The massive lurch to of the right by the struggling / left behind / forgotten people of this country would suggest something to the contrary.
That's because we needed fivem more years of Tory rule to make the point to them.
There's always been just enough people doing okay (maybe through cheap debt) - and just enough racism to keep all that in check.
We're all the same colour once we have no money.
Again, history suggests otherwise, but I hope you are right.
As far as I could tell, Binners’ vitriol was because he was a labour supporter
Binners must now be a Tory supporter, based on his vitriol aimed at the previous and current leaders of the Tory Party! 😊
After Cameron, May, Johnson, and now Truss, surely the game must be up?
Never underestimate the electorate's ability to vote for worse candidates and the Conservative's ability to find them. We all thought Cameron and then May were the bottom of the barrel, we forgot that there are multiple barrels.
Again, history suggests otherwise, but I hope you are right.
The thing is, this energy crisis is unprecedented. Never have we seen so many people staring into the abyss, in such a short timescale.
There will be middle income people unable to pay the all of their bills this winter.
Binner's meltdown about Corybn was quite incredible. I can't think of anyone I've ever been so upset about, and we're talking about people that have literally stolen my stuff or physically attacked me. That a forum member would achieve levels of something approaching fame for relentlessly attacking the leader which his fellow party members elected overwhelmingly rather sums up Labour's problem, not to mention the left in this country in general (critically, such problems are not shared by the shapeshifting Tories).
I don't really blame Corbyn for all of this.
I do blame people who blame Corbyn for all of this and the long list of enabling idiots including Cameron, Gideon, Farage, May, DUP, ERG, Johnson, Putin, Trump and most of the the good old UK electorate who rarely know what they're actually voting for.
ignore
That’s not to say she isn’t extremely savvy – for one thing she’s PM and you and I aren’t.
I'm not sure seeking that particular Job qualifies someone as "Savvy" these days.
"Ambitious" perhaps, maybe even "overconfident" but definately not savvy.
“Ambitious” perhaps, maybe even “overconfident” but definately not savvy.
Ambition alone wouldn't get you the gig. She knows what to say and to whom - underestimating that would be a huge mistake I very much hope the opposition doesn't make.
That’s not to say she isn’t extremely savvy
Doesn't mean she is, either.
Rather begs the question: is she?
Corbyn and his semi-skinned flavour of European socialism are history and won't be back for a generation at least. The fact he's still so often brought up speaks volumes about the nuisance he made. Despite now being largely irrelevant, what he represented needs to be denigrated at every opportunity, because it was a highly subversive ideology to the narrow interests which currently have the narrative of this country stitched up. The inane Truss "interview" by Kussenberg case in point - imagine she'd had Corybn on! Jesus Christ!
Doesn’t mean she is, either.
Rather begs the question: is she?
I answered your question, which you omitted from your edited quote.
I think history rather shows the opposite, people who are struggling tend to focus first and foremost on themselves and family which is understandable. It’s the middle classes who tend to think more about others, it’s a lot easier to be generous when you’re comfortably off.
not disagreeing, but if you're poor and focussing first and formost on yourself, isn't the answer going to be fairly left-wing? its only when you're richer than the average person (or have ambition to be so) that low tax/small state appears benefitial to you
She’ll always be Thick Lizzie to me.
Or Mary O'Leary.
I’m not sure seeking that particular Job qualifies someone as “Savvy” these days.
“Ambitious” perhaps, maybe even “overconfident” but definately not savvy.
Callous?
I answered your question, which you omitted from your edited quote.
I did, because it was a faulty conclusion. I know plenty of people who are shit at their jobs (google "Peter Principle"). We've had a succession of PMs for whom "savvy" would be a reach. Would you describe May as savvy?
Lucky, maybe. Privileged, certainly. Savvy? Who knows.
I did, because it was a faulty conclusion. I know plenty of people who are shit at their jobs (google “Peter Principle”).
Ah, so ask a question, dismiss the answer without the courtesy of actually replying to it, then shift the goalposts. Classy.
Speaking of faulty conclusions, being "shit at a job" has very little to do with the point I was making.
When plcs are failing frequently the last thing they do is appoint a female ceo (true fact that)
"That a forum member would achieve levels of something approaching fame for relentlessly attacking the leader which his fellow party members elected overwhelmingly rather sums up Labour’s problem"
You do realise that Liz Truss got where she is today with 'the overwhelming support of party members' as well don't you?
This is what happens when you cleave to the interests of a dedicated and extreme minority, when you put the interests of a hundred thousand or so members with a party card above those of elected politicians who represent the whole electorate having won an election that everyone was able to vote in.
Left to their own devices the Tory MP's would have likely selected someone more sensible to lead the country.
Left to their own devices the Labour MP's would likely have elected someone more sensible to lead their party.
"When plcs are failing frequently the last thing they do is appoint a female ceo (true fact that)"
Ditto with the office of Chancellor when the economy begins to tank.
Javed, Sunak, Zwarhiri and then Possibly Kwarteng.
Truss is thick. No question at all. We ate back to the multiple types of intelligence. She is dim on most of them. Cunning and ruthless tho
Ah, so ask a question, dismiss the answer without the courtesy of actually replying to it, then shift the goalposts. Classy.
What -are- you talking about?
Still doesn't answer the question, either.
Just listened to her victory speech
She says the campaign was "hard-fought" and showed "the depth and breadth of talent" in the party.
Well, indeed, that's the problem.
