I've just read the statement. What are people objecting to? It's seems very reasonable to me, but presumably it didn't check some box or other?
I suppose it is the DUP toxification factor. Being positive about pride and sucking up to the DUP the same month.
Good grief lefties need to get a grip. They don't seem to understand respecting someone else's view S is as important as respecting one another. Even if you don't agree with them.
It's a more interesting topic than this ding dong.
Theresa "rubbish".
What has happened illustrates that the premiership is an order of magnitude leap from any other job in cabinet. Events, in Macmillan's immortal phrase, will seek out the individual's peculiar weaknesses and these will be the cause of his or her downfall. May was cold, controlling uncommunicative and unstrategic,
Mrs May is not uniquely bad but she was tested early, gave in to temptation and suffered an especially severe fall.
Good comment, however I would say Mrs May was tested late on a major character issue that only became apparent after she became PM. She can't cope at all with situations she doesn't control. Arguably this should preclude her from politics entirely but it certainly makes her unsuitable to be prime minister of a divided country implementing the biggest structural change the country has seen in recent times, and where others mostly decide what's possible.
Home Secretary is mostly about stopping bad things happen so her need to control helped her there
I always thought she was rubbish in her six years at the Home Office. She achieved nothing there.
Apart from upsetting the police and, IIRC, the firemen. Among others.
Can you name any Home/Education/Health Sec who hasn't annoyed the producer interest groups - it is their job to look out for the consumers!
There are times when you have no choice but to upset people. But, one should avoid doing it needlessly. And one should choose one's enemies with care. It's fine to piss off groups like the NUT. One should avoid pissing off sensible teachers like Ydoethur.
I don't disagree. Her performance as Home Sec flattered to deceive her potential as a PM. TBF it deceived an awful lot of people and not just Tory loyalists. We are where we are and the biggest danger right now which is getting very little scrutiny here is this sort of thing;
Labour's obsession with ensuring it never wins an election again is hugely damaging to the country as it means the worst government in British history essentially gets no opposition. But given that Labour is ensuring the Tories will retain power, surely what they are doing with this power is of much more importance.
It is a bit tiresome seeing the same thing repeated all over again.
The issue is not that May is terrible - it is that the anti-Brexit crowd realise that the easiest way to avoid Brexit is if she can somehow be replaced with a remainer. OK, we get it, you don't like hard Brexit. But at the moment it is wish-fulfilment masquerading as analysis.
And you will go on seeing them as long as TMay clings onto power.
Explain her dire personal poll ratings then.
She's a broken reed. Only the absence of an obvious successor is keeping her in place.
Surely Hammond is the obvious successor? I think the problem he - and anyone else for that matter - has is that May has just won most seats in a GE. It would have been odd if Cameron had been overthrown for a similar set of numbers in 2015.
I know that it's all about expectations on this site, but it isn't like that in the real world. This is a bit of a problem for the Tories. They think their leader is rubbish but she's just racked up more votes than any Tory leader in over 25 years. It would only make sense for someone to overthrow her if they had the guts to have another election in the autumn.
Hammond as PM would simply be May without the charisma.
He has a degree of realism about Brexit, unlike May. That's a problem amongst elements of his party that don't share his realism. On the other hand Brexit is the looming issue that's going to hit in 18 months time.
Why don't some of you Theresa may haters on here that the real reason you want rid is about leaving the EU.
Theresa may in some eyes on here represents hard brexit or even just leaving the EU and must go now.
And you will go on seeing them as long as TMay clings onto power.
Unless her numbers change - but you've discounted that, haven't you?
Oh well, two years of 'Theresa May is Rubbish.com' it is then.
I expect you and TSE will enjoy yourselves, at least.....
So you think she has some merits apart from just being a Tory? She's like IDS except she's proved her total electoral ineptness.
She is Prime Minister - and probably will be for another 2 years or more.
Get over it.
I fear for the future of the UK as never before should the Corbyn agenda prevail.
But that's the point - it will be the UK......whatever her overall 'disaster' (sic) May's GE has seen off the SNP in Scotland - down to Davidson - the narrative of 'inevitable momentum' is dead - and in 20 years time that may well be seen as the most significant impact of this election. Not Blair, not Brown, not Cameron - but whisper it quietly - possibly May - has (inadvertently) killed nationalism in our lifetimes....
