Liz Truss

Ric said:
No rush, Liz. Take your time. Not like it’s causing great worry and anxiety amongst most of the population.

Click to expand...

Ooh, more jam tomorrow.

I have a cunning plan, but you won't know what it is until you vote for me. It's my little secret until then.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
He‘ll try and replace Truss when she fails, but probably fail. He’ll then probably not stand in the next election (either in 2025 or 2030, pendent on how long Truss hangs around).

He‘ll write some shite books, earn a packet on the after dinner circuit and maybe have a go at being Mayor of London again.

He‘ll be remembered badly when looked at by future political historians, in an awful period for British politics.

Oh and have a dozen more kids from 10 different women.
Click to expand...
In time I think even the Conservative party will disown him.

He has set the ball rolling for the removal of the Tories. This coupled with the fact that his professional and personal conduct is quite possibly criminal and all his supporters can do is asked for parliamentary committee to not investigate him. Worryingly, the attemps to rehabilitate his reputation have already begun and the deranged last days in office glossed over.

Regardless, few politicians have had the impact he has had, although in my view a lot it has been hugely destructive.
 
Given that Truss models both her ideology and appearance on Margaret Thatcher, and bearing in mind the recent kerfuffle about the BBC and Emily Maitlis, the following impressions of the former PM offered up by the late Baroness Warnock in her autobiographical A Memoir: People and Places may amuse, as they amount to nothing less than a wonderfully eloquent piece of character assassination.

Warnock was an outstanding philosopher (in the department at Oxford) and a persuasive advocate for assisted dying. Interesting too that she left academia to become headmistress of Oxford High School. She was generally centre-right in her political views, but when it came to social issues seemed to be on the same side as left-leaning people.

But anyway, she devotes a full chapter to the ex-Prime Minister, a personage that she encountered on several occasions.

Having been disconcerted at an informal pre-lunch party by Thatcher’s inappropriately regal bearing, 'total absence of warmth', ‘sheer rudeness and bad behaviour’, and unimpressed with her ‘gaudy clothes‘ and ‘rampant hairdressing‘ (apparently, her famously bouffant hair looked 'ragged' from the back), Warnock proceeds to offer this description of a speech made at a later meeting of the Independent Broadcasting Authority:

'As soon as we sat down to lunch, and while the dishes were still being served, she started to speak. It must have been before she was taught, by those responsible for her packaging, to drop her voice by nearly an octave, and there were no dulcet tones. There was not even the air of the exasperated primary school teacher, with difficulty keeping a grip on her patience, to which we were becoming accustomed on television. Instead, she spoke loudly, in a high-pitched and furious voice, and without drawing breath (or so it seemed, though she was able to swiftly eat up her lunch at the same time). Her theme was the appalling left-wing, anti-government bias of the independent television companies, and of the authority itself...Her new plan she stated, was to curb the media, and compel them to present news and current affairs in accordance with government wishes.'

When a suggestion was made to her that such a policy would be damaging to the freedom of the press, 'she swept it aside, and declared that the People were not interested in the freedom of the press, but only in having Choice (it was the first time I had heard this formula); and choice meant having available a variety of channels, all of which were truthful and encouraging.

Nobody mentioned Stalin, but he was in everyone's mind.'

And there's more. This is about a subsequent address Thatcher made at a Vice-Chancellor’s lunch at Oxford University:

‘Almost as she hurried in with her little partridge steps, the Prime Minister began to rant against the universities, their arrogance, elitism, remoteness from the People, their indifference to the economy, their insistence on wasting time and public money on such subjects as history, philosophy and classics…she did not stop for more than two hours [and] no single one of her hosts could get a word in.’

The Vice-Chancellor was her husband Geoffrey, another noted philosopher, who was similarly shocked by Thatcher’s ‘deep philistinism, amounting not just to a failure to understand but a positive hatred of culture, learning and civilisation.’

Reflecting on these episodes, Warnock remarks [the word in block capitals is hers] that 'I think that she simply did not know how to behave and was in some way LOW', eventually confessing that whenever she thinks of her, she cannot help but recall ‘a particular electric blue suit‘ which ‘expresses directly, like a language one has always known, the crudity, philistinism and aggression that made up Margaret Thatcher’s character.‘

Warnock goes on to conclude that ‘the condition to which higher education was reduced was, I think, one of the worst effects of Thatcherism…the concept of learning, the respect for higher education for its own sake, as something intrinsically worth having, an essential part of any civilised society, had been thrown out; and this largely because of her own detestation of academics.’

That last comment is still relevant when one thinks of her rival Sunak's pledge to phase out degree courses that do not improve the ‘earning potential‘ of students.
 
