UKC

When she took over, I thought she'd be a good solid type after the posh boys had f*cked everything up. Turns out she's basically a more reserved version on Nigel Farage without a shred of compassion, complete self-interest and a massive wide-on for Brexit at odds with her position before the election.

I think it was Tony Benn who said the way a government treats refugees is the way it would treat its citizens if it thought it could get away with it. If so, happy times ahead...

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I think she posed/poses as a safe pair of hands. I suspect the reality is that she's what we Irish/Scots call a chancer. There's a mad look in her eyes which horrifies me. Your see Merkl stagger on, knackered beyond belief, just trying to get somewhere half-worth going. But Theresa - Thatcher on steroids? I suspect she'd take that as a compliment.

Hope I'm wrong about all of this!

Mick

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


Don't know if it was Tony Benn but it's a very perceptive observation. Refugees are, to a large extent, just people she isn't compelled by law not to be hideously unfair to. The situation is only temporary though, and will be subject to change after the UK pulls out of the ECHR.

In reply to Mick Ward:


Nah, for all that I disliked Thatcher, she was strong and pretty much knew what she was doing.

May appears to me to be callous, incompetent and weak, only managing to survive because she has no real opposition.

It's Corbyn who makes the 'Iron Lady mk2' illusion possible.

In reply to skog:

indeed, Thatcher did as she said, for better or worse. I do not trust May at all.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

... May, like the majority of our political leaders over the past 40 years or so, is f***ing incompetent and incapable of looking to the long term - to quote Thomas Jefferson: "The government you elect is the government you deserve"...

In reply to skog:

I don't think we're in any real disagreement. I think that May takes Thatcher as a role model: female British prime minister, right-wing Conservative, clear sense of direction...

It's the 'clear sense of direction' where it differs. I suspect that May is more that willing to make it up as she goes along.

Re Thatcher (and I detested the divisive nature of those times), I remember reading a tale of how she was dithering about some decision. (Yup, they nearly all dither!) Eventually some relatively junior member of the Foreign Office muttered, "Shouldn't we do what's best for the long-term?" With ill grace, she did so. But - she did so!

Can't see May giving a toss about the long-term.

Mick

P.S. In the early years of the 20th century, apropos of prisoners, Churchill said something like, "Our status as a civilised country depends on how we treat those at our mercy." Doubtless he said it much better than that!

In reply to wercat:


I would never have believed I would say this, but I really would actually prefer Mrs Thatcher right now. I really don't think she would have been quite this stupid.

In reply to Mick Ward:

I thought he said it about the way we treat animals.

Actually – I've done a quick Google now – that was Gandhi: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way in which its animals are treated.”

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Me too. I thought she would be OK, but no. Which is a disaster, given the "opposition". Not sure where we go from here...

In reply to MG:


Move to Scotland and jump ship when it sinks?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Well whoever first said what, the principle still applies: "Our status as a civilised country depends on how we treat those at our mercy."

Agree, if I had to choose between Thatcher and May, there would be no viable choice.

But politics has to raise its game markedly - we just seem to be blundering from worse to worse. Can the young have any hope?

Mick

In reply to Mick Ward:

Cameron said something like that, moulding it around how we treat the vulnerable. He may have been aping others, and I don't remember his exact words, but I remember him saying it and that I liked that a PM would express that sentiment.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I did the reverse three years ago! But maybe...

In reply to MG:


I'd be kind of interested to know what May would actually have to do between now and 2020 to make Corbyn electable - at the moment it feels a bit like she could stamp a puppy to death on live TV and people would just shrug at each other and say what a shame it is that we don't have an effective opposition. I'm not a big fan of Corbyn, at least as a leader of the opposition, but at some point you do start to wonder whether we've kind of abdicated responsibility for thinking critically about policies in favour of a nice easy narrative about his total unelectability.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I seem to remember there being a simple majority vote by the British people for the Uk to leave the European Union.
May has the unenviable task of getting on with that.
Emotional quotes about refugees are a sideshow.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

To win uk elections during my life time I think;
Labour need to look competent
Conservatives need to look caring
And if neither of those is true, then the conservatives win anyway. As a nation we prefer heartless to incompetent, arguably with good reason.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I think she's terrible, but count your blessings, it was almost Andrea leadsom

In reply to Ramblin dave:


I think a lot of people are talking about harsh realities rather nice easy narratives. Yes, opinion polls can be wildly wrong (up to 8% sometimes) – but a 16% gap (and 31% when it comes to economic competence) is really shocking – at this point, with a government as unpopular as this.

