2022 Conservative Leadership Election - Liz Truss chosen as party leader (and subsequent reshuffle)

[MikeWM]

December 2021 was when partygate broke.

And why did it break then, specifically? The one 'party' he was fined for (the 'birthday cake') was actually reported in the newspapers in June 2020. No-one raised an eyebrow then.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...-june-2020-and-didn-t-even-realise/ar-AAWaKia

Indeed, the day after the party took place, the Times ran a piece about the week that was in politics with this colourful introduction:

"Boris Johnson celebrated his 56th birthday yesterday with a small gathering in the cabinet room. Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, and a group of aides sang him Happy Birthday before they tucked into a Union Jack cake.

It's true he has a long history of lying and ignoring the rules but this was a step beyond anything he'd done previously,

Was it? For example I think conspiring to have a journalist beaten up is rather worse, but everyone knew about that in 2019 and voted in the Tories anyway.

 

[TwoYellas]

Sorry I can't take you seriously when you yourself are quite willing to use Putin's own military propaganda to buttress your political position, like this:


This just renders you credulous at best and bad faith at worst I'm afraid.

I'm afraid you've missed the point and it's interesting you didn't quote the rest of my post providing context.

Whilst primary blame for the conflict is Putin's and his inner circle - I do hope whoever writes LT's scripts is a little more careful and that she just sticks to reading it and spares us her thoughts.

I'm talking about the importance of language in diplomacy in not further escalating matters. Maybe the Russian elite were bluffing I don't know. But what I wrote was widely reported here.

Now as you claim 'bad faith'. I call the aggression in Ukraine a war crime and hope that war crimes trials take place - perhaps nations signing up to some sort of a pledge would be an idea. All war criminals should stand trial including those involved in the war in Iraq that caused a million deaths and hundreds of thousands of refugees.

At the moment war criminals seem to get VIP treatment. My position is fair and simple.

Really not sure where you get the idea I'm acting in bad faith. I'm against nuclear annihilation and want people held to account and I want leaders to be careful with their language. Yeah sure - I'm acting in real bad faith and taken in by Kremlin propaganda.

 

[Busaholic]

And why did it break then, specifically? The one 'party' he was fined for (the 'birthday cake') was actually reported in the newspapers in June 2020. No-one raised an eyebrow then.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...-june-2020-and-didn-t-even-realise/ar-AAWaKia




Was it? For example I think conspiring to have a journalist beaten up is rather worse, but everyone knew about that in 2019 and voted in the Tories anyway.

Pincher was the straw that broke the camel's back, and when even the toadies (Rabid, Lewis, Shapps) found excuses to not go out and peddle rubbish over the TV and radio studios. The polls also continued to move against Johnson - the antis because of 'Partygate' were not inclined to forgive and forget, and were joined by those who saw his endorsement of a sexual predator the last straw.

 

[Gloster]

I think that things had reached a point where Johnson’s backers realised that he had become so toxic to the general public and that there was no return for him, whatever lies were told or stunts pulled. There was now a real possibility that, come the next election, Labour would get in power with a sufficient majority to be able to undo some of what had been done and hit the backers in the pocket.

 

[Western Sunset]

I feel that Partygate was totally different from other scandals (expenses, etc) in that it impinged directly on people in very personal and emotional ways that they would never forgive or forget. Too many politicians (J R-M et al) and newspapers (the usual suspects) were extolling everyone to "move on", which was at odds with the feeling amongst a majority of the populace.

 

[MikeWM]

Pincher was the straw that broke the camel's back, and when even the toadies (Rabid, Lewis, Shapps) found excuses to not go out and peddle rubbish over the TV and radio studios. The polls also continued to move against Johnson - the antis because of 'Partygate' were not inclined to forgive and forget, and were joined by those who saw his endorsement of a sexual predator the last straw.

The response to Pincher was fairly poorly media-managed by number 10, but I still find it utterly bizarre that this was considered something so terrible it was the catalyst for the end of Johnson. As far as Pincher himself, sure, there should have been serious consequences for him, but the way the media attacked Johnson over it, you'd think it was Johnson in the club committing alleged sexual assault, not Pincher.

