Interestingly, an article by Liz Truss appeared. Sunday Telegraph should be called “essay”. Elizabeth Truss, 47.5 years old, What I Did on a Trip to Downing Street was a gripping play, though it wouldn’t earn her more than a 3.0. It lacks sophistication and consistency in its central argument. Erroneous thinking caused by the need for self-justification. Such were the comments if she had passed them on to her old professor of philosophy, politics and economics instead of passing them on to the nation.
You might think that her 4,000-word play, almost 100 words for every day she was in power, is not a parody. But you would be wrong. I’ll leave the detailed political and economic analysis to others who are more qualified, but it’s impossible to read her treatise without turning into this Edvard Munch-style emoji. scream.
Dominic Lawson, the son of a former chancellor, wrote that Truss was like a car driver who was warned by passengers that he was speeding, but then refused to take responsibility when he crashed. Economist Danny Blanchflower considered her paper to have shown her to be “delusional” and George Osborne dismissed her claims as “nonsense”. My immediate reaction to their discourse, on the other hand, was with a 1976 horror film. carry, and the last scene. We believe that Carrie is dead, but suddenly her bloodied hand appears from the ground.
We thought Trouss’s political aspirations were buried about 100 days ago, but now we have to get used to the fact that our least successful and short-lived prime minister is still among us, getting airtime and dominating the political agenda for no other obvious reason. reason. reason than to satisfy their thirst for self-expression and self-affirmation.
Why couldn’t she just, like Cincinnatus, join her band and live a life of humility and darkness, taking on the metaphorical scope that Boris Johnson used in his defenestration? But modern politics is not like that. Money can be made by standing out in public, making people believe that you are still relevant (cf. B. Johnson), and this is what I find most disgusting in what – in inappropriately grandiose terms – is called “intervention”. “. by Truss.
Politicians should be motivated by public service by making things better, but what purpose, apart from personal ambition, does this contribution serve, which we are told will be followed by a series of speeches? The idea of Truss returning to the forefront of politics is, according to Tory leader David Davis, a “fantasy”, so her desire to see herself in the headlines again can only be driven by lesser motives, be it financial or reputational. selfish or narcissistic.
Moreover, there is no sense of a beating ideological heart at the heart of Trouss’s belief system. His ascent seems to be fueled by little more than ambition itself. In her post, she recounts how she was at the G20 meeting in Bali when Boris Johnson stepped down. Their eagerness to follow him was apparently not intended to impose on the government a long-cherished, carefully calibrated iteration of conservative values. No, she gives the impression that this was because a fellow foreign minister wrote her a message: “Go home, madam, and start hurrying.”
As a result, she felt “forced” to come forward for the leadership, or rather, “hurried”, and we all know what happened next. God knows why she should now be trying to remind us of her disastrous time at number 10. There is something terribly shameless about Trouss’ “essay” that discredits politics and even the highest office in the country. If you think about it put F.
Source: I News
I’m Sandra Hansen, a news website Author and Reporter for 24 News Reporters. I have over 7 years of experience in the journalism field, with an extensive background in politics and political science. My passion is to tell stories that are important to people around the globe and to engage readers with compelling content.