ZenHalfTimeCrock said:
Given that Truss models both her ideology and appearance on Margaret Thatcher, and bearing in mind the recent kerfuffle about the BBC and Emily Maitlis, the following impressions of the former PM offered up by the late Baroness Warnock in her autobiographical A Memoir: People and Places may amuse, as they amount to nothing less than a wonderfully eloquent piece of character assassination.

Warnock was an outstanding philosopher (in the department at Oxford) and a persuasive advocate for assisted dying. Interesting too that she left academia to become headmistress of Oxford High School. She was generally centre-right in her political views, but when it came to social issues seemed to be on the same side as left-leaning people.

But anyway, she devotes a full chapter to the ex-Prime Minister, a personage that she encountered on several occasions.

Having been disconcerted at an informal pre-lunch party by Thatcher’s inappropriately regal bearing, 'total absence of warmth', ‘sheer rudeness and bad behaviour’, and unimpressed with her ‘gaudy clothes‘ and ‘rampant hairdressing‘ (apparently, her famously bouffant hair looked 'ragged' from the back), Warnock proceeds to offer this description of a speech made at a later meeting of the Independent Broadcasting Authority:

'As soon as we sat down to lunch, and while the dishes were still being served, she started to speak. It must have been before she was taught, by those responsible for her packaging, to drop her voice by nearly an octave, and there were no dulcet tones. There was not even the air of the exasperated primary school teacher, with difficulty keeping a grip on her patience, to which we were becoming accustomed on television. Instead, she spoke loudly, in a high-pitched and furious voice, and without drawing breath (or so it seemed, though she was able to swiftly eat up her lunch at the same time). Her theme was the appalling left-wing, anti-government bias of the independent television companies, and of the authority itself...Her new plan she stated, was to curb the media, and compel them to present news and current affairs in accordance with government wishes.'

When a suggestion was made to her that such a policy would be damaging to the freedom of the press, 'she swept it aside, and declared that the People were not interested in the freedom of the press, but only in having Choice (it was the first time I had heard this formula); and choice meant having available a variety of channels, all of which were truthful and encouraging.

Nobody mentioned Stalin, but he was in everyone's mind.'

And there's more. This is about a subsequent address Thatcher made at a Vice-Chancellor’s lunch at Oxford University:

‘Almost as she hurried in with her little partridge steps, the Prime Minister began to rant against the universities, their arrogance, elitism, remoteness from the People, their indifference to the economy, their insistence on wasting time and public money on such subjects as history, philosophy and classics…she did not stop for more than two hours [and] no single one of her hosts could get a word in.’

The Vice-Chancellor was her husband Geoffrey, another noted philosopher, who was similarly shocked by Thatcher’s ‘deep philistinism, amounting not just to a failure to understand but a positive hatred of culture, learning and civilisation.’

Reflecting on these episodes, Warnock remarks [the word in block capitals is hers] that 'I think that she simply did not know how to behave and was in some way LOW', eventually confessing that whenever she thinks of her, she cannot help but recall ‘a particular electric blue suit‘ which ‘expresses directly, like a language one has always known, the crudity, philistinism and aggression that made up Margaret Thatcher’s character.‘

Warnock goes on to conclude that ‘the condition to which higher education was reduced was, I think, one of the worst effects of Thatcherism…the concept of learning, the respect for higher education for its own sake, as something intrinsically worth having, an essential part of any civilised society, had been thrown out; and this largely because of her own detestation of academics.’

That last comment is still relevant when one thinks of her rival Sunak's pledge to phase out degree courses that do not improve the ‘earning potential‘ of students.
Click to expand...

It also serves their purpose for fewer people to expand their mind and only to allow the "right" people with the "right" interests to ask any questions
 
blueinsa said:
Think that’s their plan.

Run from the shit show they have created and let Labour try and deal with it for 5 years the fucking cowards.
Click to expand...

Yep, either that or keep her in long enough for them to try and do another reinvention. Four different prime ministers in six years all from the same party. It’s ridiculous really.
 
blueinsa said:
Think that’s their plan.

Run from the shit show they have created and let Labour try and deal with it for 5 years the fucking cowards.
Click to expand...
They’ve got a couple of more years to fuck it up even more, we’ll be in shit state by time the turds are out of office.
 
meltonblue said:
Yep, either that or keep her in long enough for them to try and do another reinvention. Four different prime ministers in six years all from the same party. It’s ridiculous really.
Click to expand...
would the people fall for that though...
 
Lizard Face Truss will be all over this.
 

Attachments

  • 4B0E4B84-0043-4023-ADAE-C03D22C7F7C0.jpeg
    4B0E4B84-0043-4023-ADAE-C03D22C7F7C0.jpeg
    70.5 KB · Views: 33
"Too Busy" for a national BBC interview today.

Even proper Tory bit Nick Robinson is scathing. Calling her politics "Click,Click,share,share" over any actual scrutiny by the people.
 
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