You are probably right with respect to Scotland (i.e. the unity of GB has been strengthened), but the future of the 6 counties within the UK has become much more tenuous following the Brexit/NI assembly/GE votes there in the last 13 months. The SNP are a busted flush, but SF have been invigorated.
The DUP has won both elections in NI this year, the SNP has fallen to its lowest voteshare for 10 years, this year has given a big boost to the Union
And you will go on seeing them as long as TMay clings onto power.
Unless her numbers change - but you've discounted that, haven't you?
Oh well, two years of 'Theresa May is Rubbish.com' it is then.
I expect you and TSE will enjoy yourselves, at least.....
So you think she has some merits apart from just being a Tory? She's like IDS except she's proved her total electoral ineptness.
She is Prime Minister - and probably will be for another 2 years or more.
Get over it.
I fear for the future of the UK as never before should the Corbyn agenda prevail.
But that's the point - it will be the UK......whatever her overall 'disaster' (sic) May's GE has seen off the SNP in Scotland - down to Davidson - the narrative of 'inevitable momentum' is dead - and in 20 years time that may well be seen as the most significant impact of this election. Not Blair, not Brown, not Cameron - but whisper it quietly - possibly May - has (inadvertently) killed nationalism in our lifetimes....
The SNP couldn't possibly maintain 56 out of 59 Westminister seats and being in power were bound to lose popularity.
And the Conservatives cannot possibly maintain 42% of the vote whilst being in power for the next 4 years , they are bound to lose popularity .
In 1987 the Tories got 42%, in 1992 after 5 years in power they got 41.9%
Andrew Marr just got Angela Rayner to admit that Corbyn's promise to pay off student debt was another misleading statement by him. The cost apparently is an eye watering 100 billion.
It's a more interesting topic than this ding dong.
Theresa "rubbish".
What has happened illustrates that the premiership is an order of magnitude leap from any other job in cabinet. Events, in Macmillan's immortal phrase, will seek out the individual's peculiar weaknesses and these will be the cause of his or her downfall. May was cold, controlling uncommunicative and unstrategic,
Mrs May is not uniquely bad but she was tested early, gave in to temptation and suffered an especially severe fall.
Home Secretary is mostly about stopping bad things happen so her need to control helped her there
I always thought she was rubbish in her six years at the Home Office. She achieved nothing there.
Apart from upsetting the police and, IIRC, the firemen. Among others.
Can you name any Home/Education/Health Sec who hasn't annoyed the producer interest groups - it is their job to look out for the consumers!
There are times when you have no choice but to upset people. But, one should avoid doing it needlessly. And one should choose one's enemies with care. It's fine to piss off groups like the NUT. One should avoid pissing off sensible teachers like Ydoethur.
I don't disagree. Her performance as Home Sec flattered to deceive her potential as a PM. TBF it deceived an awful lot of people and not just Tory loyalists. We are where we are and the biggest danger right now which is getting very little scrutiny here is this sort of thing;
Labour's obsession with ensuring it never wins an election again is hugely damaging to the country as it means the worst government in British history essentially gets no opposition. But given that Labour is ensuring the Tories will retain power, surely what they are doing with this power is of much more importance.
Depends - but in the meantime what is happening to 'government in waiting' is also important - it increasingly seems like the social democratic alternative to Conservatism is being destroyed. It is very sad and if I was a Jew living in the UK now, very frightening.
And you will go on seeing them as long as TMay clings onto power.
Unless her numbers change - but you've discounted that, haven't you?
Oh well, two years of 'Theresa May is Rubbish.com' it is then.
I expect you and TSE will enjoy yourselves, at least.....
So you think she has some merits apart from just being a Tory? She's like IDS except she's proved her total electoral ineptness.
She is Prime Minister - and probably will be for another 2 years or more.
Get over it.
I fear for the future of the UK as never before should the Corbyn agenda prevail.
But that's the point - it will be the UK......whatever her overall 'disaster' (sic) May's GE has seen off the SNP in Scotland - down to Davidson - the narrative of 'inevitable momentum' is dead - and in 20 years time that may well be seen as the most significant impact of this election. Not Blair, not Brown, not Cameron - but whisper it quietly - possibly May - has (inadvertently) killed nationalism in our lifetimes....