In reply to Richard Wheeldon:


Er..nobody elected her

In reply to birdie num num:

I seem not to remember them saying they wanted it doing in the most damaging way possible.

That "sideshow" is real people in terrible circumstances.

In reply to Mick Ward:


Dostoevsky had: "The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons"

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I meant more that there ought to be some point at which enough of the electorate say "sure, Corbyn wants to do X Y and Z that I don't agree with, and he's hardly an inspiring leader, but to be honest even that would be better than what the Tories seem to be doing." Instead we seem to have accepted that "yeah, but Corbyn" will always be a winning argument and no-one seems to be bothered by this, except insofar as it means that there's no effective opposition. Sorry, this isn't the most coherent thing I've ever posted - I'm feeling a bit peaky atm.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

You continue to be emotional

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I was just thinking an hour ago, whilst watching Newsnight, how little we see of her.she doesn't seem to do many interviews or give many speeches. Am I mistaken?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Shall we have another clever Churchill quote?
Once asked why he hadn't taken his wife to a conference on the continent he replied…
'Well, you wouldn't take a pork pie to a banquet'
Timelessly amusing. Sexist, some might say today. And as irrelevant as your own addition

In reply to birdie num num:

Yes, amazing. The 'relevance' of my quote was that Mick had referred to Churchill and I thought that was the quote he was alluding to. It turned out to be Gandhi.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

There's a quote for every occasion. And a slant to suit every ideology. Try not to be spellbound by it all.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

One word c..t she even look more evil than Thatcher. Now thats a pretty hard act to follow.

In reply to mbh:


I wonder who wrote it for him to read?

In reply to colinakmc:


Not as PM, but her constituents elected her, and her party elected her, so not nobody.
If she goes for an election now, it will be so easy ( with no opposition) that she will be criticised for taking advantage.

In reply to birdie num num:


Good. I think I'm also being rational in considering the manner in which she seems intent on enacting Brexit. I'm not entirely sure what your point is though.

In reply to Jim C:

I don't know who wrote the speech but he would certainly have felt those sentiments. The Camerons lost a severely disbled child.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Fair question. For me Corbyn loses on pretty much all counts - he is as cavalier as May on Brexit, is a hopeless leader, makes continuous gaffs, and on other policies either has nothing substantial to say or wants to re-run the 1970s. He is also surrounded by lightweights and sycophants after sacking or alienating any ministers with talent or experience.

May and the Tories do at least have a clear direction now (even if is a terrible one), and some ministers are vaguely competent (e.g. Hammond, although perhaps wait to see what he announces today.), and May doesn't find sitting down without being ridiculed hard.

So, given a choice between just May and Corbyn, I would have to vote May. If it were say Farage and Corbyn, I would vote Corbyn. In reality I will probably vote Lib Dem, even if in the short term it just signals the direction I want things to go rather than being likely to lead to a change of government.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

She's the political version of Nurse Ratched; a cold manipulative tyrant with an outward face of respectability.

In reply to MG:



May hasn't shown herself to be a good leader, she's made gaffs, lies through her teeth and avoids answering simple questions because she knows the answers would be unpopular and lose her supporters. Her domestic policies don't do the majority any favours, her government is once again preying on the weak minorities, she's clearly not going to do anything to upset her rich pals or her husband who makes a living from helping others avoid tax. What has she done so far to back up her assertion that she is the prime minister whose government will make the UK a fair place for everyone? Nothing at all. All the signs point towards Tory business as usual, austerity will continue despite strong arguments that it isn't best for the economy unless you're happy with the majority being financially strangled while the top 1% thrive. Why does she get so much support? Because she says the England football team can wear poppies on their kit and because 'Brexit means Brexit'?

