4 ms·

> Would this be the same Chancellor who's just resigned in disgrace over ordering HMRC not to investigate him for not paying tax, then threatening any journalis

> Would this be the same Chancellor who's just resigned in disgrace over ordering HMRC not to investigate him for not paying tax, then threatening any journalist who mentioned it with a libel lawsuit? No. > Anyone trying to defend the Tory record has to defend Truss without just memory-holing that whole 45 day period. And anyone criticizing the system has to explain how someone incompetent was removed so quickly. In any other country, she would have been in power for years. And the shortage theory would only follow logically if the Tories had then elected someone who was at least as bad...which didn't happen. Truss was bad, but that is all you can really say.

ben_w 4y ago
> And anyone criticizing the system has to explain how someone incompetent was removed so quickly. In any other country, she would have been in power for years. She was polling so badly it was seen as the equivalent of her party coming fourth, behind not only Labour, but also the SNP and the LibDems: """That could see the Tories win just 22 seats, behind the SNP on 42, the Lib Dems on 47 and Labour on 515.""" - https://metro.co.uk/2022/10/18/liz-truss-silent-as-poll-points-to-22-seat-election-wipeout-17582308/ https://metro.co.uk/2022/10/18/liz-truss-silent-as-poll-poin... > And the shortage theory would only follow logically if the Tories had then elected someone who was at least as bad...which didn't happen. Not so; while competence and popularity aren't the same things, none of the candidates for leadership of the Tory party have been of a high standard at least since Cameron left.
- skippyboxedhero 4y ago
  And? She was removed. In most other political systems, it is not possible to remove someone in her position because we have a parliamentary, not presidential, system. Some countries, like Italy, do not even have an elected President. Cameron said Sunak was going to lead the party. He is leagues above Cameron (who, for a British politician, was quite average). If you look in the Cabinet, you see the same thing. It is more obvious once you compare the Tories to Labour, the gulf is huge (Labour really only has Reeves and Starmer, and the latter is, seemingly by his own admission, not strong opposition...btw, I am a Labour supporter, the reason I know this is because I know people in the party, it is embarrassing and all stemmed from the problems with Brown). Truss was one of the weakest members of the Cabinet (alongside her stooges). But Johnson, for all his faults, was the right man at the right time, and left when he was supposed to. Again, another one of the strengths of our system. And we didn't get a Brown situation (you may have forgotten that Brown also polled under the Lib Dems in the run-up to 2010, Corbyn was leader for how long...and he actually polled under the Lib Dems too in 2019).
  - ben_w 4y ago
    > And? She was removed. In most other political systems, it is not possible to remove someone in her position because we have a parliamentary, not presidential, system. Still allowed to criticise the system for allowing her to gain power. No brownie points for the fact that her party recognised she was such a disaster they would cease to be a meaningful political force at the next election, and therefore made it clear that she should resign. This can easily be replicated in other systems. They don't need to have an official way to force leaders out: she, officially, resigned. > But Johnson, for all his faults, was the right man at the right time, and left when he was supposed to. Oh god no, he was a walking disaster area well before he became the uncontested replacement for May. He was fundamentally unfit for office and shouldn't have even been allowed to stand as a Tory candidate MP given his pathological incomprehension of the concept of truth as something deeper than an ad hominem attack. Allowing him to be PM has almost certainly undermined UK national security given his complete lack of restraint or self control in either lust or money. Only reason he won the election is because Corbyn was so unappealing that even the parliamentary Labour party overwhelming rejected him (what was it, all MPs not in the shadow cabinet?), which is exactly him sticking around for years in the way that you're saying doesn't happen in the UK. But why did he stick around when the Tory MPs could kick out their leaders? Because Labour's leadership contest allowed candidates rejected by the party to be on the ballot, while the Tories (do they still change their method with each leader or was that just the Blair years?) don't. > And we didn't get a Brown situation (you may have forgotten that Brown also polled under the Lib Dems in the run-up to 2010, Corbyn was leader for how long...and he actually polled under the Lib Dems too in 2019). That was unusually high LibDem support of 29% instead of the usual 10-15%, not a spectacular catastrophic nose-dive by Brown. Corbyn should've gone after the first election or the leadership contest. That he didn't proves the UK being parliamentary didn't help.

