UKC

In replyto Robexile

Previous thread archived so I've taken the liberty of starting anew.

I've acknowledged the immigration point but against her legal difficulties one can pitch her success in deporting Abu Qatada and refusing to hand over Gary McKinnon (neither "easy" things). Despite the cuts in policing (which were unavoidable in the context of Treasury policy) crime rates have continued to fall.

So, whilst her record as HS is certainly mixed, as PM there is not much to go on. The Hammond budget was clearly hamstrung, as she is generally, by the manifesto she inherited. This is no doubt one of the motivations to call an election.

Really she's a bit of a blank sheet, which of course allows the natural haters to event their emotions but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. As yet we barely know the recipe.

In reply to Postmanpat:


If only there were some way that she could debate her stance on various issues so that the country could observe... like a televised debate for example?

Not sure why she's so scared of debating the other party leaders if she's so worthy of running the country. Maybe her pathological lying wouldn't come across well. Or her compulsive inability to answer questions. Or just the fact that she's an evil wench who doesn't care for anyone other than her chums.

In reply to RyanOsborne:

Incumbent prime ministers? and / or presidents can only lose debates, unless they are really, really good. At least she's aware of some of her limitations.

In reply to RyanOsborne:


I agree that she should do the debate but Labour should be very relieved that she won't give Jezzer a chance to reveal his inadequacies. Anyway,in reality these debates seldom shed any light on policy.

Just repeating hate-filled soundbites neither makes them true of strengthens your case.

In reply to Postmanpat:
Salmonds the tactician, highlighting Corbyn's missed opportunities when he meekly agreed to the election.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/21/theresa-may-cyncism-e...

In reply to Postmanpat:

It's also interesting that she's been PM for 9 months, and you still say she's a 'blank sheet'. Has she not given even a glimmer of a policy on which she could be judged in that time? Surely that's a good demonstration of her catastrophic failure as a PM?

In reply to RyanOsborne:


I hope Jezzas debating skills are a tad better honed than this rhetoric. Actually, though, I suspect that what people mean by debate is exactly this shallow level of sound bite broadcasting.

In reply to RyanOsborne:

No, it's an indication that she has been unavoidably focused on brexit (as has the civil service) and hamstrung by a manifesto and policies which she inherited but was not the architect of. She has outlined her views but critics will not unreasonably point out that she hasn't done much to pursue them

Actually, I agree that the habit of politicians of not revealing their hand is a profoundly bad one, but that is not evidence of their capabilities as PM.

So, can you move beyond the emotion and make your case?

In reply to GrahamD:


Well at least we might get the chance to find out. With TM running scared, I'm not sure what they'll do? Empty chair her? Pretty embarrassing that she's not confident enough in her record that she can defend it.

In reply to Postmanpat:


So she's done nothing in the last 9 months on anything other than Brexit? Is that acceptable to tory voters?

And as a long standing home secretary she had no involvement in writing the last tory manifesto? Is that acceptable to tory voters?

So, can you move beyond the emotion and make your case?

There's no emotion involved. My case is that Jeremy Corbyn's policies will be much much better for our country than Theresa May's.

In reply to RyanOsborne:

>
She clearly hated and hates the Cameron/Osborne crew so I doubt she had much influence on their policies but doesn't have the manifesto (or time) to change them.

Will you answer the topic, which is not whether Tories should think she is wonderful but how you justify your claims that, amongst other things ," she's an evil wench who doesn't care for anyone other than her chums."

In reply to RyanOsborne:

Did you think the tv debates we have had before were informative or just a benefit for the media and their viewing figures?

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/04/theresa-may-right-say-no-tv-debate/

"In this country, unlike America, we elect a party, not an individual, so a TV debate between party leaders is completely irrelevant, indeed counter productive. Their policies are public knowledge. Of course the media will do all they can to encourage it, because a general election is a show business bonanza for them. Dimbleby and his ilk will be able to strut their stuff before audiences selected for their volatility and the likes of Eddie Mair and Laura Kuenssburg will exercise their egos. It will be unseemly, embarrassing and benefit no one except the media, least of all the democratic process. Cool heads, intelligent research and political conviction should drive voting choices, not theatrical posturing."

In reply to Postmanpat:

I'll start with:

That van that said 'get out of the country or face arrest'

Her attempt to cut tax credits

Demanding that immigrants earn £35k per year.

Her government's plans to demand that firms list foreign workers.

In reply to RyanOsborne:


Also, be nice for someone to ask her face to face in front of an audience why:

The 5th richest economy in the world has 400,000 kids below the poverty line.
The 5th richest economy in the world has crumbling roads.
The 5th richest economy in the world has full time nurses requiring pay-day loans.
etc etc

The list is endless.

Wally

In reply to Bogwalloper:


Because spending money on public services causes global financial crises. Obvs.

In reply to Postmanpat:

She's not been 'unavoidably' focussed on Brexit she's been on an obsessive anti-civil liberties, anti-immigration and anti-EU court crusade for years. Brexit is her opportunity to implement her right wing, power centralizing agenda. There was nothing unavoidable about Brexit the Tories did it on purpose and Corbyn failed to resist on purpose.

