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

[Genie]

1 minute ago, ender4 said:

 

What did the Green Party do to piss people off?

Labours pledge for green energy tempted  them switch across. 

[Mark Albrighton]

2 minutes ago, ender4 said:

 

What did the Green Party do to piss people off?

I think (but not totally sure) that Labour have made some positive noises on green issues. Might account for a bit of it.

[ml1dch]

I can't remember ever tuning in to watch a leader's conference speech, but I might make an exception for Truss. What does she say?

[Genie]

I might book the day off for the first PMQ’s, it’s going to be blockbuster.

[ciggiesnbeer]

9 hours ago, ender4 said:

So Liz Truss has just finished her 8th radio interview this morning, all on different local radio stations.  Anyone hear what she said?

Yes, she always changes the subject to talk about  the support for energy bills (the only bit that is mildy supported by everyone) . She steadfastly has ignored questions about the financial crisis caused by the other measures in the budget and refuses to answer questions about tax cuts and the mortgage changes and the IMF sounding the alarm bells and the Bank of England freaking out.
 

Very head in the sand and out of her depth vibes sadly.

I have watched one interview with the Chancellor he was towing the same line of "it would be much worse if we hadnt created this crisis last week" which doesnt make any sense to me but there you go.

Everyone makes mistakes, its frustrating politicians simply refuse to acknowledge them. They could remove this crisis tomorrow. They could have a trade deal with the USA tomorrow. But stubbornness and the doubling down on mistakes is a hall mark of Tories for the past 10 years or more.

Edited September 29, 2022 by ciggiesnbeer

[bickster]

 

[Genie]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

 

Haha, did they not get the memo about saying nice things?

[Genie]

Does anyone still think it would have been worse under Labour? 

[mjmooney]

2 minutes ago, Genie said:

Does anyone still think it would have been worse under Labour? 

I suspect there are plenty who still think it would have been worse under Corbyn. Starmer is a rather more saleable product. That said, it's still a long time until the next GE, and I suspect the Tory-controlled media are keeping their powder dry for their future smear campaigns. 

[Stevo985]

32 minutes ago, Genie said:

Labours pledge for green energy tempted  them switch across. 

Or people are so pissed off with the Tories they've decided to vote for a party who could actually win an election rather than waste their vote

[ml1dch]

16 minutes ago, bickster said:

 

Even in 1997 Labour's lead was only 13 points at the time of the election. Still feels very "gone a goal up too early" for this to stick. But nor is it easy to see where the support comes back from. 

[Panto_Villan]

2 minutes ago, Genie said:

Does anyone still think it would have been worse under Labour? 

Under Starmer, or indeed any Labour general election candidate since Blair other than Jeremy Corbyn? No, of course not.

But what’s unfolding here is the catastrophic “stubborn leader who doesn’t believe in orthodox economics” scenario, which is a major reason why large numbers of people would rather hold their noses and vote for Boris rather than see Corbyn in office.

In fact, Corbyn could actually have been worse than this. Not necessarily because of his ideas, but simply because he’d have a full four year term and a mandate. Hopefully the fact Truss is an unelected leader means she’ll face a major rebellion if she carries on down this path.

[Jareth]

Best thing the tories can do is hold their hands up, swap leader, and get the economy back on track before next election. Worst thing they can do is to keep Truss in charge. Bozza must be drooling at this prospect. 

[ciggiesnbeer]

11 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

Under Starmer, or indeed any Labour general election candidate since Blair other than Jeremy Corbyn? No, of course not.

But what’s unfolding here is the catastrophic “stubborn leader who doesn’t believe in orthodox economics” scenario, which is a major reason why large numbers of people would rather hold their noses and vote for Boris rather than see Corbyn in office.

In fact, Corbyn could actually have been worse than this. Not necessarily because of his ideas, but simply because he’d have a full four year term and a mandate. Hopefully the fact Truss is an unelected leader means she’ll face a major rebellion if she carries on down this path.

Fwiw I think Corbyn would have had the UK in a far better economic position, not as good as remaining in the EU of course but better than this.

I still worry what would have happened if Corbyn was in power when Russia invaded Ukraine but to be fair to him thats unproven. He may have listened to the FO advice and done the same good  job as Johnson with Ukraine (the only thing Johnson did well imho).

Edited September 29, 2022 by ciggiesnbeer

[foreveryoung]

Lets hope she don't get involved in  a war. 

She would probably, pre-empt a bombing a campaign, might work, might not, we would have to wait and see what comes back. But if it does work.............

[blandy]

6 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

But what’s unfolding here is the catastrophic “stubborn leader who doesn’t believe in orthodox economics” scenario, which is a major reason why large numbers of people would rather hold their noses and vote for Boris rather than see Corbyn in office

I think there’s at least something in that characterisation, in terms of their unorthodoxy and rejection of conventional understanding. Of a seemingly blind adherence to certain beliefs, whatever the evidence or circumstances are.

While a lot of people maybe won’t have had much of an idea or impression of Truss until the last few days, there’s an awful lot of people now who will form an indelible impression of her as “what an absolute disaster she is”.

[Davkaus]

All of the lefty snowflakes are piling on

 

[ciggiesnbeer]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

I think there’s at least something in that characterisation, in terms of their unorthodoxy and rejection of conventional understanding. Of a seemingly blind adherence to certain beliefs, whatever the evidence or circumstances are.

While a lot of people maybe won’t have had much of an idea or impression of Truss until the last few days, there’s an awful lot of people now who will form an indelible impression of her as “what an absolute disaster she is”.

Insightful. This is the first time many voters have seen Liz truss "in action" as it were instead of talking about governing how she actually governs. I think its fair to use the words "incompetent and willfully ignorant".

To think she could have come back from the USA with a trade deal if she had done what will inevitably have to be done  anyway. Implement the agreement the Tories signed with the EU over N.Ireland. 

Edited September 29, 2022 by ciggiesnbeer

[Chindie]

6 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

All of the lefty snowflakes are piling on

 

Treacherous Remainer.

[Panto_Villan]

12 minutes ago, ciggiesnbeer said:

Fwiw I think Corbyn would have had the UK in a far better economic position, not as good as remaining in the EU of course but better than this.

I still worry what would have happened if Corbyn was in power when Russia invaded Ukraine but to be fair to him thats unproven. He may have listened to the FO advice and done the same good  job as Johnson with Ukraine (the only thing Johnson did well imho).

Yes, the Ukraine situation is another concern I’d have had with Corbyn.
 

Re: the EU, I think there’s value in having the Tories in power after Brexit (especially with Corbyn being more Eurosceptic than the Labour Party in general). It makes the inevitable betrayal narrative less convincing.

Brexiteers would love to foist Brexit on the country, then hand it over to Labour with all its unsolvable contradictions. That way they could complain forever about whatever solution Labour came up with and blame all future problems on that.