When plcs are failing frequently the last thing they do is appoint a female ceo (true fact that)
Right-o. What's your point?
What’s wrong with being a Liberal Democrat?? (asking for a friend)
Tory enablers. All they have done post war bar the short lived lib lab pact is split the vote on the left and ensured we get tory governments. That and directly supported Tories
Left to their own devices the Tory MP’s would have likely selected someone more sensible to lead the country.
Didn't they pick the final 2?
All they have done post war bar the short lived lib lab pact is split the vote on the left
Hang on, how have they split the left? If half of Labour aren't left then the Lib Dems certainly aren't. By your logic they may have split the right, but not the left, surely?
Left to their own devices the Tory MP’s would have likely selected someone more sensible to lead the country.
Did you not follow the Tory leadership election?
Tory MPs selected the two candidates that were put to Tory Party members. Are you suggesting that it would have been better to leave it all to Tory MPs because they would have chosen Sunak?
If so can you explain why Sunak would have been a more "sensible" choice and also why you feel confident that he would have won?
Tory enablers. All they have done post war bar the short lived lib lab pact is split the vote on the left and ensured we get tory governments. That and directly supported Tories
...whilst over in the Labour Party they elected Ed Milliband and Jeremy Corbyn as leaders, and in doing so lost a load of the swinging votes from the left, indirectly supporting the Tories.
But mainly I blame Cameron for being such a spineless ****t.
I know plenty of people who are shit at their jobs (google “Peter Principle”)
Peter principle doesnt really support your case since its about getting promoted beyond level of competence due to previous success eg if the person had stopped at the previous level they would have been great.
Getting to PM needs lots of previous success.
May was certainly savvy enough to reach the top rung. The problem is the recruitment requirements are completely different from the actual job requirements and so the savviness required for the former doesnt necessarily help in the day job.
whilst over in the Labour Party they elected Ed Milliband and Jeremy Corbyn as leaders, and in doing so lost a load of the swinging votes from the left
Lost me.
Lost me.
Elections are won and lost by capturing the swinging vote - essentially the voters in the middle who are generally asked to pick the best of the crap options available. When Labour elected Milliband, and to a much greater extent Corbyn, enough of that vote decided that they could see neither as PM so voted Tory as the Least Worst Option.
In the past I would have suggested that the more sophisticated and cerebral tories may have stepped back to allow these lightweights to take the flak with failure on the horizon but I can't think of anyone who fits that description.
So many dense people and IBS in the cabinet who claimed to be a Turin graduate when he only did a language course there and changed his name from Ian Smith.
What -are- you talking about?
Still doesn’t answer the question, either.
You asked a question. I answered it. You ignored my response and decided to talk about something else.
Suit yourself - I'm not playing.
Cold War Steve on good form as usual
Elections are won and lost by capturing the swinging vote
It isn't simply about that, it is also about turnout. Elections are often won and lost because for whatever reasons one party's supporters don't vote in sufficient numbers on the day. Motivating and inspiring your supporters is hugely important.
When Labour elected Milliband, and to a much greater extent Corbyn, enough of that vote decided that they could see neither as PM so voted Tory as the Least Worst Option.
It is the other way round. Labour under Miliband received significantly less votes in the the 2015 general election than they did in the 2017 and 2019 general elections under Corbyn.
Amazing that they actually went and elected Truss, I genuinely thought the membership wouldn't be this bonkers
Wasn't exactly a resounding endorsement: lowest majority of any Tory PM
And it's already being used against her
https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1566762513307471874?t=JyJwU4XEWyP7VgNC1BN9Jg&s=19
We denigrate Cameron for being a spineless weasel but he did exactly what was asked of him. The Tory party saw a split in their right wing vote with the rise of UKIP. They saw this threat and acted accordingly. The fact that it may have cost the nation trillions of pounds and split the union is irrelevant to them, it saved the party. They're stronger now than the year before the brexit vote, that is all that matters.
The old rules about fairness and economic growth no longer apply, it's all about the party. The Tories know who votes and they know the 'left' are split across three major parties.
The left is busy being fair and admitting that the challenges we face are nuanced. The Tories know that this doesn't matter. All that matters is soundbites to your core voters and smashing any threat to the 'blue' vote.
For this reason we will have a Tory government for the next 50 yrs.
Wasn’t exactly a resounding endorsement: lowest majority of any Tory PM
Thats the amazing part really. That it was so close rather than a complete walk in the park.
Only problem is that does make her weak and so more vulnerable to the right wing nuts.
We denigrate Cameron for being a spineless weasel but he did exactly what was asked of him. The Tory party saw a split in their right wing vote with the rise of UKIP. They saw this threat and acted accordingly.
Don't blame it all on them. Cameron will undoubtedly have been aware of Liberal Democrat demands for a referendum on EU membership.
https://www.libdemvoice.org/vince-cable-on-european-referendum-1609.html
"Tomorrow the Liberal Democrats will table an amendment to the Government’s parliamentary motion proposing the Queen’s Speech. Our amendment calls for a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union."
Wasn't Vince shouting into an empty bucket in 2007?
The left is busy being fair and admitting that the challenges we face are nuanced. The Tories know that this doesn’t matter. All that matters is soundbites to your core voters and smashing any threat to the ‘blue’ vote.
Indeed. Oh for something more akin to this...
12 years of Tory Govt has depreciated Sterling by 30% against the Dollar - will Truss continue the trend?
No one on STW has attacked a Labour Party leader more than binners has.
That's a little pot and kettle tbf, tbh!
