This interview is fascinating and I think Truss come out rather well in that she identifies the problem UK faces with great precision. There are many things she clearly can’t say for obvious political reasons (but the hosts say for her anyway 😀 ) & the endless advert interruptions are annoying, but this is well worth watching.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
25 comments to Liz Truss – in office but not in powerLeave a Reply |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
We’re completely fucked on a structural level, but it’s gratifying to see Truss totally understand just how (mostly) Tony Blair rigged the system, but also going back to that cunt Clement Attlee in 1947.
When you have a Government of any stripe that accepts ‘Something must be done!’ as their primary responsibility you set off on a long march through more and more intervention resulting in more and more collectivisation. More and more collectivism leads to socialism (where the State has the central responsibility for everything) and eventually totalitarianism (because ordinary people are letting the State down and preventing the attainment of a glorious Utopia).
One modest change that might work is that every new law or change to an existing regulation should have a ‘review’ built in for the next Government. It would keep the bureaucrats endlessly entertained but sometimes ‘unforeseen consequences’ should show that the ‘Something that was done’ was actually the wrong something.
The main thing to hope for, in Britain, is that after the likely Labour victory, Truss can become the Tory leader, and has the moral authority, and courage. to follow her libertarian convictions. By then, Britain may need to borrow money from Milei’s Argentina.
This ‘something must be donnery’ really is a pain. The whole problem is that ministers, MPs and civil servants always want to over-complicate things. We don’t need to be constantly adding laws on top of laws; laws that are often badly framed and lead to unintended consequences and yet more laws on top of laws.
Take, for example, the zombie sword thing. Do we need a special law or regulation? Surely someone wandering around the streets with a three-foot zombie sword is already breaking an existing law.
And then there is ‘legacy’. Politicians must have a ‘legacy’ for their time in Parliament. Rishi Sunak’s will be banning smoking for 15-year-olds for the rest of their lives. Really? Did he think this through? In 60 years time the 15-year-old will be 75 – the same as me now. So he/she can’t buy cigarettes but someone who is 76 can? What a plonker if he thinks that’ll work.
God, we really do have some idiots in Parliament on the wrong side of the bell curve.
The establishment are still blaming economic problems on “the Liz Truss tax cuts” – tax cuts that NEVER HAPPENED, we now know that the “crises on the markets” was caused by the Credit Money Bank of England and a few (very political) Corporate entities, but the blame is placed on “tax cuts” that-never-happened. The 400 Billion Pounds wasted on insane Covid policies? Forget that. The endless money blown on the “Net Zero” folly? Forget that as well. It is all the fault of “tax cuts” – tax cuts that never happened as British taxes are at a record high.
In the United States tax cuts did happen – and President Trump’s tax reduction brought in more revenue, not less – but that does not stop the despicable Economist magazine demanding that American taxes be increased. Yes increased – people who think the despicable Economist magazine is even vaguely free market are quite mistaken, to the establishmentarians who control this magazine, and control the Bank of England – and the vast Corporate entities, all resources rightly belong to the state (as long as they control the state – the Corporate State) and it is “overly generous” to let people keep some more of their own money (because it is not “really” their money, “resources” should belong to “the community” – read a tiny elite).
Almost needless to say – the establishment (including the despicable Economist magazine) would like to increase taxes even more in Britain – which, if one accepts their philosophical principles, is a logically consistent position.
Anyone elected to public office in this country knows how very limited the powers of elected people are – we (yes I am one – although only at a local level) are not powerless, but we are not very powerful either.
However, Liz Truss did make tactical mistakes – for example dismissing Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng and replacing him with Jeremy Hunt (of all people), Liz Truss was told “do this – or you will be removed”, but by doing it, Liz Truss (a good person and a sincere supporter of liberty) showed weakness – and thus signed her own death warrant.
As for reversing the proposed tax cuts to “calm the markets” – the following should have been said, and said publicly….
“The Markets” did not bat an eyelid at 400 Billion Pounds being thrown away on absurd, indeed highly damaging, Covid policies – or at the endless Billions thrown away on “Net Zero”. “The Markets” are not free market capitalism – this is not Victorian Britain. “The Markets” are dominated by a handful of highly political Corporate Entities backed by the endless Credit Money of the Bank of England and the other Central Banks.
