Truss vs Sunak - Page 9 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
User avatar
By noemon
#15251787
wat0n wrote:In Liz Truss' case, her plan was a disaster. Even libertarians and neoliberals didn't like it despite allegedly being for economic freedom and all that stuff.


The fiscal plan was a couple of small tax cuts, the lower rate of 20% to become 19%, corporation tax not to increase by 6% in April '23 from 19% to 25%, & the higher rate of 45% to be reduced to 40%. Stamp duty cut and the vast majority of it was the energy subsidy package.

With the exception of the top tax rate which was the smallest part at 2 billion, all these are consensus measures in the UK, that is everybody agrees with them, all 3 parties, all newspapers.

These are still small change compared to the extra tax revenues that have come in because of inflation and the freezing of the tax-free thresholds. These are effectively lesser measures in lieu of unfreezing the thresholds.

The energy package was & still is going to be part-financed but even that less than it would be required due to the price stabilising.


----------------------------------------------------

About Boris:

Marina Hyde-The Guardian wrote:At the time of typing, many think that surely Johnson won’t get the numbers to run. Then again we passed “surely” three WTFs ago.


Tim Stanley-Telegraph wrote:As the grey men take Truss away, Boris bids to get the good times back
A Johnson comeback may once have seemed outlandish, but memories are short in politics

And they’re off! Though some of them have further to go than others.

When Liz Truss finally did the decent thing, Boris Johnson was on his hols in the Dominican Republic. Imagine the scene: Big Dog has fallen asleep on the beach, knocked out by James Herbert and a powerful mojito, unaware that he has been buried in the sand by local children. An aide runs along the shore screaming that Liz Truss has resigned.

“Who?”

“The prime minister. Of Great Britain? Jacob says she blew all the money on the gee-gees, or something like that, and the people want you back!”

“By Zeus! All these years I thought I was Churchill, turns out I’m ruddy Napoleon. Don’t just stand there, Tarquin. Dig me out!”

The response among MPs to talk of a Boris restoration ranged from “He Is Risen!” to “I’d rather set myself on fire than serve under that man,” which you can chalk up as a “maybe”. Memories are short in politics.

Jonathan Gullis, whose eternal loyalty is a good bellwether of passing fashion, resigned from the BoJo administration citing concern about partygate. Now he says “Bring back Boris!” And no doubt the big man was scanning the internet for last-minute flights.

Moving silently, like a shark, is contender #2: Rishi Sunak. He has said barely anything since he lost to Liz. He was seen earlier walking about in a business suit, which is as on-brand as Harry Styles being photographed in a dress – and one suspects he’s been sitting quietly by the phone since September 6, waiting for Liz to cock-up and the party to come calling (“Any day now.”) His allies put out a curious offer: if Boris endorses Rishi, he can be his home secretary. This implies that everyone knows Grant Shapps is going to serve even less time in post than Kwasi Kwarteng.

What about Penny Mordaunt, bringing up the rear? She was the first candidate to declare – and she surprised everyone last time by how far she went. The Tory grassroots appear besotted with this lady, thanks to her naval career and taste for innuendo; she exudes an impression of authority that was bolstered during the accession of Charles III when she managed to read aloud from an official document clearly and without error. That’s all it takes nowadays. If only she were in Parliament, Angela Rippon would be a shoe-in.

Ms Mordaunt has reportedly told Jeremy Hunt that if she wins, he can write economic policy. And Mr Hunt, no doubt, rang the Bank of England and said, “If Penny wins, you can write economic policy.” The Bank rang the IMF… and on it went all the way to Joe Biden, who put a call through to his wife, even though she was lying next to him, and said, “Honey, if Penny Farthing is made Queen of England, you can write economic policy.”

What do the members think? I’ve put out feelers. They want Boris.

They know he’s not Jesus. He might have spent 40 days in the desert, but if the Devil tried to tempt him, he’d give in on every occasion. Yet they voted for Truss, the suits kicked her out – so now they want the good times back with BoJo. He likes pina coladas and dancing in the rain. And if they want him, and assuming he can find his passport - last seen in a swimming pool locker - he’ll be right with us.
By Istanbuller
#15251831
It is funny to see Rishi Sunak is still trying by buying MPs. He might be really stupid with ignoring the fact that he is the least popular candidate among Tory members.

