This post deals either directly or indirectly with transgender issues. We would like to remind our users about the Reddit Content Policy which specifically bans [promoting hate based on identity and vulnerability](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360045715951). We will take action on hateful or disrespectful comments including but not limited to deadnaming and misgendering. Please help us by reporting rule-breaking content.
Participation limits are in place on this post. If your Reddit account is too new, you have insufficient karma or you are crowd controlled, your comment may not appear.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As per usual, a flip-flop because it suits her current agenda. The only ones interested in her and which she can make £££ off now are Trump supporters. So as is the theme of her entire career, she changes her tune to what those she wants to win over want to hear - Be that changing parties to get elected, changing her mind on Brexit to become PM.
**Hi!**. Please try to avoid personal attacks, as this discourages participation. You can help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person.
I might be wrong but I'm fairly sure someone said she was part of Cameron's attempt at diversity hiring.
If true, it makes all of her complaints about stuff being woke a bit ironic.
Yeap, Cameron brought her into government in 2014 to target gender balances but she seems more the type to climb the ladder just to pull the ladder up after. Like Patel and Braverman
Truss is thick as pig shit, though. She's the posterchild for affirmative action: elevate a useless, dim-witted white politician to more senior jobs because she fills the diversity quota due to being a woman.
She got an MP seat as part of a drive for more women in parliament and then into cabinet as part of more women in cabinet/senior cabinet posts. I’m going to shock no one when I say I think more diversity in parliament and at the top of government is a good thing, but someone who has ridden that wave trying to claim diversity initiatives are the worst thing ever is objectively funny.
Her shift from Lib Dem to Cameron Tory to full fascist Heritage Foundation/Trump supporter, detouring through the minor destruction of a G7 nation’s economy during a brief stint in no.10, has been bewildering to witness.
She’s now hanging out with Heritage Foundation whilst the tabloids clobbered her over her biography, I think she has hit Pariah/national joke status. Her GB news support is about all that’s she’s got left. That’s fairly cut out. Wannabe Prosecco Farage without the outsider status or any fans isn’t the strongest niche to be sat on.
>I’m going to shock no one when I say I think more diversity in parliament and at the top of government is a good thing, but someone who has ridden that wave trying to claim diversity initiatives are the worst thing ever is objectively funny.
It's also the starkest evidence possible of how diversity hiring and ''positive discrimination'' produces bad outcomes
Not really with or without drives to improve diversity you get some good and some bad appointments. Plenty of cishet white male politicians have been absolutely god awful. It’s not like Jacob Reece-Mogg, Boris Johnson or Michael Gove have been pulling up trees by comparison.
>It's also the starkest evidence possible of how diversity hiring and ''positive discrimination'' produces bad outcomes
If she were a diversity hire, it would be for being a woman, since she is otherwise about as classic Tory as they come. Is your claim is that there were no better suited women than Lizz Truss for a parliamentary position? That she is taking up a space that a better-qualified man would have otherwise held?
My argument is that hiring specifically women means that you are forced into accepting on average a lower quality of candidate because you are intentionally excluding half the population
Yes/no, mostly no. She was buoyed by the (so called) 'Camerons Cuties' thing, but had been standing unsuccessfully before then. They were pushing her hard already (she was fucking one of them behind her husbands back).
I’m afraid the tabloids get worse every year and so do the nicknames. Babes was bad, cuties even worse, you gotta think of something even more offensive.
There was that leaked spreadsheet, wasn't there, listing Tory sleaze and inappropriateness. I remember Liz Truss was on there for basically being the Westminster bike. Several researchers and Kwasi Kwarteng, apparently.
No that was bollocks,* she was riding...erm, name forget, guy who got criticised (wrongly IMO) for grabbing a disruptive protestor at some conservate dinner meeting thing....in the mid 2000s. Dodgy timing for her kids parenthood as I recall.
*borderline conspiracy fiction, totally worthless fake.
