New Tory Leader

[Well b back 3,284]

The ladies not for turning - F*** me she’s turned again. Again another good U Turn but why the hell were they even considering it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63024366

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Just now, Well b back said:

The ladies not for turning - F*** me she’s turned again. Again another good U Turn but why the hell were they even considering it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63024366

The reason we are throwing you out of No 10 Downing Street Mrs Truss is a fair one because you were never elected to be the tenant in the first place.

[PurpleCanary 5,587]

1 hour ago, sonyc said:

I'm not offended personally. Never feel that. I DO get offended by views that I feel are unfair towards other people. I do get annoyed at the behaviour and policies of the current government. Different things. I don't go for the personal like you do. Like your comments about the poor for example...I would rather not reply to those kinds of views because they are so extreme and I don't wish to get into a fight of words. But I strongly disagree with that view. I don't care who wins an argument either (you stated you had won). It's not important who wins really in the scheme of things on a forum.

Any one more thing. You stated before that I'm an intelligent poster but the truth is I'm not really.  I don't think so anyway. I may score highly on IQ tests but they are ridiculous and also very limited. So many posters are able to lay out an argument better than me. You are probably one of them. 

Surely is very obvious to you by now that my views are quite lightweight and secondly, they are simply not attuned to your way of looking at the world. It's best you ignore stuff I post because it has no worth to you.

But I will post from time to time because I've found there are like-minded folk and that's always life affirming.

Unlike some you would score highly on any test of humanity and compassion.

[Well b back 3,284]

Has the Troll left the building ?

[horsefly 4,318]

4 minutes ago, Well b back said:

Has the Troll left the building ?

Apparently, he was physically removed by the Pink Un's 58 diversity officers

[Well b back 3,284]

2 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Apparently, he was physically removed by the Pink Un's 58 diversity officers

Is that like the 1922 committee

[1902 1,167]

23 minutes ago, Well b back said:

Is that like the 1922 committee

All I know is that I have seniority by 20 years.

[Badger 2,413]

3 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

Sorry, Badger, but LinkedIn is the leading recruitment site in the world and has a massive reputation to uphold.

I understand that I have blown your narrative out of the water with the hard evidence that you asked for - that there are tens of thousands of diversity officer jobs in the UK - not one of which are adding any value to the economy - and a role that never existed until a decade ago, but the truth does not lie, however much you want to manipulate it. But then I expect you are probably one of those people that think trans women are women.

I think that you are in need of help.

I know all about Linkedin and I am sure that they would be upset if they knew an extreme right wing website from which I presume you took your screenshot was manipulating an image pretending to come from their website. The clue was that there was no link - just a screenshot.

This is why I provided a genuine link! The screenshot that you provided was false  but if click my link it will take you straight to the genuine site. have updated it for you below:

https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/search/?currentJobId=3283960832&f_TPR=r2592000&geoId=101165590&keywords=Diversity Officers Jobs&location=United Kingdom&spellCorrectionEnabled=false

There are currently7 Diversity Officer jobs in the UK - as far as an see all at different locations of PwC - a leading management consultant (amongst other things) - perhaps you should explain to them that they are wasting one. As before the job title is not Diversity Officer but is a role that is part of their job. You see, it's pretty handy for businesses to understand their customers and workforce!

Follow my genuine link - see for yourself. I fear. however, that your are incapable of independent thought. 

[sonyc 5,541]

34 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Unlike some you would score highly on any test of humanity and compassion.

Kind of you to say PC. 

I suppose I do care certainly ... but mainly I'm just trying to understand through my replies the 'strong man' / bullish kind of posters ... there's a few of them.

Not sure the best way of tackling them really. And it feels wrong to also go on the offensive.

Most of the time if someone does annoy with extreme views or is insulting to another (or me), I very consciously wait an hour or so and just see what I then feel. 99% of the time I find that the matter isn't important at all🙂. So I let loads of stuff go.

My problem is that perhaps every 6 - 12 months or so I might then post something directly in response (but immediately I regret my lack of discipline in doing so. A proper dilemma therefore and there's a tendency to end up feeling I ought to just STFU 😐).

