Tory Cunt Leadership Race.

[Tj hooker]

1 hour ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Because we're all fed up of 20 years of our economy being too egalitarian and redistributive and we want rich people to get more, as is fair.

 

Is she deliberately trying to lose the next election ( seems stupid saying that as its the Tories) but why would she say that on National television. 

Any working person especially those in the Red  wall seats who hear that and continue to vote for these bastards really deserve everything that comes there way .

Trickle down economics has proven not to work at any time in history it's just a line put out by the rich to keep the poor man down 

[Tj hooker]

I think we all know this is true 

[YorkshireRed]

1 minute ago, Tj hooker said:

I think we all know this is true 

Was it Liz Truss?

[YorkshireRed]

9 minutes ago, Tj hooker said:

Is she deliberately trying to lose the next election ( seems stupid saying that as its the Tories) but why would she say that on National television. 

Any working person especially those in the Red  wall seats who hear that and continue to vote for these bastards really deserve everything that comes there way .

Trickle down economics has proven not to work at any time in history it's just a line put out by the rich to keep the poor man down 

So in simple terms, reducing income tax provides those that can afford it, or at least absorb it, more help with the ever increasing energy bills than those already plummeting towards the poverty line, or those already under it. 
 

Even for the richest, it doesn’t cover likely increases in October, and certainly not January. 
 

For the poorest, it might as well be the square root of fuck all. And of course, it makes zero difference to those who don’t earn enough to pay tax.

 

I’m going to assume there will be other measures announced but this is a load of bollocks. Aside from the unfairness of it, and lack of meaningful help, all she’s doing here is reversing a broken manifesto pledge. She might say she argued against it, but as part of the cabinet she was complicit in the decision.
 

 

[JagSquared]

Apologies for the shit link but Joe Lycett on some show.

 

https://www.ladbible.com/entertainment/joe-lycett-trolling-bbc-show-20220904

[Gnasher]

Laura said her new supadupa Sunday show would be a bit more light hearted with a element of fun to go with that serious stuff. However she didn't seem best pleased when Lycatt provided just that but at the expense of her interview with Liz Truss.

 

 

 

 

[polymerpunkah]

Like Lycett, you should be seething.

 

 

[Barrington Womble]

4 hours ago, JagSquared said:

Apologies for the shit link but Joe Lycett on some show.

 

https://www.ladbible.com/entertainment/joe-lycett-trolling-bbc-show-20220904

It was very weird though if you saw it. It really was like he was there to take the piss out of kuntsberg, I'm not even sure the points he was trying to make really landed, because it was like he was there just to ensure the show wouldn't be back next week! 

[Rushies tash]

"So the big news this week was that the Government passed a law that sells your first born child into slavery. Before we discuss that with Paul Chuckle, here's some kittens falling off a log".

[littletedwest]

Reports saying she is looking at scrapping things like the compulsory 20 days a year holidays and maximum 48 working week. Even the daily mail reading pricks may flinch at that 

[Creator Supreme]

3 minutes ago, littletedwest said:

Reports saying she is looking at scrapping things like the compulsory 20 days a year holidays and maximum 48 working week. Even the daily mail reading pricks may flinch at that 

She can get to fuck!

[Captain Howdy]

5 minutes ago, littletedwest said:

Reports saying she is looking at scrapping things like the compulsory 20 days a year holidays and maximum 48 working week. Even the daily mail reading pricks may flinch at that 

A genuinely vile woman

[Section_31]

6 minutes ago, littletedwest said:

Reports saying she is looking at scrapping things like the compulsory 20 days a year holidays and maximum 48 working week. Even the daily mail reading pricks may flinch at that 

As I posted on another thread, they don't get it at all. You can't roll back quality of life, nobody will stand for it - why would you?

[Babb'sBurstNad]

7 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Because we're all fed up of 20 years of our economy being too egalitarian and redistributive and we want rich people to get more, as is fair.

 

"What I'm about" is a proper cunt's phrase.

[Barrington Womble]

33 minutes ago, littletedwest said:

Reports saying she is looking at scrapping things like the compulsory 20 days a year holidays and maximum 48 working week. Even the daily mail reading pricks may flinch at that 

She talked about it earlier in her campaign didn't she ? She'll want it like American companies, small holidays, easy to make you redundant. 

[Arniepie]

3 hours ago, Section_31 said:

As I posted on another thread, they don't get it at all. You can't roll back quality of life, nobody will stand for it - why would you?

