advertisement


The Premiership of Mary Elizabeth Truss.Sept 2022 - Oct 2022

Ponty said:
Should it be a prerequisite for the health minister to have a certain BMI or level of fitness?
Click to expand...
Lead by example I say.
But ok, lets look at her form in a different way ;-), in her previous caring role;
https://www.disabilitynewsservice.c...secret-deaths-info-suggests-key-dwp-failings/
https://www.kentlive.news/news/cost-of-living/minister-therese-coffey-accused-deliberately-7477843
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/dwp-staff-power-arrest-brits-27002864
https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/mps-ask-coffey-why-she-is-hiding-nine-secret-dwp-reports/

Theresa Coughy.
Bless her heart.
Oh no...https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...mits-not-role-model-questions-smoking-weight/
Abortion/NI, same sex marriage, mental health checks for women seeking abortions.....
 
The classic one of course was Ken Clark when he was health minister, lol. Don't think ones personal lifestyle is that important tbh. Okay, giving Pete Docherty
the brief maybe a bit of a stretch !
 
As an obese, cigar-chomping boozer who doesn't give a shit about a spillage or two, Coffe(e) was made for the role of Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. She will inspire confidence in all obese cigar-chomping boozers everywhere - that they are living the life and to spill with abandon, and that they too can aspire to high office, where there is grift and a tax-payers trough from which to engorge themselves further.

I thank you.

(Mother) Therese A Coffey
 
Last edited:
zeon said:
The classic one of course was Ken Clark when he was health minister, lol. Don't think ones personal lifestyle is that important tbh. Okay, giving Pete Docherty
the brief maybe a bit of a stretch !
Click to expand...

Clark has completely lost it, he was on the today programme yesterday morning, by God it was painful listening to him, think the interviewer had lost the will to live listening to him too.
 
Tony L said:
Truss is predictably painful at PMQs. It is clear she is going to protect corporate profits and tax-breaks at the expense of the working population. As ever the rest of us get to pay for their grift.
Click to expand...

The amazing part is the idiotic blinkered fantasy view of "Trickle Down" *still* gets the Tories humming happily as the rest of us struggle. They've been trying it for decades despite it never working for most people. Just, erm, for a few wealthy mates of the Tories. I know the press presents a fantasy view and hides reality, but I am ready to be amazed if people fall for it this time when combined with the way they are going to put us all on the 'never never' for *decades* rather than windfall tax and/or control the gross profits made from War Profiteering by big companies.

Perhaps we should know which Tory MPs [1] have shares in the companies making the eye-watering profits.

Live now, pay much more later for the being allowed to live a bit longer.
Needless harm is good for you if you're a chump.

[1] Or their wives/busnesses/etc/ used as 'plausible deniability' cut-outs.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
Perhaps we should know which Tory MPs [1] have shares in the companies making the eye-watering profits.
Click to expand...

The site TheyWorkForYou is very useful as it’s an easy way to search for “members interests” as detailed in Hansard etc. I was surprised when looking earlier to find Truss hasn’t really got any. One of few Tories that isn’t obviously shilling something for donor money.

PS I read on Twitter earlier that someone in her cabinet, can’t remember who, had a very strong connection with the dark-money funded “Institute Of Economic Affairs” (one of those many entities that initially sounds legitimate but is actually a private lobbying group shilling for unnamed donors).
 
But lets face it 62 % ( last figures ) of the country ore obese, and many of those I suppose would be classified as living in poverty. ?
I know there are other factors poor diet, gland problems etc. The hit on the NHS must be ginormous. I m not one to gloat btw although
not overweight I eat too much sugar myself !
 
Tony L said:
The site TheyWorkForYou is very useful as it’s an easy way to search for “members interests” as detailed in Hansard etc. I was surprised when looking earlier to find Truss hasn’t really got any. One of few Tories that isn’t obviously shilling something for donor money.
Click to expand...
Liz sees the big picture. What's Britain's most important industry? That's right: tax avoidance. So that's the trough she's got her snout in.

https://twitter.com/SolHughesWriter/status/1567477005129506816?s=20&t=YHxKEBtsZs6XXAhpig303g
 
sideshowbob said:
People moaning that Labour aren't far enough ahead in the polls seem to forget that only three years ago the English electorate voted in a far-right authoritarian government with a majority of 80 seats. A good 40% of those who voted were happy to vote for pretty naked reaction. That won't change quickly, in fact the coming economic catastrophe is just as likely to drive people further to the right - blaming migrants and unionised workers as much or more than those really responsible. The Tories understand this very well, which is why Truss will stoke culture wars even more fervently than Bozo did. It's not just a distraction - it's a distraction that wins them votes. She will undoubtedly get a poll bounce from whatever energy measures she announces, and from a flurry of policy announcements that will at least look to a lot of people as if she's a change from the previous regime. She may go for an early election if that bounce is sustained. And she may win it. If she does win it, it's because the little Englander electorate - of all social classes - is big enough in the seats they need to win to give them a majority.

The answer to this long term is electoral reform. Shorter term the anti-Tory parties need to work together to encourage tactical voting to the largest possible extent. Nothing else is likely to defeat that 40% or so of reactionary voters. They're a minority of the population, but they are perfectly placed to win FPTP elections, again and again and again.
Click to expand...

