You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
'I hate all Tories' is not equivalent too 'All Tories are the same.'
I don't think anyone has said that.
benpinnick
Theres many who would be better people
... you can basically stop there.
that says everything you need to know about the current state of the party
Even taking into account no-one is going to lead any of the parties by simply being a nice person the current crop of front bench hopefuls are pretty much equally nasty
Technically I think yes, practically no, assuming they can show they have the confidence of the house, in theory he could ask them to demonstrate they have that confidence mind.
The incoming PM would need to pass a budget at some point which would be a confidence vote. The last one was almost exactly a year ago so it would be fairly soon although I guess delaying it by 6 weeks or so would be 'normal' to let them see the books and come up with a plan.
So in reality they need to unite by Christmas.
The next one after that would be the King's speech in May.
But...... they've shown they'll unite even behind a leader they hate, on fracking. So things would need to get pretty dire make them vote down their own budget or Kings Speech.
they’ve shown they’ll unite even behind a leader they hate, on fracking
I'd like to share your optimism but I don't. I've a foreboding that the right of the party will manage to find a singular hateful candidate they can all get behind but the left won't manage.
Stewart (Probably the best option on this list but politically naive. Would have done the best job but not willing to shaft enough people to get the job).
What bit don't you understand that when the moves were being made to replace Johnson Rory Stewart was not an option? He wasn't even a member of the Conservative Party FFS.
The most likely outcome was always that Truss or Sunak would replace Johnson. There is no evidence that either of them would have handled the Covid pandemic better, and actually plenty of evidence that they would have capitulated to the right-wing loonies in their party and not taken measures to protect the NHS thereby allowing an even more rampant pandemic, all on the name of profits.
To throw your question back at you do you genuinely believe that replacing Johnson has proved a benefit to the British people?
I never believed it would, I don't believe it has, and apparently millions of voters agree with me - Johnson's replacement is worse than he was.
What might have happened in a parallel universe in which Rory Stewart doesn't resign from the Conservative Party is completely irrelevant to actual reality.
thisisnotaspoon
But…… they’ve shown they’ll unite even behind a leader they hate, on fracking. So things would need to get pretty dire make them vote down their own budget or Kings Speech.
1) I'd hardly call that Unite
2) Why wouldn't anyone support fracking for gas as a short term measure unless it's literally in their back garden?
This contains many many naughty words...
Why wouldn’t anyone support fracking for gas as a short term measure unless it’s literally in their back garden?
Well if you can figure out how to do it short term, you might have an argument. I think you'd still lose but you'd at least you'd have a starting point.
Are you simple? My post was a response to your comment:
And I am still surprised that anyone should believe that another Tory leader would have been better for working people than Johnson.
When Johnson was appointed the list I showed were the candidates running against him. Would none of them have been better for working people?
His purge of the reasonable members of the party meant that there were no credible opponents when his replacement was being nominated. That is different to your assertion above.
I think this thread, (rather like Liz Truss herself) is becoming counterfactual.
Are you simple?
Yeah perhaps I am and I lack the skills to express myself clearly. My posts are already excessively long so it doesn't bode well.
My point was/is that I am only concerned with reality and what the reasonably likely alternatives were/are. I have repeatedly referred to reasonably likely alternatives, but perhaps I didn't on every single occasion. Rory Stewart imo never stood a chance of becoming Tory leader, you might have a different opinion. I am more interested in what is rather than what might have been.
@ernielynch
Sorry for the needlessly abrupt opener to that previous comment. Unnecessarily rude of me.
I think that Johnson is not at all for the working citizens of the UK. I agree that neither are any other Tory candidates that stand a chance of taking the post. But his record in office was so damaging and divisive that they would be insane to bring him back. There is no short term redemption for the Tory party and Johnson will just further weaken their future.
My point was that there used to be people that were capable and would certainly have done a better job. They are all but entirely drummed out of the party - and this is largely due to Johnson's Brexit purge driven by his debt to the ERG and right wing press.