Humour is a great defence and I enjoy that very much in others' responses! (See below).

Politics and money are two sensitive subjects for sure. 

Anyway I leave a small joke I came across just this week on politics. MW is worth a follow for all kinds of cultural posts.

 

 

 

[Badger 2,413]

3 hours ago, 1902 said:

Except badger just proved that it isn't hard evidence..... 

His evidence was fraudulent - it was a mock up of a Linkedin page with no link. It was designed to manipulate the intellectually vulnerable. 

[Well b back 3,284]

Looks like it’s all going wrong for our Liz

Truss accused of 'trashing blue collar conservatism' at 1922 committee

Ione Wells

Political Correspondent, BBC News

I’m told by sources in the room that MP Robert Halfon told the 1922 committee of Tory backbenchers that Liz Truss was "trashing blue collar conservatism".

He told her the Conservative Party’s record over the last 10 years under David Cameron, Theresa May and Boris Johnson had included things like boosting apprenticeships and the living wage, whereas she had cut tax for millionaires and wants to cut affordable housing and to cut benefits.

MPs present in the room say he got cheers, but that Truss looked “shocked” and said he could come and speak to her.

MPs present also said James Cartlidge MP criticised the mini-budget and said that communication had been poor and she had not prepared the markets.

[Badger 2,413]

3 hours ago, 1902 said:

Because employers don't pay enough, the jobs aren't always where people's homes are and lots of low level jobs require qualifications which are costly in time and money to get.

Also if you vegetable pick (which is seasonal) you then have to navigate the deliberately Byzantine benefits claim system when you lose that job when the season is over.

Also your favourite party could have done something about this, by passing tax cuts to the lowest paid, therefore making work pay better, but they didn't. They gave it to the richest.

Often the problem lies in simple facts for example, that the jobs are not where the people are +  even if they are quite close the costs of getting there make it unaffordable. There is also frictional unemployment (basically people between jobs).

I wouldn't bother trying to explain it to RTB but most economists agree that there is a natural rate of unemployment to account for factors like this. Milton Friedman, a one-time favourite economist of Margaret Thatcher was a big proponent of the theory. Genuinely full employment is not possible, although "supply side" reforms can reduce the natural rate of unemployment - more easily available housing, better transport etc.

Low wages can be a factor but it is unlikely that such a group would be in receipt of benefits as they would be guilty  being voluntarily unemployed and therefore not eligible and would classed as being economically inactive despite being of working age. 

[Badger 2,413]

7 hours ago, horsefly said:

Well, she did say explicitly there will be no public spending cuts. So just how the fu*ck is she planning to raise the cash needed for her multi-billions unfunded tax cuts? Expect the markets to vent their continued lack of confidence shortly.

My guess would be is that spending will not rise in line with inflation. If inflation next year is 5% and spending rises by 1%, she will have met this pledge - spending will not have been cut in monetary terms although it will in real terms - it should be enough to fool the simpletons (let's ask RTB 😉). The reality is though that service funding will have been cut by 4% saving over £50 billion.

There is also the likelihood that tax free allowances will also be frozen, which means that despite so-called "tax cuts" people will pay tax on a bigger proportion of their income. 

[Herman 9,838]

2 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

 

Jason Groves

 

@JasonGroves1

·

13m

 

Tory MP on Liz Truss's appearance at the 1922 Committee: 'It was like someone trying to light a fire using a magnifying glass. Using damp wood. In the dark.'

Judging all other comments coming out this evening this is one of the kinder ones.😬😂

[1902 1,167]

55 minutes ago, Badger said:

Often the problem lies in simple facts for example, that the jobs are not where the people are +  even if they are quite close the costs of getting there make it unaffordable. There is also frictional unemployment (basically people between jobs).

I wouldn't bother trying to explain it to RTB but most economists agree that there is a natural rate of unemployment to account for factors like this. Milton Friedman, a one-time favourite economist of Margaret Thatcher was a big proponent of the theory. Genuinely full employment is not possible, although "supply side" reforms can reduce the natural rate of unemployment - more easily available housing, better transport etc.

