Liz Truss

[Windsor 2,233]

When Boris Johnson arrived for the funeral the BBC introduced him as something like “The prime Minister [gap] until recently”. 
 

I think even they momentarily forgot that Liz Truss was Prime minister. 

[Brad252 807]

10 hours ago, TQR said:

Australia have no clue who she is:

 

Sounds like when DeathList selection would be considered she might not be famous enough to meet the criteria.

[Toast 16,132]

20 hours ago, TQR said:

Australia have no clue who she is:

 

 

 

At least they tried

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,218]

Tbf, they are the presenters and they SHOULD know who the fuck she is, it"s their job to.

The fact that she is fucking useless has bugger all to do with it. 

Seems strange how, here, we take a far greater interest in overseas politics and politicians but certain countries are utterly insular and have little idea or care what goes on outside of their own borders...or summat.

[Charlotte's Controller 195]

She reminds me of one of the original lottery winners, Spend Spend Spend, clueless of the consequences and no responsibility. Unfortunately she has the stature of a puppet and acts like one, no memory no plans pulled by other peoples strings. Destined to lose the election recycling the old note “All of the money has gone”

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,218]

8 minutes ago, Charlotte's Controller said:

She reminds me of one of the original lottery winners, Spend Spend Spend, clueless of the consequences and no responsibility. Unfortunately she has the stature of a puppet and acts like one, no memory no plans pulled by other peoples strings. Destined to lose the election recycling the old note “All of the money has gone”

It's already gone, it's why they are borrowing multiple billions.

[Kenny 283]

On 19/09/2022 at 23:26, Windsor said:

When Boris Johnson arrived for the funeral the BBC introduced him as something like “The prime Minister [gap] until recently”. 
 

I think even they momentarily forgot that Liz Truss was Prime minister. 

 

So which one put the arsenic in Brenda's single malt?

[Charlotte's Controller 195]

59 minutes ago, Lord Fellatio Nelson said:

It's already gone, it's why they are borrowing multiple billions.

 The issue is it is not being replenished, as Rishi said there will be inflation, and there is no promise of growth’, she does not have the experience and is clueless. It may be a short journey before realisation that the proverbial shit has hit the fan. Her Peter Principal cabinet is leading the way, clueless Smog and Kwarteng on some happy juice are not the professional government that is required.

[Kenny 283]

2 minutes ago, Charlotte's Controller said:

 The issue is it is not being replenished, as Rishi said there will be inflation, and there is no promise of growth’, she does not have the experience and is clueless. It may be a short journey before realisation that the proverbial shit has hit the fan. Her Peter Principal cabinet is leading the way, clueless Smog and Kwarteng on some happy juice are not the professional government that is required.

 

Do you honestly think that Sir Keir Starmer's shadow cabinet of woke fascists and thick chavs would be any better?

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,218]

5 minutes ago, Charlotte's Controller said:

 The issue is it is not being replenished, as Rishi said there will be inflation, and there is no promise of growth’, she does not have the experience and is clueless. It may be a short journey before realisation that the proverbial shit has hit the fan. Her Peter Principal cabinet is leading the way, clueless Smog and Kwarteng on some happy juice are not the professional government that is required.

We already have inflation.

We are already in recession.

Aside from that, there are only two ways out of the shit, higher taxes or higher borrowing.

Any Political party in power would be confronted with the same issues.

Windfall taxes? Would not touch the sides, and the profits earned by certain companies have been made globally, not just in the UK.

Even if we invoked it, we would still have to borrow.

Labour would have to borrow, Lib Dems would have to borrow and the SNP have had the begging bowl out demanding more money from Westminster.

Truss is taking a massive gamble, allow people to keep more of their money and they might start spending. If they start spending then retail MAY start to perk up, manufacturing MAY be able to up production, blah, de blah.

Business have two fundamental ways of expanding, plough profits back into the business to grow it to make more profit or borrow the money/bring investment into the business to grow it, make a profit, pay back the debt, with interest and go forwards from there keeping all the profit.

That is a simplistic argument for Truss to borrow more, invest it and hope that what she is investing in, us, will kick start the economy by spending it.

Aside from that, lower taxes may bring in investment from outside the country and may spark investment from industry within.

It's a massive gamble but, fucking hell, nobody has got all the answers to this one, we are heading into a global recession, Europe is in the shit and there is no easy way out, no matter who is in full charge.

Define 'professional government' as I had no idea that we had anybody, from any side of the house, that is 'professional.

 

 

[TQR 14,386]

10 minutes ago, Kenny said:

Do you honestly think that Sir Keir Starmer's shadow cabinet of woke fascists and thick chavs would be any better?

Attention Admins: we need more reactions. None of the current selection are pertinent here, and ignoring the quoted post wouldn’t do it justice but I can’t be arsed to converse with this person of substandard intelligence.
 