Whoever picks up the poison chalice should just bite the bullet and call an election. At least it would show some backbone or conviction in their own potential.
dangeourbrain
Well if you can figure out how to do it short term, you might have an argument. I think you’d still lose but you’d at least you’d have a starting point.
Figuring out technically how to do it short term is the easy part.
Figuring how to stop it continuing is probably much harder.
Figuring how to tax it so we can afford to use it and the oil companies don't just make even bigger profits would seem the hardest part for the Tories.
No worries electric worry - I'm not blameless when it comes to being abrupt.
I think what some people fail to understand is that for me politics is always all about comprise and best outcomes rather than perfect solutions.
I always see it from that perspective.
I think what some people fail to understand is that for me politics is always all about comprise and best outcomes rather than perfect solutions.
Wish the Government saw it that way! Instead they have a whole load of policies of "rip up everything that came before us cos THEY did it, not US" and claims of building a world-leading / world-beating [thing] and then using systems like the NHS and transport as political footballs, forever implementing then amending then cancelling plans and policies.
Whoever picks up the poison chalice should just bite the bullet and call an election. At least it would show some backbone or conviction in their own potential.
Something we can probably all agree on.
Figuring out technically how to do it short term is the easy part.
You're so far beyond deluded:
We've drilled a handfull of test wells in this country, one has been shut down due to earthquakes, one is in flow testing and one is in pre testing. There's I think 5 further applications currently in for future sites?
If you changed the law tomorrow you would then need to:
1) Drill a shedload more test/exploration wells.
2) Drill shedload more than that production wells.
3) Build the gathering network between them.
4) Build the gas processing plants to take that gas and refine it into something that can be put into the grid.
Even if you fast tracked the planning and said it could be done anywhere you like, it'd be a minimum 3 years before you'd get any gas into the network, maybe 4-5 before the bulk of it came on stream?
it’d be a minimum 3 years before you’d get any gas into the network.
Oh that's no good, can't be having unpopular policies which [might] come good under someone else's watch.
Can't we have it in place a few months before the next GE? No. Oh stuff it then, no fracking it is.
Figuring how to tax it so we can afford to use it and the oil companies don’t just make even bigger profits would seem the hardest part for the Tories.
Taxing fracking, if it was greenlit today, its about as likely to be a tory problem as taxing fusion given their current trajectory.
Oh stuff it then, no fracking it is.
Fracking doesn't help with the current energy crisis, and so shouldn't be seen as being relevant to it.
So, longer term... ignoring the current crisis... more fossil fuel extraction or less? The choice is simple.
Figuring how to stop it continuing is probably much harder.
Figuring how to tax it so we can afford to use it and the oil companies don’t just make even bigger profits would seem the hardest part for the Tories.
That's actually the easy bit.
Oil Co.'s pay the government per barrel of oil they get out the ground (or gas).
Set the price to be (barely) profitable at ~$90/bbl and you create a de-facto cap where they'll only bring wells online when the price is high.
Just found out that due to the way the rules are written Liz Truss is entitled to £115,000 a year for the rest of her life as an ex Prime Minister. It's bad enough Boris gets it but at least he was round long enough to change the wallpaper.
Her office is, not her personally. What use that is to the world I don’t know. Previous PMs have done a lot of useful work through their offices, yes even previous Tory PMs. What’s she going to do with hers?
Just found out that due to the way the rules are written Liz Truss is entitled to £115,000 a year for the rest of her life as an ex Prime Minister. It’s bad enough Boris gets it but at least he was round long enough to change the wallpaper.
It's not a pension, it's expenses for fulfilling the role of ex-PM.
Quite how it costs £115k p.a. to turn up to a state funeral a couple of times a century and cut the odd ribbon I'm not sure.
