Liz Truss

I know we’ve all wondered over the past few weeks as to how on earth Truss ever made it to be prime minister, but it looks like some very serious questions are going to be asked about her over the coming days.

Two articles published today which are entirely damning, again questioning her suitability for high office and, more worryingly, highlighting the lack of checks and balances around her appointment.

The first is in The Times about the run-up to the mini-budget. Again, it paints a picture of an arrogant incompetent promoted well above her station, but one feature in particular which stood out - apart from how see sidelined any official advice from the Treasury, and conducted most meetings in secret - relates to a little known economist appointed as chief economic advisor to No. 10, and who apparently had full control over the fiscal plans. Matt Sinclair is the economist in question - I looked him up on LinkedIn and he has zero experience in financial markets or indeed fiscal policy. Zero. Frankly, if he applied for a job on a gilt trading desk he wouldn’t even get a reply, let alone an interview, but somehow Truss was allowed to ignore all the official advice and dance instead to his tune. How could this be allowed to happen when the country spends many millions funding a Treasury department and Debt Management Office, all with the aim of avoiding any sharp increase in debt funding costs (the rise of which had already cost the taxpayer billions)?

The other story is of course this evening’s news about her using her private phone to discuss critical meetings with our allies with regard to Ukraine - including shipments of arms and other military support - all while it had unknowingly been hacked by Russian spies.

Obviously the juicy stuff will be the private messages she exchanged with ‘close friend’ Kwarteng, but the scandalous part is how all of this was covered up by the government when the security breach was discovered during this summer’s leadership campaign. Not only did we allow somebody stupid enough to use an non-secure phone to discuss top secret discussions around Ukraine to become PM, but news of the breach - surely a matter of genuine public interest during a leadership campaign - was covered up to allow her to win the contest. It really doesn’t smell right at all.

The more you read about her, the more you realise what an incompetent, arrogant and frankly deluded nutcase she is. But that’s common knowledge now. The real issue is how this all of this was allowed to happen. I’m no lawyer, but I do wonder whether any charges with regard to misconduct in public office could be levelled both at her and the people in government who facilitated all of this?
 
Brewster's millions said:
I know we’ve all wondered over the past few weeks as to how on earth Truss ever made it to be prime minister, but it looks like some very serious questions are going to be asked about her over the coming days.

Two articles published today which are entirely damning, again questioning her suitability for high office and, more worryingly, highlighting the lack of checks and balances around her appointment.

The first is in The Times about the run-up to the mini-budget. Again, it paints a picture of an arrogant incompetent promoted well above her station, but one feature in particular which stood out - apart from how see sidelined any official advice from the Treasury, and conducted most meetings in secret - relates to a little known economist appointed as chief economic advisor to No. 10, and who apparently had full control over the fiscal plans. Matt Sinclair is the economist in question - I looked him up on LinkedIn and he has zero experience in financial markets or indeed fiscal policy. Zero. Frankly, if he applied for a job on a gilt trading desk he wouldn’t even get a reply, let alone an interview, but somehow Truss was allowed to ignore all the official advice and dance instead to his tune. How could this be allowed to happen when the country spends many millions funding a Treasury department and Debt Management Office, all with the aim of avoiding any sharp increase in debt funding costs (the rise of which had already cost the taxpayer billions)?

The other story is of course this evening’s news about her using her private phone to discuss critical meetings with our allies with regard to Ukraine - including shipments of arms and other military support - all while it had unknowingly been hacked by Russian spies.

Obviously the juicy stuff will be the private messages she exchanged with ‘close friend’ Kwarteng, but the scandalous part is how all of this was covered up by the government when the security breach was discovered during this summer’s leadership campaign. Not only did we allow somebody stupid enough to use an non-secure phone to discuss top secret discussions around Ukraine to become PM, but news of the breach - surely a matter of genuine public interest during a leadership campaign - was covered up to allow her to win the contest. It really doesn’t smell right at all.

The more you read about her, the more you realise what an incompetent, arrogant and frankly deluded nutcase she is. But that’s common knowledge now. The real issue is how this all of this was allowed to happen. I’m no lawyer, but I do wonder whether any charges with regard to misconduct in public office could be levelled both at her and the people in government who facilitated all of this?
Click to expand...
It’s ok because she is incapable of sending any message that could be loosely described as intelligent. The Ruskies will be trying to decipher her nonsense for years to come!
 
NJ Blue said:
It’s ok because she is incapable of sending any message that could be loosely described as intelligent. The Ruskies will be trying to decipher her nonsense for years to come!
Click to expand...
They probably dismissed it as counter-intelligence, and a crude attempt to pass some false information to them, as surely nobody could be that fucking daft to discuss actual top secret intelligence on their private phone.

Reportedly the bigger risk was the threat of blackmail, again because of the messages she sent to her close friend.
 
Brewster's millions said:
They probably dismissed it as counter-intelligence, and a crude attempt to pass some false information to them, as surely nobody could be that fucking daft to discuss actual top secret intelligence on their private phone.

Reportedly the bigger risk was the threat of blackmail, again because of the messages she sent to her close friend.
Click to expand...
We had already seen the list of ministers’ dirt a few weeks before Truss became PM which included the allegation that Kwarteng was fucking Truss. Looks like it was true which sort of validates the rest of it.
 
west didsblue said:
We had already seen the list of ministers’ dirt a few weeks before Truss became PM which included the allegation that Kwarteng was fucking Truss. Looks like it was true which sort of validates the rest of it.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that list was genuine to be honest, or at least it was incomplete, as there was some stuff missing from it which was fairly common knowledge a couple of years ago.

The cover-up of the phone hacking could be pretty big news though, given the damage already caused by Truss winning that leadership contest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.