So we now have a 'PM' no one, not even Con Members have voted for

[MrsRobinsonsHandprints]

Album to think we now have a 'PM' that has been voted in by nobody?

As much as I dislike Truss and her economics she was at least upfront about them and the Conservative Party voted her in.

Now her economic plan has been completely undone by Hunt, it isn't reasonable to say she is 'PM', she is a puppet, and her master is Hunt.

Can you imagine what the paper headlines would be saying if Labour had done this?

General election now.

So much for sovereignty. We are teetering on bankruptcy so the new Conservative government will be based on who the banks/markets/IMF etc. want.

The Tories have broken the UK and our democracy.

Her economic plan wasn't undone by Hunt, it was undone because it was pie in the sky, unworkable wishful thinking.

It's not being undone by Hunt. She's playing it surprisingly well and by having him change it, makes it look like it was all KK gone rogue.

I don’t think it looks like that at all, even if that’s how she would wish it. I think everybody knows exactly who’s responsible.

Yes, this. If she thinks she can con everyone into thinking it was nothing to do with her she really must hold the general public in even greater contempt than I imagined.

I'm neither a Conservative voter, nor a Liz Truss supporter, but I'm struggling to understand the outrage against her. This is exactly what she said she would do in the leadership contest. She was totally clear about her brief. The Con party members and MPs who voted for her must have known what they were voting for. I am not supporting what she did at all - I'm also shocked and worried by the economic spiral we are in - but I'm having great difficulty understanding the Con party turning against what they voted for just recently. It's not as if she just went rogue - she only did what she said all along she was going to do.

If you’re on a plane, and the pilot announces that you’re just about to land, then you don’t really consider that for more than what it is. You don’t think or need to know how they are going to do it. You accept that, because of the position that they hold, they must know what they’re talking about, and take them on their word that they know how to make it happen.

It was the same with LT (and indeed most other politicians). If they lay out their stall and say this is what I intend, this is my manifesto, then really it’s down to them how they make it work and live up to their promises. However, she made promises that were either unachievable, or if they were, required a level of competence in their execution that was much greater than she could manage. Which is where their anger is coming from, I suspect.

She was always completely up front about her desire for trickle down economics, making it impossible for her to play the 'it was all his fault' card. Perhaps the Conservatives were hoping she'd tone down the rhetoric once appointed as PM and never thought she'd carry through with it. But let's face it, she was never going to enjoy a nice long honeymoon period however it had played out - a very large minority of the Tory faithful were team Rishi. With division like that in the ranks, her days were numbered from the outset and I'll be surprised if she sees out the month.

Their constant party before country actions have brought the UK to its knees. First Cameron, appeasing his party's right wing with a flawed referendum. Poor Theresa inherited a hugely divided party. They then put populism ahead of pragmatism by putting that imbecile up. The electorate fell for his charisma and paid a very high price. Now we have this absolute shower. The Tories are done. They've had their time. I think she'll step down calling a snap election. And then they'll leave Labour to tidy up and in 5 years when we've merely recaptured the status quo, people will say Labour haven't done enough and vote the bastards back in again.

@DomesticShortHair - Fair point re the pilot, but to extend the analogy accurately, you would need to be on a plane, and then have someone else announce that there is a choice of two pilots to land the plane. Both pilots will then set out their stall, and describe how they intend to land the plane, and perhaps give you some idea of their previous experience and ideas. You then vote on which one you would prefer to land the plane.

Con voters had ample opportunity to review the ideas and policies of all the candidates, and make the appropriate choice. They chose a crash landing. I'm not sure why, but they made the choice in full view of all the facts.

Exactly Sista and the others that are struggling to see why the Conservatives are so unhappy with Truss being what Truss said she would.

If anything she was the only honest member of the party, she did what she said she would. The Cons voted for it and now they don't like it.

But that's not actually what happened. What happened was two potential pilots were bidding for the job of flying the plane, and one said the other one's flight plan would lead to it crashing.

And the passengers voted to crash anyway.

Exactly like they did when the same thing happened with Brexit.

I would say that they didn’t have a full view of the facts, but then again aren’t expected to. It’s often given as the reason why we have politicians making decisions on our behalf, rather than direct democracy, because a lot of the issues are are to complex to be understood by ordinary people. Judging on performance alone, I’d strongly disagree with that premise, but that’s supposed to be the idea.

I suppose the bottom line is promises were made, but not kept. Regardless of the scenario, that almost always makes me pretty angry. So, irrespective of what the promises were or how valid, I can understand why they would be angry too.

