Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Does 'socialism' now mean 'having a government'?

Yes. That is exactly what they mean. How long before Truss comes up with a British version of Project 2025?

Truss seems to me the product of signifcant historical forces, none younger than a century. Pet theory time.

1) Ego. Ego as far as the eye can see. This is the starter, nothing happens without it.
2) Capital. This is the structure, nothing happens unless it wants it.
3) Lenin. Good lord fuck that guy for poisoning the well for 100+ years. Points 1 and 2 would have lead to plenty of batshit pricks, but 3) gave the other side a monumental burden to overcome.

If I move the jigsaw pieces just so, it works!

Are they a splinter group from the Tofu-eating Wokerati?

I suppose it makes a change from the “illiterate economist mafia”

Have the Tories officially adopted Shaggy’s seminal work “It wasn’t me” as their anthem yet or what?

They're under here and gender queer. They're the underground trans mafia!

Andy McDandy wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 10:11 am They're under here and gender queer. They're the underground trans mafia!

It's a source of regret that the band split following their difficult second album.

Thus we never enjoyed the Underground Trans Mafia's John Peel sessions.

‘Blue plaque’ at Walthamstow Tesco honours lettuce that outlasted Liz Truss

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -liz-truss

The best bit about this is the famously humourless Liz will be incandescent with rage at being openly mocked in this way.

Yeah she will tell us clearly it’s not funny like she has some control over that.

Tories never do humour, unless it's punching down.

"I could see, even on that short acquaintance, that thinking was always going to be a bother to her.”

― Raymond Chandler, The Big Sleep

Well, this is just hilarious.

Truss sends cease and desist letter to Starmer demanding he stop saying she crashed the economy

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 76352.html

This is the best bit :

the statements were likely to materially impact public opinion of our client whilst she was standing as the parliamentary candidate for the Conservative Party in South West Norfolk

Well, maybe so. But they were certainly not the primary factor in bringing about that result in Norfolk. Much more significant factors were :

1. Truss is a TORY.
2. Truss was a former TORY PM who had to resign in disgrace after only 45 days.
3. Truss is a fuckwitted dimwit and a living, breathing joke of a politician.
4. The electors of South West Norfolk voted for change. Tough titty.

This is a bewildering move by Truss. She barely has any sort of good reputation to be defamed. There is a very good reason why politicians generally don't indulge in issuing such legal letters on their political opponents. It's a complete waste of time - even more so where a moron like Truss is concerned.

Starmer will simply be throwing this letter straight in to the cylindrical basket shaped filing cabinet and getting on with running the country properly.

Nigella Farage.

There won't be many safe Tory seats up for grabs in the next GE so how Truss get back in the game, Mayor of Norfolk? Hopefully never.

If - if - this had any credibility, every unsuccessful election candidate could have grounds to sue whoever beat them. Or Starmer could sue Johnson for calling him boring. Or Johnson could sue Sunak for not supporting him enough. And so on.

Truss had every opportunity during the campaign to put her side of the story forward. Indeed, the entire Conservative party did. As I recall, she hardly bothered to campaign, and either assumed she was a shoo-in, or privately realised the gig was up. She cannot assume she was in any way entitled to her seat, or had some inbuilt home advantage over other candidates.

The really surprising thing about this is that a presumably qualified lawyer has thought there's some merit in it.

Andy McDandy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 1:11 pm
The unsurprising thing about this is that a presumably qualified lawyer has thought there's some money in it for him.

FTFY Andy

"Qualified" lawyer? It was probably Braverman who "advised" her

View of an actual lawyer:

They are statements of opinion which an honest person could hold. Further, there would be a potential public interest defence. As for serious harm to reputation, the threshold is high when in the context of the political arena. Case is going nowhere.

On the one hand, this is obviously hilarious that Liz is so arrogant and thin-skinned she is literally incapable of accepting people pointing out that she did the thing she did. On the other, it’s so insane and detached from reality that it’s very arguably the work of someone who is quite clearly mentally ill, potentially has paranoid delusions that it was some shadowy cabal rather than her and her chancellor’s rank ineptitude, and it’s disturbing that lawyers will take money from someone in that situation.