I think folks like Gove, Johnson, Truss, Kwarteng don’t really need to additional help of cocaine to make them overconfident in their own abilities
Exactly. If you are brought up with that sense of extreme entitlement and self importance you inevitably lose any ability to honestly assess your competence and understand your limitations. Much more dangerous than cocaine.
When Kwarteng explained IT to Bill Gates
Its cocaine as well. The coke exacerbates what you say
The cocaine helped tho for sure.
Honestly if it helps you to think that's they're all doing lines between meetings, then go for your life. Personally I think it partly excuses their behaviour, and I think not only were they completely sober and straight when they made all their monumentally idiotic decisions, if they tried to excuse it by even hinting that they were on coke at the time it makes them all the worse for it.
They're lying incompetent arseholes, becasue they're lying incompetent arseholes not becasue they were off their faces
Cocaine was found in the grace and favour house after Truss and Kwartang had had a weekend there. Kwartang was clearly off his face during the queens funeral. Johnson was clearly using cocaine during covid - one report of him being very downbeat and glum in a meeting . Going into his office and going to the next meeting ebullient . ETC etc
don't be naive. A whole bunch of them were at it. The behaviour is obvious
It’s indicative I think of that era in our politics is that it was staffed by politicians who believed their own hype and that by just the force of their personality they could change reality to suit their needs.
It was all just a game for them. It was like one long extended stay at university where instead of going to a few lectures, an evening piss-up at the Union, smoke a bit of dope, shag one of the freshers etc, you're going to business meetings, high-flying social events, the dope has evolved into coke and you have interns and staffers instead of freshers.
And just like the days of university where you've got grants and the Bank of Mum & Dad and you're relatively free of consequences, in Government you've got expenses and the Bank of England plus you can write the laws effectively enough to avoid the consequences.
It was all one long game. Unfortunately, we - the people of the UK - were all the pawns.
Trusses budget was at least in part cocaine fuelled in that Kwantang clearly was full of drugs and vastly over confident as a result.
I always thought that neither of them had any confidence at all as it was basically an insider trade at a nation level. Done to give some hedge funds owners a big payout and tie them in to funding Truss going forward, before the Tories got turfed out en masse.
Anthony Seldon reckons Johnson was even less suited to the role of PM than Truss. Just ponder that for a moment.
Anthony Seldon reckons Johnson was even less suited to the role of PM than Truss. Just ponder that for a moment.
TBH, that is well beyond the point where comparison becomes meaningless. I'm sure there's a conjecture named after a philosopher/logician somewhere for this.
It's a bit like saying it is better to stick your hand in volcanic lava at 1200 Celsius than an iron smelter at 1800.
On the day of the first speech by a Labour chancellor for 14 years, Liz has popped up again to tell us all how she was right all along, if only she hadn’t been scuppered by those pesky lefties in the banking and financial ‘establishment’
I’m sure the rest of the Tory party are delighted to see her continued determination to unapologetically remind everyone what a catastrophic **** up she was for the week or so she was PM
All the self-awareness of a house brick, the emotional intelligence of a crocodile and weirdest of all she arranges her books on her shelves according to the colour of the cover. If they doesn’t scream psychopath then I don’t know what does
https://Twitter.com/trussliz/status/1838101872969687143?s=46&t=1lK7Dw1b6RqGJyvufO-trQ
Why just why.
Just f$_,k off and admit defeat of your failure as a human.
Liz Truss is on stage at the Conservative Party conference. The Guardian journo, Peter Walker, is live tweeting it, it's a mix of hilarity and batshit mental.
https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1840701075872989532?t=twGLXKm_yTzWGbgV_NA3ZA&s=19
Is Liz suffering from the brain eating worm that Kennedy is suffering from? Can someone fly her to America then get her passport cancelled - it’s clear America’s incoming government is very much aligned with her way of thinking… *facepalm*
And now she's sending letters threatening to sue Keir Starmer for libel.
Has she not heard of the Streisand effect?
Mrs self-awareness strikes again! I wonder if she’ll be threatening the Daily Star with legal action about the lettuce?
I loved this bit…
The former prime minister’s lawyers have said the remarks - made since the lead-up to the general election - are likely to “cause serious harm to her reputation”
What reputation is that Liz? Your one as an international laughing stock? You really couldn’t make it up…
Truss sends cease and desist to Starmer demanding he stop saying she crashed the economy
…Jonathan Gullis will be suing himself next for reputational damage preventing him from getting a new job!
after sues the fork he tries to eat soup with
Pretty sure defences to a defamation case include:
a) but it's true; and
b) her reputation was already trashed and suffered no further damage
An educated person would know that.
An educated person would know that.
Someone who has sold their reputation and self-awareness for a gig grifting from thick MAGA types wouldn't care.
It's not about truth or logic, it is about the message. Truth can be dismissed as an establishment conspiracy or similar.
Damage to reputation?
Wow! She’s in the news again which is all that matters to these ****ers.
I have absolutely no doubt that she said much much worse things about Starmer than he said about her in the election, a court case would be hilarious, just dragging her own mutterings, statements and factual actions into proceedings as legal evidence would be comedy gold.
An educated person would know that.
I think we have enough evidence from our leaders (and internationally) in the past 10 years that education and intelligence are not the same thing.
For the love of God do not look at the Liz Truss subreddit.
I just have, and I'm not sure I'm going to be right ever again.