About the only good thing you could say about Theresa May is she hasn't started skinning Dalmations yet. But give her time.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


I know its immature but I do love the Cruella trope.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I hate her because in the vernacular of modern political discourse, which she sanctions, I am a citizen of Nowhere, a remoaner and now a saboteur.

Nothing to do with being a natural hater, everything to do with her being a viscous, nasty and spineless person.

In reply to RyanOsborne:


I opened by acknowledging the issue, although I'd be interested in your suggestions as to how, given the target she was given, she should have achieved it.
You might want to check whether she "demand companies list foreign workers"

So, we're down to tax credits. Can you explain the cuts and their impact. Im not clear. Do all cuts in benefits make a polician "evil"?

PS. Casual sexism ("evil wench") is never a good look, especially when promoting "a new type of politics"

In reply to Trevers:

I think this election is going to be largely decided by two groups of voters;
- Conservative voters who voted remain (or are wavering) and therefore might vote for a more progressive party
- UKIP voters returning to the Conservative party

Unless the first group is larger than the second, then we will have a large conservative majority. Therefore, the progressive parties need to speak to these people, not frighten them away.

In reply to Postmanpat:

That's low, even for you. I see you're done with 'the ball' and following your usual line. I'll leave you to it.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

That'd be great if it were true but it isn't. Policies are not common knowledge. I'm relatively bright, interested and engaged, I read and listen to a lot of radio but I'd struggle to give three clearly understood, correctly remembered policies from each of the major parties 2015 manifestos or their 2017 offerings (many of which are still being formed somewhat chaotically).


They should but they don't so all in all I think it's better that people are exposed to a range of ideas as with a TV debate rather than having their influences cherry picked and exaggerated for them by a newspaper with an agenda.
jk

In reply to RyanOsborne:

Brilliant! Happy to throw around abuse and play the (wo)man yourself but dont like being questioned about it!! You think "evil wench" would not be attacked as sexist by the left? Really?

I'm still with the ball. Any explanation of why how you justify your abuse?

In reply to RyanOsborne:


Not without precedent. One Tony Blaire refused to hold an on screen debate with Michael Howard. I'm not sure what you expect to get from a TV sideshow in any case ? All it tends to do is reduce anelection to a popularity contest between TV personalities. I suspect given the stae of the UK and the rest of the world she has more pressing issues right now.

Not that I'm a May supporter but in this I see her point entirely. Its a media driven circus.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


I think they're informative. And I think it's important for the political debate to reach as wide an audience as possible. Not everyone reads papers and listens to Radio 4, so I think they're a good idea. And if people didn't take them as informative, then surely TM wouldn't be so afraid of attending?

In reply to jkarran:

Ok, but what did you learn on policy from the previous TV debates? Or was it just a circus of shouty point scoring where the minority party leaders with nothing to lose could snipe away at the guys with everything to lose? Being a slick media performer is no guide to political nous and performance. We have learned that from Blair and Cameron

In reply to Bob Hughes:


Especially with the black and white dress she was wearing yesterday.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Or indeed Farage and Johnson

In reply to Postmanpat:


This is why Labour should get rid of Corbyn and install someone younger and female, maybe Yvette Cooper. They need a leader who can really set out to score points off May without worrying about looking sexist or un-chivalrous.

May deliberately plays on her sexuality and it is really hard for an older guy like Corbyn to be nasty or confrontational in those circumstances without looking like a dick. A younger woman could beat Theresa May at her own game and have carte-blanche to be as nasty as she liked without breaking any social conventions.

In Scotland the Tories and Labour had the same problem with Nicola Sturgeon and they've both installed female leaders.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Pedant here, but I think you meant gender not sexuality. Unless those leather trousers are coming into play again

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

does that mean a permanent switch to Valkyriepolitik or is there a way back?

In reply to Postmanpat:

You decided to join the snowflake PC brigade after all ;-p
How's your latte ?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Currently the Labour MPs don't seem to know the Labour policies, see Dawn Butlers well publicised recent interview, so any opportunity to get them out to the masses would be greatly received.

I'd imagine Teresa May isn't interested as she's the incumbent so the stats show she will do worse out of it and the fact that whenever she's asked a tricky question at PMQs (rarely from JC I might add, despite the sack full of ammunition he as had at his disposal) she sneers at the questioner and then avoids the question.

Tim Farron would probably do the best with his "normal bloke saying sensible things" until the spectre of Christianity and his opinions on homosexuality rears its ugly head.

Hmmm, choices choices.......

In reply to Trevers:


I actually meant sexuality. She knows the newspapers will do the 'legs' headlines or stories about how much skin she is showing when she sits behind the chancellor during the budget speech. She is not stupid, everything she does is calculated for advantage.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I suspect alot of women may take serious offence at what you have just posted in a wider context.

Ease of a bit and stick to the politics.

