Truss doesn’t have a plan for growth.

I don’t think other than her personal financial situation she has ANY plan whatsoever.

So we have gone from claiming that Truss is sticking to the narrative outlined in Britannia Unchained, as well as the one from the Institute of Economic Affairs, to today claiming that she has no plan at all?

Just because you don’t agree with her plan, or she is struggling to implement it, or it is likely to fail, does not mean that Truss doesn’t have a plan – she very clearly has one.

And it is precisely this plan and her vision for the UK that the Anti-Truss Coalition should be drawing voters attention to.

Her plan is to trickle-up the economy to her backers – that’s it.

So basically the opposite to what the Labour Party’s plan should be.

This inalienable fact should be made clear to voters rather than pretend that Truss has no plan.

Instead voters are presented with the claim that both the Tories and Labour have the same basic plan and they only need to decide who is more likely to succeed in implementing it.

MoreCashThanDash

Then a lot of people need educating so that they understand what growth is and does.

but “people” don’t WANT educating what “people” want is outcomes that directly affect them preferably with some meaningless infographics and a “customer journey”.

To be a bit STW it’s like weather forecasting.
I personally use the met office because I’m interested and it’s astonishingly accurate measured as probabilities.
e.g. if they say 10% chance of rain it’s correct nearly 100% of the time (that is over a period their 10% is correct) but “people” don’t want that they want umbrella icons or happy looking Sun icons and they focus on the presentation layer.

When I say “people” I mean in general, including well educated and well paid people.

If anything this trend is increasing … just to take a random example, you are reading this because your browser made a request so for this purpose completely ignoring the STW Forum software stack and software application layers, who is actually interested in HOW that request gets back to the specific browser window you issued the request to in terms of OSI protocol layers? In reality even the architect for the forum software probably doesn’t care what’s happening at OSI layers 1-4.

The kind of education that requires government investment so that they get better results from school, better prospects, better jobs that will boost the growth that would fund the government to invest….etc etc

Lets see if we can do a simplistic Venn diagram or Boston Square with Axes of Service/Goods and Local/Remote.(or physical/remote??)..

How does “better results at school” pan out for remote services or even remote manufacturing?
Even if we shift the local/physical then someone has to work in a Amazon type warehouse and do the physical delivery or cut your hair, drive you to a meeting etc. but should we (real question) then say having a hair cut is something that only the top n% of the UK will be able to afford?

As a point of reference I think Tony and Guy locally are £60 or something whereas my local barber is £12 so some junior stylist at Tony and guy would (unless using staff free/discount**) never be able to get a haircut where they work.

So lets expand that to barrista’s or people that make sandwiches … posh coffee place has rent, heating (maybe in reverse now) etc. then staff wages then tax/NI and the sandwich maker also pays tax/NI/travel etc. so they can never afford a coffee (unless using staff free/discount**)

** So the real question is when we combine them… how does the sandwich maker pay for a haircut at a cost that makes it possible for the junior stylist can buy a coffee on the way to work?

are presented with the claim that both the Tories and Labour have the same basic plan

By whom? No one could have followed both conferences and come away with that impression at all. So, if people are being “presented” with that claim, who by?

OSI Model and Tony & Guy in the same post.

Props!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/shortcuts/2022/oct/05/dictator-chic-why-did-liz-truss-wear-the-same-outfit-as-a-fictional-fascist

Considering the inexplicable choice of walk on music as well, is it possible someone in her advisory team is setting her up for public humiliation? Nobody can be that lacking in foresight and common sense, surely?

Oh.

By whom?

You need to pay more attention. The Tories and the Labour Party both publicly claim that there goals are the same, whether it is the economy, climate change, NHS, transport, education, etc. Both promise a better economy and better services, the only thing that voters need to decide is which one they trust most to deliver on their promises.

For example, Starmer at the Labour Party Conference:

“We can grow the economy and raise living standards for everyone”

Truss at the Tory Party Conference:

“Growth, growth, growth”

The reality is that goals are not the same, or at least shouldn’t be the same, and the goal of the Tories is to shift power and wealth in favour of the wealthy elite, whilst the goal of the Labour Party is/should be to shift power and wealth in favour of working people.

Convince voters of this inalienable fact, rather than pretend that the Tories don’t know what they are doing and have no plan, and you win elections. Once the electorate become class aware the Tories have a huge problem.

intheborders

Her plan is to trickle-up the economy to her backers – that’s it.

you have to admit it’s pure genius,

What’s happening is a huge and short term transferral of wealth that will be paid for by the plebs for decades.
A one off grab of pensions .. speculation on the pound transferred hundreds of billions we just didn’t get to cash in yet. Not only did our pensions fall in sterling but they fell again in buying power whilst kids not even born yet will be paying for this transfer of wealth for their entire lives.

Both promise a better economy and better services

Those are aims/goals, they don’t have the same “plan”.

For example: Labour plan to grow a state owned renewable energy supplier. Tories plan to allow (and indeed encourage with tax breaks) private companies to extract more fossil fuels from new fields, on and off land, via fracking and accelerating expansion in the North Sea. A stark difference. To pretend they are the same because both involve stimulating economic activity (growth) is disingenuous.