The guy probably has a lot of money to waste on things which will not go on places. :lol:
User avatar
By Godstud
#15251838
Only 44 days, @Saeko, but now she gets money for the rest of her life because she served as PM.

All former prime ministers are able to claim the Public Duty Costs Allowance (PDCA), currently set at a maximum of £115,000 per year.
User avatar
By Tainari88
#15251856
Godstud wrote:Only 44 days, @Saeko, but now she gets money for the rest of her life because she served as PM.

All former prime ministers are able to claim the Public Duty Costs Allowance (PDCA), currently set at a maximum of £115,000 per year.


That is chump change compared to what ex-Mexican presidents' used to get. They would be awarded $6 million dollars a year for life.
User avatar
By Saeko
#15251873
Godstud wrote:Only 44 days, @Saeko, but now she gets money for the rest of her life because she served as PM.

All former prime ministers are able to claim the Public Duty Costs Allowance (PDCA), currently set at a maximum of £115,000 per year.


Well, at least she did one thing right. She proved Libertarianism definitely does not work.
User avatar
By Tainari88
#15251903
wat0n wrote:Violence is not the only option, I agree, but you can't deny there are those who glorify violence (e.g. war). And yes, they do so out of principle, their principles.

No one has going to war as a principle. Hitler and Franco, and Hirohito and every fascist has to justify war. You are asking men and women from your nation to send their sons and daugthers to DIE. It has to be something important. Something vital. You usually can't tell the truth about the why. It has to be a lie. Because the nation is threatened by the others. Because you need to recapture land lost to secure a better future. Because if not the motherland is going to lose its position in the world and be vulnerable to attack. Because the baddies are out there and your nation is the good one. You got to justify it. It is like slavery and colonialism. Why do you have to control other countries? Because you are civilizing them. Because you bring good things to the inferior nations. Because it is mutually beneficial. Because you are civilized and they are beneath you in culture, history, and language. They are bad and you are good. All kinds of LIES. Especially the part about enslaving others and exploiting others and their hatred. Many tribes in Africa and India, etc all had internal disputes. You pit one against the other. Divide and conquer and you have access to goods, human labor on the cheap, ports, and commercial trade interests. You take advantage of the lack of unity, lack of organization, and lack of strong governmental structure. You take control and you perpetuate the myth that you are doing it in a way that benefits all parties when in reality it only benefits one party. One nation and one economic group. YOURS.



Indeed, I agree status is not immutable. And even if it were, it would actually be an even stronger reason for treating your subordinates well - after all, they can't do anything about their status. It's not their fault.

More than it is not their fault. These people have tremendous learning potential and if they are talented in politics, government, etc. they will be able to find better opportunities. People are not static waiting around for the boss to give them some recognition. Human beings should never be undervalued or underestimated. If you do that? You are not very intelligent in general. People who want government cabinet positions come from educated backgrounds and a lot of administrative skills. Don't lose good people. Find ways of retaining them. If you think they are to be pitied or poor people can't do something better? No one likes that. They leave. And you are stuck with mediocrity to choose from. That is reality.

So you don't think people can change their minds? Even old people can.

There you go again. You don't get nuance Wat0n. I did not say people can't change their minds. I said that people who are in politics change their policies in the middle of some negotiations do so because they make mistakes. That is common. What they can't do is stop being from their political column and sell out with bribes. For example, some Senator from the Republican party says he won't ever raise taxes on his constituents. He pledges to not do so. But? The major cities in his state are all running out of funds for new bridges and roads and also new firefighters for forest fires and he needs to find a new way of funding them. What does the dude do? He puts a twenty-five dollar tax on the DMV renewal and finds the funds. But he is accused of going back on his promise of no new taxes. How does he get out of that pledge? He changes his mind and explains why to the public he needs to make an exception. What he can't do is say.....well, we don't need to repair the bridges because who gives a damn. Those are not safety concerns. He will lose his voter base that way. Do you see?