I don't even like Johnson, and I'd be quite happy he was going if I thought he was going to be replaced by someone better, but I find the media pile-on very disturbing - just as I did with Corbyn, as I said some posts above. And I continue to find the timing of when it started rather interesting.

 

[gg1]

And why did it break then, specifically? The one 'party' he was fined for (the 'birthday cake') was actually reported in the newspapers in June 2020. No-one raised an eyebrow then.

Maybe the press didn't get hold of evidence that there was more than merely one party until then.

Was it? For example I think conspiring to have a journalist beaten up is rather worse, but everyone knew about that in 2019 and voted in the Tories anyway.

@Western Sunset has hit the nail on the head there a couple of post up from this one, added to the fact he wasn't PM at the time of the event you mentioned.

 

[TwoYellas]

I don't even like Johnson, and I'd be quite happy he was going if I thought he was going to be replaced by someone better, but I find the media pile-on very disturbing - just as I did with Corbyn, as I said some posts above. And I continue to find the timing of when it started rather

Thing is we are now faced with continuity Johnson. So in effect business as usual in the oligarchy. Corbyn's pro - ordinary person ideas were to be crushed.

Interesting that many at one point, quite affectionately called him 'Boris' like he was a mate. I suspect this began in the media spin as well. It was Johnson from me from day one.

 

[DerekC]

And why did it break then, specifically? The one 'party' he was fined for (the 'birthday cake') was actually reported in the newspapers in June 2020. No-one raised an eyebrow then.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...-june-2020-and-didn-t-even-realise/ar-AAWaKia




Was it? For example I think conspiring to have a journalist beaten up is rather worse, but everyone knew about that in 2019 and voted in the Tories anyway.

The response to Pincher was fairly poorly media-managed by number 10, but I still find it utterly bizarre that this was considered something so terrible it was the catalyst for the end of Johnson. As far as Pincher himself, sure, there should have been serious consequences for him, but the way the media attacked Johnson over it, you'd think it was Johnson in the club committing alleged sexual assault, not Pincher.

I don't even like Johnson, and I'd be quite happy he was going if I thought he was going to be replaced by someone better, but I find the media pile-on very disturbing - just as I did with Corbyn, as I said some posts above. And I continue to find the timing of when it started rather interesting.

You seem to have missed the point of all this. Even in this cynical age, Ministers are supposed to obey the law and tell us the truth - and if they get caught telling porkies, resign. Taken individually you can argue that these events are trivial. Against the Johnson background of evade, dissemble, prevaricate and obfuscate they complete an unarguable picture of a Prime Minister who simply can't be trusted. And that still matters - and it isn't just a media storm. The majority of people wanted him out.

 

[MikeWM]

You seem to have missed the point of all this. Even in this cynical age, Ministers are supposed to obey the law and tell us the truth - and if they get caught telling porkies, resign. Taken individually you can argue that these events are trivial. Against the Johnson background of evade, dissemble, prevaricate and obfuscate they complete an unarguable picture of a Prime Minister who simply can't be trusted. And that still matters - and it isn't just a media storm. The majority of people wanted him out.

But who were the people in 2019 that thought he could be trusted, was honest, hard-working and a beacon of morality? Pretty much everyone in the country must have been aware of Johnson's character issues back then, they weren't exactly secret.

It seems a bit much to then act repulsed or shocked when he carries on doing what pretty much everyone expected him to anyway, and voted for a government led by him nevertheless.

 

[birchesgreen]

A lot of people voted for him because they thought "Boris" was their mate.

 

[Gloster]

And sadly there were people who thought that he was a laugh and funny, and so different to all those boring, competent politicians. And he did turn out to be different, only in a way that was a disaster for all but himself and a few mates.

 

[TwoYellas]

Someone who's a great laugh down the pub probably doesn't make the best leader

 

[GC class B1]

But who were the people in 2019 that thought he could be trusted, was honest, hard-working and a beacon of morality? Pretty much everyone in the country must have been aware of Johnson's character issues back then, they weren't exactly secret.

