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

[birchesgreen]

No one is really surprised though are they?

 

[Herefordian]

So I guess you know her personally, do you?

(Because obviously you wouldn't just be dismissing someone as 'a nasty piece of work' purely because you disagree with their opinions, would you...?)

As a long time on-off reader of this forum, I've been reading this thread for some weeks with interest. Some interesting points have been made from all sides of the political spectrum.

But, to me, what has stuck out is how you always seek to defend any negative actions of the Conservative Party and its politicians. It seems like you don't like anyone criticising your "side", which is going to happen in any debate.

You do not need to know someone personally to hold a negative view of them, as long as it is justified and not because their views are different to yours. I haven't seen the latter from the member you replied to.

Famous figures and leading politicians are in the public eye on a regular basis, via the printed press, televised news, social media or Youtube, for example. Often a mix of two or more. Over time, it isn't difficult to build a good picture of what a person is like, whether it is what they say or do, or both.

There are politicians I don't like from all of the major parties, but for the sake of my point, I'll stick to Conservative politicians.

Andrea Jenkyns, whose actions you defended in another thread. She swore at a jeering, but not aggressive, crowd outside Downing Street. She could have very easily risen above it if she wished, but chose to swear at them instead. Accomplished nothing and gave me the impression she is immature and unprofessional. There is no way that course of action, in those circumstances, can be justified.

Matt Hancock, a married man with a family, had an affair with an aide while tens of millions of people were told to stay at home away from their friends and loved ones. Do I have to know him personally to think he is a despicable and unfaithful cheat?

Andrea Leadsom, who questioned Theresa May's ability to lead a country because she didn't have a family. This, and her pitiful, cowardly "apology" by text, say enough to me about the kind of person she is, despite me not knowing her personally. Not a very nice one.

There are a few more, from the Conservatives and other parties, but I'd be here until next week.

Essentially, my point is that I and others have the right to, where justified, criticise politicians regardless of their political views or whether they know them personally or they don't. Knowing said person isn't a requirement.

If you're going to take part in debates, people are going to disagree with or criticise, hopefully justifiably, views or politicians you may agree with.

Trying to shut down these opinions on the basis of not knowing someone personally does not make for a constructive, civilised debate.

 

[Typhoon]

It will be interesting to see how Truss, should she become PM, performs at the Despatch Box. She might rise to the occasion, but I suspect that she is too used to making bland statements and will find PMQs difficult. This is where Starmer’s more forensic style may serve him well and he will be able to harry her into making very public mistakes. She might try the Johnson method of diverting attention by making wild accusations, but he has had a lifetime’s experience of fine-tuning the practice. PMQs remains a very public display of ability and if she makes a mess of things, the public may move away from an obviously incompetent PM.

The problem with PMQs for the governing party is that the PM does not determine the theme; some PMs will endeavour to be on top of most major topics and talk with some confidence. Johnson just asked why he wasn't being asked about what he had some idea about then rolled out a series of 'facts' than kept Fact Checkers busy (except where they were the same ones that had been called out previously). I suspect the Speaker will be a lot tougher on his successor; he let Johnson get away with (almost) murder and has been labelled as weak as a result. Labour need to concentrate on areas where Truss (if it is her) has not held a ministerial position - health, care, defence, transport come to mind. Try to show that she appears out of her depth*. I hope Starmer is giving his cabinet 'homework', go through all the hustings, speeches and articles in their field and outline the dodgy policies these two have been spouting ready for an onslaught in the autumn. If they don't, show them the door.

EDIT - * - I should have added, I hope Michael Spicer hasn't pensioned off The Room Next Door, I suspect lots of potential material awaits.

Noticed the outgoing PM doesn't seem to be doing a fat lot as his tenure comes to a close. I get the feeling he's not particularly bothered, oh well, at least he 'got Brexit done!'

I suspect he is, but none involve running the country (as @DynamicSpirit writes he is strictly limited) but I am surprised he isn't clocking up the photo-ops while he has his personal photographers - useful padding for the autobiography. Is his resignation honours list complete or are there more than he and Carrie want adding (Lady Lulu of the Wallpaper?); his biography on Shakespeare is almost 6 years late (tough if anyone pre-ordered), time for the next couple of chapters; has he organised the removal van, tea chests for early September? Learning golf? Still, it could be worse, he could be plotting one last vanity project!