Last year and the start of this year have been bloody awful. I need something to smile about.
Please, please, please let this go to court
Her timing is impeccable. On a day of pretty grim financial news for the Labour government, up she pops to remind everyone, just in case anyone had forgotten, exactly how much worse it was under her and her mates.
Surely someone in the Tory press office is going to have her bumped off before long?
David Allen Green has neatly dismantled it for her.
The irony of the former leader of the party that is absolutely the first and the worst at stooping to defaming slurs writing this cease and desist letter is infuriating
Please, please, please let this go to court
and please, please, please choose me for jury duty for that trial.
I am looking forward towards the Free Speech Union offering to support Starmer against her. I mean thats what they stand for, right?
Last year and the start of this year have been bloody awful. I need something to smile about.
Please, please, please let this go to court
Maybe we could have a whip round or gofundme to support her legal action, just for the joy of seeing her laughed out of court.
Sometimes I think there should be some sort of process where if someone makes spurious legal threats they should be forced to follow through with it, with appropriate consequences. Totally impractical of course but this sort of thing is really shitty, this particular case is funny of course but it happens every day, often to people who can't afford lawyers so even a completely meaningless threat can be crushing. There ought to be consequences and they ought to be easy to bring.
If ever there was a time to respond to Lizzy’s solicitors with, ‘I refer you to Arkell vs Pressdram’ it’s now.
Sometimes I think there should be some sort of process where if someone makes spurious legal threats they should be forced to follow through with it, with appropriate consequences. Totally impractical of course but this sort of thing is really shitty, this particular case is funny of course but it happens every day, often to people who can’t afford lawyers so even a completely meaningless threat can be crushing. There ought to be consequences and they ought to be easy to bring.
Unfortunately you have to let them file a court case against you, in order for you to have it thrown out.
The best reply to that is to call the bluff and simply reply..."see you in court, then?".
Threatening to sue someone is almost and admission that you have no case...if you did, you wouldn't be making threats, you'd just do it.
Has she and kamikaze been struck off from the FCA?
Has she and kamikaze been struck off from the FCA?
Truss is certainly not named.. as an individual, anyway, maybe she's using a shell company?
https://register.fca.org.uk/s/search?q=truss&type=Individuals
Sometimes I think there should be some sort of process where if someone makes spurious legal threats they should be forced to follow through with it, with appropriate consequences. Totally impractical of course but this sort of thing is really shitty, this particular case is funny of course but it happens every day, often to people who can’t afford lawyers so even a completely meaningless threat can be crushing. There ought to be consequences and they ought to be easy to bring.
The thing is,
Well, it's politics. It's "post-truth" embodied. Facts don't matter, it's obviously never going to see a courtroom; what matters is that the message gets out.
It's little different from the likes of the Daily Mail running headlines like "DO KIT-KATS CAUSE LEPROSY?" The answer is blatantly "no" but we're suddenly thrust into this Jamie and the Magic Torch-esque Cuckoo Land where Nestlé find themselves having to defend themselves and the very people targeted by this misinformation are shouting "well, can you prove they don't?"
The fact that Temu Thatcher has called for a retraction is sufficient evidence for the hard of thinking to believe that the accusations are invalid, because that's what they wanted to believe anyway. Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice...
Saw her missive referred to as “lettuce before action” which I found amusing.
She. Is. A. Disgrace.
Maybe we could have a whip round or gofundme to support her legal action, just for the joy of seeing her laughed out of court.
I wouldn't worry about that. Someone would fund it because...
The thing is,
Well, it’s politics. It’s “post-truth” embodied. Facts don’t matter, it’s obviously never going to see a courtroom; what matters is that the message gets out.
Cougar gets it. And it is something I've been banging on about for a while on various threads.
It simply doesn't matter to the likes of Truss and her backers.
The 'message' is out there.
Even if it ends like 'A Few Good Men' and Starmer is shouting at her "Did you deliberately crash the economy to give your mates a payout?" and she finally yells back "YOU'RE GODDAMNED RIGHT I DID"...
There's still a good few million people in the UK and US who are so far down the rabbithole that they'd be able to convince themselves it was all 'the establishment'.
Post-truth is a phrase that has gone out of vogue. But it describes perfectly the post-2016 era of politics in the US and UK, as well as probably many others.
The ‘message’ is out there.
Absolutely, that's the point. The current SM generation won't be able to find where and what they read 3 years ago on InstXwitterbook.
In four years time a whole new cohort will be eligible to vote
I get the ‘message’ angle, but if you tell pretty much anyone that she’s suing starmer because he said she crashed the economy is universally, across the spectrum (of my largely right leaning office it must be said) is ‘but she did?’
The fact that Temu Thatcher has called for a retraction is sufficient evidence for the hard of thinking to believe that the accusations are invalid,
Not necessarily. Its equally likely to have people think "so why is she needing to deny something which is false"? which all good dubious campaigning types know is useful. Set up a leading/loaded question that your opponent has to deny and you get into peoples head they are guilty.
Thick Lizzy & Chemikazhi's budget wiped 20% of the value of my meager stocks & shares ISA.
That felt like a crash to me.
Thick Lizzy has written more books than she's read.
The Daily Mash suggests Truss might be sued by a lettuce for deformation.
Bluesky has a whole thread of Gilbert & Sullivan inspired lyrics on this. It's brilliantly done!
https://bsky.app/profile/stevepeers.bsky.social/post/3lfeu72p6ak2f