It seems a bit much to then act repulsed or shocked when he carries on doing what pretty much everyone expected him to anyway, and voted for a government led by him nevertheless.

If I remember correctly less than half those who voted voted conservative. I am also of the opinion that people only voted Conservative to ‘get Brexit done’ and even that has not been delivered.

 

[Busaholic]

Given that ballot papers for the Tory leadership are going out today I got rather excited by an email that mentioned Blue and Badge and something being sent to me today, until I realised that my application for a renewed disabled parking badge had passed the hurdles. I thought I was going to have a say in which inadequate gets crowned as a result of some clerical error, or at least a chance to spoil my ballot paper.

 

[MikeWM]

If I remember correctly less than half those who voted voted conservative.

This is true, but this was ever thus. Johnson's Tories in 2019 got a higher % of the vote than Blair's Labour did in 1997, for example.

I am also of the opinion that people only voted Conservative to ‘get Brexit done’ and even that has not been delivered.

I agree, but those people don't have many other places to go, given the other parties' record on the issue.

 

[The Ham]

This is true, but this was ever thus. Johnson's Tories in 2019 got a higher % of the vote than Blair's Labour did in 1997, for example.



I agree, but those people don't have many other places to go, given the other parties' record on the issue.

There were quite a few who didn't vote for Brexit who voted Tory because they just wanted it done and dusted and not hanging over then for 3 years so other things could happen in the second half of this parliament.

Unfortunately it's still hanging over them (and I'm not saying that they were wrong in what they wanted, just that those promising it's delivery failed them) and is likely to be an issue for at least some time to come.

There was always a risk that it wasn't going to go well and many voted against Brexit for that reason. If we'd had someone more competent or had taken time to work out some of the more complex issues then it could have been possible that the risk of it going not as well as it could may have been reduced.

The problem was that those who wanted Brexit the most in parliament assist to want it their way now and weren't willing to wait.

 

[GC class B1]

There were quite a few who didn't vote for Brexit who voted Tory because they just wanted it done and dusted and not hanging over then for 3 years so other things could happen in the second half of this parliament.

Unfortunately it's still hanging over them (and I'm not saying that they were wrong in what they wanted, just that those promising it's delivery failed them) and is likely to be an issue for at least some time to come.

There was always a risk that it wasn't going to go well and many voted against Brexit for that reason. If we'd had someone more competent or had taken time to work out some of the more complex issues then it could have been possible that the risk of it going not as well as it could may have been reduced.

The problem was that those who wanted Brexit the most in parliament assist to want it their way now and weren't willing to wait.

I agree with this completely. I voted to leave the EU but wanted to remain in the single market and believe if Teresa May had been supported she would have devised a much better solution. I could see BJ was just saying what leavers wanted to hear and was a constant liar and the only aim he had was to get what he wanted regardless of the cost to the country. If I had known what would happen I would have voted remain as the decision was close.
I stupidly trusted the politicians to do the right thing. I will never trust the conservatives again (not that I ever really did but I hoped individual MPs would do what we elected them to do)

 

[MikeWM]

There was always a risk that it wasn't going to go well and many voted against Brexit for that reason. If we'd had someone more competent or had taken time to work out some of the more complex issues then it could have been possible that the risk of it going not as well as it could may have been reduced.

I'd certainly agree with that, it is one of the reasons I voted Remain. I didn't think they were remotely competent enough to negotiate a proper exit that would resolve the thousands of issues that leaving the EU would throw up, plus it wasn't remotely well-defined what 'leave' actually meant in practice, the latter point quickly becoming an obvious and serious issue once Leave won.

 

[jfollows]

Liz Truss appears to have said (probably paraphrased, but it could be the headline) that she'll save money by cutting salaries of civil servants who don't live in London.
Regardless of the nonsense behind this, and it won't go down well if my paraphrase is correct, she clearly thinks we're all stupid - it's one thing to promise a shake-up when you've been in opposition for more than 10 years, but she's been part of the cabinet of the government that's been in power for more than 10 years, so what possible validity do these sort of ideas have coming from her mouth anyway?

