Would You like a feature Interview?
All Interviews are 100% FREE of Charge
Liz Truss’ article was interesting. Sunday Telegraph Call it an “essay”. “What I Did on a Trip to Downing Street” by 47-and-a-half-year-old Elizabeth Truss was a compelling piece of writing, even if she didn’t score anything higher than a D. A flawed way of thinking caused by the need for self-justification. Had she handed it to her old professor of philosophy, politics and economics instead of putting it in front of the public, it would have been the flavor of the comment.
You might think that her 4,000 words—nearly 100 every day she was in power—beyond parody. But you would be wrong. I’ll leave the detailed political and economic analysis to others with better qualifications, but it’s impossible to read her papers without turning them into Edvard Munch-like emojis. scream.
Dominic Lawson, the son of a former prime minister, wrote of Truss: It was like a driver being warned by a passenger that he was going too fast.Economist Danny Branchflower thought her article made it clear that she was “paranoid,” but George Osborne dismissed her claim as “nonsense.” My immediate reaction to her paper, on the other hand, dates back to the 1976 horror film. carry, and its final scene. We believe Carrie is dead, but suddenly, and horribly, her bloodied arm rises from the ground.
I thought Truss’ political ambitions were buried some 100 days ago, but now we have to get used to the fact that our least successful, shortest-lived Prime Minister is still among us. For no apparent reason other than to satisfy her own desire for self-promotion and validation.
Borrowing the metaphorical pomp that Boris Johnson used in his craniotomy, why couldn’t she, like Cincinnatus, return to the plow and live a life of humility and ambiguity? is not the way of You can make money exposing yourself to the public eye by making people believe you are still relevant (see B. Johnson). by truss.
see more opinion
Politicians are supposed to be motivated by public service, by making things better, but what purpose does this contribution, said to be followed by a series of speeches, serve beyond personal ambitions? The idea of Truss’ return to front-line politics is, in Tory Grundy David Davis’s learned presumption, “fantasy”, so her desire to see herself in the headlines again is an economic It can only be driven by not-so-high motives, be it philosophical or not. Or reputation, self-centered or narcissistic.
On top of that, there is no sense of an ideological heart beating at the heart of the Truss belief system. Her rise seems to be little more than an ambition for its own sake. In her work, she recounts how she was in Bali at the G20 meeting when Boris Johnson stepped down. It seems that it was not to impose the repetition of the sense of values on the government. No, the impression she gives is that it’s because her fellow foreign minister texted her to ‘go back to her house and make a fuss about the lady’.
As a result, she felt “forced”, or more precisely “hustle”, to run for leader. We all know what happened next, and God only knows why she needs to try to remind us of her disastrous time at number 10. There is something terribly shameless about Truss’s “essay,” which discredites politics, and indeed the highest office in the country. On second thought, put an F on it.