Previous PMs have done a lot of useful work through their offices, yes even previous Tory PMs
I don’t doubt that but if you’re in a normal job perks (like not being able to be sacked without a decent excuse etc) only kick in after two years. I was only half listening but I thought that one since Blair is said to have turned it down (I can only think of two candidates who have anything approaching the morals to consider that).
I believe that it was Thatcher who introduced the ex-PM's allowance, before that former PMs didn't get a brass farthing. Or it might have been John Major, I'm not entirely sure, one of the two.
The next Labour government can easily reverse this little gravy train, although for obvious reasons the prime minister might not be so keen.
I was only half listening but I thought that one since Blair is said to have turned it down
Has he started paying for his own security yet? I believe it's quite a little sum that taxpayers have to fork out, and he's not short of a few quid himself.
It was a big story a few years ago but I am not sure if it was ever settled.
Fracking doesn’t help with the current energy crisis, and so shouldn’t be seen as being relevant to it.
That hugely depends how you define "the current energy crisis"
Even if Putin capitulated tomorrow and we/NATO/EU decided it would be so nice to give money to Russia for gas Nordstream is still offline for the forseeable.
So, longer term… ignoring the current crisis… more fossil fuel extraction or less? The choice is simple.
Depending again what you call longer term... it will be much longer until we (UK) get the nuclear reactors that we should have had decades ago (if it wasn't for the same general people against fracking).
We and (more importantly) the rest of the world will be using some form of energy in the meantime a great deal of it from some form of fossil fuel be it gas, oil or coal.
The bigger picture: Not what I think 90% of Tory's care about ...
The planet doesn't care where methane comes from, be it poop or natural gas or fracked/CBM when it's burned.
Ensuring a clean and minimal CO2 burn is much more important.
Cutting down swathes of forest to grow crops for biofuel similarly doesn't matter where its from when burned but cutting down the forests to grow it is a big negative and using cleanly burned gas would be better.
Using coal is even worse and the STW log burner as bad as it gets... so until we have proper alternatives increasing the availability and lowering the cost of gas over oil/coal/wood is much better than just continuing to use coal, charcoal and wood
Virtue signalling to the billions of people using wood and dung to cook their food isn't doing any good if they can't afford the relatively clean gas alternative.
People burning dung will still have a lower carbon footprint than any of us posting in this thread. We need to sort our own shit out. [ pun intended ]
The Tories seem hell bent on making sure the House of Lords becomes so bloated with donors and the talentless that reform or replacement becomes unavoidable…
https://twitter.com/daniel_j_martin/status/1583424616785379329?s=21
So. ...how would we get fracked gas from Blackpool to Eritrea?
Would solar not be a better source of clean energy in the tropics?
So. …how would we get fracked gas from Blackpool to Eritrea?
That would be daft, instead I suggest we use the gas from the UK to heat and cook in the UK so we'd just not be buying the gas that has to pass right by Eritrea to get to us.
Would solar not be a better source of clean energy in the tropics?
Ultimately ... short term most of the billions who have to boil their shit and parasite filled water to drink would probably just be happy with whatever method.
A lot of time and money has gone into getting them to go from wood to butane... across many developing countries.
It's not only sub-saharan Africa, huge numbers of rural Indians use wood.
Just came up on TOTP repeats on BBC 4 … lyrics more apposite than ever…
Fracking could (absolute best case scenario - with 100% of available reserves exploitable) produce c. 17-22% of UK gas demand, 2030-2050, it'd make piss all difference to global supply
I believe that it was Thatcher who introduced the ex-PM’s allowance,
It was introduced for her when she resigned.
So it was John Major then. I wasn't sure if it was him or Thatcher.
No reason why it shouldn't be scrapped, a move which I have no doubt would be popular with voters if not the sitting PM.
Fracking could (absolute best case scenario – with 100% of available reserves exploitable) produce c. 17-22% of UK gas demand, 2030-2050, it’d make piss all difference to global supply
Fracking is already producing more than that globally?
Are you talking about UK only fracking or global?