In reply to wercat:


That's the question. I think when there's a popular female leader that plays a bit on femininity the opposition parties find it difficult to respond with an older male leader. It did switch back to male leaders in all the parties after Thatcher, so it is clearly possible.

Maybe it would also work for Labour to go with a male leader that was substantially younger than Theresa May and try and cast her as an evil granny that wants to drag the country back to the past. But Corbyn, as well as being useless, is definitely the wrong demographic to challenge her.

In reply to RyanOsborne:

Or maybe she doesn't want another Nick Clegg, weren't the TV debates pre the 2010 election widely credited with giving the LibDems a leg up. That was certainly an unforeseen consequence.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Prior to the last GE I would have totally agreed with you on the debates, but, since access to politicians by the media is now so controlled and sometimes outright refused, I'd welcome any opportunity to see them have to defend their policies and actions to date.

In reply to RyanOsborne:


Like creating a million extra jobs when it's by no means certain that there will be people to fill them?

He may be king of the random soundbite, but are his policiies realistic or achievable?

In reply to RyanOsborne:


Do you honestly believe that televised debates do anything beyond providing a circus perforamnce based on petty mudslinging?

In reply to neilh:


They probably will. Theresa May is exploiting social conventions for political advantage, if the other parties want to win against her they need to turn things round so the same social conventions work for them. I'm happy to agree the social conventions are outdated and it would be good if these kind of calculations were unnecessary but we aren't there yet.

In reply to MG:


Tacktically that sounds great, but think about what people would have made of it without the explaination.

"JC was too frightened to have an election."

Then
"JC changed his mind and decided he does want an election."

"What does JC want?"

So it doesn't really pan out as nicely as it sounds does it?

In reply to Postmanpat:

OK, my current concern with TM as PM is this: she has become PM with a difficult hand to play, navigating the most complex political and economic sh*t storm that we have faced in our lifetimes.

Some credit may be due for her volunteering for the poisoned chalice; but as yet I have seen not one shred of evidence that she has faced up to the situation that we are actually in. All I have seen and heard is interminable, meaningless soundbites: 'Brexit means Brexit'; 'Best possible deal for the British people'; 'Negotiate from a position of strength' etc etc.

I would have had more confidence had she not started out making such bizarre cabinet appointments (Fox, Johnson, Hunt and Rudd, to name but 4) , and actually started tell her beloved British public how it is: this is a divorce that we are negotiating, we are not leaving a golf club, and we had really better be on a best behaviour so that any negotiating is done against a background of residual goodwill and shared potential future interests. Instead she appears to be increasingly adopting the handbag swinging tactics of someone she clearly increasingly harks back to, in a completely different (and inappropriate) context.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


The problem with that is that the other candidates have nothing to defend, Corbyn has no record of anything (policies and actions) to judge him on, the only person who can be judged is the incumbent PM.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Her rank hypocrisy bothers me - she's got all the talk about being a straight and serious person, but her record shows her to be the biggest game player of them all. She's been incredibly divisive in the way she's gone about Brexit (while talking of bringing the country together) and doesn't have much of any substance to say beyond the pathetic soundbites. Red, white and blue Brexit, FFS! She talks in Sun headlines.

Not sure how she's got the chutzpah to electioneer with the slogan of "Strong, stable government". The Tories brought us Brexit, mass changes at the top and significant u-turns over serious policy issues and the decision to hold an election. What's either strong or stable about that? Although if you interpret strong as anti-libertarian and authotiarian you can probably give her that

She's a puppet for Paul Dacre and Rupert Murdoch.

In reply to cragtaff:

I'm going to vote Labour and I could easily attack Corbyn's record: nuclear power; Syria; alleged anti-semitism in Labour; his dismal record in speaking to anyone but his supporters; etc.

It's a cop out from May, but the 21% lead in the polls has made her think she has more to lose than to gain. Regardless, they should empty-chair her.

In reply to Postmanpat:

We know she lies and speaks with no intention of supporting what she says...

Otherwise I agree but she seems to poorly think things through, or has no courage in her convictions.. or just plays the card she thinks will win in the short term.. remain.. then brexit etc.. now hard brexit.. no election,.. now MP's face jail call for an election..

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Teresa May hard brexit obsession and Corbyn's total inadequacy and incompetence have left a massive gaping hole in UK political landscape in the pro-eu or pro single market centre left / centre right.

Lib dem are too clunky and weak. A new political movement with a charismatic talented leader is needed.

In reply to Trevers:


It does seem a liitle over the top to adopt such vitriole simply because of the use of those terms, particularly the first. What is the rationale for connecting those terms with your terms?

In reply to RomTheBear:


I agree with Rom!!

In reply to RomTheBear:


This is the thinking that traps us in the two party system.
I agree that Tim Farron is not the most alpha of males, but who would you choose as a leader from a choice of May, Nuttall, Farron and Corbyn (I'll ignore Caroline Lucas for now)?
Because that's the choice we have.
Searching for charisma leads to Bush, Farage etc.

