She was nominated by an original 20 in order to stand. In the first round of MP voting, she got the backing of 30 more. That steadily increased as other candidates were eliminated and their support transferred to her, until 113 MPs backed her against the 137 who backed Sunak.

So this could all be entirely deliberate then.

I’d imagine that the MP’s will have known that the chances of the Tory members choosing Sunak would be low, at best.

[AshVilla]

35 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

Vote of no confidence.

Tory MPs please please do it now. All of you. Look at yourselves and do it NOW.

They can't can they.

I thought there has to be a year in between each one or something.

[Genie]

1 minute ago, bannedfromHandV said:

So this could all be entirely deliberate then.

I’d imagine that the MP’s will have known that the chances of the Tory members choosing Sunak would be low, at best.

He got over 60,000 votes to her 81,000 so not really “never gonna happen”.

I wonder how many would change their vote now if they could?

[HKP90]

1 minute ago, AshVilla said:

They can't can they.

I thought there has to be a year in between each one or something.

Didn't they change the rules to get rid of Boris? 

[ml1dch]

Just now, AshVilla said:

They can't can they.

I thought there has to be a year in between each one or something.

Any new leader is safe from a VONC for the first year of their time as leader. Unless they change the rules, which if enough of them say they want to, they would. 

[Genie]

1 minute ago, AshVilla said:

They can't can they.

I thought there has to be a year in between each one or something.

I think there has to be a year between VONC for the same person.

[Genie]

Just now, HKP90 said:

Didn't they change the rules to get rid of Boris? 

They didn’t need to in the end as his first line turned on him.

[HKP90]

2 minutes ago, Genie said:

They didn’t need to in the end as his first line turned on him.

Then let's do that. 

 

Besides, there has not as yet been a VONC for Truss, just Boris. Does that help? I'm clutching at straws here.

[ml1dch]

5 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

Then let's do that. 

 

Besides, there has not as yet been a VONC for Truss, just Boris. Does that help? I'm clutching at straws here.

 

No. Because the current rules say they can't be challenged in the first year, and I think the MPs probably know that the public isn't going to stomach another leadership naval-gaze even if they could get rid of her. 

Edited September 29, 2022 by ml1dch

[HKP90]

Just now, ml1dch said:

 

No. Because the current rules say they can't be challenged in the first year, and I think the MPs probably know that the public isn't going to stomach another leadership naval-gaze even if they could get rid of her. 

Under the circumstances, I'll stomach it. Look at me stomaching it. This country is on the verge of self imposed economic implosion.  

[Davkaus]

I've written to my one-term red wall Tory MP just for the hilarity of whatever nonsense he writes back trying to defend this disaster

[blandy]

1 hour ago, bannedfromHandV said:

It has to make you think that everything we’re seeing is totally deliberate.

The Tory party folks must have known Truss would be a car crash when it came to having to do something like speaking, because she’s proved herself entirely incapable of doing it in the past.

So why was she chosen as leader? Why was she even nominated in the first place?

I really don’t think it’s beyond reason that they know they’re totally screwed already for the next GE following the Boris shambles and they just needed an idiot to throw under the bus, someone totally redundant to the future of the party, step forward Liz Truss.

She is going to get destroyed at PMQ’s.

There's about 3 or 4 separate factors in here.

Deliberate - yes, absolutely. And here's how and why: For ages, there has been a core of "think-tanks" whose funding is anonymous, all based at the same single address in London (Tufton Street) - who have got a fair chunk of media exposure and access on stuff like Questions time and News shows, whose core aims are unfettered free market capitalism and libertarianism, anti climate action and so on. These people appear to be a sort of niche, extreme thinking group who have never experienced either being in any position of power (with the odd exception) and who are massively detached from reality, but they have their theories as to how if the government of the day would only do what we want, then (their) Utopia will come about.

Now that group had some relatively minor influence on the tories over the past decade or so - pushing for Bexit, pushing for Tax cuts and so on - but they were confined to the extreme Brexity edge of Conservatism. But then they got more influence when Johnson allied with them for his own ambitions, and they became more influential. When Bunter had to go because lying and corruption etc. the leadership election happened. Truss was their preferred candidate, as she is a kind of contrarian "thinker", convinced that the system and the establishment is wrong and that what's needed is unorthodox "plans".

Now the Tory MPs didn't choose her, she came third, I think, until the various horse trading went on, but once she got onto the final 2 and membership ballot, she knew how to tickle the membership, whereas Sunak was (relatively) new to Politics and never a schmoozer of the membership as Truss has been.

So now she's in power, along with Kwarteng (who shares the same outlook and is in with these Tufton street crazies).

Result, the uncosted min budget event on Friday actually doing what all the weird, anonymously funded think tank people had been whispering in the ears of Truss and Kwarteng to do. It hadn't been "stress tested". Truss and Kwarteng hadn't run it past the OBR, they hadn't listened to the Financial institutions or the CBI or whoever. They just went with the extreme libertarian think tank "thinking". And entirely unsurprisingly to most of the country, they crashed the economy, forcing the bank of England to intervene to limit the damage caused by rogue, untested, free market notions actually being implemented. So reducing taxes at the same time as borrowing more (Gilts) made the gilts suddenly less valuable, as the City don't remotely view what's being implemented as credible or responsible, so as Gilts fall in value, pension funds who hold a lot of them are forced to sell them, but there's no demand for a devaluing asset, so the supply exceeds demand, so their value falls further...so the BoE has to commit to buying these devalued assets to stop the vicious circle and stop pension funds going bust. Meanwhile the pound falls in value as investors think the UK is looking a basket case so imports increase in cost, which means higher inflation, which means Gov't borrowing is more expensive, which means bigger deficit and bigger interest payments... more pain. And Kwarteng at the weekend doubled down, saying there will be even more tax cuts to come, which further spooks the market...

But the think tank folk or at least their investor chums had meanwhile shorted on the pound - borrowing pounds for a week at last weeks value, immediately selling it at the same value for dollars, then buying the borrowed money with the dollars, but at this week's lower price and repaying the number of pounds borrowed  - keeping the difference in the price they bought at around £1:13 and what they bought it back at (around £1:05) so 8p on every pound they borrowed is profit for them. And they knew what was coming because it was their idea, and they knew Kwarteng would do it, because he told them so.

And finally, Truss was on the list of MPs to go into the leader election because she didn't have a pandemic job  (health, education etc), instead she was distanced from that shambles because she was swanning around abroad and largely replicating pre-Brexit trade deals where she could and claiming to have "delivered" - so she was to an extent untarnished by the scandals.

She wasn't as bad at PMQ's as I thought she'd be last time, but that was before she'd had a chance to blow off both her own feet with a shotgun, terrify the city, terrify the population and wipe out any potential credit for the energy handout (though she did that all wrong as well, but the result is sort of positive for the time being).

or if that is all TLDR: because she's a Thatcherite.

[Chindie]

Greatest hits compilation.

[Genie]

For a laugh, I might write to Christopher Pincher and ask what his thoughts on all of this are.

[Davkaus]

I think this "local consent" for fracking will work in much the same way as the Russian referendums in Ukrainian regions.

[Chindie]

1 minute ago, Genie said:

For a laugh, I might write to Christopher Pincher and ask what his thoughts on all of this are.

One suspects his response would be along the lines of what are you wearing and do you like big old todgers.

[ender4]

The BBC showed parts of the morning interviews on the 1pm news. 

Somehow they managed to pick only the bits where she sounded coherent and none of the bits which have been posted in this thread where she hasn't got a clue what is going on.