Queensland by itself produces more than the total UK demand but shipping LPG around the world isn't a very environmentally friendly thing to do.
I've got figures somewhere for a lot of Russian gas production again a great deal is fracked.
My point here really is fracking is not something to be dismissed purely based on lobby's spreading lies as misinformation by the same people and organisations that prevented us having an infrastructure based on nuclear.
That is what the vote was actually about... was there a moratorium or more accurately should there be a vote for a vote
One way or another we have gas powered generation, domestic heating and cooking using gas.
We have a requirement to generate more power for electric vehicles whilst increasingly people can't afford to heat their home or cook food.
The "under no circumstances ever" moratorium is spookily like Boris's "let the bodies pile up in their thousands"
It's also got no direct negative effect on climate change. We are at the simplest replacing gas from one method or sourced elsewhere and often (usually in the case of Russia) transported via leaky systems that have disgraceful losses in transport
Not that I think that is at the forefront of the majority of Tory MP's who voted either way ... though energy security may be.
it’d make piss all difference to global supply
Of course it would .. and the more developed nations adopting it the more it influences supply.
thisisnotaspoon
That’s actually the easy bit.
Oil Co.’s pay the government per barrel of oil they get out the ground (or gas).
Set the price to be (barely) profitable at ~$90/bbl and you create a de-facto cap where they’ll only bring wells online when the price is high.
That's not going to fly with the Tory's though... the preferable way would be under Labour and with a state owned and operated body.
That’s not going to fly with the Tory’s though… the preferable way would be under Labour and with a state owned and operated body.
That's how the North Sea has operated for the last 40 years.
From Twitter:
"Alaphilippe did a frontflip on gravel, got wiped out by his own teamcar, got hospitalized after his LBL crash and crashed out of the Vuelta and STILL had the same amount of racedays as Liz Truss served days as PM."
Are you talking about UK only fracking or global?
He's specifically talking about the uk
It’s also got no direct negative effect on climate change. We are at the simplest replacing gas from one method or sourced elsewhere
Not true at all, because carbon emissions need to fall
Queensland by itself produces more than the total UK demand
Population density of Queensland. 3 people per Km²
Population density of UK. 281 people per Km²
fracking in the UK is going to be a huge gamble, no guarantee that we have enough gas to make a difference (o&g companies never over inflate prosoects😉) but you can absolutely guarantee that fracking will cause disruption at a local level
That’s how the North Sea has operated for the last 40 years.
No it isn't, for example the Danish sector has historically fixed their equivalent of PRT for field life allowing better planning and lowering risk. Neither has the price been set to be (barely) profitable at ~$90/bbl
kimbers
Not true at all, because carbon emissions need to fall
Exactly why the world needs more gas.... less oil and no coal before we get nuclear up and running.
Just looking at transport: As Western Europe brings in electric vehicles we need more power .. but most of the developing world is much much further away.
You only need to look at Norway to see how we fell into the same trap. They make a big deal about not having nuclear or gas generation and using hydro ... yet in winter have to import their gas and nuclear electricity from Sweden and Denmark.(and more recently the UK).. that ironically is paid for by selling gas to Denmark used to generate the electricity they buy and oil on the global markets.
A great "look how clean we are" image based on misleading a population that want to be misled* and that's leaving Norwegians baffled as to why electricity prices have shot through the roof when they believed they were generated by hydro. (*it's not rocket science to ask how the hydro dams in the mountains function when it's -25C and they are frozen to several meters with no way of being topped up) - this is something Western Europe needs to be careful of repeating.
Many Taxi's and autoricks in India for example (worlds 2nd largest LPG importer) already run off LPG and more moves are planned to help fund the move to cleaner energy (LPG) whilst rural cooking is burning wood and a cleaner LPG alternative is being brought in.
It's not like they are using modern and efficient engines either .. The taxi/autorik owners are largely driving 30yr old very dirty petrol engines.