In reply to Roadrunner5:
>
How so. The idea that she "lied" over calling an electional is just political blather-to be expected but not serious. She just changed her mind. It happens.

She has spent the last few months what sort of brexit is wanted and how to attempt to achieve it. How has she lied about this?

She has been pressurised into some positions by an over powerful right wing element in her party, soshe calls an election partly in the hipe of neutralising them. What's not to like?

In reply to Postmanpat:

She promised the next election would be 2020, she's doing it now possibly because of tory corruption..

She was also pro remain.. now pro brexit..

She's been all over the map on key issues.. no consistency at all. It's a game for these muppets.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


And now her inner circle are deserting her. Hardly the strong, stable leadership she espouses.

In reply to timjones:


If there's one thing I know I'm going to get fed up of in the coming weeks, it's being told there's a chance that a set of fair policies which I agree with might not be 'realistic or achievable' so I should vote for being shafted by our Tory overlords instead.

In reply to cragtaff:


I don't see how that's ground for not having a debate?

In reply to Postmanpat:


I really don't see it as over the top when it's the leader of our country herself who's allowing such degrading and antidemocratic language to become common political terminology.

So do you agree with opposing voices in Parliament, or indeed myself, being painted as "saboteurs"? If, as I presume, you don't, why would you take issue with me being angry at such use of language to denigrate my viewpoint?

In reply to Alyson:


What she said.

In reply to RyanOsborne:


The main problem, from her perspective, if who would get to debate?

She would likely be quite happy with a one-on-one with Corbyn, but if that were it then the Lib Dems and Scottish Nats and others would scream blue murder.

On the other hand, if the rules are lots of one-on-ones, then that gives a big boost to the smaller parties (Tim Farron would love a "we agree with Nick" platform).

Alternatively, it could be a debate with every relevant party (Tory, Labour, Lib Dems, Scottish Nats, Welsh Nats, DUP, Sinn Fein, Green Party, UKIP), but one can see why being one of nine on a podium is not attractive to her and not really a "debate" anyhow.

So, what format should she realistically be expected to agree to?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


I'm not even sure that would be great for her. She can deal with him in the Commons when all she has to do is parrot some stupid slogan and have her side of the house shout him down. In a saner one-on-one debate I can't see her coming out looking good at all. (I'm not saying that Corbyn is a smooth operator either.)

In reply to RomTheBear:

Agreed.

Like a Tony Blair or George Osborne ......?

Difficult .

In reply to RyanOsborne:

Which if her inner circle had deserted her, or am I missing something.

In reply to Alyson:


Did you spot the question mark on the end of my post

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Nothing. I don't have a TV.
jk

In reply to IM:


The flip side of that is all the people who tell us that we are being shafted.

We need to move away from the mud slinging and onto askibng questions, asking if a policy is realistic or achievabke is not telling anyone anything.

In reply to timjones:


Yes, plus the one missing above.

You are still inferring that realistic and achievable trumps policy content. I'd rather a government aiming for something decent and struggling to achieve it all, than one given free rein to achieve something I fundamentally oppose.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


I guess that some might prefer politicians that soldier on with the same old stance regardless.

I'm inlcined to think that such resolute obstinacy is the last thing any country needs.

In reply to Alyson:


That is your choice.

Personally I'd say that if we must have a system of party politics then it is vital that we have a credible electable opposition and that in order to achieve that it i svital that Labour and Corbyn start proposing more realistic objectives.

Why did he choose 1 million jobs as a target?

In reply to timjones:


Same reason the Tories chose their sub 100k immigration target. If you've gotta pick a number, it might as well be a round one even if it's daft in the cold light of day.
jk

In reply to timjones:


Probably because it's close to the 1.31 million public sector jobs lost between 2010 and 2015. Or in other words, it's a realistic and achievable target.

Why does Theresa May want to keep 12 months worth of my internet browsing history?

In reply to Alyson:

If there's one thing I know I'm going to get fed up of in the coming weeks, it's being told there's a chance that a set of fair policies which I agree with might not be 'realistic or achievable' so I should vote for being shafted by our Tory overlords instead.

Vote for Labour then!

In reply to jkarran: "Nothing. I don't have a TV."

LOL, you have reached peak UKC status. Alan will send you a gold star to pin to your hessian tunic

In reply to jkarran:


Or the various deficit reduction targets... rememeber them?

In reply to jkarran:

Must admit I do not understand the 1 million jobs target as unemployment is not really a critical issue at the moment compared with other countries.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


"Corruption"? What are you referring to?

She is PM clearly appointed to carry out brexit as voted for in the referendum. That is her job! Ironic that a more vocal remainer, Cameron, was castigated for NOT staying on to carry out brexit, and she is castigated for doing so.

What other "key issues" are you referring to?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

>

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

In reply to RomTheBear:


Will Hugo Boss be doing the tailoring?

