Truss! The perfect example of an educated idiot....

"fine detail.."??? Nor, in fact, any detail.
Come on Orsen. This is unworthy of you. Your response to me was a Podcast full of waffle and contained hopes and aspirations. These are not policies but rather an intent -a bit like announcing you want to travel from Glasgow to Paris via Leeds London and Dover but no mention of how you are funding it, the intended route, nor the method of travel.

The excuse of "I can't give detailed plans because we are not yet in power so don't know the situation we inherit" is used by all opposition parties and rightly 'called out' by people ( I recall in the past lots on here doing so when the Cons gloss over details like how and when) It is also a fantastic caveat so they can break promises made - "We did not know how bad things were until we took office".

The ongoing criticism of the handling of Brexit was the lack of proper analysis and understanding of the imitations of the final deal. Absolutely true. As someone recently posted 'The devil is in the detail'. Same applies with all opposition promises. Show me the money!!

 

So, lets try to break this down a little more rationally. Do you accept that the pitches which Sunak and Truss are making for the leadership contain markedly different intentions for economic policy? Sunak, by way of reminder is promising no tax cuts until inflation is brought under control. Truss is promising immediate tax cuts, with structural debt relating to Covid recovery being paid over a much longer time period. Truss's policy may encourage further spending at a time of enormous inflationary pressure. Sunak's is likely to depress activity in the short term in order to put a lid on inflation. My point is not that one or other of these policies is necessarily right, but you have to agree that they lead to hugely different economic outlooks at the time of the next election? It might be added that we have little fine detail of what they propose, even though one of them will be prime minister by six weeks on Tuesday. Starmer, by contrast will not be prime minister (if at all) until two years in January. It therefore seems perfectly reasonable to me that he should wait until the outlook is a little more certain before committing to actions which he would expect to have to uphold.

At the end of the day, you are not going to vote for Starmer choose what he says, which is your right. But if you were trying to persuade me not to, I'd be wanting to have a little more reasoning than you are offering above!

 

How can you set out all your policies when it’s 2 years to the next election? What you can do is point out the issues with current government policy - which lets face it a 3 year old child could do. You’ll get your chance to look in detail at all the parties plans before the next election.

 

Would never try and persuade you who to vote for. On the basis of two diametrically opposed policies Sunak and Truss who would you consider Starker being closest to? He gives no indication of the slightest support for either. Spend or Austerity ? Anyway given the current shambles that isn't in Italian politics where egos supercede what is best for Italy it appears that UK is not unique in having a dire bunch of incumbents in the HoC.

 

I doubt that Keir is keen to embrace either candidate or what they stand for. Sunak was fined for his lockdown breach and has presided over a doling out of cash over Covid, much of which has gone to friends of the Tories for spurious projects and a sizeable chunk of which has been swallowed up by fraudulent operators he has shown himself reluctant to pursue. Truss demonstrated her unfitness to hold high office whilst Lord Chancellor, during which time she abrogated her statutory responsibility to uphold the integrity and reputation of the judiciary. She has shown herself to be reckless in defence of the rule of law by sponsoring the bill which would authorize our unilateral breach of treaty responsibilities. Sunak's policies would depress the economy; Truss's would bankrupt it. Truss's economic guru has advanced that 7% interest rates would be needed to dampen the inflationary aspects of her proposals. If you have children in the UK with a mortgage to pay then be very, very afraid. Both candidates supported a prime minister whose own party deemed him unfit to continue in high office.

Starmer has set out his aims to:
1. Change the Labour Party;
2. Expose the Tories as unfit to govern;
3. Explain why Labour should take their place.

The first two aims have been progressed; the third is where we are between now and the next election. That third strand focuses on growing the economy, fixing the public services and uniting the country by ditching the 'wedge' issues. The latter point involves moving on from the brexit argument, and I assume moving the discussion on from the cancel culture obsession which seems to have taken hold. Starmer has stated that growing the economy should involve talking to business about the environment and regulatory structure that can enable businesses to thrive and economic activity to increase. He has insisted that any spending plans must be fully costed (cf. Truss's approach, which smacks of wishful thinking). He explicitly states that whilst there is a role for the public sector, the state should not run everything because that has been demonstrated not to work. So talk of there being 'no plan' is manifestly untrue. You are of course perfectly at liberty to disagree with the plan.

Can all that be made to happen? Who knows, but I'd give him a chance to try before tolerate another five years of the current bunch of worthless clowns!