You can get round subscribing on this... it's a lot of clicks though
https://auto.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/oil-and-lubes/india-scrambles-for-lpg-to-meet-demand-as-saudis-defer-flow/71307534?redirect=1
India's population is 20 times that of the UK's .. and despite it being a wealthier nation than the UK it's per capita is much lower.
The Indian and provincial governments are trying to put in cleaner energy and that is for the most part LNG. Converting older cars and taxi's and putting alternative cooking based on LNG into rural areas.
Climate change is a global problem... pushing up the price and availability of gas for poorer nations is not going to help. Aramco has put up prices to India because Western countries will pay more...
fracking in the UK is going to be a huge gamble, no guarantee that we have enough gas to make a difference (o&g companies never over inflate prosoects😉) but you can absolutely guarantee that fracking will cause disruption at a local level
Starting backwards... yep it will cause disruption and more than local. So does turning off the lights and shutting down factories.
That's a price that has to be paid due to letting the anti-nuclear lobby drive our energy policies for decades.
Meanwhile concentrating on gas over oil is an option to lower our carbon footprint and contribute to lowering the global one and increase energy security.
o&g companies never over inflate prosoects
They certainly don't until they know the tax regime....
fracking in the UK is going to be a huge gamble, no guarantee that we have enough gas to make a difference
Per well productivity is always a challenge in fracking or CBM but to go back to what was being voted on... we will never know whilst there is a moratorium in place. It probably is or oil companies wouldn't be so keen to spend money investing to find out.
The Sunday Times politics page was worth the money today. I very significant meeting this week has been leaked to its journalists!
Spill the beans then…..
That’s a price that has to be paid due to letting the anti-nuclear lobby drive our energy policies for decades.
The anti nuclear lobby?
We haven't built new nuclear power because the government don't want to stump up the £££ and since privatisation of BNF, we've lost much of the capability & skills to do it ourselves
Which is why we're dependent on French & Chinese state owned companies to build them
Might take a picture. But basically the chief whip lost control of party discipline. They had no idea what way the fracking vote would go and this ultimately did it for Liz.
It was just bad politics to make it a confidence vote.
Enough Tory MPs knew they would be finished in their constituencies if they voted for fracking, due to the overwhelming local opposition to it, so were prepared to defy the whip to potentially save their seats
Anyone with an ounce of political instinct would know this, but then we’re talking about Liz Truss here
If you were to pick a subject to make into a confidence vote, then you’d have to be as thick as mince to pick something as divisive and controversial as fracking to be the one
She got what she deserved due to typical display of political cluelessness. A fitting end
The vote was never about lifting the ban on fracking fracking but only parliament's right to debate the issue. Any MP could have voted with the Opposition and legitimately claimed that they weren't voting against the government's fracking policy.
It is this that caused havoc for the government whips and the ensuing chaos concerning whether it amounted to a vote of confidence in the government or not.
On the one hand a Tory MP voting with the Opposition was in effect expressing no confidence in the government as they taking the decision making away from the government.
But on the other hand a Tory MP voting with the Opposition could legitimately claim that they weren't undermining the government as they fully intended to vote with the government once the issue had been debated by parliament.
Well that is my take on the situation and it certainly caused a huge headache for the government whips and completely undermined their authority, although ironically the government easily won the vote.
There is no doubt that the fracking fiasco was one crises too far for Liz Truss's tottering premiership. The Opposition played a blinder whether intentional or not.
The Opposition played a blinder whether intentional or not.
A little analysis of it
There is no doubt that the fracking fiasco was one crises too far for Liz Truss’s tottering premiership. The Opposition played a blinder whether intentional or not.
Definitely a deliberate move to put pressure on Truss and also to use as ammo against tory MPs next election in those areas where fracking is planned and controversial.
I doubt though that they expected just how incompetently it would be handled though.