If you do not have honest money, you do not have honest markets, you do not have a honest economy. Instead you have a farce where endless Credit Money is created (from NOTHING) and dished out to a Corporate Elite to push their ESG and DEI (and all the rest of it).
“Paul they would murder (kill) a Prime Minister who said that”.
Perhaps, perhaps, they would – but perhaps it is time for a Samson moment.
God restore my strength for one last moment – to bring this temple of evil crashing down upon them.
Liz Truss would use less harsh language than me – but the above is what “we have to change the system itself” (to deliver any real policy change, on “Net Zero”, on immigration, on taxes and government spending, on Freedom of Speech against the Frankfurt School of Marxism “Woke”) means.
We have to totally change the system itself – means, we have to bring the Temple crashing down upon them. Remember the key policies are set in key pieces of legislation and international agreements, to which the establishment are fanatically committed – all this has to go.
And it has to go in the United States as well – the modern state (the “Administrative State”) is a cancer, it must be cut out if the nation (the ordinary people) are to have any chance of life.
Sorry, but the British government does not borrow gold (or silver – or anything real), the British government borrows fiat money which the Bank of England can create (without limit – it is inflation).
So “we would not be able to fund government debt” really means – “the unelected Bank of England is dictating policy”.
The same is true in the United States – the 35 Trillion Dollar debt is NOT gold (or silver – or anything real) it could be “paid”, in full, tomorrow morning – because it is just inflation (“money” created from NOTHING – nothing at all).
So why go through this charade of “borrowing money” from “the markets” – when it is all really a Credit Money farce? The reason is to pretend finance is real, when it is actually a vast scam.
It is a scam, a vicious farce, that must come to an end – it is the Temple of Evil that must come crashing down.
Well I’ll give this interview a go but I hope she’s better here than she was on the car crash interview she had with Steven Edginton on GB News a few weeks ago.
Liz Truss ought to have said, when threatened with a vote of no-confidence by her own party, ‘very well, let’s call a General Election, but I will de-select all of my disloyal MPs ‘ thus ensuring their political destruction, and giving them all MBEs so they have been honoured and can’t get resignation knighthoods etc.
And she ought to have said to the fund managers saying that there was a Sterling crisis ‘If you have been incompetent fools and cannot cover the yields required, we will introduce legislation allowing for named managers and directors to be personally liable for any shortfall in the funds, this will be a Crown debt and any shortfall will result in imprisonment for debt like an unpaid criminal fine, and it will be a matrimonial obligation to meet a spouse’s debt’ thereby ruining the entire class of parasitic credit-bubble fund managers and their families, and had the Bank of England leadership prosecuted for misconduct in public office for undermining the government. ‘The greedy bankers’ would be an easy sell to the jury.
But she had been a Lib Dem once, I believe.
Also leads to a lot of politics being somewhat fake as well. Truss for example presents herself as a radical free marketeer while opponents and media present her as a libertarian ideologue. The reality was she was a loyal minister for a decade in a government that massively expanded government and introduced lockdowns. Similarly Priti Patel and Suella Braverman are seen (and like to present themselves) as immigration hardliners, yet as home secretaries presided over some of the largest levels if immigration into the UK ever. Their rhetoric suggested the former but the fact that they didn’t really control the Home Office ensured the latter.
It’s easy to say [THIS THING] must be opposed when one knows that [THIS THING] is too big to fail at this point and no one in power is going to do anything to actually stop [THIS THING] in any event. Immigration (legal and illegal), economic issues, health care problems, car construction regulations, it’s all the same.
It’s all political theater.
Did you actually watch the interview? The whole point she’s making is not even the PM, let alone mere ministers, can do jackshit against the wishes of the Blob without repealing a vast array of enabling legislation that’s turned UK into a defacto blob technocracy. And that isn’t going to happen because a large chunk of the ‘Conservative’ Party doesn’t even want to repeal those things (which is why we need to nuke the Tory Party from orbit in the next general election & start again from scratch).
’ There are many things she clearly can’t say for obvious political reasons…’
No true leader would hobble themselves thus.
Depends if they want to remain in the party or not. Stating the only way conservatism can be manifested is to burn the Tory Party to the ground & start again isn’t something she can say even if she believes it to be true (which it is).
Mr Ed:
Does a party leader really have that much power in the UK?
Sorry, i don’t mean to imply distrust, but that statement does seem to require clarification.