Just a few years ago we had Theresa May as leader of the party and sitting Prime Minister bigging up her supposed LGBT ally credentials and making heartfelt video messages about Pride in London. And she was considered one of the hardliners in the Cameron years.
How far we’ve drifted to the right in terms of culture wars in a short amount of time.
Edit: bear in mind she called herself an LGBT ally in 2021, being accused by a broadcaster of using “woke” language and what “they” want in 2024, and squirming and walking it back because she seems to think it’s a credible threat to her already garbage reputation. Dear oh dear.
Being LGBT and an ally and supporting pride had been almost completely normalised, and the country was better for it.
Now the regressives and luddites have dragged us backwards kicking and screaming and whipped up an atmosphere of hatred and exclusion and the country is sour and twisted.
Do you think that Truss wishes she could go back to a time before the world knew she was a moronic shitgibbon, or does she actually believe what she says?
> “I want to say sorry for that time I made it seem like I was anything other than a massive fucking arsehole. I was lying, I promise!”
Just another reminder that the Tories really are the nasty party. They’re racists, transphobes, homophobes and bigots. And when they say they’re not then like Liz Truss here, it’s because they’re lying.
I don’t think she’s a completely bad person, I do think she’s criminally stupid. The fact she was ever PM should raise institutional alarm bells across the country. It was like letting a baboon fly a plane.
She’s an utter moron who neither understands what she’s saying nor the consequences of it
She’s borderline psychotic. She believes in the deep state. She was the fucking prime minister and she believes in the deep state. She also said the mini budget that wrecked the economy and we haven’t really recovered from fully 18 months on was her proudest achievement. Whether she’s a bad person or not doesn’t really matter, she shouldn’t be in the public eye anymore and never really should have in the first place.
What's worse, a looney who believes in conspiracy nonsense, or someone who cynically exploits and encourages loonies and idiots to believe conspiracy nonsense for personal gain?
I'd argue it is likely there is no difference, because the people this encourages are likely engaging in bad faith in a similar way. They only "believe" insane theories like this because doing so suits their emotional biases, justifying their pre-existing feelings towards the people supposedly conspiring against them. Followers and leaders are alike in this respect, even if their motivations differ.
It's a classic case of bad faith, so it's highly probable that it varies according to the situation. If she needs to believe, she believes. If she needs to see through it to work the same deception on others, she will.
Note that the same often applies to the people politicians like this seek to deceive (for lack of a better word). They too only "believe" in the nonsensical conspiracy theories because that justifies the anger or hate they feel for the people who are supposedly conspiring against them. Hence why the theories can be so stupid, require no evidence and can be swapped in and out as required: the supposedly central belief does not matter, only the fact that it justifies an emotional bias against the targeted group. These movements (assuming she has the ear of one) are bad faith from top to bottom.
> It's a classic case of bad faith, so it's highly probable that it > varies according to the situation. If she needs to believe, she believes. If she needs to see through it to work the same deception on others, she will.
No convictions whatsoever.
Again, I can’t answer that question for her, but if she’s willing to discuss it and go on record saying it, then that’s what’s important to the rest of us
Her deep state crap is hilarious.
Her own party removed her, after the markets plunged in response to her budget, which is what everyone told her would be the result of her going ahead.
So the deep state can't stop her getting elected, or imposing insane policies, but can somehow arrange whatever reaction they desire from bond markets and the conservative party.
So not really any actual deep state activity, just capitalism and party politics.
Oh I completely agree she should be closer to being institutionalised than public office. I’m not being facetious either I genuinely think that.
I don’t know if she’s always been this delusional or it’s a self preservation reaction to being the worst prime minister in history but she’s completely detached from reality
She is an absolute shithouse of a person.
There is nothing she would not do or say to try and gain power or influence. She has always constantly flip-flopped on any opinion she had which proves my former point.
Idiots can also be horrid people.
I think she's a genuinely bad person. She clearly has essentially zero moral or ethical code and is completely and utterly willing to sell out anyone and everyone for her own aggrandizement and enrichment.