Low wages can be a factor but it is unlikely that such a group would be in receipt of benefits as they would be guilty  being voluntarily unemployed and therefore not eligible and would classed as being economically inactive despite being of working age. 

As is proven by employment stats from the 60s, when the UK had an unemployment rate of 1.5%. To all intents and purposes that was full employment. Nowadays we are at 3.4% officially, though it's so distorted by people taking involuntary early retirement and the underemployed that it's essentially a meaningless statistic.

[Herman 9,838]

"Two Soups" is back again.

[horsefly 4,318]

Good to see that the new King speaks for us all: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/king-charles-mutters-dear-oh-dear-as-he-meets-liz-truss/ar-AA12Tm5t?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=6819b1c8a32049e8b86ba8a9a81b776f

King Charles mutters 'Dear oh dear' as he meets Liz Truss

 

 

[Herman 9,838]

The level of denial from not so Cleverly!!!😩

[TheGunnShow 6,023]

15 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

Because in an economic meritocracy we don't judge people by their ability to work hard but by the value of their output. This, along with demand and supply, is what determines remuneration. A CEO may work eighty hours every week but if her business fails to make a profit she will be sacked. There output has no value.

A care worker will never be paid a stellar salary because her value of output is relatively unscalable whereas a software developer's value of output is potentially massively scalable if they produce the next TikTok or whatever. Even if the care worker works harder, are in short supply, and there is a high demand for care workers, they will probably still earn less than a software developer due to the value of output each can produce.

Except that's rarely what happens as if a CEO doesn't perform they often get a tidy severance package regardless. Also, using care workers as an example I think you just inadvertently summed up with the scalability comment why there's a serious problem - one works in a situation which is often close to life and death, the software developer does not.

But that's not the crux of the argument - the crux is, as I said before, when the notion of a meritocracy hardens into "they're not deserving" as a result.

[Yellow Fever 3,841]

I see the Truss hunting season has opened in the Tory party and their press now.

I think they'll give her a week or two head start (until Halloween) else it just wouldn't be sporting (and just for show) but I'm she'll eventually make a nice trophy on Sunak's No. 10 mantelpiece in time for Christmas.

Edited October 13, 2022 by Yellow Fever

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Just shows that we are being governed by someone who was elected by 70K Tory members who believe they are paying too much tax.

Its a very narrow field to be governing on.

[Yellow Fever 3,841]

8 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Just shows that we are being governed by someone who was elected by 70K Tory members who believe they are paying too much tax.

Its a very narrow field to be governing on.

Have to agree KG. We really do need an election but Truss is simply a dead woman walking now whatever. Sunak as caretaker PM from Truss going to election day in January. What a total mess for anybody to inherit.

[sonyc 5,541]

8 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Have to agree KG. We really do need an election but Truss is simply a dead woman walking now whatever. Sunak as caretaker PM from Truss going to election day in January. What a total mess for anybody to inherit.

Within maybe 10 years she will be a pub quiz question I think.

Doing a Kwarteng might also enter the field, into the vernacular. Who knows.

The constant crisis of the Tory Party needs to end. And with it all the drama created too. What have we witnessed these last 5 years or so?

 

.... Brexit arguments, a kind of no deal, prorogation, contracts for cronies, PPE scandals, care home Covid, free school meals (Rashford), EU citizen returnees from the NHS, 'partygates' (Sue Gray), Rwanda, numerous sex scandals/assaults, 5 Health Secretaries in 5 years and regular changes in PM. Then, factor in our current mess.

Bloody hell, imagine a Labour government behind all that lot and how they would have been absolutely denigrated. I doubt they'd have lasted a year. But it's only the left of centre press, until the last 2 years, that has called a lot of this out hasn't it? The Law Society work has been another check ... the busiest they've ever been no doubt. 

Much will be written about this period (can we call it an era?) in years to come. The Great British Scandal or some other name. It will be interesting ahead to analyse the attitudes of cohorts of the country to this period.