....but Corbyn is unelectable.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

People will see in May what they are predisposed to see. As far as I can see, she is an average Tory leader presented with an unprecedented set of conflicting demands. Much as I don't warm to her, its difficult to see what else anyone else can do in her position.

In reply to mbh:


If only his actions had reflected those empty words......

In reply to galpinos:

maybe he did feel empty when his vulnerable disabled kid died

In reply to Pete Dangerous:

Largely because of the lack of any opposition with a coherent message or an effective leader.

In reply to Pete Dangerous:


He's unelectable because he's letting May do what the chuff she wants. The papers are full of stories of our public services being on their knees, the poorer are getting poorer and the richer richer and he seems unable to bring the government to task on any of it. He's focused on irrelevant subjects when opportunities abound to score some points and have an impact and ends up doing silly stunts like publishing tax returns (who cares?) and even then, when it's all kosher, his team is so badly briefed that it looks like a cock up. He's got an inconsistent message that doesn't appeal to any "base" of followers, he's for Brexit, he wants out of the single market, he's all for unrestricted immigration it just doesn't make sense. The rest of the party aren't up to much either, hoping it all goes to s**t so they can rise like a phoenix from the ashes, regardless of the affect on the country is a pretty deplorable plan.

In reply to MG:


May - She was never exactly though of as great in the home office? Her big "thing" was tackling immigration (from outside of the EU) and she made no impact on that.

Hammond - We shall see today. So far he's been deemed competent by staying schtum, has got away with it (Osbourne would not have been let of so lightly by the press) but he actually has to say something toady.

In reply to wercat:


I imagine he felt more than empty.

With regards to my "empty words" quote, he treated the vulnerable in society by trying to cut the PIP in half as soon as the coalition collapsed.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I don't think it's brexit at all costs, I fear it's pettier than that, it's hitting those daft immigration targets she never managed to get near in her years at the home office (for good reason), brexit is the cost, not the goal. For someone who seems to pride herself on competence and capability that must have stung, being seen for years to be failing through no fault of her own and this is her chance to put it 'right' and she has cover for the consequences, her 3 stooges.
jk

In reply to jkarran:


Her obsession (and I don't use the word lightly) with immigration levels is scary.

In reply to jkarran:

Pride herself on competence? Lol good one...

She has many documented examples of incompetence, just have a look at her many ECHR cases... that she lost!

I would also like to add; to the poster talking about Camoron and his disabled child. The man has no compassion for the sick & disabled. He systematically punished them and set about dismantling their safety net.
How could someone with close personal experience of severe disability do such a thing
The "man" is a monster

In reply to WildCamper:


Reality and self image are not always one and the same.
jk

In reply to Ramblin dave:


Just keep carrying on as she's doing now.

In reply to MG:


Corbyn isn't a great leader but I think he genuinely wants to represent the majority and help those who need it, unlike May and the Tories who haven't done anything except take more from the bottom and give it to the top. He's more honest and upfront and I have far more respect for him than any other party leader from the last 15 years. I don't believe a word May says and she is far from being the better of two 'evils'. Consecutive governments have been a disaster for anyone currently under 50 and May and the Tories will only make things worse. They're winding us all up with so much debt. She won't take on corporations who don't pay enough tax, she won't go after the ridiculous private banking sector, she won't do anything to reduce university fees and things could get worse for a period of time when Brexit negotiations get under way. Belt tightening upon belt tightening and the people who will continue to suffer will include a lot of people who have voted Tory.

In reply to sammy5000:

I can't argue with any of that. Well said.

In reply to jkarran:

Good point

Just goes to show the delusion she labours under if she thinks she is competent & capable and takes pride from it.

Any normal person would be embarrassed...