In reply to Trevers:

>
Can you quote May's usage of the term "saboteurs" and her reaction to the DM's headline using it?
Can you find her using the term "remoaners". Genuine question.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Re. question 1. I saw it on Parliament TV, either at PMQ or just afterwards in the debate about the Election. She was asked whether she approved of the 'saboteur' headline etc. in the Daily Mail, and she refused to say anything against it. She more or less dismissed the question by saying she believed in 'the freedom of the press'! [When she had probably discussed it with her chum Dacre who makes frequent visits to No 10.]

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Source: The Independent.

"Asked on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme whether she agreed with that description of her opponents, Mrs May replied: "Absolutely not".

She said: "Politics and democracy are about of course people having different opinions, different views.

"It is important in Parliament that people are able to challenge what the Government is doing, that there is proper debate and scrutiny, and that's what there will be."

So, we cannot find her ever using the term, and we have proof that she disagrees with it.

As far as I can tell she has met Dacre once (one on one) since she became PM. How do you know she is "chums" or that he makes "frequent visits". My wild guess is that can't stand the bloke but knows he is a very influential man so does what she has to.

In reply to Postmanpat:


That's not what she said in Parliament. She simply refused to answer the question – in such a way that implied that she didn't disapprove of it.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Well, it turns out that she does. Is it unreasonable to think that she , like any politician (especially Corbyn one suspects) is reluctant to get drawn into commenting on any and every newspaper headline? It's an obvious recipe for being both diverted and tripped up, which is what the media and opposition want.
Do you think that politicians should comment on every headline? Is that healthy for freedom of the press?

It's one of those hypocrisies of the electorate that we whinge about the 24 news cycle and vacuous instant comment, and then whinge when our leaders are reluctant to play that game or sometimes get it wrong first time.

More to the point, is such a decision (not to initially comment on a headline) sufficient to descibe her as "an evil wench", "a viscous, nasty and spineless person" or "reactionary, authoritarian and heartless. I....a dreadful, unprincipled, lying, two-faced bitch who is clearly the worst Prime Minister of the UK by far since World War II. "

In reply to Postmanpat:

Re. the Daily Mail, it's also worth noting that in Feb TM made the political editor of the Daily Mail (James Slack) her chief spokesman.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

This doesn't demonstrate that she is either a friend of Dacre or his language or even likes his newspaper. It shows she knows that she needs somebody who knows how the media works, especially the biggest selling paper in the UK.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I don't believe anything about May happens by accident. I think she is clever and calculating and takes her time, consults and figures out the angles before making decisions.

At one point in my career I was an expert witness in a lawsuit between two billion dollar companies. The day before I was to give evidence there was a meeting attended by 5 senior lawyers, their jury consultant (paid to sit in court and watch the jurors) and a psychologist. They spent an hour arguing about whether the suit and tie I was going to wear was right.

As PM someone as fashion conscious and careful and May with power and money behind her is going to have similar meetings. There's probably a fashion person, a psychologist, a pollster and someone that's worked for the tabloid press thinking about what she should wear. May clearly dresses less 'conservatively' than politicians like Merkel or Hillary Clinton and she fairly regularly gets tabloid picture stories about it. I don't think it's an accident, she's figured out the angles and concluded those stories are to her advantage. Maybe she even quite likes the Cruella de Ville meme because she'd rather look evil and ruthless than weak and incompetent like Corbyn.

In reply to Postmanpat:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-general-election-expenses-scandal-distract-schedule-mps-tory-party-paul-nuttall-david-a7690106.html

Re her contradictions. There are many, she just outright lies

http://uk.businessinsider.com/theresa-may-brexit-lancaster-house-speech-cus...

But search many and she's outright lying to the public constantly..

In reply to Postmanpat:

"
She said: "Politics and democracy are about of course people having different opinions, different views."

And she called the GE because, in her words, "there is not unity in Westminster".. and there bloody well should not be!

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

You are treading on perilous ground here. With one or two exceptions the media seldom talks about male politicians dress because they generally dress in "uniform". Women, however, partly because they have no "uniform"are repeatedly scrutinised and accused, amongst other things, of either of being sexless or "frumpy" or of exploiting their sexuality. Do they say the same about a man in particularly sharp suit? Was Heseletine condemned for "exploiting his sexuality".

I don't think she is "exploiting her sexuality", and what if she were? She is trying to project an image of confidence , power and professionalism. And why not?

Dangerous ground.....

In reply to Roadrunner5:


I agree. Poor speech. But is that sufficient to descibe her as "an evil wench", "a viscous, nasty and spineless person" or "reactionary, authoritarian and heartless. I....a dreadful, unprincipled, lying, two-faced bitch who is clearly the worst Prime Minister of the UK by far since World War II. "??

In reply to Postmanpat:

Do you think that if, on the subject of something as serious as the break up of the UK, she was pictured with Nicola Sturgeon on the front page of the Mirror, with a critique of her legs, she would describe it as a bit of fun?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


I'd hope so. There is an obvious pattern. It's pretty clear that she is reluctant to attack the press, in this case even those who oppose her.

In reply to Roadrunner5:
>.But search many and she's outright lying to the public constantly..
>
Does that article refer to lies? It refers to wishful thinking because it beleives her aims are unachievable.