You are probably right with respect to Scotland (i.e. the unity of GB has been strengthened), but the future of the 6 counties within the UK has become much more tenuous following the Brexit/NI assembly/GE votes there in the last 13 months. The SNP are a busted flush, but SF have been invigorated.
The DUP has won both elections in NI this year, the SNP has fallen to its lowest voteshare for 10 years, this year has given a big boost to the Union
Sinn Fein have been invigorated, but they're a long way from a path to victory, and bereft of a strategy.
It is a bit tiresome seeing the same thing repeated all over again.
The issue is not that May is terrible - it is that the anti-Brexit crowd realise that the easiest way to avoid Brexit is if she can somehow be replaced with a remainer. OK, we get it, you don't like hard Brexit. But at the moment it is wish-fulfilment masquerading as analysis.
And you will go on seeing them as long as TMay clings onto power.
Explain her dire personal poll ratings then.
She's a broken reed. Only the absence of an obvious successor is keeping her in place.
Surely Hammond is the obvious successor? I think the problem he - and anyone else for that matter - has is that May has just won most seats in a GE. It would have been odd if Cameron had been overthrown for a similar set of numbers in 2015.
I know that it's all about expectations on this site, but it isn't like that in the real world. This is a bit of a problem for the Tories. They think their leader is rubbish but she's just racked up more votes than any Tory leader in over 25 years. It would only make sense for someone to overthrow her if they had the guts to have another election in the autumn.
Hammond as PM would simply be May without the charisma.
He has a degree of realism about Brexit, unlike May. That's a problem amongst elements of his party that don't share his realism. On the other hand Brexit is the looming issue that's going to hit in 18 months time.
Why don't some of you Theresa may haters on here that the real reason you want rid is about leaving the EU.
Theresa may in some eyes on here represents hard brexit or even just leaving the EU and must go now.
She is basically IDS With a Fanny but getting rid of her wouldn't stop hard Brexit as we'd just get #DD4PM.
It's a more interesting topic than this ding dong.
Theresa May became PM a year ago to near universal acclaim. She was apparently the only grown up left standing whose reputation had not been destroyed by the disastrous referendum. Even those who held no special brief for her - George Osborne included - were saying she was the right, indeed only, choice to be PM. She must have had positive qualities (and luck) to have carried her as far as she had come. It is shallow and stupid to conclude that she is just "rubbish".
Mrs May is not uniquely bad but she was tested early, gave in to temptation and suffered an especially severe fall.
Good comment, however I would say Mrs May was tested late on a major character issue that only became apparent after she became PM. She can't cope at all with situations she doesn't control. Arguably this should preclude her from politics entirely but it certainly makes her unsuitable to be prime minister of a divided country implementing the biggest structural change the country has seen in recent times, and where others mostly decide what's possible.
Home Secretary is mostly about stopping bad things happen so her need to control helped her there
I always thought she was rubbish in her six years at the Home Office. She achieved nothing there.
Apart from upsetting the police and, IIRC, the firemen. Among others.
Can you name any Home/Education/Health Sec who hasn't annoyed the producer interest groups - it is their job to look out for the consumers!
There are times when you have no choice but to upset people. But, one should avoid doing it needlessly. And one should choose one's enemies with care. It's fine to piss off groups like the NUT. One should avoid pissing off sensible teachers like Ydoethur.
I don't disagree. Her performance as Home Sec flattered to deceive her potential as a PM. TBF it deceived an awful lot of people and not just Tory loyalists. We are where we are and the biggest danger right now which is getting very little scrutiny here is this sort of thing;
The Mail are very persuasive when they have chosen a group to demonize. This time the hard left in Berger's constituency and by implication Corbnyn McDonnell Momentum and the hard left in the Labour Party.
Unfortunately there's too much of a ring of truth and this unlike Corbyn meeting terrorist leaders is going to be his achilles heel
And you will go on seeing them as long as TMay clings onto power.
Unless her numbers change - but you've discounted that, haven't you?
Oh well, two years of 'Theresa May is Rubbish.com' it is then.
I expect you and TSE will enjoy yourselves, at least.....
So you think she has some merits apart from just being a Tory? She's like IDS except she's proved her total electoral ineptness.
She is Prime Minister - and probably will be for another 2 years or more.
Get over it.
I fear for the future of the UK as never before should the Corbyn agenda prevail.