In reply to Richard Wheeldon:


Doesn't that mean that actually its the electorate that are incapable of looking long term ?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

There are huge contradictions - for example was recently announced she wanted to look at consolidating all the laws on abuse of women ( which was correctly seen as a positive step by women campaigners) and the Hillsborough campaigners have alot of praise for her.

She displays a ruthless streak, there again may not be such a bad thing when dealing with the likes of Gove, Fox, Osborne and others.

Its reaaly too early to say.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


What is more puzzling to me is why the centre party(s) aren't the net beneficiaries of this ?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


Oh she's got compassion alright. She's got compassion for the rich elite, big business, dangerous lunatics like Trump, squaddies who commit war crimes, Euro sceptic xenophobes and fascist bully boys. She just hasn't got any compassion for those people who really need some.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

She is rapidly becoming as despised in Scotland as Thatcher was. On a more positive note her Victorian vision of Empire 2.0 will have a galvanising effect on wavering Scottish and Irish opinion considering issues of sovereignty and independence.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:
She's a horrible, horrible, utterly delusional person who has the humanity of a stone and is happily leading us of the edge of a cliff because she doesn't like those foreign types much.

The fact she's more delusional than the rest of the pro Brexit tories is quite frankly amazing.

In reply to GrahamD:


Yes, everything about politics in the western world at the moment is really bizarre. As if rationality has gone into hibernation or something.

In reply to alastairmac:


Little odd as she is leading the UK on a route democratically voted for. Whilst you think it will galvanise support for a route democratically not voted for.

In reply to Pete Dangerous:


Which is it? Too much debt or too much belt tightening? Unless you can show that spending more in the short term (infrastructure, perhaps) is beneficial in the long term, you can't reasonably complain about both at the same time.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

TM appears a fairly average politician - why do people on this thread, and more generally tend to catastrophize so much? Its a worrying and polarising trend.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

Have you noticed the whole leaving the EU thing? Along with the agonising slide of the pound, the demonising of those who voted to remain and the rise in jingoism? It's fairly worrying and polarising.

In reply to Dr.S at work:


And yet she's Prime Minister! How on Earth did that happen?!

In reply to MG:



I was talking about personal debt

In reply to summo:

Funny, I don't remember a vote on leaving the single market.

On the other hand, I do remember a general election where the Tory manifesto included a clear commitment to the single market. But don't take my word for it, have a look here and search the document for 'single market': https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.... (from link at bottom of https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto ).

She's using Brexit to implement her own agenda, which is not something the nation has had a chance to vote for (or, preferably, against!)

In reply to skog:

Of course the vote was in or out, it was not out a little or tiny wee bit in. It was black and white. Plus nothing has happened yet.

You can apply the same to indyref, was it independence but still tied to the UK treasury or not, was that Scotland with a pound or the euro.

But both were simple yes or no questions. Which of course are miles from ideal; but the public vote should be followed otherwise what is the point in democracy? He who shouts loudest wins ?

In reply to summo:


No they weren't. With Indyref, the no vote included promises (granted a Tory politician's promises) of devolution.

In reply to summo:

So you agree that she isn't "leading the UK on a route democratically voted for"?

All the UK voted for was to leave the EU, there has been no voting on the route, or on leaving anything other than the EU; her 'route' was not outlined before or during the referendum, and actually runs contrary to the manifesto of the party she stood for when she was elected to parliament.

In reply to RyanOsborne:


And Scotland could be more devolved now, but didn't the SNP not want that as they need the UK treasury to keep bankrolling them due to budget issues? they asked for an extension on London support .

In reply to summo:


Eh? Scotland -is- more devolved now, and has just had a budget passed which will see the threshold for higher income tax frozen rather than increased along with the rest of the UK. Hardly radical stuff, but it's happening.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


But opinion polls only reflect the opinions of those polled (it's in the name) and surely you'd allow that those can be very far from the 'harsh realities' - especially if many of those polled have accepted the nice easy narratives offered by politicians and media commentators. That wouldn't be surprising, either, considering how unfriendly and complicated the truth often is. You don't have to be stupid to believe a nice easy narrative, you just have to be a more or less normal person trying to live a more or less normal life which exerts multifarious demands on your mental time and energy and doesn't leave you much time to examine these issues with the thoroughness they require.

