How Crap was Liz Truss's premiership?

[Free Willy]

Very, by several accounts.

[Steve H]

Silly woman would be wise to stf up, instead of drawing attention to it.

[Gordon]

She's great entertainment though.

[Nearly Sane]

Just in case anyone hasn't seen what seems to have prompted this.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn7r7pjy8j1o


It's one of the maddest things I've ever seen, especially from someone who in theory is a supporter of free speech. It's a gift to Starmer.

[jeremyp]

Truss thinks it's defamatory, so why not let her have her day in court?

I think she'll lose. It would be hard to show that the accusation is true (what does it even mean to crash the economy?), but, I don't think you can say that the claim materially damaged Truss's reputation. She hasn't got one.

[Free Willy]

I think, since it's Liz Truss, a fake courtroom with actors including a judge who will put on a black hanky might suffice here

[Nearly Sane]

Truss thinks it's defamatory, so why not let her have her day in court?

I think she'll lose. It would be hard to show that the accusation is true (what does it even mean to crash the economy?), but, I don't think you can say that the claim materially damaged Truss's reputation. She hasn't got one.

I can't see the court considering political opinion like this within its remit. Sometimes one might think that Truss has been a successful Labour plant, or perhaps vegetable, in the Tories

[jeremyp]

I can't see the court considering political opinion like this within its remit.

The kind of rhetoric that Starmer used is obviously not new in politics. However, I'd be surprised if there was anything in law that discounted it from being vulnerable to defamation claims. Was it an opinion or was it a statement of fact? That's for the courts to decide. Was it true? I think that depends on your definition of "crash the economy". Does Truss deserve any damages? Absolutely not. It did nothing to materially damage her reputation which was already in the gutter. In fact, with good PR, it could actually benefit her. "Meet Liz Truss, the first prime minister to trash the economy faster than a lettuce. Only £lots for a ticket"

Sometimes one might think that Truss has been a successful Labour plant, or perhaps vegetable, in the Tories

I think, unsuccessful Russian plant in my opinion.

[Nearly Sane]

The kind of rhetoric that Starmer used is obviously not new in politics. However, I'd be surprised if there was anything in law that discounted it from being vulnerable to defamation claims. Was it an opinion or was it a statement of fact? That's for the courts to decide. Was it true? I think that depends on your definition of "crash the economy". Does Truss deserve any damages? Absolutely not. It did nothing to materially damage her reputation which was already in the gutter. In fact, with good PR, it could actually benefit her. "Meet Liz Truss, the first prime minister to trash the economy faster than a lettuce. Only £lots for a ticket"I think, unsuccessful Russian plant in my opinion.

I think that it wouldn't be seen as within the remit because the courts would not see it as a claim that can be shown to be false.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think that it wouldn't be seen as within the remit because the courts would not see it as a claim that can be shown to be false.

She really is bonkers, isn't she. Is she really likely to win any action - there is the defence of honest opinion, which I think could be robustly relied upon. My understanding is that a defence on those groups needs to be based on the following:

The statement was an opinion
The statement indicated the basis of the opinion
An honest person could have held the opinion based on any fact that existed at the time

Starmer expressing the opinion that Truss crashed the economy would seem to fit very nicely into those criteria. But I wouldn't want to challenge this if I were Truss as it would shine a spotlight on the 'facts' that existed at the time - in other words the chaos that followed the mini-budget and the impact on the economy that ensued. If I were her I'd rather prefer not to rake over the embers of the shambles.

[Nearly Sane]

She really is bonkers, isn't she. Is she really likely to win any action - there is the defence of honest opinion, which I think could be robustly relied upon. My understanding is that a defence on those groups needs to be based on the following:

The statement was an opinion
The statement indicated the basis of the opinion
An honest person could have held the opinion based on any fact that existed at the time

Starmer expressing the opinion that Truss crashed the economy would seem to fit very nicely into those criteria. But I wouldn't want to challenge this if I were Truss as it would shine a spotlight on the 'facts' that existed at the time - in other words the chaos that followed the mini-budget and the impact on the economy that ensued. If I were her I'd rather prefer not to rake over the embers of the shambles.

If the court accepted it, which I doubt, she'd lose. Hiw does she show that she didn't crash the economy? As jeremyp has highlighted, it's not really clear what that would mean so I can't see how you show it to be false.

And as you highlight it's clearly opinion in terms of what Starmer is saying, and I think all that you would need to do is say that the opinion is validated by her party effectively getting rid of her.

As noted earlier, I think it's an odd thing for a supposed supporter of a liberal view of free speech to go after. If it were to succeed,I suggest that Truss will have made numerous statements that would then be subject to successful claims, as would pretty well every politician.

It feels that for her the only thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about enough

[ProfessorDavey]

As noted earlier, I think it's an odd thing for a supposed supporter of a liberal view of free speech to go after. If it were to succeed,I suggest that Truss will have made numerous statements that would then be subject to successful claims, as would pretty well every politician.

Interesting how thin-skinned many of these 'free-speech' champions tend to be when they are on the receiving end of comment that they consider negative or derogatory. Add to Truss - Farage, Musk, Trump, Robinson et al - all of whom seem to have no qualms with suing individuals for defamation or threatening to do so. And usually these are very one-sided actions with the claimed 'free-speech' champion having the money, power and influence to shut up people with limited ability to fight back by resort to the courts of threats thereof.

[jeremyp]

I think that it wouldn't be seen as within the remit because the courts would not see it as a claim that can be shown to be false.

It would be for the defendant to show that it is true.

[Nearly Sane]

It would be for the defendant to show that it is true.

You are of course right if the defence was to be one of truth, and I phrased that enormously badly. I don't think the vourt would see it as truth apt so it becomes by default fair comment.

[Nearly Sane]

Points to Starmer


https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/keir-starmers-savage-joke-liz-34485605

[jeremyp]

You are of course right if the defence was to be one of truth, and I phrased that enormously badly. I don't think the vourt would see it as truth apt so it becomes by default fair comment.

Surely, for the court to see it as truth they would have to listen to arguments from the defendant and plaintiff? i.e. have a hearing aka trial.

I can see plenty of defences for Starmer, but I don't think merely dismissing the case without hearing the plaintiff's arguments should be one of them.

[Nearly Sane]

Surely, for the court to see it as truth they would have to listen to arguments from the defendant and plaintiff? i.e. have a hearing aka trial.

I can see plenty of defences for Starmer, but I don't think merely dismissing the case without hearing the plaintiff's arguments should be one of them.

Plenty of things don't go to trial because it's not seen within the remit of the courts. It's not a defence.