That is the third time I have seen Sunak's (possibly ill-phrased) words misquoted, the previous times were by his leadership rival and by a Labour opponent ! He actually said 'deprived urban areas'. What he seemed to mean was that rural areas and small towns can suffer deprivation just as much as big cities and should not be ignored.

It is worth noting that he was speaking to members in Tunbridge Wells. The town is not totally as represented by 'Disgusted', it has its 'less prosperous' parts (as do many towns in Kent, East Sussex and almost certainly just about every other part of the so called prosperous south - and possibly even Richmond, although it wasn't obvious when I went there). If he was implying that we need to look across the whole country to ensure communities are not left behind, absolutely. But I believe that he may have claimed that he had taken money from 'deprived urban areas', if that is so, it is wrong, there is no excuse.

 

[nlogax]

The problem with PMQs for the governing party is that the PM does not determine the theme; some PMs will endeavour to be on top of most major topics and talk with some confidence. Johnson just asked why he wasn't being asked about what he had some idea about then rolled out a series of 'facts' than kept Fact Checkers busy (except where they were the same ones that had been called out previously).

I've long been of the opinion that PMQs is an utter waste of time but in the last year or two it has at least improved Labour's chances of getting into government. A competent LOTO also helps. My suspicion is that Truss will be completely out of her depth against Starmer. Her lack of desire to enter into long-form interviews with the likes of Andrew Neil is quite telling. Beyond her tedious mantra of 'deliver deliver deliver' and some superficial soundbites about doing things differently she appears to have little in the way of original thoughts or ideas that stand up to any real scrutiny. On the plus side she'll at least be free of the sleaze and the daily lying we've come to know and hate from the incumbent.

EDIT - * - I should have added, I hope Michael Spicer hasn't pensioned off The Room Next Door, I suspect lots of potential material awaits.

Hell yes. Been a fan of Michael for the best part of a decade and TRND was a treat. Hoping to catch him at Fringe next week if I can.

 

[Busaholic]

There's not a lot he can do now. Convention dictates that since he now has the effective status of a caretaker prime minister, he shouldn't make any decisions that might bind his successor to any new policies. All he's really allowed to do is keep the Government ticking over.

With respect, that is balderdash. There is nothing preventing Johnson governing the country, though it would be a first for him. He has made totally clear his contempt for convention. the British Constitution is not worth the paper it is not written on in Johnson's hands, so he can ignore convention til the cows come home. If you had a car that just kept ticking over while the driver occupant kept sitting there like a grinning lump you'd be dealt with, one way or another, so how much longer will the country have to put up with this farce while a comparatively small group of mostly late middle-aged or older white males in the Home Counties decides for the rest of us which contender is slightly more obnoxious and ignorant than the other?

 

[The Ham]

While not the main point of your post: is it the case that "lots of people" have private healthcare? I'd say it was the exception rather than the rule, and private healthcare is expensive in the UK (compared to some EU countries for instance - this is based on personal experience), though not as bad as the USA.

I'd hope they do not go down the "let's not fix the NHS because we can all afford private healthcare in the UK" line, though knowing the current Conservative Party, nothing would surprise me.



I'd hope so yes. Lots of people do use public services, so people should appreciate them.

The issue to me is: when will people realise that the base Conservative philosophy is (to my mind) one of low-tax, and low-public-spending? Will people make the link between poor public services and base Conservative philosophy? Will people realise that the B-word is not the solution to their problems?

Perhaps not yet, but perhaps they will when the cuts bite. At the moment the Tories can blame our ills (partly accurately) on the costs of lockdown and the Ukraine situation. The question to me is: will people vent their anger at the Tories as the incumbents, in time for the 2024 election? Looking more optimistically (from a non-Tory POV) Truss, who comes across to me as bland, robotic and unappealing on all levels, is less likely to woo people than cuddly Boris so there is some hope yet.

First off (on the topic of private healthcare) I was talking locally to where I am and not nationally. Secondly, due to the area, there's a good chance that people have themselves and their family covered by their work.

For example; where I work once you reach a certain level of seniority the company pay for your whole family's cover. That's for the potential to add 3 extra people with healthcare to the list. As such you don't need many doing so to see the number with private healthcare as a work benefit to see the numbers start to increase faster than you'd otherwise expect.