You can from a Tory point of view as long as it doesn't affect them.

[Kevin D]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/09/04/liz-truss-could-freeze-bills-avoid-energy-armageddon/
 

Liz Truss is considering freezing energy bills for millions of households this winter if she wins the Conservative Party leadership race, the Telegraph understands.

 

Campaign sources familiar with discussions, and energy company insiders who have been consulted, have said that a freeze of some form is now expected.

 

Shortly after midday on Monday, the contest to succeed Boris Johnson will formally end, with either Ms Truss or Rishi Sunak, the former chancellor, announced as the next Tory leader.

 

The winner, as chosen by Conservative Party members, will then become prime minister on Tuesday.

 

Ms Truss is the clear favourite, having consistently led in opinion polls of Tory members throughout the summer - though both sides insisted on Sunday night that the result was not yet a certainty.

 

Whoever wins, one of their first priorities will be to address the cost of living crisis.

 

In an interview on BBC One’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, Ms Truss moved to reassure the public that help was coming if she becomes prime minister, vowing to reveal a support package within a week.

 

The Foreign Secretary said the rise in energy bills did not have to mean “Armageddon” this winter and declined to rule out a bills freeze for some households.

 

Annual energy bills for the average household are set to jump from £1,971 to £3,549 from this October when the change in the price cap kicks in.

 

It comes as Olaf Scholz, the German chancellor, on Sunday announced an energy bills relief plan worth about 65 billion euros, reflecting the major interventions being taken elsewhere in Europe.

 

In the BBC interview, Ms Truss said: “I will act if I’m elected as prime minister. I will act immediately on bills and on energy supplybecause I think those two things go hand in hand.”

Pushed on whether she would rule out an overall freeze on energy bills – a policy proposed by the Labour Party and energy companies – Ms Truss declined to do so.

 

“I’m not going to go into details of what a putative announcement would be before because I think it would be wrong to do that,” she said.

 

She added: “I don’t think we should be predicting a sort of Armageddon scenario. I think we are in a good position to deal with what are very tough challenges.”

 

Scottish Power has proposed a £100 billion planfor a two-year energy bill freeze, financed by loans underwritten by the Treasury. The proposal is backed by other energy firms.

 

One energy company source said the idea has been “extremely actively explored” by Truss campaign figures and that Kwasi Kwarteng, the Business Secretary tipped to become chancellor if Ms Truss wins, appeared “very open” to options for a freeze.

 

A second industry source confirmed the proposal was being scrutinised by the Truss campaign.

 

Truss team insiders have told The Telegraph the same. One said: “I’m confident there will be a mechanism introduced that freezes bills”. Another said the idea had been discussed “quite a lot in the last fortnight”.

 

The specifics of such an energy bills freeze – exactly who would benefit, how long for, at what price level and the degree to which the taxpayer would cover the cost – remains a point of debate, according to sources.

 

A Truss campaign spokesman declined to comment.

 

During the leadership contest, Ms Truss faced criticism from the Sunak campaign for saying in a newspaper interview she would prefer not to give “handouts” as the solution to the cost of living crisis.

 

She has rejected calls to detail what financial help she would give people, instead pointing to her wider tax cut promises.

 

However, there is speculation that her yet-to-be finalised package of energy support measures, combined with her promised tax cuts, could end up costing as much as furlough, the £70 billion government scheme which paid the salaries of millions of private sector workers during the pandemic.

 

Some criticism of the idea of an energy bill freeze was emerging from Truss supporters on Sunday night.

 

Prof Patrick Minford, who teaches applied economics at Cardiff University and was named by Ms Truss as a backer of her economic approach earlier in the campaign, raised concerns.

 

He said while the move could be politically popular, it would not be as effective in tackling the energy price crisis as other measures, such as a VAT reduction.

 

“A freeze looks tempting quite often. The problem is from an economic point of view it is not the most desirable way to do it,” Prof Minford told The Telegraph.

 

One opinion poll published this weekend found 82 per cent of respondents favoured freezing the energy price cap at its current level, while just 11 per cent disapproved.

 

On Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, Ms Truss was also questioned about her plan to reverse the National Insurance rise, and whether it would benefit higher earners more.

 

She said: "The people at the top of the income distribution pay more tax – so inevitably, when you cut taxes you tend to benefit people who are more likely to pay tax."

 

But she added: "To look at everything through the lens of redistribution I believe is wrong. Because what I'm about is growing the economy – and growing the economy benefits everybody." 

[polymerpunkah]

.