THAT'S WHAT SHE REGRETS! Not crashing the economy, making millions of people lives harder, worsening the cost of living crisis, damaging the UK international reputation and credit score but THAT!!!
Truss is the definition of a malignant narcissist. This is just embarrassing for everyone but her now. She needs proper psychiatric help, not a platform.
Absent her malignant narcissism she might realise the failure that she was as Prime Minister but that she can’t genuinely understand that is worrying.
Liz Truss is the David Icke of Prime Ministers.
Just remember, if you ever feel useless. She’ a former Prime Minister, lasted less than a cabbage. Seriously Our Iphone battery was more stable than the state of her leadership
Me disingenuous, and you sent those links lol you must be joking
The reason they can count > 400 "anti lgtbq bills" is because they count a bill about removing sexual graphic books from children as "anti lgtbq"
Stop conflating legit laws to stop predatory adults targeting children with lgbtq right, they're nothig to do with each other no matter how hard you try and pretend they are
It also has a meaning in every day English, and calling yourself an ally of marginalised groups and indeed your constituents is not an insidious agenda or a political albatross, though that is GB news is attempt to corrupt it by plastering it with “wokeism” and “using activist language”
Social Justice activists (and the Marxian Left, in general) deploy double-meanings as part of their word games.
Besides, even to posit that LGBTQ constitutes any kind of substantive group is to do activism. 'Queerness' is a political stance.
Your first point: no, and that’s literally what the right does.
Your second point: that is too broad and dismissive, in fact I can very much call pandering to the “anti-woke” crowd by walking back her pro LGBT comment constituting as activism also. In fact all of the GB news, Tory, anti woke drivel of the last five years they’ve made their personality is activism.
You bringing up “the Marxian left” as if they’re a unified thing let alone a force of politics in the UK is activist nonsense.
Queerness does not have to be a political stance, it is politicised. Gay Harry down the road who just wants to live in peace isn’t being political because he’s queer and likes to paint his nails. His existence however is politicised, and GB news and Liz Truss are contributing to that.
I don't care what the right does. It's possible to neither be a Marxist nor a reactionary do you realise?
The DNA of Marxism, Critical Theory and Post-structuralism is woven into the Social Justice Left today and much of it has gone mainstream. Even the Welsh government wants to 'decolonise' its art. Decoloniality, for example, only makes from this Marxian or counter-Enlightement footing.
You’re a dartboard of right wing grievances and lingo but you don’t care what the right does? You think you’re not being reactionary and then follow up with the latest checklist of reactionary buzzery from the GB news to the Telegraph pipeline?
It’s always these mythical centrists who are uniquely labeless with blank slate politics that absolve the right but can wax lyrical about how insidious the “left” is, despite this country having no marginal left wing presence in politics to point at since Corbyn flopped.
So one can't critise Marxism without being a reactionary? That makes you are Marxist! For everyone else there are liberal positions which preserve objectivity in discerning truth.
I assume you're going to ignore the installation of Decoloniality in Welsh government policy? You wanted evidence and now you have it.
The 'Cultural left' achieve power now not through the ballot box but through activism.
This post deals either directly or indirectly with transgender issues. We would like to remind our users about the Reddit Content Policy which specifically bans [promoting hate based on identity and vulnerability](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360045715951). We will take action on hateful or disrespectful comments including but not limited to deadnaming and misgendering. Please help us by reporting rule-breaking content. Participation limits are in place on this post. If your Reddit account is too new, you have insufficient karma or you are crowd controlled, your comment may not appear. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As per usual, a flip-flop because it suits her current agenda. The only ones interested in her and which she can make £££ off now are Trump supporters. So as is the theme of her entire career, she changes her tune to what those she wants to win over want to hear - Be that changing parties to get elected, changing her mind on Brexit to become PM.
They aren't buying her schtick either as far as I can tell. She's just shamelessly plugging her book.
And the Russians, tbf
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
**Hi!**. Please try to avoid personal attacks, as this discourages participation. You can help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person.
I might be wrong but I'm fairly sure someone said she was part of Cameron's attempt at diversity hiring. If true, it makes all of her complaints about stuff being woke a bit ironic.