 

[317 forever]

Liz Truss' hopes of becoming leader have just been crushed, Andy Street has endorsed her. He endorsed Hunt previously, hours before Jeremy's campaign collapsed.

This seems bizarre, as he is one of the friendliest Tories but not being an MP he does not depend on her for a government job.

Maybe he thinks this will make him more popular with the membership and less likely to be deselected as the Tory candidate for Mayor of West Midlands next time. Deselecting him would be bizarre anyway though, after he has already won the election twice.

I actually find him friendlier than some Labour mayors but that's another story ....

 

[nw1]

EDIT - * - I should have added, I hope Michael Spicer hasn't pensioned off The Room Next Door, I suspect lots of potential material awaits.

I had to check that name out. I recall Michael Spicer as being a Tory MP, and thought "what, he's become a comedian and started making fun of his ex-colleagues?"

Turns out it's a different person, and the one I knew of has died. I am clearly getting old.

According to Sunak, the way to combat inflation is to crack down on benefits.

Really? He's no better than Truss if so.

The Conservative Party have appeared to me, for at least 30 years, to have had this throughly nasty anti-benefits attitude. It's one reason why I've disliked them continuously since around 1989. Remember the obnoxious hypocrite (Brexiter with home in France) Peter Lilley was one of the early examples of this kind of nonsense. "I've got a little list" indeed.

It really is time that well-off Tory politicians stop having a go at people less fortunate than them, presumably to court the reactionary right wing vote ("all our problems are caused by immigrants, those on benefits, public-sector workers, the EU, blah blah blah").

Time the country ditched the lot of them. Sorry for the strident tone but after 12 years of them I've had enough. I'm fed up of their pro-austerity, anti-immigrant, anti-EU, anti-benefits attitude.

 

[Typhoon]

I had to check that name out. I recall Michael Spicer as being a Tory MP, and thought "what, he's become a comedian and started making fun of his ex-colleagues?"

Turns out it's a different person, and the one I knew of has died. I am clearly getting old.


Really? He's no better than Truss.

The Conservative Party have always had this throughly nasty anti-benefits attitude. It's one reason why I've disliked them continuously since around 1989. Remember the obnoxious hypocrite (Brexiter with home in France) Peter Lilley was one of the early examples of this kind of nonsense.

It really is time that well-off Tory politicians stop having a go at people less fortunate than them, presumably to court the reactionary right wing vote ("all our problems are caused by immigrants, those on benefits, public-sector workers, the EU, blah blah blah").

Time the country ditched them. Sorry for the strident tone but after 12 years of them I've had enough. I'm fed up of their pro-austerity, anti-immigrant, anti-EU, anti-benefits attitude.

Can I suggest that have a look at some of 'The Room Next Door' https://www.youtube.com/c/MichaelSpicerComedy/videos He's almost certainly covered your least favourite politician (although I can't remember Sunak) - it's an opportunity to laugh at them while you despair of their actions?

 

[nw1]

Can I suggest that have a look at some of 'The Room Next Door' https://www.youtube.com/c/MichaelSpicerComedy/videos He's almost certainly covered your least favourite politician (although I can't remember Sunak) - it's an opportunity to laugh at them while you despair of their actions?

OK - thanks for that! Will take a look. As for my least favourite politician, I don't know if you mean Johnson but he isn't, certainly not any more (and I'm not sure he ever was, least favourite PM perhaps).

 

[The Ham]

Can I suggest that have a look at some of 'The Room Next Door' https://www.youtube.com/c/MichaelSpicerComedy/videos He's almost certainly covered your least favourite politician (although I can't remember Sunak) - it's an opportunity to laugh at them while you despair of their actions?

Also available on TicTok with the username itsmichaelspicer

 

[Typhoon]

OK - thanks for that! Will take a look.

As for my least favourite politician, I don't know if you mean Johnson but he isn't, certainly not any more (and I'm not sure he ever was, least favourite PM perhaps).

Not particularly. I mean't your least favourite politician, whoever it is.
I've noticed that Sunak is there (the 'coke addict'), Truss a few times, Johnson lots, Dorries, Gove, Raab, Braverman, Eustice, Patel, Williamson, Hancock, Cummings, Trump (senior and junior), Starmer (I think), Burgon, some LibDem, probably more. His target is anyone who does car crash interviews. Johnson is an easy target because he doesn't prepare, in fact he seems to rejoice in not doing so. He hasn't bothered with the likes of Francois and Fabricant, presumably because they are beyond satire.