I still believe it's our younger population now, as it matures in a few years, that ought to change the political centre of this country quite definitely to the centre and left of centre. It's a hopeful thought. In the meanwhile will someone or something put the Tories out of their misery. It's a failing ideology for the 21st century. Okay in the 19th and maybe for part of the 20th but now so broken and fractured. We are stuck with 'growth'. We are stuck with unequal outcomes. 

 

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

52 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Within maybe 10 years she will be a pub quiz question I think.

Doing a Kwarteng might also enter the field, into the vernacular. Who knows.

The constant crisis of the Tory Party needs to end. And with it all the drama created too. What have we witnessed these last 5 years or so?

 

.... Brexit arguments, a kind of no deal, prorogation, contracts for cronies, PPE scandals, care home Covid, free school meals (Rashford), EU citizen returnees from the NHS, 'partygates' (Sue Gray), Rwanda, numerous sex scandals/assaults, 5 Health Secretaries in 5 years and regular changes in PM. Then, factor in our current mess.

Bloody hell, imagine a Labour government behind all that lot and how they would have been absolutely denigrated. I doubt they'd have lasted a year. But it's only the left of centre press, until the last 2 years, that has called a lot of this out hasn't it? The Law Society work has been another check ... the busiest they've ever been no doubt. 

Much will be written about this period (can we call it an era?) in years to come. The Great British Scandal or some other name. It will be interesting ahead to analyse the attitudes of cohorts of the country to this period.

I still believe it's our younger population now, as it matures in a few years, that ought to change the political centre of this country quite definitely to the centre and left of centre. It's a hopeful thought. In the meanwhile will someone or something put the Tories out of their misery. It's a failing ideology for the 21st century. Okay in the 19th and maybe for part of the 20th but now so broken and fractured. We are stuck with 'growth'. We are stuck with unequal outcomes. 

 

 

While the Left and Labour  have been told for so many years that their notion of running the country is out of date and reflects and earlier age, its about time the Tories accepted that their doctrine is from an even earlier age and is not fit for purpose anymore.

While some might call me a dinosaur because of my left wing beliefs, its about time they realised that I wouldn't have the same beliefs if things were fairer and more equal. If that were achieved, I would automatically shift to the centre. There wouldn't be a need for the left. Why are Unions in decline? Because of their success. It would be the same for politics and the workplace. An acknowledgement and acceptance that levelling up really is a brilliant idea and should be carried out would lead to consensus and not division.

[A Load of Squit 5,223]

Today we have Tory blackouts are character building. 🙂

 

[PurpleCanary 5,587]

On 07/07/2022 at 11:47, PurpleCanary said:

If I was a betting person I would put my money on Penny Mordaunt.

Looks like I could end up being right...🤩

[canarydan23 4,060]

7 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Looks like I could end up being right...🤩

Of all the leadership candidates, she was the only one who I thought capable of doing a less-than-terrible job, which for a Tory is just about the best you can feasibly hope for.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

54 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

Today we have Tory blackouts are character building. 🙂

 

Send 'em to Ukraine. A bit of death and war will soon bring 'em round to the Telegraph's way of thinking.

Be a journalist on fantastic money sit on your arris, play both sides, drink like a fish and make up what you can't find to be truthful. Or I am stereotyping journalists? Something they would never do.

[horsefly 4,318]

5 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Be a journalist on fantastic money sit on your arris, play both sides, drink like a fish and make up what you can't find to be truthful.

Well, that is certainly a 100% accurate description of Johnson's tenure at the Telegraph. 

[Yellow Fever 3,841]

32 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Of all the leadership candidates, she was the only one who I thought capable of doing a less-than-terrible job, which for a Tory is just about the best you can feasibly hope for.

 

40 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

  On 07/07/2022 at 10:47, PurpleCanary said:

If I was a betting person I would put my money on Penny Mordaunt.

 

I think we are now well beyond any new Tory leader being in office as PM with any agenda at all. Nobody would stand for it. Truss has trashed any such notions totally. New mandate required.

It has to be a caretaker that will calm the markets and act responsibly in the nation interests. Sunak is the man.

The so called Tory party can then split or reinvent itself whilst out of office for generation or three.