This is interesting, various sources claiming tax reductions don’t even offset stealth increases by freezing starting and higher rate boundaries.

Unless you’re hugely wealthy presumably.

Those are aims/goals, they don’t have the same “plan”.

So you agree that the aims and goals should be the same for the Tories and Labour and it’s only the “plan” that is different.

It’s that sort of muddled thinking and lack of class-conscious which explains why the UK Tory Party is one of the most successful political parties in the western world.

No, you claimed that certain goals were shared (improving the economy and services). Those aren’t the only goals of either party, are they? If anything, they are very secondary to the main goals of the current Tory party (redistribute wealth upwards and get the state out of the way of certain industries via deregulations). I said, to those two ends, the party don’t have the same plans, in response to your claim that…

Instead voters are presented with the claim that both the Tories and Labour have the same basic plan and they only need to decide who is more likely to succeed in implementing it.

They don’t have the same basic plan. At all. Just because both address changes needed in terms of the economy and public services doesn’t mean that they propose the same changes. They very clearly do not. And no one should pretend that they do. This “both parties are the same” lie needs to end. No one watching the two conferences would come to that conclusion. They’d only come to that conclusion by listening to people wanting that disingenuous claim to live on, for whatever ends they have. Time for that narrative to end. It is not true.

I agree with you Kelvin and fail to see where Ernie is going with this?

So Truss is planning on more immigration to drive growth

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/25/liz-truss-plans-more-immigration-in-effort-to-fill-vacancies-and-drive-growth

And Braverman wants to (dreams no less) reduce immigration the the low tens of thousands

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/04/suella-braverman-revives-tory-pledge-to-cut-net-migration-to-tens-of-thousands

Does that make her part of the anti-growth coalition?

Does that make her part of the anti-growth coalition?

Nope because Truss is talking about good immigration and Braverman about bad immigration. Two completely different things which should not be confused even if they are easy to do so.

Worth looking at the front pages today. Most papers seem to have gone with Truss pulling the most insane facial expressions possible.

Gave me a chuckle anyway.😁

Most papers seem to have gone with Truss pulling the most insane facial expressions possible.

I am not a great fan of those sort of photos since they often seem based on stepping through a video to find the worse one.
In other news. Mad nad thinks the current government is a bit right wing.

 Two completely different things which should not be confused

TBF I’m easily confused.

Kelvin

Those are aims/goals, they don’t have the same “plan”.

No they aren’t….

Both promise a better economy and better services

Two completely worthless and throwaway metrics without the detail…

Better Services?
Take the NHS, the Tory’s offer a “better NHS” it’s just not FREE at the point.. or open to everyone. (Or for that matter called the NHS)

They aren’t going to say that because the overwhelming majority of the Tory party members aren’t rich in the way Trusso-nomics is meant to benefit. To be more specific these are the poor folk earning less that a 100M a year.. so just slightly wealthier versions of working class in the vast scheme of things.

Even bankers on say £10M a year can’t afford their own private police and fire service… though to be fair they can maybe just about live in gated communities with their own shared ones.

explains why the UK Tory Party is one of the most successful political parties in the western world.

I thought that was due to First Past The Post?

I agree with you Kelvin and fail to see where Ernie is going with this?

The same place he always goes…

In other news. Mad nad thinks the current government is a bit right wing.

Terrifying isn’t it. She also says you can’t just ditch a whole manifesto and go off in a different direction just because you’ve got a new leader

There was a Truss supporter on Radio 4 this morning basically saying this is year zero and she can do what the hell she likes, irrespective of the manifesto touted at the last election

At least we know where we are

You can forget all that namby pamby levelling up stuff! It’s 1984 in oh so many ways

I thought that was due to First Past The Post?

Well obviously not, because FPTP gives the Tories no advantages over the Labour Party.

The Labour Party does not represent a minority point of view. At least it shouldn’t.

The Labour Party should benefit as much, if not even more, than the Tories from FPTP. Which explains precisely why no Labour government has abolished it and the current Labour leader refuses to make it Labour policy.

Well obviously not because FPTP gives the Tories no advantages over the Labour Party.

Not true at all. Good material for another thread though.

Not true at all.

That is because you apparently spectacularly fail to understand the class nature of UK politics.

The Tories represent the interests of the 1-2%, there is no reason why FPTP should benefit them. On the contrary.

And yet despite that they are one of the most successful political parties in the western world.

Edit: The reason why the Tories are successful is because there is a consistent failure to understand whose interests they represent, not because of FPTP.

Yeah, it’s me that doesn’t understand. Of course it is.

Yeah, it’s me that doesn’t understand. Of course it is.

At last, something that we can both agree on 😉

If you really want to argue that FPTP doesn’t favour the Tories above other parties, start a thread on it. You are wrong though. And as you’ve changed the subject towards “understanding whose interests they represent” and other things that are true but irrelevant to the point, I suspect you know you are. FPTP favours the Tories more than Labour.

If you really want to argue that FPTP doesn’t favour the Tories above other parties, start a thread on it.