What are you refering to?

In reply to Alyson:

I think there are two important factors when deciding who to vote for - policies/general motivation and competence in putting them into practice. For me, May has policies/motivations that are bad for society in general (but good for her and the Tories) and the nous to achieve them - the worst of all worlds in my book. Corbyn on the contrary has far more palatable motivations but there are question marks over his ability to make them happen. I'd certainly rather have people in power like Corbyn with decent motives - Clegg fitted the bill and I've never understood fully how he got so much vitriol for the compromises he had to make in Coalition with the Tories (well I kind of understood it but don't agree with it).

I also think a big part of the problem for Corbyn is that he's fighting a media with vested interests in keeping him out of power. If he could bypass it the way Trump has it would be good.

In reply to Alyson:


Surely you create jobs where there is a demonstrable need rather than plucking a number out of the air that may or may not be based on the number of public sector jobs lost over a 5 year period?


Lord alone knows but this is a prime example of the sort of tit for tat attitude that party politics encourages. Job creation and access to interent browsing history are 3 seperate issues what is the point if trying to play the one off against the other?

In reply to neilh:


A new face. Someone of higher IQ than them if possible.

In reply to Alyson:
>
You know why this is: because she is told by the security services that this data is regarded as crucial in identifying and prosecuting those who are a terrorist or security risk..

Is it necessary? I don't know. You don't. But I can hardly think of a Home Secretary who has not become in office more "security conscious", "authoritarian" or however you want to describe it than they were beforehand. Think of Blunkett ,Straw, Reid or Clarke. It goes with the job that when they "cross the fence" they get shocked by the threats they are made aware of and scared that if they fail to take precautions they will go down in history as the HS that failed to protect us.

We have to be on the watch for over zealous Home Secretaries but isn't it invidious to single out Mrs.May?

In reply to RomTheBear:

Pretty tall order on the IQ stakes...

In reply to BnB:

Pigs do fly !

Honestly I am more and more concerned with T May, I find the timetable for the snap election totally undemocratic, there is no time for a credible opposition to organise itself and campaign.

It's also a bit too convenient that it will allow her to exclude Brits living abroad for more than 15 years of the electoral register, as the vote will take place before the removal of the limit is in place, and before large numbers of EU citizens can apply for citizenship and vote her out.

It's nothing less than a ruthless and cynical power grab. I strongly suspect Teresa May will include promises to scrap all forms of freedom of movement and jurisdiction of the ECJ in her manifesto.

That will leave the country in no positions to negotiate on these, with dire consequences for the reciprocal rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU, and access to the single market. She has a bee in her bonnet on this topic and unfortunately she may well get her way.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:
I've been thinking about this over the last few days and you've pretty well written eloquently the thoughts that finally crystallised for me overnight.

I think it is more important that the Conservative Party is halted than that we end up with a perfect alternative. Even a hung parliament might have a better eventual outcome - after all, why not - we're forced into the chaos of Brexit which might take years or more to sort out, so why not allow a similar timespan to end up with a trustworthy government

The austerity policy finished my career so what can be worse?

In reply to timjones:

Small changes, huge swings? No chance. If you think a political union is the future and then 6 days later switch when you realize you will be PM you look like an opportunist..

In reply to Postmanpat:


Yes, it would make sense that this data may be needed by security services.
But this data is not available only to security services, it's available to pretty much every government agency.
Potentially someone in the NHS, or the home office, or HMRC, or the fire service, can track which websites you've visited, when, and where.

What the use of that in terms of security ? Seems to me it is has more to do with giving even more powers to the government.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I never said she used those terms, I said she sanctions them. She was directly asked to criticise the Mail's use of the term "saboteurs" in PMQs on Wednesday, and she refused. If, like any right minded person, she was outraged by such language, she would have made it clear it has no place in a mature democracy.

In reply to Trevers:


I didn't realise that, but it fits with what I've said above - divisive and in hock to the Mail.

In reply to Trevers:

As she later did. Have we really reached a place so obsessed by instant spin that we judge our politicians not by not they do, not even by what they say, not even by what they say after consideration, but by what they don't say in immediate reaction to what the tabloid press says?

You say you "hate" her? Is this really the basis that you hate her?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

>
What are these?

In reply to neilh:

Unemployment may be low but it is in part because of low quality jobs, part time, zero hours, self employed making no money and in part because the figures are massaged to remove the 16-18 group. That said, it wouldn't be my top priority but then I'm not young and struggling to find decent work, time will tell if he's pitched this right.
Jk

In reply to Postmanpat:


I hadn't seen your conversation with Gordon before I posted that. However, it's nothing to me if she said that on Radio 4, an interview which probably very few people heard. The fact is that from the Commons dispatch box, she refused to denounce those terms. That's where it really counts, and that's what sticks.

It's not a bit of 'instant spin'. It's allowing language to become commonplace that wouldn't be out of place in 1930s Germany or Leninist Russia. As the leader of our country, she ducks every responsibility in doing so.