 

[brad465]

Liz Truss appears to have said (probably paraphrased, but it could be the headline) that she'll save money by cutting salaries of civil servants who don't live in London.
Regardless of the nonsense behind this, and it won't go down well if my paraphrase is correct, she clearly thinks we're all stupid - it's one thing to promise a shake-up when you've been in opposition for more than 10 years, but she's been part of the cabinet of the government that's been in power for more than 10 years, so what possible validity do these sort of ideas have coming from her mouth anyway?

Yes this does come across as contrary to "levelling up", and I bet MPs won't be subject to the same regional pay cuts. I do think there is a case for London and the South East to be paid more (my organisation has a London weighting salary to it for London-based roles), but it should be to raise their pay higher, not cut everyone else's. Either that or actually make L&SE more affordable, which would involve moving investment away from this area to other parts of the country to reduce demand for the former.

 

[MikeWM]

Truss has also said no more lockdowns, and that she was always on the side of doing less government intervention rather than more during the pandemic, but that she wasn't in the core group of people making decisions, so didn't have much influence on what happened.

Which is a policy position I obviously fully support, so hopefully she means it. Though even if she doesn't, she obviously knows that's what she needs to say to the Conservative membership to get their votes, which is good too - shows a shift in public opinion. (Not that the Tory members are highly representative of society as a whole, but hopefully the point has some validity anyway

 

[Meole]

Yes this does come across as contrary to "levelling up", and I bet MPs won't be subject to the same regional pay cuts. I do think there is a case for London and the South East to be paid more (my organisation has a London weighting salary to it for London-based roles), but it should be to raise their pay higher, not cut everyone else's. Either that or actually make L&SE more affordable, which would involve moving investment away from this area to other parts of the country to reduce demand for the former.

MPs work in London not in regional assemblies, the civil service already pays London weighting to assist with transport costs rather than living costs, a standard allowance for such is much different to a different pay rate for the same job. It is difficult to see how savings can be made without introducing actual pay cuts or a long term pay freeze for the north.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Yes this does come across as contrary to "levelling up", and I bet MPs won't be subject to the same regional pay cuts. I do think there is a case for London and the South East to be paid more (my organisation has a London weighting salary to it for London-based roles), but it should be to raise their pay higher, not cut everyone else's. Either that or actually make L&SE more affordable, which would involve moving investment away from this area to other parts of the country to reduce demand for the former.

Yes it's a bit of a dilemma. If you try to pay different salaries according to different costs of living in different parts of the country, then in the short run you may feel you're being fair to people living in more expensive areas by giving them higher salaries to match, but in the long run you're also entrenching different standards of living in different parts of the country, and so harming 'levelling up'. Unfortunately, that's still equally the case if you try to do it by raising salaries for London-based roles. (Plus if you do it by raising London salaries, you're making national inflation worse).

 

[SynthD]

so what possible validity do these sort of ideas have coming from her mouth anyway?

It’s not validity, it’s comfort. People want to vote for her (or the identical Sunak), while pretending this is a change. This applies to the topics mentioned here, including lockdowns, and others like fuel duty.

Truss has already reversed her position on cutting wages for civil servants outside of the south east. That is 8.8 of her 11bn savings gone.

 

[jfollows]

Well, no surprise, the headlines are now about "U turns" for Liz Truss and what was reported earlier is being denied (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-whitehall-waste-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-live):

"Over the last few hours there has been a wilful misrepresentation of our campaign.

Current levels of public sector pay will absolutely be maintained.

Anything to suggest otherwise is simply wrong.

Our hard-working frontline staff are the bedrock of society and there will be no proposal taken forward on regional pay boards for civil servants or public sector workers."