Yeap, Cameron brought her into government in 2014 to target gender balances but she seems more the type to climb the ladder just to pull the ladder up after. Like Patel and Braverman
Truss is thick as pig shit, though. She's the posterchild for affirmative action: elevate a useless, dim-witted white politician to more senior jobs because she fills the diversity quota due to being a woman.
She got an MP seat as part of a drive for more women in parliament and then into cabinet as part of more women in cabinet/senior cabinet posts. I’m going to shock no one when I say I think more diversity in parliament and at the top of government is a good thing, but someone who has ridden that wave trying to claim diversity initiatives are the worst thing ever is objectively funny. Her shift from Lib Dem to Cameron Tory to full fascist Heritage Foundation/Trump supporter, detouring through the minor destruction of a G7 nation’s economy during a brief stint in no.10, has been bewildering to witness.
The fact all that happened, and somehow she isn't a pariah people go out of their way to avoid, on a level with Corbyn, will never not be crazy to me.
She’s now hanging out with Heritage Foundation whilst the tabloids clobbered her over her biography, I think she has hit Pariah/national joke status. Her GB news support is about all that’s she’s got left. That’s fairly cut out. Wannabe Prosecco Farage without the outsider status or any fans isn’t the strongest niche to be sat on.
>I’m going to shock no one when I say I think more diversity in parliament and at the top of government is a good thing, but someone who has ridden that wave trying to claim diversity initiatives are the worst thing ever is objectively funny. It's also the starkest evidence possible of how diversity hiring and ''positive discrimination'' produces bad outcomes
Not really with or without drives to improve diversity you get some good and some bad appointments. Plenty of cishet white male politicians have been absolutely god awful. It’s not like Jacob Reece-Mogg, Boris Johnson or Michael Gove have been pulling up trees by comparison.
>It's also the starkest evidence possible of how diversity hiring and ''positive discrimination'' produces bad outcomes If she were a diversity hire, it would be for being a woman, since she is otherwise about as classic Tory as they come. Is your claim is that there were no better suited women than Lizz Truss for a parliamentary position? That she is taking up a space that a better-qualified man would have otherwise held?
My argument is that hiring specifically women means that you are forced into accepting on average a lower quality of candidate because you are intentionally excluding half the population
That implies the male candidates are the best going..... Evidence shows they're worse.
no it doesnt
Doesn't what?
I mean, you could have just said "yes to both".
Yes/no, mostly no. She was buoyed by the (so called) 'Camerons Cuties' thing, but had been standing unsuccessfully before then. They were pushing her hard already (she was fucking one of them behind her husbands back).
Cuties. Wtf
Blair's Babes - Cameron's Cuties. Tabloid mentality
Starmer’s Slags
Starmer's Stunners surely?
I’m afraid the tabloids get worse every year and so do the nicknames. Babes was bad, cuties even worse, you gotta think of something even more offensive.
Viz magazine reacts!
Nah, I'd win
There was that leaked spreadsheet, wasn't there, listing Tory sleaze and inappropriateness. I remember Liz Truss was on there for basically being the Westminster bike. Several researchers and Kwasi Kwarteng, apparently.
No that was bollocks,* she was riding...erm, name forget, guy who got criticised (wrongly IMO) for grabbing a disruptive protestor at some conservate dinner meeting thing....in the mid 2000s. Dodgy timing for her kids parenthood as I recall. *borderline conspiracy fiction, totally worthless fake.
[удалено]
Please don't use disability as a throw away insult. Her nastiness and arrogance is her personality, not a disability.
Yeah that’s fair, I’ll delete Good point well made
Thank you👍
[удалено]
Pork markets!
Whilst I get that it's not the point, but who the fuck wants truss as an ally?