And no, I don't just hate her for that. I hate her for the 'go home' vans. I hate her for her hypocrisy regarding Scotland. I hate her for her anti-democratic stance in calling the election, despite claiming it is in the interests of democracy. I hate her for effectively deciding that the 48+% don't matter. I hate her for my diminished future opportunities.

Everything I've seen of TM suggests to me she is a cold, nasty person without an ounce of charm but full of contempt.

In reply to Trevers:

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/8864be1b-659d-4aaa-b5d9-c5d8b6d6c1...

Angus Robertson MP asked his question about the use of the term ‘saboteurs’ for Remainers at 12:17:00

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Can you elaborate please?

I'm not following what you are saying here.

In reply to timjones:
why elaborate?

She was remain and is now pro hard brexit. That's a huge change in philosophy.

https://www.facebook.com/Reasons2Remain/photos/a.219818275044216.1073741827...

She's just an opportunist..

In reply to Roadrunner5:


So do you think that as PM she could just ignore the fact that we voted for Brexit?

In reply to timjones:

Yeah, if she believes remaining in was better for the UK for sure.

Its quite likely more people want in than want a soft brexit or a hard brexit. There were 3 options and it was a binary choice. A ridiculous way to go about this.

But to leave the single market is economic suicide and not what the majority of UK businesses want. Sadly I think we will do a hard brexit, suffer the consequences and slowly negotiate back into the single market.

In reply to Trevers:
I think you'll find more people listen to the today show than watch parliament.
How is calling an election "undemocratic?!!!

How is following the 70%+ who want the UK to control immigration "undemocratic"?

Incidentally, how do you feel about the use of the term. "Vermin" to describe political ipponents?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Why are the 70% who want immigration controlled more important than the 90% who want access to the single market...

http://www.natcen.ac.uk/news-media/press-releases/2016/november/voters-want...

You certainly cherry pick your stats...

In reply to Roadrunner5:
Because in the yougov poll a majority were prepared to leave the single market.
Polls will never be definitive but it seems unreasonable to describe a policy which seems to try to bow to what can reasonably be argued is the biggest single view should be lambasted for being "undemocratic".

(See previous discussion)

In reply to Postmanpat:

The biggest single view is remaining in the single market and we don't know if the single biggest view was actually remaining in the EU.. all we know is 52% wanted some form of out.

All the referendum really demonstrated is how useless they bloody well are when the electorate is largely misinformed.. I keep reading how immigration will be stopped and anti-muslim views somehow fueling anti-EU talk when we already control immigration from non-EU locations.

I think Corbyn walked right into a May trap, personally he should have resisted the election and gone for a later date.

In reply to Roadrunner5:
Only in your poll. The yougov poll shows the
Biggest struggle single majority is for control over a mmigration, and a majority want to leave the single market. In reality, if the first happens then we must leave the single market.

It is a stretch to argue with that the most democratic cratic thing to do is ignore both majorities, let alone that it is undemocratic to follow them,even if other polls produce differing results.

Reading your poll closely suggests that there is an almost even split on the issue of prioritising immigation against the single market "As a result, voters as a whole are evenly divided on the issue, with 49% thinking we should allow freedom of movement if it enables the UK to keep free trade, and 51% not."

In reply to Postmanpat:


But to do one we must do what the 90% don't want.. to do want the 90% want we must ignore what the 70% want..

http://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-in-practice-britain-no-longer-has-u...

42% think Brexit would no longer be worth it if we left the single market, compared to 40% thinking it would still be worth it.

But these decisions should now be about UK business interests as much as UK individuals.

http://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/which-should-be-the-governments-negoti...

36% say stay in the single market should be priority, 37% say immigration...

I think you can find polls saying anything at the moment.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

So May isnt being undemocratic. She's making a reasonable stab at pursuing the wishes of the people when those wishes are often unclear or contradictory. Much of the last 9 months has been spent talking with stakeholders such as business intetests to divine what, if brexit is to happen, they want out of it.

In reply to Postmanpat:

She's pretty ignorant, saying the country is united re brexit and westminster isnt.. theres far from unity on that and even on what brexit actually means.

If she's spoken to UK businesses then single market access is a very high priority.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

As i said above, her election speech was poor.
She's trying to balance like lots of different stakeholders. How would it look if she just "kow towed to big business"?

I'll repeat: my argument is not that she is getting everything right, let alone that I agree with her. I am trying to understand the justification for vitriolic language that she attracts.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


And do you believe that we could achieve any of things that those who voted for Brexit wanted whilst remaining a member of the single market?

In reply to timjones:


What things?

To stop Iraqi's coming in? To stop 'islamics' coming in? To give the NHS 350 million a week?

In reply to Roadrunner5:

We seem to be going round in circles whilst you dodge questions!

Forget nationality or religion, do you think it would be possible to reduce immigration whilst remaining a member of the single market?

Once we voted for Brexit any PM was pretty much guaranteed to be damned regardless of what they did.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Irrelevant. She said what she said from the seat of our democracy.