 

[daodao]

I had to check that name out. I recall Michael Spicer as being a Tory MP, and thought "what, he's become a comedian and started making fun of his ex-colleagues?"

Turns out it's a different person, and the one I knew of has died. I am clearly getting old.

The Michael Spicer (later the Rt Hon Lord Spicer) whom you recall had the distinction of founding the anti-EU ERG (European Research Group) in 1993 and later, as chairman of the 1922 committee from 2001-2010, presided over 3 Tory leadership elections.

 

[XAM2175]

But I believe that he may have claimed that he had taken money from 'deprived urban areas', if that is so, it is wrong, there is no excuse.

The exact wording was:

I managed to start changing the funding formulas to make sure that areas like this are getting the funding that they deserve. 'Cos we inherited a bunch of formulas from the Labour party that shoved all the funding into deprived urban areas and, you know, that needed to be undone. I started the work of undoing that.

https://twitter.com/NewStatesman/status/1555476253045673987

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The exact wording was:

https://twitter.com/NewStatesman/status/1555476253045673987

This looks to me like a case where the exact wording has two different meanings depending on the emphasis:

If Sunak meant "Cos we inherited a bunch of formulas from the Labour party that shoved all the funding into deprived urban areas and, you know, that needed to be undone." (emphasis on deprived) then it would be a rather awful remark that should rightfully be criticised, since there's nothing nothing wrong with sending funding into deprived areas.

On the other hand, if he meant, "Cos we inherited a bunch of formulas from the Labour party that shoved all the funding into deprived urban areas and, you know, that needed to be undone." (emphasis on urban) then he's saying that deprived rural areas should get a fairer share of the funding as well as the urban areas. I don't think that is particularly objectionable (although you might question to what extent it should apply to Tunbridge Wells )

Listening carefully to the recording, he does seem to be emphasing 'urban' more than 'deprived' although it's not particularly strong. So I would guess he probably intended the 2nd meaning.

 

[Busaholic]

This looks to me like a case where the exact wording has two different meanings depending on the emphasis:

If Sunak meant "Cos we inherited a bunch of formulas from the Labour party that shoved all the funding into deprived urban areas and, you know, that needed to be undone." (emphasis on deprived) then it would be a rather awful remark that should rightfully be criticised, since there's nothing nothing wrong with sending funding into deprived areas.

On the other hand, if he meant, "Cos we inherited a bunch of formulas from the Labour party that shoved all the funding into deprived urban areas and, you know, that needed to be undone." (emphasis on urban) then he's saying that deprived rural areas should get a fairer share of the funding as well as the urban areas. I don't think that is particularly objectionable (although you might question to what extent it should apply to Tunbridge Wells )

Listening carefully to the recording, he does seem to be emphasing 'urban' more than 'deprived' although it's not particularly strong. So I would guess he probably intended the 2nd meaning.

'Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' replaced by 'Deprived of Tunbridge Wells' in the Daily Telegraph letters page?

Have to say though, forty years ago when I first worked for Kent Probation Service I was amazed to find Tunbridge Wells had the biggest drug problem of any town in Kent, though the Medway Towns were split into three for our data collection purposes.

 

[The Ham]

This looks to me like a case where the exact wording has two different meanings depending on the emphasis:

If Sunak meant "Cos we inherited a bunch of formulas from the Labour party that shoved all the funding into deprived urban areas and, you know, that needed to be undone." (emphasis on deprived) then it would be a rather awful remark that should rightfully be criticised, since there's nothing nothing wrong with sending funding into deprived areas.

On the other hand, if he meant, "Cos we inherited a bunch of formulas from the Labour party that shoved all the funding into deprived urban areas and, you know, that needed to be undone." (emphasis on urban) then he's saying that deprived rural areas should get a fairer share of the funding as well as the urban areas. I don't think that is particularly objectionable (although you might question to what extent it should apply to Tunbridge Wells )

Listening carefully to the recording, he does seem to be emphasing 'urban' more than 'deprived' although it's not particularly strong. So I would guess he probably intended the 2nd meaning.

Inefficient case there's better ways of saying it.