What’s wrong with talking about it here? I really don’t understand this pedantic thread policing. This is a politics thread no? So discuss politics!

FPTP benefits the party who wins. Given their previous record in supporting and collaborating with the tories I can’t think of anything worse than a labour govt being beholden to lib dem support in a coalition which would almost certainly be the outcome of PR.

FPTP benefits the party who can gain support with the right geographic spread to win the most seats. In the UK, the demographics means that if your support is weighted towards older and retired or soon to retire people your voters are spread across town and country seats giving you a better chance of winning more of those seats. That’s the advantage the Tory party has. For Labour, growth in support often happens with younger and working people, who are more concentrated in the cities… this means that a swell in support often just means winning bigger majorities in city seats, rather than winning additional seats in the town and country seats. That’s the very basics of it. Let’s not have pages and pages of it here please… it’s a possible huge distraction from this thread that can run on and on.

Gerrymandering of constituency boundaries benefits the tories. FPTP can be reformed to remove the tory advantage. My main problem with PR is it promotes the maintenance of the status quo. When the tories are in power that’s a mild positive, but when Labour it’s a massive negative because it would prevent them bringing in the radical policies which we desperately require. That’s assuming of course that labour would require support from the lib dems and SNP. If the green party could somehow improve their presence it could be different, but we’re a long way from that.

Your very first sentence contains the precise point I am making:

FPTP benefits the party who can gain support with the right geographic spread to win the most seats.

“FPTP benefits the party who can gain support”. The Labour Party’s problem isn’t FPTP it’s lack of support. The Tories aren’t one of the most successful political party in the western world because of FPTP but because of the support which they receive.

The primary problem, for Labour, is that voters don’t recognise whose interests the Tories represent. And that fact serves the Tories extremely well. To add to the problem, and to the Tories’s extreme good luck, Labour is generally terrified of talking class politics.

The previous Labour leader talked of “for the many, not the few”, they soon put a stop to that.

First past the post favours the Tories more than Labour. All your other whataboutery might be true, but doesn’t change that fact. As for your closing attempt to make this yet another thread about the previous Labour leader, or the latest one, or both… **** that, life is too short.

Worth looking at the front pages today

Put a pint in her hand in that Times picture & it could be Farage in a blonde wig.

Big parties who send MPs to parliament: Tories, Labour, Libs, SNP. In addition the Greens get a big vote. UKIP did once but are now integrated into the Tories.

This means that the Tories get all the right wing votes, whereas the progressive vote (we can argue about bits of SNP and sorry Plaid) gets spread, making it less likely a given candidate on this side will win against a Tory whose vote isn’t split.

The end.

Unless you want to go on to tactical voting, PR etc. Or just go on telling us how bad you think Labour is.

All your other whataboutery might be true, but doesn’t change that fact.

All my “whataboutery” gets to the very heart of why the Tories are such a successful political party – they have huge support among the electorate, approximately 30-40% support, despite serving the interests of only about 1-2% of the electorate.

Do you believe that most Tory voters recognise that? Do you believe that 99% of Tory voters simply vote Tory as a philanthropic act to benefit the 1-2%?

Whatever problems FPTP might throw up it is not the primary problem, which is the electorate’s lack of awareness of whose interests the Tories represent.

As for your closing attempt to make this yet another thread about the previous Labour leader, or the latest one

What an idiotic comment.

What an idiotic comment.

Raising the tone of discussion as usual.

approximately 30-40% support, despite serving the interests of only about 1-2% of the electorate.

Not everyone votes in their own personal interest. Though Tories are most likely to, obv, or to think that’s what they’re doing. And wealthy old folks are more than 2% of those who actually vote.

Put a pint in her hand in that Times picture & it could be Farage in a blonde wig.

Ever seen them together in tbe same room? Makes you think….

The ownership demographics of the press can’t harm, either.

https://news.sky.com/story/body-language-expert-gives-assessment-of-liz-trusss-gestures-during-conference-speech-12713339

The Greenpeace protest that disrupted Liz Truss’s Tory party conference speech yesterday actually “did her a few favours” and broke the ice for her, according to a body language expert.

There was a lot of references in the news bulletins yesterday that the Greenpeace protest galvanized Truss’s Tory audience as they rallied to express their disapproval.

This clearly seemed to be the case and she certainly seemed to welcome it. I think it’s stretching it a bit though to claim that apart from those two points it did her any favours.

The audience Truss was really talking to wasn’t a few hundred loyal Tory Party members who were always by and large going to agree with every word she uttered, it was the millions watching it on the news in their homes.

For them it provided a powerful reminder that no one had voted for defining points of Liz Truss’s political programme, bankers bonus, fracking, tax giveaways which have caused financial instability, etc.

The way the TV cameras zoomed in on the protestors showing their relaxed confidence, especially after the banner was ripped from their hands and they calmly picked it up and held it high again, will have done the Tories no favours at all.

Nor will the fact that the Greenpeace protestors managed to get all the delegates credentials, circumvent all the security and smuggled in a banner. Are they not concerned about possible terrorist attacks? Truss banged on about increasing defence spending during her speech, the Tories can’t even organise effective security at their annual conferences.