Obviously the positive reactions are not in the picture here. ‘Angry’ isn’t right. ‘Facepalm’ doesn’t quite cut it for this absolutely specialist material. ‘Confused’ isn’t too far off, but doesn’t convey enough bewilderment or recognition of numbskullery. Maybe a ‘Bellend’ reaction would do?

[Kenny 283]

18 minutes ago, TQR said:

Attention Admins: we need more reactions. None of the current selection are pertinent here, and ignoring the quoted post wouldn’t do it justice but I can’t be arsed to converse with this person of substandard intelligence.
 

Obviously the positive reactions are not in the picture here. ‘Angry’ isn’t right. ‘Facepalm’ doesn’t quite cut it for this absolutely specialist material. ‘Confused’ isn’t too far off, but doesn’t convey enough bewilderment or recognition of numbskullery. Maybe a ‘Bellend’ reaction would do?

 

 

What a fucking sad wanker!

 

[TQR 14,386]

10 minutes ago, Kenny said:

 

 

What a fucking sad wanker!

 

[RoverAndOut 4,746]

On 22/09/2022 at 21:38, Kenny said:

Do you honestly think that Sir Keir Starmer's shadow cabinet of woke fascists and thick chavs would be any better?

 

This view is exactly what's got us in this mess in the first place.

[TQR 14,386]

3 hours ago, RoverAndOut said:

 

This view is exactly what's got us in this mess in the first place.

Luckily enough, YouGov of all places has a poll that puts the “woke fascists and thick chavs” at a lead akin to 1997 election time. And Truss has only just hit the ground.
 

[Ulitzer95 12,584]

13 minutes ago, TQR said:

Luckily enough, YouGov of all places has a poll that puts the “woke fascists and thick chavs” at a lead akin to 1997 election time. And Truss has only just hit the ground.

This wet wipe delivering a Labour landslide?

C'mon now...

I'm certainly no fan of Mr. Blair, but credit where it is due... his leadership made the 1997 landslide (as opposed to just discontent with the incumbent Conservative government). By comparison to today, there is no real enthusiasm for the Labour Party as an alternative.

[TQR 14,386]

13 minutes ago, Ulitzer95 said:

This wet wipe delivering a Labour landslide?

Yes, yes he is. By virtue of right place, right time. Sir Wet Wipe’s left bollock with a merkin and a face felt-tipped onto it would smash 150 seats out of the hands of this rancid Tory lot, such is the state they’ve left this country, and themselves, in.

 

It’s a shame this insipid middle-of-the-roader whose glimmers of hope and excellence are far, far outnumbered by his instances of mediocrity will be the one to take the next election. But “them’s the breaks”.

[Toast 16,132]

I would vote for Mr Blobby if he was the best chance of getting rid of the Tories.

[TQR 14,386]

2 minutes ago, Toast said:

I would vote for Mr Blobby if he was the best chance of getting rid of the Tories.

He’s just been kicked out of No.10.

[gcreptile 10,966]

Not sure if the leadership figures of the conservatives have been more impressive in the past 30-35 years.

[Bibliogryphon 9,571]

10 hours ago, TQR said:

Luckily enough, YouGov of all places has a poll that puts the “woke fascists and thick chavs” at a lead akin to 1997 election time. And Truss has only just hit the ground.
 

 

Looking at these figures and not seeing a rise in the votes for the smaller parties suggest to me that this really is a case of people realising that to get rid of the Tories a Labour government is the only practical alternative. However local polling particularly in places where the LDs are in second place could reveal different results

[Toast 16,132]

1 hour ago, Bibliogryphon said:

 

Looking at these figures and not seeing a rise in the votes for the smaller parties suggest to me that this really is a case of people realising that to get rid of the Tories a Labour government is the only practical alternative. However local polling particularly in places where the LDs are in second place could reveal different results

 

Yes, it depends on what question was asked. 

[The Old Crem 3,583]

I think the next election could be anywhere from a 10 seat Tory majority through a hung parliament with either party leading to a 10 seat Labour majority.  No large majority either side. 

[TQR 14,386]

8 minutes ago, The Old Crem said:

I think the next election could be anywhere from a 10 seat Tory majority through a hung parliament with either party leading to a 10 seat Labour majority.  No large majority either side. 

Out of pure curiosity, what are you basing this on?

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,218]

6 hours ago, Bibliogryphon said:

 

Looking at these figures and not seeing a rise in the votes for the smaller parties suggest to me that this really is a case of people realising that to get rid of the Tories a Labour government is the only practical alternative. However local polling particularly in places where the LDs are in second place could reveal different results

This bears out what I have been saying for a while now. 

You either pile in on Labour candidates at the next election or you just don't bother.

You cannot vote tactically or we could end up with a bigger shit show because the election ends up with no party with an overall majority.

We need one party, one set of policies and no fucking about.

Quite staggering to think that Labour handed the last election to the Tories on a plate because of Corbyn and the Tories are now, probably, going to hand the election to Labour because of Truss.

They would have had a better chance if they had kept Johnson!

Fucking hell, the last few years have been stinkingly wank in the political and societal  sense.