Rayvin

As I said yesterday, we need to remain vigilant because this is a clear change of tack from Johnson - for all this analysis of 'clear blue sky' between Starmer and Truss, it's the consideration of this between Truss and Johnson that we need to be concerned about. By coming out and saying what she believes in, she has potentially wrongfooted Starmer who is still fighting this battle on a field that is not aligned with his own principles. They will sell her as sincere, willing to make tough decisions, and someone who has a vision for how we should move forward. People want a vision, I've been saying this specific line for fucking years. The fact that she is none of those things won't matter - the packaging the media give her will cut through.

This completely. The game isn't about a series of chained hypotheticals ffs. And since the referee didn't look at the build up anyway by the sounds of it, he had no way of knowing that information in the first place. Waugh is just being contrary. I suppose that makes the show more interesting than if all 3 of them just agreed with each other though.

Just so we're totally clear, when I highlight that she actually formed a cogent argument and stuck to her position on something, and that this fact alone was the greatest departure from the Johnson era - and that we should therefore be wary of the shift in the way in which the battle is fought - you think I'm stressing out over her winning a landslide election. I am clearly not the only person who noticed what I did, as evidenced by the various political commentators and news reports. The encouraging thing for me is that Labour probably noticed it too. I very much hope they're not adopting your attitude and putting their feet up, calling this a formality

Well, that's an encouraging view. I hope you're right - genuinely.

I agree but she has two years to convince them with all the media and corporate interests behind her. Hence my original point being that we should remain vigilant. I think Johnson may have lulled us into a false sense of security about the Tories.

Always love an excuse to post this video too - ultimately propaganda for Truss' view but it's very well made propaganda

Yeah but that's actually a stronger version of the position she's taken. She's watered the intensity of her ideology down, granted, but it's the same one. You're viewing her as another Johnson or even dare I say it a Starmer - someone who will be whatever she thinks the voters want her to be. On the evidence of today, she's actually nearer to a Corbyn. Which might well be music to your ears, frankly.

From the guardian's review of her performance published just now: Truss also marks a very welcome change from Boris Johnson, in that (for the most part) she was willing to answer questions, and engage in an argument about policy and ideas. This, of course, is what is meant to happen. But for the last three years we have been governed by a prime minister much more interested in politics as performance and entertainment, and so it is refreshing to tilt back to ideas. But that is where the whole encounter was less positive for Truss. She won the Conservative leadership contest on a low-tax, small-state agenda that put her well to the right of any Tory leader for a generation. Truss has always been a libertarian (it’s why she joined the Liberal Democrats at university), but during the summer it was never entirely clear to what extent she was just pandering to her party’s cruder, Thatcherite instincts. But now we know; it’s worse than that (to quote an old Westminster joke) – she really does believe it.

This also concerns me more than I'd care to admit - in a bid to turn the tide if polling continues to go low maybe.

Run! It's too late for me but you can still save yourself!

I did go and look, and while it's a very difficult thing to locate, I did find this. This isn't to call you out btw, this is to make really fucking clear that we have to be vigilant.

I think there's some revisionism here - What tended to be said in here was that we expected a GE as a result of government collapse. This has never happened. I'm not going to go delving to prove that though so let's just say I'm wrong in my understanding of what people meant when they made those comments, and they in fact meant that the Tories would fall in the polls. I think the thing you're sore about here is I'm not joining in the celebration of Truss being a moron. I know she's a moron. I am not "complaining" that we haven't won yet, I am stating it. It is a fact. We haven't won yet. I have outlined why I think we need to be careful and why I think Truss could be a threat. I may be wrong - I'm fine with that. But this place has a pretty fucking poor record on predicting outcomes in a political sense, so you'll forgive me if I'm not reassured by the notion that she'll be gone in February

I don't want anything more to have happened - in fact I'd far rather less had - I am saying that the final 10 minutes should be played with the same intensity as the preceding 80 minutes. We haven't won yet, we cannot assume she will be gone by February (we thought Johnson would be gone within 6 months for fucks sake, he rattled on for over two years despite being an unmitigated disaster of a human being). And to reiterate, we have on many, many, many occasions predicted the collapse of the Tories over the past few years. It has not happened. They still have the press and the forces of darkness to call on, we still have to be vigilant. If we fuck this up at this next opportunity, I honestly don't think there's any coming back for this country. There probably isn't already.

Maybe I am - the fact that what she said was well received with me (argument aside) suggests that this could just be my own preference for truth and principles in political discussion trumping other considerations. I very much hope you're right but I am worried nonetheless.

I have said it before and I'll say it again - I have been on this forum since 2012 and every fucking year we predict the imminent demise of the Tories, and every fucking year they're still in power. I agree that we have to be getting close to the end of what the public will tolerate now, genuinely, but we should take her very fucking seriously so that there is absolutely no possibility that this gets fucked up. There should still be an electoral pact even if Labour gets to an 80% poll lead. We cannot afford to write her off and call this an inevitability.

Aside from the nature of the argument, I think there's a risk here in terms of strategy concerning truth. Starmer has set himself up to fight this battle in a Johnsonite playing field where truth is whatever you want it to be and you won't be harshly questioned for saying one thing today and another thing tomorrow. I doubt that it's an exaggeration to say that a lot of people will be genuinely tired of seeing this level of bullshit from politicians. On the left we acknowledge that Starmer has had to play this game because it's the tone that has been set by his adversary, even if some of us (you and I amongst them) were repelled by it. On the right, they saw it too - but they chose to tell themselves that "all politicians were the same" in order to justify their continued backing for Johnson. If Truss comes in here and starts speaking her truth about the economy - and for all I think she flip flops on a great many things, her overall framework for economic management seems pretty consistent - it is possible that people start seeing her as an antidote to the bullshit of the last few years, and that she manages to portray herself as a serious politician who needs to make adult decisions. I guarantee that's what she's going for at the very least. And that distinction with Johnson - gained simply through openly committing to her principles, could permit her to get away with all manner of total idiocy while looking like she is simply doing what has to be done. How it is received does depend on the average voter, but they've let us down a great many times before.

Superb

I hope it is!

Yeah this is worrying me a bit actually. Truss clearly believes what she's saying, which means she can speak on it from a position of conviction and win people over potentially. It may fail, and if it does it'll prove why Starmer is "right" to avoid doing the same - but I actually respect the fact that she's saying what her position is and committing to it even if I fundamentally disagree with it. I think if she makes it digestible enough, the middle of the road voters could be swung over by it. I mean you're all talking like it's self evident that people will look at this and think 'fuck that, why should we pay more for the principle of the free market' but actually they made that choice over Brexit and austerity. If she talks up 'hard working and ambitious' enough, it could happen. Depends how the press handle it I guess but since she'll have all the usual bellends behind her on that side, I am concerned.

I actually think she's better at this than Johnson. There has been something shading an actual debate here which I don't think I've ever seen in PMQs.

I think people forget that it's not like City were winning the league overnight. It took them 3 years to get their first trophy.

Chelsea fans seem to be suggesting this happened because he lost the dressing room. Apparently the effort applied last night was non-existent.

I'd be very surprised if Howe left since he seems to be committed to the project here. Chelsea isn't a project, it's a payday.

They're the Sunderland of political parties. Short lived and incompetently replaced managers, paedo scandals, Brexit backing, inflated sense of self regard, etc.