Dickens
Urmstongran
The markets did for Truss. I think they wield the real power. Makes you wonder why we bother having elections.
But if you embrace the free-market economic model then surely you have to accept their verdict on your economic policies?
And she did embrace it. Rees-Mogg backed an initiative which aimed to encourage people to reduce their use of gas / electricity. This campaign included measures designed to help people save up to £300 a year (apparently), also to help preserve national supplies, so that the gas-fired power plants that produce our electricity could keep running. But she was ideologically opposed to it (allegedly) because she thought it was too "interventionist". In other words, she believes the markets should rule, untrammelled.
Well, they did. And they ruled against her. She can't have it both ways, not if you are a free-marketeer idealogue. Or perhaps she believes in a controlled market which is only relevant when it responds the way you want it to? Or possibly her head was so crammed with ideas from Tufton Street that she didn't quite know what she believed or was supposed to believe and just got completely carried away with her own sense of importance which was heightened by the buzz from those in the party that voted for her? Who knows?
The markets didn't do for Truss - she did it to herself. She didn't comprehend the basics of the ideology she was flogging to the rest of us. Didn't listen to her advisors.
Her former Oxford tutor said, “her most noticeable characteristic is a capacity to shift, unblinkingly, from one fiercely held belief to another”.
Exactly. I love the quote from the tutor. It does seem to sum her up.



