RayC

If you can believe the 'left wing' FT, it seems like one of the first acts by Liz as PM will be to further alienate the EU https://www.ft.com/content/24b72bdc-7bda-4248-9708-7cbc3a4680a7 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62682448 Global Britain, indeed.

I am not a member of a crew and I very seldom post links from The Guardian. In any event, as I have repeated on numerous occasions, one way of countering this perceived left-wing bias would be for you to share your alternative sources with us; however, for reasons best known to yourself, you are unwilling and/or unable to do so. Again you are confusing me with someone else. I gave up wearing ties when I gave up going to the office. Excellent. Pleased to hear that. Hope that it continues that way. Thank you (although it's unclear what you are referring to). You're welcome (although again, I'm unclear what you are referring to).

Sorry. Almost overlooked this post. That'll be Liz. Happy to help.

No I mean what I said in the original post. The media - right, left and centre - have decided that Truss will become the next PM and therefore, for that reason, are concentrating their (finite) resources on reporting and analysing her policies. If the media have got it wrong and Sunak wins, then they will be left with egg on their face and there will be a hasty readjustment in their focus. ???? I don't have a clique. See above for the reason for the focus being on Truss.

In order to balance and deepen the discussion. It's pretty clear that you consider the vast majority of sources - which I and some others quote - to have a left-wing bias. It's an opportunity for you to counter that and offer us a different perspective. Many 'lefties' wouldn't consider me to be part of their tribe. Absolutely. I've become obsessed with a middle-aged man 7,000 miles away. Apologies for any distress caused. I'll try to control myself, sweetheart❤️ (oops, sorry) Thank you. Err ..... for what?

The media - left, right or centre - is not talking about Sunak because they all believe that Truss will be the next PM and therefore - to all intents and purposes - Sunak is now largely irrelevant. It's as simple as that. There is no left-wing conspiracy to give Sunak an easy ride IF that is what you are implying.

Yet you won't share the source of this information so that I might enlighten myself. Any discussion about policy seems too complicated for you. So far as movement by Sunak and Truss is concerned. Yes, I imagine both will move today (and probably have already). I'd hazard a guess that both might walk, use a car and, perhaps, take a train.

Where haven't you said that? You dismiss comments about an article written by Truss as not relevant and muck raking by 'lefties', ignoring the fact that the issue was raised by Alaister Stewart - a GB news presenter; hardly an organ of the Communist party - in his TV interview with Truss last week. You also want to curtail a discussion on the effects of tax cuts on the economy as you state that evidence cited about the US in the '80s is not relevant, ignoring the fact that policy makers - such as Truss and Sunak - are guided by empirical evidence. There are numerous other examples that could be cited but you would probably dismiss them as off-topic despite having posed the question. I have no idea what you consider to be 'on-topic'.

You know what you know, right?! (no pun intended). Then you haven't been paying attention. There are two pages of discussion about the impact of the tax cuts proposed by Truss .... My mistake those two pages are off-topic????

Can you enlighten me - and probably many others regardless of their political persuasion - why you consider a discussion about Trusses' policies not relevant to this thread?

What media sources do you trust?

Same story, different source. Any comments on its' contents? https://www.thenational.scot/news/20679262.liz-truss-mocks-bbc-sidestep-gb-news-question-controversial-report-co-wrote/

I wasn't intending to be funny. I was trying to engage you in a debate about the policies of our (likely) future PM. However, you are either unwilling or unable to do so, and simply resort to the usual nonsensical 'lefty' labelling claptrap. No you don't, but the absence of any reason would suggest that it is simply blind faith on your part that Truss will turn out to be a good PM. Shades of Brexit (I know, off-topic). And your point is? Really? Most of the cabinet were backing Sunak until recently. Some (most?) have changed sides recently. I wonder why? Perhaps, self-interest might have something to do with it? I was hoping against hope - and the weight of evidence - that you might be open-minded enough to engage in discussion. However, by your own admission, you know what you know and no one, or nothing, is going to convince you otherwise, eh? More shades of Brexit, methinks (sorry, off-topic yet again. Sometimes I can't help myself).

But why? What is it about her that makes you think that she is the most suitable for the job? You dismiss the Guardian article as being anti-British, but it raises genuine concerns - among people who consider themselves patriots - about what might happen if she enacts what she promises. Why is the Guardian wrong in its' analysis? Some of us would like reassurance as we struggle to visualise what this positive outcome under Truss looks like.

That's the Guardian's take on things. As a staunch supporter of Truss, what's your alternative, positive vision of the UK look like under a government led by her? For example, can you explain how ignoring the SNP will keep the Union together? How will her hard-line attitude towards the EU improve relations with them?

Johnson is perfectly entitled to a holiday however, having been ejected as leader of the Tories he insisted that he stay on as PM until a new PM was in situ. Given that, don't you think that he could have put his holiday plans on hold for a couple of months? If he was unwilling to do so, he should have handed over to someone who was going to be physically present in the UK for the summer months.

Your views would suggest otherwise.

I've no idea what you are going on about? It's the likely date of the next election! The thread is about the leadership of the Conservative party, so a discussion about the absence of a 'one nation Tory' candidate is directly relevant. As a right-winger, I thought that you would be well aware of the 'enemy within'? You are, of course, free to post what you want. I was just offering you some friendly advice, sunshine☀️

We shouldn't have to wait. It ought to be clear now. So you dismiss reportage? How did you know what is going on then? You cannot possibly observe everything for yourself. There is a difference between reportage and opinion. Of course, journalists have bias, but unless the essence of their reports is factually correct, it will not stand up to scrutiny. As I said before, Hobson's choice but if pushed I would prefer Sunak as imo he has more substance and is (marginally) less opportunist.

As usual, you are incorrect on every count. I stated that imo there is little difference between Sunak and Truss, other than timing. I have made no statement about Labour's policies, so how you can know that I assume that " ... Labour will somehow become credible during the next two years .." requires a telepathic act on your part. You don't consider a discussion about the absence of a 'one nation' Tory from the race to become leader of the party relevant to the conversation? Why don't you try and give a moment's thought to matters before hitting the 'Submit' button?

But she was Chief Secretary to the Treasury (#2) between 2017-19. If she didn't think the Treasury was fit for purpose, why didn't she make her views known then and resign as a matter of principle? Or are we to assume that this is a recent ephihany on her part? There is a nothing wrong in changing one's mind, but Truss seems to do so at the drop of a hat and on fundamental issues e.g. fiscal policy, Brexit, and this begs the question: What does she stand for? Unkind folk might call it unprincipled, opportunism behaviour.

As usual, your reply has no relevance to the matter at hand. I'm all too aware that we are lumbered with this government until (probably) late 2024.

The purge of 'one nation' Tories from the Conservative parliamentary party was completed before the 2019 election. As a consequence, this leadership contest is basically a Hobson's choice for Tory members. The only discernable difference being that Sunak - until recently - has been slightly more realistic with his promises in the very short term.

He could. Presumably, you would hold the Tory party to your lofty moral standards as well? https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/revealed-the-elite-dining-club-behind-130m-donations-to-the-tories/

It may have been in the past, but as that article mentions, with the removal of Clause 4 in the 90s, the Labour Party no longer stands on a platform of the social ownership of the means of production. It is just another social democratic party supporting capitalism. And before anyone launches into you're a terrorist-loving, Brit-hating, Putin-loving, etc tirade, I'm not suggesting that socialism is necessarily desirable, merely pointing out that the current Labour Party is not socialist.