From what little I know of UK politics your first paragraph makes perfect sense. But not the second. The fact remains that there are more people voting for the right than for the left. Abandoning FPTP for some form of PR or semi-PR won't change that. Certainly it will bring other parties into the game, but of all kinds, some of them quite terrifying, probably. Look at Italy, with PR (with a small non-proportional element). Dozens of parties and "movements" and according to current polls the Right will win hands down in a couple of weeks' time.
 
Funk said:
That's three polls within the last 4 weeks showing a spread of leads ranging from 4 points to 15 points.
Click to expand...

There are lots of reputable sites that aggregate results to make sense of such data. E.g. Politico shows Labour with an 11 point lead 42 to 31 and even has a graph so you can see the movement over time.

https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/

There is a link on that page if you want to see details of how they decide which polls to include and how they aggregate them.
 
PaulMB said:
The fact remains that there are more people voting for the right than for the left.
Click to expand...

That hasn't been true for years. In 2019 the Tories got 43.6% of the vote (only 1.2% more than they got in 2017), and the Brexit Party 2.0%. Labour got 32.2%, the Lib Dems 11.5%, the SNP 3.9% and the Greens 2.7%, which totals 50.3% of the vote for centre and left parties. Yet the Tories won a thumping majority of 80 seats.

In 2017, there was a hung parliament. Tories got 42.4%, UKIP 1.8%, Labour 40.0%, Lib Dems 7.4%, SNP 3.0% and Greens 1.6%. 52% of the overall vote went to the left and centre.

Go back to 1979, and Thatcher's big win. The Tories got 43.9%, Labour 36.9%, the Liberals 13.8%.

That's been the story of FPTP for a very long time. Tories win elections not because they win the largest vote share, but because the demographics and geography of their vote are enough to win them seats against a divided opposition. The sooner the left gives up its fantasies that if only people are presented with a radical manifesto the scales will fall from their eyes, and instead concentrate on trying to build a voting bloc to keep the Tories out, the better. Otherwise there will be nothing left of the country's social fabric.
 
sideshowbob said:
That hasn't been true for years. In 2019 the Tories got 43.6% of the vote (only 1.2% more than they got in 2017), and the Brexit Party 2.0%. Labour got 32.2%, the Lib Dems 11.5%, the SNP 3.9% and the Greens 2.7%, which totals 50.3% of the vote for centre and left parties. Yet the Tories won a thumping majority of 80 seats.

In 2017, there was a hung parliament. Tories got 42.4%, UKIP 1.8%, Labour 40.0%, Lib Dems 7.4%, SNP 3.0% and Greens 1.6%. 52% of the overall vote went to the left and centre.

That's been the story of FPTP for a very long time. Tories win elections not because they win the largest vote share, but because the demographics and geography of their vote are enough to win them seats against a divided opposition. The sooner the left gives up its fantasies that if only people are presented with a radical manifesto the scales will fall from their eyes, and instead concentrate on trying to build a voting bloc to keep the Tories out, the better. Otherwise there will be nothing left of the country's social fabric.
Click to expand...

If you translate the 2019 results into a PR system, nobody would have a majority. So the Lib Dems could form a coalition with the Tories or Labour. Labour might be able to count on the Green 1.6%, but the Tories would get UKIP's 1.8%. In any case, you would need a coalition to run the country, and coalition governments are fragile, with measures often being vetoed by a party, even a tiny one, that could threaten to bring the whole coalition down. You put together a few parties as "50.3% for the centre-left," even assuming they would all tamely join a Labour-led coalition. But you could equally put the Lib Dems with the Tories, add UKIP and Brexit Party, and say "53.6" for the centre-right.
 
matthewr said:
There are lots of reputable sites that aggregate results to make sense of such data. E.g. Politico shows Labour with an 11 point lead 42 to 31 and even has a graph so you can see the movement over time.

https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/

There is a link on that page if you want to see details of how they decide which polls to include and how they aggregate them.
Click to expand...
Thanks - that supports my original comment when quoting Politico that according to them, Labour's lead had been as little as 6 points only a few weeks ago:

LatLTUk.png
 
PaulMB said:
If you translate the 2019 results into a PR system, nobody would have a majority.
Click to expand...

That is the whole point. As an electorate we never vote anyone into a majority. We are a diverse population and deserve a true consensus government where *all* our voices are heard and policy is negotiated issue by issue. All this partisan dictatorship shit needs to stop as no one has ever voted for it.
 
PaulMB said:
If you translate the 2019 results into a PR system, nobody would have a majority. So the Lib Dems could form a coalition with the Tories or Labour. Labour might be able to count on the Green 1.6%, but the Tories would get UKIP's 1.8%. In any case, you would need a coalition to run the country, and coalition governments are fragile, with measures often being vetoed by a party, even a tiny one, that could threaten to bring the whole coalition down. You put together a few parties as "50.3% for the centre-left," even assuming they would all tamely join a Labour-led coalition. But you could equally put the Lib Dems with the Tories, add UKIP and Brexit Party, and say "53.6" for the centre-right.
Click to expand...

There's no way the Lib Dems of 2019 would have formed a bloc with Bozo's Brexit fundamentalist Tory party, there was simply no basis for such a thing to be possible. Politics has changed since Cameron and Clegg days. ISTM coalition is exactly what British politics needs, and it could hardly be less fragile than what we currently endure, which is endless rule by sociopaths.
 
In putting Rees-Mogg in at Energy and Climate Change, Truss is clearly trolling the nation, which on the whole is apparently a lot more concerned about climate change than either of them is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top