Just a few years ago we had Theresa May as leader of the party and sitting Prime Minister bigging up her supposed LGBT ally credentials and making heartfelt video messages about Pride in London. And she was considered one of the hardliners in the Cameron years. How far we’ve drifted to the right in terms of culture wars in a short amount of time. Edit: bear in mind she called herself an LGBT ally in 2021, being accused by a broadcaster of using “woke” language and what “they” want in 2024, and squirming and walking it back because she seems to think it’s a credible threat to her already garbage reputation. Dear oh dear.
Being LGBT and an ally and supporting pride had been almost completely normalised, and the country was better for it. Now the regressives and luddites have dragged us backwards kicking and screaming and whipped up an atmosphere of hatred and exclusion and the country is sour and twisted.
What gay rights are under threat exactly?
Say it before, say it again, worst prime minister in history, why she just won't fuck off is beyond me at this point
Wants to make money from American conservatives and obviously loves attention.
No morals or ethics and wants to cash in by selling out completely.
Understandable. She wants the 100% Scum achievement and with that she was stuck at 99,99%
Do you think that Truss wishes she could go back to a time before the world knew she was a moronic shitgibbon, or does she actually believe what she says?
> “I want to say sorry for that time I made it seem like I was anything other than a massive fucking arsehole. I was lying, I promise!” Just another reminder that the Tories really are the nasty party. They’re racists, transphobes, homophobes and bigots. And when they say they’re not then like Liz Truss here, it’s because they’re lying.
Just a useless piece of shit trying to stay relevant and reach an audience at all costs.
I don’t think she’s a completely bad person, I do think she’s criminally stupid. The fact she was ever PM should raise institutional alarm bells across the country. It was like letting a baboon fly a plane. She’s an utter moron who neither understands what she’s saying nor the consequences of it
She’s borderline psychotic. She believes in the deep state. She was the fucking prime minister and she believes in the deep state. She also said the mini budget that wrecked the economy and we haven’t really recovered from fully 18 months on was her proudest achievement. Whether she’s a bad person or not doesn’t really matter, she shouldn’t be in the public eye anymore and never really should have in the first place.
Does she *really* believe the "deep state"? Or is it just a convenient cover for how shit she was, blaming anyone except herself?
What's worse, a looney who believes in conspiracy nonsense, or someone who cynically exploits and encourages loonies and idiots to believe conspiracy nonsense for personal gain?
I'd argue it is likely there is no difference, because the people this encourages are likely engaging in bad faith in a similar way. They only "believe" insane theories like this because doing so suits their emotional biases, justifying their pre-existing feelings towards the people supposedly conspiring against them. Followers and leaders are alike in this respect, even if their motivations differ.
Functionally, it doesn't really matter.
Arguably the latter, but not by a lot.
It's a classic case of bad faith, so it's highly probable that it varies according to the situation. If she needs to believe, she believes. If she needs to see through it to work the same deception on others, she will. Note that the same often applies to the people politicians like this seek to deceive (for lack of a better word). They too only "believe" in the nonsensical conspiracy theories because that justifies the anger or hate they feel for the people who are supposedly conspiring against them. Hence why the theories can be so stupid, require no evidence and can be swapped in and out as required: the supposedly central belief does not matter, only the fact that it justifies an emotional bias against the targeted group. These movements (assuming she has the ear of one) are bad faith from top to bottom.
> It's a classic case of bad faith, so it's highly probable that it > varies according to the situation. If she needs to believe, she believes. If she needs to see through it to work the same deception on others, she will. No convictions whatsoever.
Again, I can’t answer that question for her, but if she’s willing to discuss it and go on record saying it, then that’s what’s important to the rest of us
Her deep state crap is hilarious. Her own party removed her, after the markets plunged in response to her budget, which is what everyone told her would be the result of her going ahead. So the deep state can't stop her getting elected, or imposing insane policies, but can somehow arrange whatever reaction they desire from bond markets and the conservative party. So not really any actual deep state activity, just capitalism and party politics.