 

[brad465]

Truss has backtracked:

Tory leadership: Truss backtracks on public worker pay plan after backlash

The U-turn comes after a backlash from some Conservatives over the plan to link public sector pay to location.

www.bbc.co.uk

Liz Truss has backtracked on her plan to link public sector pay to local living costs.
The Conservative leadership candidate had said she wanted to introduce regional pay boards in a bid to save a potential £8.8bn.
However, there was a backlash to the policy from several senior Tories.
And the Truss team have now said "there will be no proposal taken forward on regional pay boards for civil servants or public sector workers".

Maybe this contest isn't over with yet.

 

[jfollows]

This latest Liz Truss thing could be an "I'm better to be prime minister because I have children" moment.

I mean, although nobody really believes anything that the Conservatives say about "levelling up", this "misrepresented" statement kind of puts formally that Liz Truss doesn't believe in it, doesn't it? And how "misrepresented" can "regional pay boards" be - they're about paying people in "the regions" less aren't they? Or else how can the billions be saved? Sounds like a big mess of Liz Truss and her team's own making to me.

Rishi Sunak's team making the most of this (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-whitehall-waste-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-live):

Sources in Rishi Sunak’s leadership camp say Liz Truss has been pushing for a public sector pay cut since 2018, following her decision to abandon the policy after a furious outcry from Conservative MPs and the Tees Valley mayor.

Truss has suggested in the past that public sector workers outside London and the South East should receive lower pay rises.

Andrea Leadsom originally said (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14170...ves-her-the-edge-over-theresa-may-in-pm-race/):

“But I have children who are going to have children who will directly be a part of what happens next.

“Genuinely I feel that being a mum means you have a very real stake in the future of our country, a tangible stake.”

I can't find Lizz Truss's original press release because the Internet is obliterated with stories about her "U turn", but I'm guessing that it did include mention of "regional pay boards".

EDIT I've now found it, thanks to Paul Waugh quoted by Mark Harper (https://twitter.com/Mark_J_Harper/status/1554428243679318018?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1554428243679318018|twgr^27acdcdf2305411d76b9ab862c9ecb31af31a1bc|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/aug/02/tory-leadership-race-liz-truss-whitehall-waste-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-live):

Introduce regional pay boards tailoring pay to the cost of living where civil servants actually work. National Pay Boards mean that civil servant pay is negotiated at a national level, meaning no account is taken of the regional cost of living. By introducing regional boards, civil servant pay can be adjusted in line with the actual areas where civil servants work. saving billions. This will also avoid the public sector crowding out the private sector in places where private business just can’t compete with public sector pay.

• This would only apply to new contracts. As we phase in these new contracts for new starters we will work with staff and union to introduce boards - this would have to be rolled out over a number of years.
• This is a phased approach. We would only move to extend this policy if it can be shown to deliver through its roll out in the civil service via new contracts and the creation of boards.
• This could save up to £8.8 billion per year. This is the potential savings if the system were to be adopted for all public sector workers in the long term.

"Saving billions" means paying people less, doesn't it?

 

[Meole]

Next backtrack will be denying the Northern Powerhouse Rail build promise ?

 

[Busaholic]

Truss has backtracked:

Tory leadership: Truss backtracks on public worker pay plan after backlash

The U-turn comes after a backlash from some Conservatives over the plan to link public sector pay to location.

www.bbc.co.uk

z


Maybe this contest isn't over with yet.

Liz Trump? The fact she can spout this rubbish shows she is utterly unsuited to become leader of the Conservative Party, let alone Prime Minister. She obviously felt she was home and dry with new support from Tugenhadt and Morduant, as well as also-rans like Zahawi, but there was a straw in the wind when Ann Widdecombe (who?!) announced her backing. Miss W has an impeccable record over decades of always backing a loser: Liam Fox (twice), Eric Pickles ( would they be allowed to share a lift?) and Andrea Leadsom are just three of them. The old bat's endorsement came just hours before Leadsom threw in the towel, but I felt it had became inevitable and said so on this forum with, it has to be said, disbelief from all around.

Much though I wish this rotten government gets deposed, I don't take the view that the more destructive of the two candidates getting selected (not elected) by Tory membership would be better as a prelude to them being kicked out. Truss would be a wrecking ball aimed at the nation.