That's why I think a change in position needs to be justified. A politician won't admit to changing his ideas out of convenience (if he did, I'd place him above those who don't even admit to - it's at least honest), and I don't see anything evil in saying "well, I was wrong". An admission of a mistake, IMO, is a good thing and as humans we all make mistakes. Another thing most politicians hate is admitting they were wrong.

Yes, but a lot of "I was wrong" gives a bad image of a politician. It looks like he does not know or she does not what she is doing. I think the best thing is, to be honest, upfront, and transparent and then have a plan of action. Hiding crap never is a solution.

Wasn't Hitler in fact willing to stick to his principles to the end, and didn't that bring disaster to Germany (let alone many others)?
Hitler took power with a minority of the voters. Not the majority. He dethroned the German liberals who were the majority. He caused divisions and conquered with not a majority. That is what most fascists do. Divide and conquer. They don't have to conquer everyone to win power. They just need to conquer sufficiently to cause internal rifts and then use force and violence to impose the rest. They all do that Wat0n. You should know all this if you studied fascism well.

BTW, Pinochet wasn't as principled or rigid as Hitler was. Neither was Franco, actually. Both did often change their tune depending on where the winds blew, even if they never admitted their mistakes. Pinochet, for example, adopted an old Keynesian tune after the 1982 crisis, and did away with a good chunk of the Chicago Boys ideas until 1986, when the winds blew in another direction again. Franco? At the beginning, he followed a very statist policy, in the 1960s he liberalized the Spanish economy, and IIRC towards the end he went back to something closer to where he was in the 1940s-1950s. He never admitted being wrong or anything either. Franco also refused to join the war with the other fascists because he was afraid of an Allied invasion at some point (and got to survive the war as a result).

Franco knew that if he dragged Spain into WWII after that bloody civil war in Spain he would be deposed and replaced. And he said to hell with another war. Spain can't survive another war. So he made a deal with the Axis and sent his Blue Division to the Russian front to help Hitler in WWII. But he did not pledge to allow Spain to go for the far Right German side. It would mean commitments he could not do.

Exactly. That's why I expect admission of wrongdoing. I'm willing to be more flexible in my assessment when politicians do so.

A lot of open communication and transparent money documents via transparent spending and budgets for government allocations are critical. Many gov't rarely speak openly about where the government winds up spending taxpayer funds. It is not really an open discussion. Though many on C-SPAN can see budget committees reviewing where the money goes. I think taxpayers should be allowed to put where they want their money spent the most. I would vote for education and housing and health care for the vulnerable. Also cleaning up the waterways and producing good quality food. Lol. But I am not the one making the budget decisions eh?


I'd say evil and stupid can often be more dangerous than the evil and smart, because the evil and smart guy understands what he can and cannot do, and won't push where he shouldn't while the stupid one doesn't.

It depends on how evil they are, and if the political systems of the countries they lead can keep them in check.

You can have a very democratic government. The issue is if you allow politicians to accept funds from powerful special interest groups or not. Once you allow for unlimited money to influence public policy it is downhill from there. Chris Hedges is a journalist. Award-winning one too. And I put in his video about the USA system and the problems there are with that system. If you want to see why he thinks the way he thinks? Watch the video in the North American fora. Nothing to add to his assessment. I agree with it 100%.

Politics is not just about bad values. There is most definitely a dimension related to competence, an incompetent government will not be regarded well even if it's managed by good people.

In Liz Truss' case, her plan was a disaster. Even libertarians and neoliberals didn't like it despite allegedly being for economic freedom and all that stuff.