I'm also not a fan of Rishi Sunak's, but as @TheLeadbetterLife notes, "What happened was two potential pilots were bidding for the job of flying the plane, and one said the other one's flight plan would lead to it crashing. And the passengers voted to crash anyway."

If Rishi had the facts, why didn't the others?

The bottom line really is how readily certain politicians lie these days, and how difficult it seems to be for their opponents, regulatory bodies and the media to clearly debunk those lies and hold them accountable.

The Brexiters flat out lied about the consequences of Brexit, and dismissed all concerns as "Project Fear". It wasn't fear, it was reality. But the warnings did not cut through, and they got away with so many blatant and ridiculous lies.

Liz Truss either lied or is so incompetent she genuinely believed her plan was solid.

Boris Johnson lied about pretty much everything, with no real consequences besides the camel's back finally breaking in the Summer.

Of course voters want to believe the lies, that's why there needs to be a system with actual teeth that nips them in the bud. How to do this in the social media age, though, where people like to believe there are several truths?

But to use that analogy, Liz said that Rishi’s flight plan would also have lead to the plane crashing. It’s only with hindsight that we all know which plan was the one to follow. At the time, they both merely had a sales pitch. And Rishi had the proven track record of his actual performance as Chancellor working against him. I suppose the curiosity is, why wasn’t Rishi more compelling and persuasive with his argument to his party’s members, especially considering he was up against one of the least charismatic and effective communicators in Parliament?

@DomesticShortHair - that's a fair comment. I didn't follow all the hustings, but it seems to me that Rishi felt he was on more solid ground than he was, and thus didn't need to be compelling, and I also think he underestimated just how badly his wife not paying tax played out with the British public. That's only my personal opinion though. I wasn't in a position to vote - not a Conservative - so I didn't watch them all.

It wasn't just Sunak's comments during the hustings that criticised Truss's plan–commentators, economists and other MPs also backed his assessment.

This is what I mean about the necessity for there to be respected, independent analysis of campaign pledges these days. If politicians can just lie, the voters need to have a source they can trust on whether the pledges stack up. The media unfortunately feels compelled to "both sides" everything and not state facts.

I appreciate this is a tall (impossible?) order, when all that happens is the politicians dismiss concerns with nonsense about "biased media", "talking Britain down", or some other vague bollocks.

I, for one, applaud this great morning's work from Hunt and Truss. Bravo! ⭐

I'm looking forward to this afternoon's announcement that Lord Hammond of Runnymede has been made Foreign Secretary and Baroness Davidson International Trade Secretary, and even more to their joint announcement tomorrow morning that the PM will repeal Article 50 and the UK has begun negotiations to rejoin the EU.

Cheers! 🤗🍸😍🇪🇺 😎🎂

Me neither, on either the hustings or the vote. But never underestimate the ability for humans, including rational, intelligent, considered individuals, to be swayed by optimistic arguments rather than realistic ones, whether it’s in politics, relationships, or indeed anything else. It’s not even always a bad thing. I suspect the real reason was Rishi told people what was going to happen, whereas Liz told people what they wanted to hear, and that’s what they chose. That’s not a criticism of people, just an acknowledgement of how things really are.

I'd personally be over the moon if Reeves could rule the Labour party by stealth. I'd vote for that.

She is on record, many times, in her leadership election campaign saying she'd reverse Rishi's tax rises. When she came to power, she did (via Kwazi). Now that's been reversed. So, yes, OP is right. The other MPs didn't vote for her. The membership voted for her, partly (or wholly) because she promised tax cuts whereas her opponent Rishi wanted tax rises. Now we've ended up doing what Rishi wanted to do, but with Truss at the helm, not doing what she promised she'd do!

Truss is not at the helm thank fuck.🤣🤣🤣

This. What. A. Joke.

”Take back control.”

”Strong and stable.”

Ha. Ha. Bloody ha.

I think one of the issues are that people are quite cynical of both experts and MPs these days, particularly after the whole Covid episode. So much so, in fact, that if an expert says one thing, people will often straight away take the contrary position without doing any thought or analysis, purely because they have so little faith anymore. That’s the problem with credibility, once it’s gone, it’s incredibly difficult to get back. As Liz, Boris et al has recently proved.

I 100% agree. She did not for one second lie about what she planned to do. She said it a thousand times during the leadership campaign, wrote a book about it in 2012 and was selected by members to do what she had promised. I can’t understand why everyone is now acting surprised?

It’s been as clear as day for many years that she is, as one her colleagues have dubbed her, a ‘libertarian jihadist’ supported by shadowy American backed think tanks.

Maybe her failing was to be too honest. She should’ve pretended to be a ‘compassionate conservative’ in order to obscure her real plans like Cameron talking about hugging hoodies whilst giving us austerity.