Because it's a simple power grab. Because she's suggested that difference of opinion in Westminster over Brexit is intolerable.


Notwithstanding that she will utterly fail to reduce immigration, where is that figure from? And when can we actually get a meaningful, sensible dialogue on the subject anyway? I'm not convinced the hysteria over this topic is in any way related to the facts.


Well that's equally as disgusting. Humour me then, who said it? BTW, you've accused me of whataboutery before...

In reply to timjones:


As half of immigration is apparently from non EU countries I would have thought the answer was 'yes'

In reply to Trevers:

Its not irrelevant. And its what she didn't say.
Calling an election at the right moment has been a basic political skill for UK pms since, well, forever. Its utterly mad to claim it is a "power grab". Harold Wilson would be laughing his bollocks off.

See previous thread for figure. Yougov poll.

See immigration thread for my view that all politicians lie about immigration.

The quote is a famous quote by Aneurin Bevan, hero of the left, about the Tories. Its utterly hypocritical and ridiculous to use abusive and sexist language about a politician for not saying something, when far worse language has been used by politicians for years.

In reply to Postmanpat:

What did I say that was sexist?

In reply to Trevers:

You didn't. Sorry, it wasnt aimed specifically at you. Others have.

In reply to timjones:
What question have I dodged.

You never asked that you asked vague questions.

So now you've asked clearly.

No, you cannot have free movement of goods and not free movement of labour. It will not happen.

We didn't vote for Brexit, 52% advised that it was their favoured option, what that option was was at least two further options.. namely hard (total leave of all EU/EEA intitatives) or soft brexit (a norway type option)

British Industry has quite clearly said they want to remain in the single market and the British people seem split on whether immigration of single market access is a bigger thing.. to charge on down the leave single market road like this is idiotic at best.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Is there a difference between "advising that something is your favoured option" and voting for the same thing?

In reply to Postmanpat:

I do get a faint feeling of hope as some politicians are finally starting to hint that tax needs to rise for everyone and you can't promise to triple lock pensions indefinitely. They just need to grow some a come out with it, I think they are just testing the water while they decide on if to included it in their manifestos.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

I think the question was leave the eu? Leave is leaving, it could have said partial exit, become only a trading member etc....... But it was a black and white in or out stance. Had the question been a partial exit I imagine the support would have been higher. But either way it's all old news now.

In reply to summo:
We voted to leave the EU. Not the EEA, not the customs unions. Someone might argue that because we only voted to leave the eu we shouldn't be leaving the others - we didn't vote to leave them. This would be silly though, because one thing if one thing was clear, it was that we didn't know what kind of brexit it would be and it would be up to the government to negotiate it. Government/remain were clear that there was significant risk that we'd have to leave EEA - which implies we might stay in. So the idea that we voted to leave the lot seems a stretch.

As you say though, it does seem like it's not worth arguing about anymore. Plus public opinion is apparently for hard brexit and we're having an election where we could elect soft brexiters. Regardless of how we got here and the lack of a decent party to put the remain case in the referendum, we are where we are and, sadly, remainers (like me) will need to suck it up. (That's not to say we should shut up)

In reply to summo:



Do we have to post the video yet again...? Altright, i guess for the beneift of those with short memories...

youtube.com/watch?v=0xGt3QmRSZY&

In reply to timjones:


Yes..

In reply to summo:

We wouldnt know

Of course its not old news.

This view that democratic decisions are final is just f*cking absurd! Sorry to swear but its one of the most annoying things about Brexit.. "well that's that"

No, no it is not. Many many times things have changed, in the US they banned alcohol, that got overturned, we voted to allow slavery, that got overturn, we rejected the womens right to vote, that got over turned.

We voted to advise the government 52% want out. They now negotiate. If after the negotiation a favourable stance cannot be negotiated, we should not leave.

In reply to Mr Lopez:


Hold on you can't use things politician's say as evidence that's what they think...

In reply to Postmanpat:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-hits-magical-50-per-10277463

Hahaha, I'm going to party big time once the Lab/Lib/SNP Govt start work on the 9th June.

Please, please, please tell me that two Tory PMs can f*ck up in succession?!

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

I'm fully in favour of some trade deal and migration, but the vote was in or out, it was not some grey vague outish but still keeping x or y etc..

Was the Scottish referendum question, leave UK, or leave the UK a little bit?

Granted you can guess the 52% wanted a soft exit, but you really have no idea unless you ask them individually.

I have nothing against MPs having some vote on the final say either, but I'd rather they all collaborated now to get the best deal, rather then play games to try & sink it later.(SNP, greens, labour).

In reply to Lusk:

Seems that polls are run lately by the same kids posting up the climbing motivation surveys we get here annualy. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4436044/Tory-lead-slashed-half-tax-...

In reply to Roadrunner5:


I think we will have to agree to differ on that one.

I wouldn't vote for a "favoured option" that I didn't want, we have opinion polls for that sort of wishy washy thinking.