ErnieLynch
The vote was never about lifting the ban on fracking fracking but only parliament’s right to debate the issue. Any MP could have voted with the Opposition and legitimately claimed that they weren’t voting against the government’s fracking policy.
Exactly and as I've said it was about having a vote on having a vote on a moratorium and similar to Boris saying under no circumstances would he call another lockdown and let the bodies pile high in their thousands.
dissonance
Definitely a deliberate move to put pressure on Truss and also to use as ammo against tory MPs next election in those areas where fracking is planned and controversial.
I doubt though that they expected just how incompetently it would be handled though.
Normally no .. with Truss who's surprised?
Her response to "The markets crashed" pretty much illustrates how incompetent
a)
The anti nuclear lobby?
b)
We haven’t built new nuclear power because the government don’t want to stump up the £££ and since privatisation of BNF, we’ve lost much of the capability & skills to do it ourselves
Which is why we’re dependent on French & Chinese state owned companies to build them
Sure a led to b - subsequent governments including 3 terms of Blair also failed to invest and anthropomorphic climate change has been recognised way longer than that if not so mainstream.
Not only in the UK, Germany is in the same mess.
You'd better sort out what you mean by fraccing to start with as there's an awful lot of fraccing going on already in the UK (kinda), but it's all offshore. So you're talking onshore tight oil and gas.
If you think you can turn these on and off at will you are wrong... turn them off, and it's likely to be difficult to get them to flow again, and might require a very expensive restim. So you're going to need, if gas prices drop as most people expect , to run these wells when they're commercially losing money. Who's covering that cost? That's the biggest real world objection noone mentions
'A great “look how clean we are” image based on misleading a population that want to be misled* and that’s leaving Norwegians baffled as to why electricity prices have shot through the roof when they believed they were generated by hydro.'
And that's rubbish as well. The reason costs are thro' the roof in SW Norway is as they're connected to the European network , and we're paying the spot price. If you live in the N you're still on local, unconnected power, and it's about1% of the price in the SW. Consequently we're producing like crazy so we can sell as much as possible, but a lot of people are far from happy , even with a pretty hefty degree of givernment sub.
So basically you are saying that what eventually led to the collapse of Liz Truss's doom-laden premiership was the one really great idea that she had?
How satisfying.
Oh my god... anyone listening to this speech!? Amazing, doubling down. Her "time as PM" hasn't taught her a thing.
Embarrassing. Just like her entire farcical time in number ten
Like you said, not only does she still think she’s right, but also that she still has the right to inform us all, in her hideously patronising tone, that she’s right
Absolutely delusional
Her predecessor showed zero contrition for anything because he’s a graceless sociopath but she’s showing no contrition because she still believes she’s done a great job and one day we’ll all appreciate her genius
Hope Charles has remembered to wear garlic.
Tatty-Bye! And off you ****.
Honestly she a is streak of cat shit on clean bedsheets.
Unapologetic to the end.
Vile.
I hate to say it, but if the wallpaper is still in Downing Street, then it might have turned out to be good value in the end, what with potentially lasting three PMs.
Also, I am no longer sure which thread to post this in, the Johnson one, the Truss one or the Sunak one. They change so fast these days it's hard to keep up.
We need a new thread with title !! and consolidate all political threads about named individuals of any party into it; close the other threads and direct all new posts there.
It sounds like a great idea as a Christmas present for a loved one but the publication date - 8/12/22 is a bit tight for people wanting to buy it to pop into someone's Christmas stocking.
The book cover says: "The inside story of Liz Truss and her explosive rise to power"
But Waterstones description of the book says: "The Inside Story of the Unexpected Rise and Rapid Fall of Liz Truss"
Would it be fair to assume that the delay might be due to an extra chapter or two being hurriedly added?
If it wasn't for ernie's link to the change.org petition I would have said...close the thread.
Sign the petition, make a donation - large or small.
truss should be paying money back to the treasury for (fraudulent) misrepresentation of a prime minister.
Would it be fair to assume that the delay might be due to an extra chapter or two being hurriedly added?