Snorri – a British Prime Minister does have that power if the monarch consents to an election, and no monarch has said “no” for centuries.
Martin – Bulldog Drummond may have used harsh language (which I do myself from time to time), but his basic point is a valid one.
The idea that Liz Truss or (even less) Suella Braverman WANTED the government to the things you list is quite wrong – you do indeed miss the point Sir, the elected people do not have power (we are not quite powerless – but we are not very powerful either). People like Liz Truss and Suella Braverman are quite sincere – but they lack POWER.
Policy is often (not always – but often) set by forces we have no control over.
In theory Parliament could repeal the various Acts of Parliament, and get Britain OUT of the various international agreements, that determine policy – but Bulldog Drummond explains why that does not happen, thanks to the number of “One Nation”, read No Nation, Members of Parliament – there is no majority in the House of Commons to do what need to be done.
Do I want the party I have been a member of for 45 years “nuked from orbit” of course not (but that is a metaphor – Bulldog Drummond does NOT want to murder anyone), and I would hate it if good Members of Parliament (and there are some) lost their seats – although at least they have a pension (which I do not) – so it is not a matter of them being out in the streets in a cardboard box. But I understand the frustration – the terrible frustration.
There is no point in creating money from nothing, dishing it out to “City” types and then borrowing it back again.
If a nation is going to go down the fiat money road (and no Prime Minister Lord Liverpool, restoring gold money and getting rid of Income Tax, appears to be about) then this fiat money must be under elected control – not under the control of the Bank or England and its Corporate State “Partners”.
Let the “City” types pay their bills some other way (or perhaps give up their expensive habits) – no more creating money (from nothing) dishing it out to them, and then borrowing it back again (so the “City” types can profit).
Yes, and that makes aspects of politics increasingly fake because when the ideological positions (whether they are sincerely or opportunistically held) of even apparently powerful politicians clash with the blob, the blob usually wins. Hence you have big government and lockdowns delivered by soi disant free marketeers, and historically unprecedented mass immigration by home secretaries who rhetorically opposed to it.
Regarding Truss’s unwillingness to say certain things, I suspect this is due to her not having a mass backing, either at Westminster or amongst the public. Although Tory MPs brought down Margaret Thatcher from office, expelling her from the party at any point after would have been suicidal due to large affection she had amongst Tory members as well as many voters. This probably allowed her a lot of room to be very outspoken. I just don’t see Truss having that. Most of her ‘support’ now appears to be from think tanks and sympathetic media.
Paul: I was actually thinking about the power of de-selecting all disloyal MPs.
If British PMs have such power, why have they not used it in living memory?
In 2019 Boris Johnson removed the whip of around 20 Conservative MPs a few months before the December 2019 election. A handful were eventually given the Conservative whip back and so were allowed to stand as Conservative electoral candidates. The majority were not and either stood down, joined other parties or ran as independents. None of those who didn’t have the whip restored were reelected in 2019.
Entirely correct. And that is because many people really do believe Liz Truss “crashed the economy”…
Yes Perry – the idea that Liz Truss “crashed the economy” is a lie, extreme enough to be worthy of Dr Goebbels, but millions of people believed the lies of Dr Goebbels.
Snorri – as Martin says, a Party Leader can remove the whip from M.P.s (kick them out of the Parliamentary Party) – but they remain Members of Parliament.
And there are so many “One Nation” (read No Nation) M.Ps. that a Prime Minister can not kick them all out – as that would destroy the majority in Parliament.
That is the problem that Bulldog Drummond points out.
It is the same in the United States – where enough fake “Republicans” (RINOs) exist in Congress to mean that the wild government spending just carries on, as they will vote-with-the-Democrats (the left are a hive-mind – it is no good expecting any Democrats to vote against the expansion of government).
Candidate selection is vital – and that is where the free market people fail, both in the United Kingdom and the United States.
One question matters above all others – “if elected, how will this person vote in the legislature”.
If it is the sort of person who will never vote to repeal the legislation and the international agreements that are driving us to Hell – there is no point in electing them.
It’ Humphrey Applebee’s all the way down. If you don’t get the reference look it up
Eliminate fascist corporations wearing the skin-suit of public-sector unions and self-regulating agencies. Two prerequisites for solving the problem with most Western governments, not just the UK.