For example (and this is just a quick go, and others with more time would probably come to with something better), we inherited a bunch of formulas from the Labour Party that resulted in deprived rural areas missing out as the funding was shoved into urban areas and that needed to be undone.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Inefficient case there's better ways of saying it.

For example (and this is just a quick go, and others with more time would probably come to with something better), we inherited a bunch of formulas from the Labour Party that resulted in deprived rural areas missing out as the funding was shoved into urban areas and that needed to be undone.

I think that's very true - it could've been worded better. But we're not talking about a written article that would have had time for editing and proof-reading - we're talking about a speech which, to judge from the video, looks like it was being made off the cuff and without notes. You can't really expect people to phrase everything perfectly in that kind of situation.

 

[duncanp]

This seems bizarre, as he is one of the friendliest Tories but not being an MP he does not depend on her for a government job.

Maybe he thinks this will make him more popular with the membership and less likely to be deselected as the Tory candidate for Mayor of West Midlands next time. Deselecting him would be bizarre anyway though, after he has already won the election twice.

I actually find him friendlier than some Labour mayors but that's another story ....

Andy Street was certainly a better choice for me than Liam ("there is no money left") Byrne, who was the Labour candidate at last year's election for West Midlands Mayor.

I cannot see how him endorsing Liz Truss would damage her prospects of becoming Conservative leader - quite the opposite in fact.

 

[Yew]

I think that's very true - it could've been worded better. But we're not talking about a written article that would have had time for editing and proof-reading - we're talking about a speech which, to judge from the video, looks like it was being made off the cuff and without notes. You can't really expect people to phrase everything perfectly in that kind of situation.

As much as I hate to defend a potential tory leader, I feel that this lack of allowance for inaccuracies in contemporaneous speech has long been a problem in our media. The newspapers write things down, then treat it as if the speaker had written it down and proof-read it theirselves.

 

[birchesgreen]

Andy Street was certainly a better choice for me than Liam ("there is no money left") Byrne, who was the Labour candidate at last year's election for West Midlands Mayor.

I cannot see how him endorsing Liz Truss would damage her prospects of becoming Conservative leader - quite the opposite in fact.

If he stands again, maybe he fancies becoming an MP.

 

[Busaholic]

I think that's very true - it could've been worded better. But we're not talking about a written article that would have had time for editing and proof-reading - we're talking about a speech which, to judge from the video, looks like it was being made off the cuff and without notes. You can't really expect people to phrase everything perfectly in that kind of situation.

I very much doubt it was off-the-cuff, though it may have been made without notes. (To think, once upon a time you'd expect any high-ranking politician worth their salt to speak without notes!)

Sunak is a consummate politician, which is not praise but fact, imo. His words will have been chosen deliberately, and he'll have been well aware that they could get thrown back at him. Press photographers were certainly at the event, and a photo duly appeared in the Times the day after the event. Incidentally, all the audience shown in the shot were male, white and aged between 50 plus and 80, including local MP Greg Clark in mufti. I can't imagine Clark is anything other than a Sunak supporter.

 

[Wynd]

As if it wasn't easy enough to dislike a guy who spends thousands on a suit, only for the legs to be too short, what is going on with the guys body language? It looks like hes been taught how to act "normal" or something.

With a bit of luck Truss will make it. For anyone sick to the back teeth of the Treasury running the UK in to the ground, take heart that "the treasury's man" would not be in No.10.

 

[Gloster]

To me it is increasingly looking like ‘Do you want the disaster now or later?’ Sunak has a tiny measure of competence, but seems to be totally out of touch with the public. Truss seems to have the tiniest inkling of the public’s problems, but is so desperate to appeal to Conservative Party members that she is making wildly irresponsible promises: and she is stupid enough to try and keep them.

 

[Wynd]

Creating robust economic growth is the absolute No.1 economic priority.

15 years of flat wages are making a cost of living crisis so much worse than it needs to be, and that's because the Treasury and their ilk have spectacularly failed to grow the UK economy.

Sunak with his austerity agenda will not help, only hinder.

 

[TwoYellas]

Sunak says he's taking money from deprived urban areas to give to other parts. But what about diverting the water from the inner cities to fill the swimming pools in the wealthy suburbs?

Ok I nicked that one from a radio show.

 

[Gloster]

Sunak says he's taking money from deprived urban areas to give to other parts. But what about diverting the water from the inner cities to fill the swimming pools in the wealthy suburbs?