Liz Truss was about collecting her PM for a life pension and not doing much work. She was a piece of shit politician like I had assessed before she announced her resignation. These people don't want to lead. They want to be secure. And to hell with the rest of society.
By wat0n
#15251936
Tainari88 wrote:No one has going to war as a principle. Hitler and Franco, and Hirohito and every fascist has to justify war. You are asking men and women from your nation to send their sons and daugthers to DIE. It has to be something important. Something vital. You usually can't tell the truth about the why. It has to be a lie. Because the nation is threatened by the others. Because you need to recapture land lost to secure a better future. Because if not the motherland is going to lose its position in the world and be vulnerable to attack. Because the baddies are out there and your nation is the good one. You got to justify it. It is like slavery and colonialism. Why do you have to control other countries? Because you are civilizing them. Because you bring good things to the inferior nations. Because it is mutually beneficial. Because you are civilized and they are beneath you in culture, history, and language. They are bad and you are good. All kinds of LIES. Especially the part about enslaving others and exploiting others and their hatred. Many tribes in Africa and India, etc all had internal disputes. You pit one against the other. Divide and conquer and you have access to goods, human labor on the cheap, ports, and commercial trade interests. You take advantage of the lack of unity, lack of organization, and lack of strong governmental structure. You take control and you perpetuate the myth that you are doing it in a way that benefits all parties when in reality it only benefits one party. One nation and one economic group. YOURS.


Well, yes, you have to produce at least some remblance of justification for going to war. But being happy to use it quite... Liberally, is sometimes done out of principle too. Militarism is a thing after all, and there are some who regard war being as glorious as it is terrible.

Tainari88 wrote:There you go again. You don't get nuance Wat0n. I did not say people can't change their minds. I said that people who are in politics change their policies in the middle of some negotiations do so because they make mistakes. That is common. What they can't do is stop being from their political column and sell out with bribes. For example, some Senator from the Republican party says he won't ever raise taxes on his constituents. He pledges to not do so. But? The major cities in his state are all running out of funds for new bridges and roads and also new firefighters for forest fires and he needs to find a new way of funding them. What does the dude do? He puts a twenty-five dollar tax on the DMV renewal and finds the funds. But he is accused of going back on his promise of no new taxes. How does he get out of that pledge? He changes his mind and explains why to the public he needs to make an exception. What he can't do is say.....well, we don't need to repair the bridges because who gives a damn. Those are not safety concerns. He will lose his voter base that way. Do you see?


Right, but in that case he's admitting to a mistake. He could even be more honest and admit it was a stupid promise, with the implication that his voters were stupid for buying it too which is one reason he won't state reality in those terms.

I also don't think it's wrong for him to pull back if he, as you said in your example, admits he was wrong. But I'd be pissed off, and would find him to be full of shit, if he just passed that $25 DMV fee with no justification, or some vague stuff like "things were different when I was campaigning". I wouldn't respect that, I find it an even more offensive insult than him being way too honest about the stupidity of his promise. I think we can agree this would make him completely untrustworthy.

Tainari88 wrote:Yes, but a lot of "I was wrong" gives a bad image of a politician. It looks like he does not know or she does not what she is doing. I think the best thing is, to be honest, upfront, and transparent and then have a plan of action. Hiding crap never is a solution.


Indeed, a leader loses face when admitting to a mistake. But honestly, I find it worse when they don't even when almost everyone else understands things as they are.

Sometimes, it's necessary to learn to accept a defeat. It's a show of humility.

Tainari88 wrote:Hitler took power with a minority of the voters. Not the majority. He dethroned the German liberals who were the majority. He caused divisions and conquered with not a majority. That is what most fascists do. Divide and conquer. They don't have to conquer everyone to win power. They just need to conquer sufficiently to cause internal rifts and then use force and violence to impose the rest. They all do that Wat0n. You should know all this if you studied fascism well.


Indeed. But he did stick to his disgusting ideas. I would not say he was unprincipled, I would say his principles were disgusting. And he followed them in consequence.

That's why I think an overly rigid, principled leader can be dangerous. Self-criticism is a good thing, fanaticism isn't.

Tainari88 wrote:Franco knew that if he dragged Spain into WWII after that bloody civil war in Spain he would be deposed and replaced. And he said to hell with another war. Spain can't survive another war. So he made a deal with the Axis and sent his Blue Division to the Russian front to help Hitler in WWII. But he did not pledge to allow Spain to go for the far Right German side. It would mean commitments he could not do.