ben_w 4y ago

> And anyone criticizing the system has to explain how someone incompetent was removed so quickly. In any other country, she would have been in power for years. She was polling so badly it was seen as the equivalent of her party coming fourth, behind not only Labour, but also the SNP and the LibDems: """That could see the Tories win just 22 seats, behind the SNP on 42, the Lib Dems on 47 and Labour on 515.""" - https://metro.co.uk/2022/10/18/liz-truss-silent-as-poll-points-to-22-seat-election-wipeout-17582308/ https://metro.co.uk/2022/10/18/liz-truss-silent-as-poll-poin... > And the shortage theory would only follow logically if the Tories had then elected someone who was at least as bad...which didn't happen. Not so; while competence and popularity aren't the same things, none of the candidates for leadership of the Tory party have been of a high standard at least since Cameron left.

skippyboxedhero 4y ago
And? She was removed. In most other political systems, it is not possible to remove someone in her position because we have a parliamentary, not presidential, system. Some countries, like Italy, do not even have an elected President. Cameron said Sunak was going to lead the party. He is leagues above Cameron (who, for a British politician, was quite average). If you look in the Cabinet, you see the same thing. It is more obvious once you compare the Tories to Labour, the gulf is huge (Labour really only has Reeves and Starmer, and the latter is, seemingly by his own admission, not strong opposition...btw, I am a Labour supporter, the reason I know this is because I know people in the party, it is embarrassing and all stemmed from the problems with Brown). Truss was one of the weakest members of the Cabinet (alongside her stooges). But Johnson, for all his faults, was the right man at the right time, and left when he was supposed to. Again, another one of the strengths of our system. And we didn't get a Brown situation (you may have forgotten that Brown also polled under the Lib Dems in the run-up to 2010, Corbyn was leader for how long...and he actually polled under the Lib Dems too in 2019).
- ben_w 4y ago
  > And? She was removed. In most other political systems, it is not possible to remove someone in her position because we have a parliamentary, not presidential, system. Still allowed to criticise the system for allowing her to gain power. No brownie points for the fact that her party recognised she was such a disaster they would cease to be a meaningful political force at the next election, and therefore made it clear that she should resign. This can easily be replicated in other systems. They don't need to have an official way to force leaders out: she, officially, resigned. > But Johnson, for all his faults, was the right man at the right time, and left when he was supposed to. Oh god no, he was a walking disaster area well before he became the uncontested replacement for May. He was fundamentally unfit for office and shouldn't have even been allowed to stand as a Tory candidate MP given his pathological incomprehension of the concept of truth as something deeper than an ad hominem attack. Allowing him to be PM has almost certainly undermined UK national security given his complete lack of restraint or self control in either lust or money. Only reason he won the election is because Corbyn was so unappealing that even the parliamentary Labour party overwhelming rejected him (what was it, all MPs not in the shadow cabinet?), which is exactly him sticking around for years in the way that you're saying doesn't happen in the UK. But why did he stick around when the Tory MPs could kick out their leaders? Because Labour's leadership contest allowed candidates rejected by the party to be on the ballot, while the Tories (do they still change their method with each leader or was that just the Blair years?) don't. > And we didn't get a Brown situation (you may have forgotten that Brown also polled under the Lib Dems in the run-up to 2010, Corbyn was leader for how long...and he actually polled under the Lib Dems too in 2019). That was unusually high LibDem support of 29% instead of the usual 10-15%, not a spectacular catastrophic nose-dive by Brown. Corbyn should've gone after the first election or the leadership contest. That he didn't proves the UK being parliamentary didn't help.