Can't argue with that at all only thing Truss has in common with Thatcher is that they are women. Thatcher and Blair love or hate them were leaders Truss and Sunak aren't.
If he is handed a humiliating defeat and demoted from cabinet I expect that - unless he has some sort of base of support within the PCP - he will announce he will step down at the next GE. TBH his last year has been a disaster and he is now not well liked in his constituency. Many there vote blue regardless of the candidate but now the bill for furlough and eat out to help out has landed, bills are going up as is inflation the shine has worn off. What has rocked the boat the most is that - like most in the UK - they vote for the party regardless but what has been coming out about Sunak - billionaire - green card holder - wife a non-dom - lavish homes around the world - building and annexe to house a swimming pool on his constituency home - has badly damaged his standing in Richmondshire
I can't stand either. Sunak has no idea how everyday people are struggling. Raising taxes across the board for hard hit middle earners while reducing it for the better off isn't the way forward. He's an an out of touch billionare and not suitable for the job.
Winchester School isn't middle class as I understand it, I don't necessarily think he corrupt per se , i just think that someone who raises taxes on middle earners while helping out big business and high paid earners isnt up to the job and as they are out of touch. Bringing in such polices ( announced over a year ago) are bad enough but then refusing to backtrack when faced with a recession and significant inflation a year later shows he isnt up to the job. Truss is all sound bites. As i said in the my first post on these two weeks ago, Tory MPs who thought these two are the answer are clueless.
www.spectator.co.uk
www.theguardian.com
This is something that I struggle with, as Truss does come across as being deeply stupid to me too, for the simple reason that she makes assertions which are self-evidently false or that can be subjected to a swift process of empirical trituration.
Having taught quite a number of sixth-formers who went on to study at Oxford, one thing that I can state quite unequivocally is that none of them, not one, would have come out with the kind of nonsense that she does. They were invariably of much higher calibre. They were also pretty well-rounded, could engage in highly sophisticated critical thinking, and were capable of empathy, of seeing the world from someone else's point of view.
So I find it hard to explain her lack of competence and ineptitude.
Could be because the Oxford PPE course ends up being too superficial because three subjects are studied rather than one? Or is it sometimes the case that those who graduate with this degree are so in thrall to a particular ideology that they cannot see the wood for the trees? Or could it be the case - as Ian Hughes has persuasively argued - that politics these days attracts more than its fair share of characters who are pathologically narcissistic, or even exhibit psychopathic traits?
I only wish I knew. But anyway, the following links may provide some clues:
How an Oxford degree – PPE – created a robotic governing class
If graduates from an architecture school designed buildings that were unfit for human habitation or doctors from a university’s medical faculty left death in their wake, their teachers would worry. The graduates of Oxford’s Politics, Philosophy and Economics course form the largest single...
PPE: the Oxford degree that runs Britain
The Long Read: An extraordinary number of Britain’s elite studied philosophy, politics and economics at Oxford. But does it produce an out-of-touch ruling class?