Indeed. And it also shows he wasn't as principled or insane as Hitler was.

Tainari88 wrote:A lot of open communication and transparent money documents via transparent spending and budgets for government allocations are critical. Many gov't rarely speak openly about where the government winds up spending taxpayer funds. It is not really an open discussion. Though many on C-SPAN can see budget committees reviewing where the money goes. I think taxpayers should be allowed to put where they want their money spent the most. I would vote for education and housing and health care for the vulnerable. Also cleaning up the waterways and producing good quality food. Lol. But I am not the one making the budget decisions eh?


It could be feasible at a more local level. Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that in Chile, which is very centralist. I'm not sure about the US but I've noticed direct democracy is practiced more often here because the US is fairly decentralized, even if it's not a Swiss Canton. Can't comment about Mexico or PR, although there have been plenty of referenda in the latter.

Tainari88 wrote:You can have a very democratic government. The issue is if you allow politicians to accept funds from powerful special interest groups or not. Once you allow for unlimited money to influence public policy it is downhill from there. Chris Hedges is a journalist. Award-winning one too. And I put in his video about the USA system and the problems there are with that system. If you want to see why he thinks the way he thinks? Watch the video in the North American fora. Nothing to add to his assessment. I agree with it 100%.


I agree lack of transparency about e.g. lobbying is a problem, and sometimes a serious one. I don't think the US does as bad as many believe, though, Chile does worse (at least in the US there's a fairly good sense of how much money goes into it, in Chile? Not so much. I guess the same happens in Mexico).

But I think there are worse things than lobbyists. An insane leadership is worse than that, although the checks and balances in most Western countries should be able to keep the most nutty ones in check.

Tainari88 wrote:Liz Truss was about collecting her PM for a life pension and not doing much work. She was a piece of shit politician like I had assessed before she announced her resignation. These people don't want to lead. They want to be secure. And to hell with the rest of society.


Lol it's entirely possible, yes, she'll get 115k pounds per year for life, and that should make it a comfortable one at that. Although it's a sad record for history books.
By Rich
#15252124
Code: Select allcase class MP(name: String)//Other fields to be added.

object Rishi extends MP("Rishi Sunak")

def getLeader(): MP // implementation unimportant.

def getRightLeader(): MP =
{ val winner = getLeader()
  if(winner == Rishi) winner else getLeader()
}


OK I'm aware what i wrote above is quite controversial. This presents itself as pure functional code, but some will argue that the getLeader() method has side effects and therefore the return type should be wrapped in a Future an IO monad or maybe a ZIO effect type.
By ness31
#15252128
We’ve had both of the names in the title of this thread become PM since it was started :lol:
User avatar
By Beren
#15252274
Sure, @Rich, Tory MPs wanted Sunak anyway and decided not to ask their goddamn racist base, who'd prefer any mediocre or even worse white middle-aged conservative housewife to any brown-skinned and black-haired Hindu, the second time. They rather let them get used to him until the next general election.
By Rich
#15252333
Beren wrote:Sure, @Rich, Tory MPs wanted Sunak anyway and decided not to ask their goddamn racist base, who'd prefer any mediocre or even worse white middle-aged conservative housewife to any brown-skinned and black-haired Hindu, the second time. They rather let them get used to him until the next general election.

You shouldn't believe everything the Liberal media. I mean if you believe in their pathetic fantasies of the Liberal media, you'd think that the Republicans were a White supremacist party. We know there's racial bias in Republican party selection. Bias against people of European race. Being "Black" gives you an advantage in Republican primaries. Rishi Sunak lost the previous time because of policy and because Truss was Boris's designated successor, not because of his skin colour.

It may sound surprising but I only just clocked that Rishi Sunak is one of us. As a Buddhist Hindu Pagan, this is quite a moment. We've been waiting for over a thousand years to have a leader of England / Britain who openly and proudly displays his Pagan identity.
User avatar
By Beren
#15252339
Rich wrote:Rishi Sunak lost the previous time because of policy and because Truss was Boris's designated successor, not because of his skin colour.

