Rishi or Liz?

It won’t give Labour a majority. It’ll enable them to form a government supported by the SNP.

But would that even happen? Labour and SNP have very little in common once you set aside their hatred of the tories. The SNP principle ideology of an independent Scotland would go down like a cold cup of sick with most labour members so I just don't see how they can form a coalition in Westminster. Much more likely would be a Labour minority government if they can claw back enough seats to do it.

Speaking as a lifelong Conservative voter, I would support any action to get this current shit show out of office.

Headline on the Times app this evening: “Bring back Boris - why swing voters don’t trust Truss or Sunak”.

Aargh. What does possess ordinary people who would look at me as a “posh twat” go weak at the knees for the real genuine article posh twat that is Boris Johnson? However dreary Twuss and Wishy may be (and they are), I’d have either of them any day over Johnson, who is categorically a charlatan.

It’s enough to make you want to weep with sheer frustration.

I think that's wrong - or at least it should be.

For example there was all this talk of not getting rid of Boris because 'there's a war on'.
Errr, it's happening quite far away and although we're providing lots of support I see that as a supply thing rather than something that hangs around BoJo being in No.10. Surely at the very most he should ask a minion how many of type X munition we have and they'd scuttle away to the MOD to find out. Those sort of decisions should really sit with the MOD/army.
Similarly he has a Foreign Secretary who should do most of the heavy lifting (or at the very least sit in a tank and try to look Prime Ministerial!). 

I'm sure it can probably be argued that BoJo's regime has a hand in making the cost of living crisis more severe so in those circumstances getting rid of him would be a step in the right direction. Although ideally you'd get rid of those who also had a hand in the current shit show, not sure how well that's working out

Finally we had another Truss supporter on Sky News yesterday (someone Philp) telling us how tax cuts are the most important thing and that our current levels are the highest sine the war.
Who is this meant to appeal to - surely the voting populace have noticed the Tories have been in power for 7 years plus a coalition for 5. Isn't that ample time to reduce the tax burden?
Mrons.

I understand the process of electing a new leader of the Conservative Party is not something to be rushed but this whole Rishi/Truss saga has gone on for a ridiculously long time. General Elections happen quicker. People are bored to death of it including, I believe, the actual members of the party who will actually vote. You'll not convince me this couldn't have all been sorted out within a month. At the moment the country as seen as a rudderless ship and the cynical among us (me) see this whole issue of leaving all fiscal decisions until the new leader is elected as a ploy to give them some sort of bump in the polls as they take over. It isn't working and more and more people are seeing the Conservatives as incompetent and moving away from them. It's almost bad enough to make you vote Labour.

I’m not sure the evidence supports that view. There was a frustration with the EU before the 2015 election which had seen UKIP do so well in the polls. The voters had their own agency and ability to make up their own minds, solely blaming BoJo for remain loosing the vote seems misplaced. Although I frequently see reports of voter regret, my own analysis is that views have hardened around Leave and now it’s just a matter of getting on with it.

Whether we get on with it or not, and irrespective of what the future does or does not hold, the point stands that the overwhelming majority of the electorate had no particular strong view on Europe one way or the other, until it was whipped up into an issue by the hardline headcases in UKIP and the Tory party.

Johnson merely cynically (and correctly) saw it as a convenient way to barge his way into 10DS.

Yep. The likes of Ken Clarke, Tarzan Hesaltine, John Gummer, Ted Heath, Maggie (addressed the CEF to launch the 1975 referendum) all had the infra-party battle of “in” or “out” when vast numbers of the electorate didn’t give a shit one way or the other. But neither the EU or the UK helped itself in the run up to Brexit, the EUs biggest error being the lack of a change to majority agreement as it expanded to countries that weren’t like the original six EEC member countries (which even today have largely interchangeable elements of lifestyle and societal belief). Things like the Visegrád group highlighted these differences and played into nationalists hands in other states, particularly the original six and the UK.

The UK has NEVER liked the EU in any public forum, with media reporting concentrating on the negatives perceived by a slack-jawed electorate (in typical British press fashion as feel good stories never sell unless it were to be the resurrection and deification of “Lady Di”) so straight bananas, open gated borders with automatic right to settlement and benefits and brutal ex-Soviet gang thuggery were all most knew about membership of the EU. That being in spite of the fact there was never a banana stipulation; settlement and benefits between EU states is tightly controlled and managed (and the UK’s refusal to enact ID cards which are the prime control of this on the basis of intrusion when everyone is happy to share their every bowel movement with Google); and home nations gangs have managed well enough for centuries.

However the upshot has been a pandemic and now border-nation strife that has shown the EU to be great at letting individual countries do their own shit when see it’s required (individual rules per state including sections of some states and the Czech press was quite clear on the easier acceptance of Ukrainian refugees than of any non-white ones so they opened their borders) but also great at pissing the U.K. off in a retaliatory manner, which was foretold of course.

There never was and never will be an ideal solution for all but trying to stand alone in the world when the US utilises Asian and South American states to bolster its economy, Russia maintains its revenues by retaining relations with decidedly non-EU and US sympathising nations and China makes sure it feeds itself with African resources is not remotely better a position to be in than maintaining a stable, if strained, relationship with the neighbouring states close enough to build tunnel to.

Changing back to the original topic, a question for Michael: is Truzz as crackers as some people make out or is she just a political sharp-shifter who is playing the crowd?

A quote from Matthew Parris: "Liz Truss is a planet-sized mass of overconfidence and ambition teetering upon a pinhead of a political brain.”

Precisely the sort of commentary that I was referring to and why I asked Michael the question, since he is plugged into northern Tory affairs.

My biggest concern about her is that she is being played as a stooge by the Johnsonites. I even heard one conspiracy theory that held that the real reason for Mad Nad being elevated to the Lords is so that her safe seat can be made available for Johnson in lieu of his current wafer-thin majority in west London, and thus keep him safe for a Churchillian second term once Truss has taken the necessary bullets during the coming shitshow…

Why should she though? I don't actually think it is an issue. Not for me, anyway.

Perhaps we are a nation of self-righteous pricks?