Ok I nicked that one from a radio show.

Well, he might just do that. The Mirror recently reported that builders are just about finishing the swimming pool at his Yorkshire home. Meanwhile, in a completely separate matter, the pool at his constituency town of Richmond may be forced to close (although the initial problem may have been costs, rather than shortages).

 

[nw1]

Creating robust economic growth is the absolute No.1 economic priority.

15 years of flat wages are making a cost of living crisis so much worse than it needs to be, and that's because the Treasury and their ilk have spectacularly failed to grow the UK economy.

Sunak with his austerity agenda will not help, only hinder.

While I am not a fan of Sunak, especially given some of his recent alleged comments on welfare and inflation: can we really be sure that the choice of Truss will not lead to austerity? Just a bit later.

Truss makes me at least as nervous as Sunak. She seems to be doing nothing to take into account the wishes of social liberals, the left, or those who want to soften Brexit, and seems to want to appeal to the social conservatives and anti-immigrationists who have formed the bedrock of Tory support in recent years.

Worse, I get the impression she wants tax cuts. The result will be the country being even more in debt than it is already. If the Tories win the next election, I fully expect harsh public spending cuts in 2024, harsher than they would have been anyway. Austerity will, in my view, arrive: just a little later than it might under Sunak. And by 2024 we'll be stuck with a Tory government until 2029 (if they win) with no prospect of an election any time soon. This will allow the government to be even harsher with spending cuts, and we will be unable to do anything whatsoever about it.

All in all, I really don't want either of them to be in power in two years' time. But of the two, I probably consider Sunak the more honest and upfront. Not that this excuses any of his recent alleged comments, but at least he's coming across to me as "here are my ideas, you might not like them, but I'm putting them across to you directly and honestly".

And in all honesty I'm a little concerned about how increasingly Truss seems to be being considered a reasonable figure, compared to Sunak. As I said above, in my view, she appears to offer absolutely nothing to significant sections of the electorate so life under Truss will, I suspect, be grim for liberals and the left.

I simply don't trust her. The anti-royalist Lib Dem, turned "Britannia Unchained" Tory. The Remainer who apparently didn't want her daughters to have to get work permits, turned ardent and enthusiastic Brexiter. To my mind, she is someone who will do or say anything to appeal to a particular audience. Just like Boris Johnson, without the personality.

As if it wasn't easy enough to dislike a guy who spends thousands on a suit, only for the legs to be too short, what is going on with the guys body language? It looks like hes been taught how to act "normal" or something.

Who really cares? This sort of thing was used to completely unfairly bash Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown.

You can't say Sunak is the worse option just because of an ill-fitting suit or his body language.

 

[birchesgreen]

Who really cares? This sort of thing was used to completely unfairly bash Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown.

You can't say Sunak is the worse option just because of an ill-fitting suit or his body language.

Well it should apply equally to all sides or to none (preferably).

Mind you it didn't do the Johnson any harm looking like he had just been dragged backwards through a hedge.

 

[Shrop]

Apologies if I've missed some of this discussion, and that I find the prospect of reading through 900 posts somewhat daunting, but let me throw this in.
Sunak clearly demonstrated how out of touch he is with reality, when he cut fuel duty by 5p. This was an incredibly poor attempt to win a few votes, which cost the country a huge amount in lost taxes, while actually achieving virtually nothing for the general public as it paled into insignificance compared to the fuel price rises that were going on around it. It was as misguided as his crazy "Eat out to help out" scheme during Covid. This was always likely to only provide money for those who could already afford or had time to eat out, and it was serviced by staff mainly with visors, whose breath was funnelled straight down on to the food they were serving. During Covid???Absolute madness!!!
Meanwhile Truss has received support for potentially being better on foreign policy, which is a joke because we in the UK are pretty insignificant at that too. The whole world was caught napping by Putin, even though it was well known for months that he was amassing troops on the Ukranian border. Today, the Chinese are escalating exercises around Taiwan, and again, just as we did with Putin, we're doing nothing more than just keeping our fingers crossed that nothing actually happens. Believe me, if China goes into Taiwan, the effects on the world economy will dwarf the effects of Russia going into Ukraine, and Truss will be of negligible value if it does. Worse than this, she's so focussed on beating Sunak that she's barely even thinking about this latest threat, even if she was capable of doing anything about it.