Rishi Sunak is all about his skin colour and being a Hindu, otherwise he's just another ruthless and opportunist careerist, while Truss was all about traditional white conservative Britishness. However, the ERG just didn't manage to run a challenger against him this time because the Tory establishment didn't dare to take the risk of him getting defeated again.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#15252395
Oh well, at least when Liz Truss kamikaze’d, the ‘hard Brexit’ agenda died with her career. Singapore-on-Thames has gone the way of all flesh. Hopefully, we won’t hear any of that nonsense again. :)
User avatar
By ingliz
#15252431
Sunak's reshuffle

Not so much rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic as rearranging cat shit on a litter tray.

— Jonathan Pie
User avatar
By Potemkin
#15252432
ingliz wrote:Sunak's reshuffle

Not so much rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic as rearranging cat shit on a litter tray.

— Jonathan Pie

Most comedy is just some bloke saying what everybody else is thinking. :lol:
By Rich
#15252435
Potemkin wrote:Oh well, at least when Liz Truss kamikaze’d, the ‘hard Brexit’ agenda died with her career. Singapore-on-Thames has gone the way of all flesh. Hopefully, we won’t hear any of that nonsense again. :)

Um you would have thought that conservative minded people might have noticed some, well noticeable, dare I say it perhaps even significant cultural differences between Britain and Singapore. I can't quite imagine Boris Johnson as Prime Minister of Singapore.

So I get it I'm sure a Brexit under Tony Benn would been very different from one under May, Johnson, Truss or Sunak. But Corbyn was never credible as a leader. So I have to remind you that, you were a Brexiteer, I and Liz Truss were not. Was this just acceleration-ism, or did you have plausible path for Brexit to actually help us?

We should never forget that Boris couldn't have got his majority in 2019 without his election agent Keir Starmer. Keir Starmer's not stupid. He was absolutely determined to maintain the Conservative-Labour duopoly at any cost. This is why he moved on to the Lib Dems ground, backed a second referendum and abandoned all the soft Brexiteers and the soft Remainers.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#15252438
Rich wrote:Um you would have thought that conservative minded people might have noticed some, well noticeable, dare I say it perhaps even significant cultural differences between Britain and Singapore. I can't quite imagine Boris Johnson as Prime Minister of Singapore.

So I get it I'm sure a Brexit under Tony Benn would been very different from one under May, Johnson, Truss or Sunak. But Corbyn was never credible as a leader. So I have to remind you that, you were a Brexiteer, I and Liz Truss were not. Was this just acceleration-ism, or did you have plausible path for Brexit to actually help us?

Plausible path? No. I have no plausible path for Britain becoming a communist society either. But I’m not going to let that stop me. Lol. ;)

We should never forget that Boris couldn't have got his majority in 2019 without his election agent Keir Starmer. Keir Starmer's not stupid. He was absolutely determined to maintain the Conservative-Labour duopoly at any cost. This is why he moved on to the Lib Dems ground, backed a second referendum and abandoned all the soft Brexiteers and the soft Remainers.

And Rishi Sunak, just by becoming PM, has ‘abandoned’ all the hard Brexiteers too. Liz Truss’ brief premiership achieved at least one important result - she demonstrated the utter impossibility of imposing the economic and political agenda of the ‘hard Brexiteers’, who wanted an ultra-right wing neoliberalism outside the fuzzy pinko ‘social market’ of the EU. The markets rejected it, the political elite rejected it, and the public rejected it. That dream is now dead.
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15252445
Potemkin wrote:
Oh well, at least when Liz Truss kamikaze’d, the ‘hard Brexit’ agenda died with her career. Singapore-on-Thames has gone the way of all flesh. Hopefully, we won’t hear any of that nonsense again. :)



The impact diverted the asteroid.


x D
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11

Oh please post those too :lol: Very obvious p[…]

No, it does not. It is governed by the rather vagu[…]

Go tell this to all states that have establishe[…]

@KurtFF8 Litwin wages a psyops war here but we[…]