 

 

[Section_31]

Look at this mammoth twat.

 

 

[TD_LFC]

Sky News doing Vox Pop's with people on the streets of Solihull today sum's up why we're in such a mess and why we'll stay in a mess.

 

Interview 1: "It's ridiculous, I mean, whoever come in to power, I mean, good luck to them really 'cos they've got a lot to sort out."

 

Interview 2: "I think Rishi Sunak's been involved in the economy which has gone badly, so maybe Truss will be a new start on that."

 

Interview 3: (asked if they have a preference) "Neither of them to be honest, no preference at all I think they're both as bad as each other"

 

If two out of every three people see no link between the last 12 years and Truss then we're fucked.

[Barrington Womble]

13 minutes ago, TD_LFC said:

Sky News doing Vox Pop's with people on the streets of Solihull today sum's up why we're in such a mess and why we'll stay in a mess.

 

Interview 1: "It's ridiculous, I mean, whoever come in to power, I mean, good luck to them really 'cos they've got a lot to sort out."

 

Interview 2: "I think Rishi Sunak's been involved in the economy which has gone badly, so maybe Truss will be a new start on that."

 

Interview 3: (asked if they have a preference) "Neither of them to be honest, no preference at all I think they're both as bad as each other"

 

If two out of every three people see no link between the last 12 years and Truss then we're fucked.

And she'll be gone before the next election too to give them another clean slate. 

[Trumo]

8 minutes ago, TD_LFC said:

Sky News doing Vox Pop's with people on the streets of Solihull today sum's up why we're in such a mess and why we'll stay in a mess.

 

Interview 1: "It's ridiculous, I mean, whoever come in to power, I mean, good luck to them really 'cos they've got a lot to sort out."

 

Interview 2: "I think Rishi Sunak's been involved in the economy which has gone badly, so maybe Truss will be a new start on that."

 

Interview 3: (asked if they have a preference) "Neither of them to be honest, no preference at all I think they're both as bad as each other"

 

If two out of every three people see no link between the last 12 years and Truss then we're fucked.

 

Reading those, it looks more like Interviewee 2 is the gammon-headed galoot. No1 is merely saying there's a lot of shit to sort out, and that's relevant no matter who was to take over at this point (even another party or coalition). No3 thinks both candidates are shite.

 

The worst vox pops are the ones who say shit like Boris is the epitome of strong leadership, or are oblivious to Truss' braindead opinions and flip-flopping. Or those who think Sunak is sound just because he is of Indian origin. Believe me, I know quite a few who think like the latter and reckon he represents them just because of his skin colour. Does he fuck!

[Vincent Vega]

It’s going to be like the country is run by the Republicans for the next year or two isn’t it? Frightening for those who aren’t minted.

[Section_31]

4 minutes ago, Vincent Vega said:

It’s going to be like the country is run by the Republicans for the next year or two isn’t it? Frightening for those who aren’t minted.

I honestly don't think it will. 

 

The British aren't like the yanks and the loony right moneygrubbers still don't quite get it.

 

We're racist at times but it's Alf Garnett/football hooliganism racism, it's not 'great replacement/Aryan brotherhood' racism. We like to keep our bigotry under our hats, which is why GB News and Piers Morgan have been cast back into the fires of mount doom from whence they came.

 

We're lazy racists. We only read about it when it's embedded in other things like the S*n - pictures of tits on one side and footy on the other.

 

We also don't fundamentally hate our country the way a lot of the MAGA types do, building underground compounds, waving confederate flags and calling the Federal government 'the beast'. 

 

Unlike America too - and I believe this is actually taught on some marketing courses - we hate rich people. Rich people only survive here by keeping a low profile or pretending they're harmless (I'm so whacky in my wellies and Barbour jacket in my 1 billion pound estate).

 

This is only gonna go one way - a big swing to the left (even if we don't call it the left), and/or MONUMENTAL levels of civil disobedience. 

 

 

[clangers]

13 minutes ago, Vincent Vega said:

It’s going to be like the country is run by the Republicans for the next year or two isn’t it? Frightening for those who aren’t minted.

She'll want to give the aura of that, small state, low taxes. I don't think it will play out like that, if she does go down that route she'll damage the livelihoods of an awful lot of natural Tory voters let alone the red wall seats.

 

Given that she doesn't have any real political spine she'll keep floating obnoxious ideas and then immediately pivot away from them each time there's a hostile reaction. She'll struggle to sell trickle down economics and reducing workers rights.