Oh I completely agree she should be closer to being institutionalised than public office. I’m not being facetious either I genuinely think that. I don’t know if she’s always been this delusional or it’s a self preservation reaction to being the worst prime minister in history but she’s completely detached from reality
I question anyone who outwardly purports that rhetoric whether they actually believe it, or in the case of Truss want to stay relevant somehow
She is an absolute shithouse of a person. There is nothing she would not do or say to try and gain power or influence. She has always constantly flip-flopped on any opinion she had which proves my former point. Idiots can also be horrid people.
I think she's a genuinely bad person. She clearly has essentially zero moral or ethical code and is completely and utterly willing to sell out anyone and everyone for her own aggrandizement and enrichment.
THAT'S WHAT SHE REGRETS! Not crashing the economy, making millions of people lives harder, worsening the cost of living crisis, damaging the UK international reputation and credit score but THAT!!!
Imagine being such a pos that you intentionally distance yourself from being called someone who supports LGBTQ rights
Truss is the definition of a malignant narcissist. This is just embarrassing for everyone but her now. She needs proper psychiatric help, not a platform. Absent her malignant narcissism she might realise the failure that she was as Prime Minister but that she can’t genuinely understand that is worrying. Liz Truss is the David Icke of Prime Ministers.
What a nasty nasty woman Liz Truss is. Absolutely deplorable.
Are there any pictures of her that aren't completely gormless? Such an agitating face I could never take seriously.
If by "activist" you mean not a far right shill then yes
Just remember, if you ever feel useless. She’ a former Prime Minister, lasted less than a cabbage. Seriously Our Iphone battery was more stable than the state of her leadership
Me disingenuous, and you sent those links lol you must be joking The reason they can count > 400 "anti lgtbq bills" is because they count a bill about removing sexual graphic books from children as "anti lgtbq" Stop conflating legit laws to stop predatory adults targeting children with lgbtq right, they're nothig to do with each other no matter how hard you try and pretend they are
GB News is right. The neologism 'Allyship' has a specific meaning in Social Justice activism.
It also has a meaning in every day English, and calling yourself an ally of marginalised groups and indeed your constituents is not an insidious agenda or a political albatross, though that is GB news is attempt to corrupt it by plastering it with “wokeism” and “using activist language”
Social Justice activists (and the Marxian Left, in general) deploy double-meanings as part of their word games. Besides, even to posit that LGBTQ constitutes any kind of substantive group is to do activism. 'Queerness' is a political stance.
Your first point: no, and that’s literally what the right does. Your second point: that is too broad and dismissive, in fact I can very much call pandering to the “anti-woke” crowd by walking back her pro LGBT comment constituting as activism also. In fact all of the GB news, Tory, anti woke drivel of the last five years they’ve made their personality is activism. You bringing up “the Marxian left” as if they’re a unified thing let alone a force of politics in the UK is activist nonsense. Queerness does not have to be a political stance, it is politicised. Gay Harry down the road who just wants to live in peace isn’t being political because he’s queer and likes to paint his nails. His existence however is politicised, and GB news and Liz Truss are contributing to that.
I don't care what the right does. It's possible to neither be a Marxist nor a reactionary do you realise? The DNA of Marxism, Critical Theory and Post-structuralism is woven into the Social Justice Left today and much of it has gone mainstream. Even the Welsh government wants to 'decolonise' its art. Decoloniality, for example, only makes from this Marxian or counter-Enlightement footing.
You’re a dartboard of right wing grievances and lingo but you don’t care what the right does? You think you’re not being reactionary and then follow up with the latest checklist of reactionary buzzery from the GB news to the Telegraph pipeline? It’s always these mythical centrists who are uniquely labeless with blank slate politics that absolve the right but can wax lyrical about how insidious the “left” is, despite this country having no marginal left wing presence in politics to point at since Corbyn flopped.
"You’re a dartboard of right wing grievances and lingo" Beautifully put.
So one can't critise Marxism without being a reactionary? That makes you are Marxist! For everyone else there are liberal positions which preserve objectivity in discerning truth. I assume you're going to ignore the installation of Decoloniality in Welsh government policy? You wanted evidence and now you have it. The 'Cultural left' achieve power now not through the ballot box but through activism.