The sad reflections of one of the authors.
Enough Tory MPs knew they would be finished in their constituencies if they voted for fracking, due to the overwhelming local opposition to it, so were prepared to defy the whip to potentially save their seats
My local Tory MP voted with the Govt as you'd expect.
Another 'gift' to his downfall and independence - why?
Because it'll be used to show that when it's needed English MP's will be whipped to vote for Fracking (or anything else) in Scotland.
Thank you Truss, about the only good thing you've 'achieved'.
The book cover says: “The inside story of Liz Truss and her explosive rise to power”
But Waterstones description of the book says: “The Inside Story of the Unexpected Rise and Rapid Fall of Liz Truss”
I might send some MPs I know a copy for Christmas.
Well, I suppose it's fame of a sort. I can't help feel that the "Truss Government" will be studied in every PPE and business school for the next few decades of "How To Get It So Very Badly Wrong"
I wrote to my MP saying how disappointed he must be in the current pm as I know he was firmly in favour of ripping up the green belt to allow fracking.
As yet no reply.
My local Tory MP voted with the Govt as you’d expect.
Mine did too. I can only conclude that with his majority of 100 votes, he knows he’s done anyway, so why even pretend to give a **** what his constituents think
Well, I suppose it’s fame of a sort. I can’t help feel that the “Truss Government” will be studied in every PPE and business school for the next few decades of “How To Get It So Very Badly Wrong”
There was a financial journalist on the radio the other day saying that the increased interest rates etc she caused are now referred to in the industry as ‘The Moron Premium’
Quite the legacy for her and Kwasi there. Not that it will make the slightest dent her her ludicrously misplaced overconfidence. Like a monkey with a machine gun
I can’t help feel that the “Truss Government” will be studied in every PPE and business school for the next few decades of “How To Get It So Very Badly Wrong”
There are multiple PhD possibilities from this lot. That title you suggest would work for Cameron calling for a referendum and most of the Tory Party antics from there on. Liz Truss would be a mere one-term module in that lot!
Back to Instagram for her...
Thanks for the link Mefty. A nice little read. He still couldn’t resist a little insinuation that that civil service were to blame… not her own choice of advisors… when the evidence is otherwise.
It was here, isolated from many of her key advisers, surrounded almost entirely by civil servants and flushed with imminent victory, that she embarked on a course that would alienate her party, the markets and the electorate.
It’s nonsense of course. Who Truss listens to (yes phones and other forms of communication exist) and whose advice she and her man chose to avoid and ignore (removing civil servants from key posts immediately) is key to avoiding repeat of her mess.
Recall the other biographer from the Sun (a friend in the crowd) was the second journalist to stab her at the now infamous Friday Press Interview. Whilst the book might be rubbish, there's no such thing as bad publicity for the two authors. "The Downing Street Weeks" - I think that's genius.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/liz-truss-phone-hacked-putin-28360857
What an absolute bin fire of a politician. 12 months of confidential messages from her personal phone download by Russian spies
... and then the story suppressed as it could have prejudiced her chanced of becoming PM - ffs
If the journos can stand up that story it should be enough to bury truss, johnson, case and anyone else involved.
Is there any personal ramifications on Truss for such a breach of security? I suspect a more junior security or civil servant would lose a job, and we can't inflict that on Truss.
How long before a message from truss to kwarteng is leaked...see you later big boy; usual place?
You have the names the wrong way round. That was def sent from kwarteng to truss
Do you think she referred to him as Akwasi, Addo or Alfred when they were doing whatever it was they did - you know, discussing the fiscal deficit.
Alfred, Alfred - ooh, let me call you Alfie; you can do whatever you like with me to fill that (financial) hole.
I like the way the BBC phrase it
The newspaper also said private messages exchanged between Ms Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng, her close friend whom she made chancellor when she became prime minister, were also uncovered by the alleged hack
.... "her close friend" ...