In reply to galpinos:

even so, I think his main crime was to be optimistic and probably well intentioned while leading a partyful of nasties whose ambitions that didn't include the benefit of the British people. And messing up the Referendum of course.

In reply to Martin W:


OK, agreed. (Much the same as the EU Referendum, actually, but that's a separate point.)

But how about this harsh reality? The Labour membership since Corbyn came to power:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-members-quit-party-jer...

In reply to skog:

But it appears they want a cake and eat deal. Devolved powers from London, but financially supported by all UK taxpayers, something a little odd there.
https://www.google.se/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/35478408
Or the SNP wanting UK to bankroll benefits for at least 3 more years https://www.google.se/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/15/devolu...

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Has the membership not risen by 350,000 since Corbyn was first elected?

Edit: Yep

'The leaked data showed total Labour membership at 528,180, down from a peak of 554,000 in July, but still far above the 200,000 members it reportedly had in May 2015.'

That article's headline is another ridiculous example of the Corbyn character assassination.

In reply to summo:


Who's "they", here?

If you mean the SNP, I'm sure you're aware that they want Scotland to run its own financial affairs, but recently lost a referendum on that; they also wanted full fiscal autonomy within the UK, but that wasn't on offer.

As a result, any Scottish government HAS to wrangle about what money is given by or given back by the UK treasury. That's how UK devolution works - most funds are handed back to the devolved administrations from the UK funds. Yes, these are "financially supported by all UK taxpayers", including the taxpayers in those devolved areas. The Better Together campaign were fond of praising this "pooling and sharing".

Given this setup, it would be remiss of any of the devolved administrations not to try to get as much as they can, for those they represent!

I don't really see how this is relevant to the thread, though.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

This, most likely, is what I was remembering David Cameron as having said, in my post way above. It was at the beginning of interview with Andrew Marr in 2010:

ANDREW MARR:

In the Sunday Times, you were asked about this quite often repeated piece of analysis that the cuts to come are going to be more drastic, have to be more drastic than any government has managed to put through in a five year period since the Second World War.

DAVID CAMERON:

Well there are undoubtedly going to be some very difficult and tough decisions, and that's why we were the first party to say that public spending would have to be reduced. We were the first to say that it was an unsustainable path. We were the first to identify some of the difficult areas - not just the easy things like getting rid of ID cards and regional assemblies and waste and the rest of it - but actually difficult things like, for instance, having a public sector pay freeze for a year. So it is going to be difficult. But what I want to explain to people is that in making these decisions, I want to, if I'm elected, take the whole country with me. I don't want to leave anyone behind. The test of a good society is you look after the elderly, the frail, the vulnerable, the poorest in our society. And that test is even more important in difficult times, when difficult decisions have to be taken, than it is in better times.

In reply to skog:

Why does Scotland need UK treasury support. I thought the SNP said Scotland were financially supporting the UK and Scotland would be wealthy if independent etc. The flow of money should only be South? Which would imply Scotland would want any deal through quickly, not keep stalling or pushing dates back?

You're not suggesting that Scotland needs UK treasury hand outs are you?

In reply to summo:


Because Scotland is part of the UK, silly!

In reply to skog:


That's not the same thing as why it's 'NEEDS' UK support though.

In reply to Kid Spatula:

yes to all of those - all though the slide in the pound may be a good or bad thing depending on the context.

My general point that on every subject related to current affairs that gets discussed extreme comparisons are made which generally polarise debate and are of little value. That was evident during both the recent referenda, and nearly every discussion of politicians.

In reply to summo:

Yes it is, that's how UK devolved budgets work!

In reply to summo:


It's part of the UK! Of course the UK needs to support itself!