But that's the point - it will be the UK......whatever her overall 'disaster' (sic) May's GE has seen off the SNP in Scotland - down to Davidson - the narrative of 'inevitable momentum' is dead - and in 20 years time that may well be seen as the most significant impact of this election. Not Blair, not Brown, not Cameron - but whisper it quietly - possibly May - has (inadvertently) killed nationalism in our lifetimes....
You are probably right with respect to Scotland (i.e. the unity of GB has been strengthened), but the future of the 6 counties within the UK has become much more tenuous following the Brexit/NI assembly/GE votes there in the last 13 months. The SNP are a busted flush, but SF have been invigorated.
The DUP has won both elections in NI this year, the SNP has fallen to its lowest voteshare for 10 years, this year has given a big boost to the Union
Sinn Fein have been invigorated, but they're a long way from a path to victory, and bereft of a strategy.
oh for the fun days of tarring and feathering women coming back
Andrew Marr just got Angela Rayner to admit that Corbyn's promise to pay off student debt was another misleading statement by him. The cost apparently is an eye watering 100 billion.
I suspect she had no problem admitting it. Rayner is an interesting one. She has also gone head to head with McDonnell:
She is one of the very few in Labour right now whose position is strong enough to allow her to do that without fear of retribution. She's worth keeping an eye on.
Andrew Marr just got Angela Rayner to admit that Corbyn's promise to pay off student debt was another misleading statement by him. The cost apparently is an eye watering 100 billion.
The real **** hits the fan when/if Corbyn gets into power, and he'll have to implement his stuff. Lots of angry Corbynites
It is a bit tiresome seeing the same thing repeated all over again.
The issue is not that May is terrible - it is that the anti-Brexit crowd realise that the easiest way to avoid Brexit is if she can somehow be replaced with a remainer. OK, we get it, you don't like hard Brexit. But at the moment it is wish-fulfilment masquerading as analysis.
And you will go on seeing them as long as TMay clings onto power.
Explain her dire personal poll ratings then.
She's a broken reed. Only the absence of an obvious successor is keeping her in place.
Surely Hammond is the obvious successor? I think the problem he - and anyone else for that matter - has is that May has just won most seats in a GE. It would have been odd if Cameron had been overthrown for a similar set of numbers in 2015.
I know that it's all about expectations on this site, but it isn't like that in the real world. This is a bit of a problem for the Tories. They think their leader is rubbish but she's just racked up more votes than any Tory leader in over 25 years. It would only make sense for someone to overthrow her if they had the guts to have another election in the autumn.
Hammond as PM would simply be May without the charisma.
He has a degree of realism about Brexit, unlike May. That's a problem amongst elements of his party that don't share his realism. On the other hand Brexit is the looming issue that's going to hit in 18 months time.
Why don't some of you Theresa may haters on here that the real reason you want rid is about leaving the EU.
Theresa may in some eyes on here represents hard brexit or even just leaving the EU and must go now.
She is basically IDS With a Fanny but getting rid of her wouldn't stop hard Brexit as we'd just get #DD4PM.
It's a more interesting topic than this ding dong.
Theresa May became PM a year ago to near universal acclaim. She was apparently the only grown up left standing whose reputation had not been destroyed by the disastrous referendum. Even those who held no special brief for her - George Osborne included - were saying she was the right, indeed only, choice to be PM. She must have had positive qualities (and luck) to have carried her as far as she had come. It is shallow and stupid to conclude that she is just "rubbish".
What has happened illustrates that the premiership is an order of magnitude leap from any other job in cabinet. Events, in Macmillan's immortal phrase, will seek out the individual's peculiar weaknesses and these will be the cause of his or her downfall. May was cold, controlling uncommunicative and unstrategic, Cameron was complacent and arrogamt, Brown an anti-social control freak, Blair a case of a messiah complex ... All of us must expect to be be found out if tested severly enough.
Mrs May is not uniquely bad but she was tested early, gave in to temptation and suffered an especially severe fall.
Good comment, however I would say Mrs May was tested late on a major character issue that only became apparent after she became PM. She can't cope at all with situations she doesn't control. Arguably this should preclude her from politics entirely but it certainly makes her unsuitable to be prime minister of a divided country implementing the biggest structural change the country has seen in recent times, and where others mostly decide what's possible.
Home Secretary is mostly about stopping bad things happen so her need to control helped her there
I always thought she was rubbish in her six years at the Home Office. She achieved nothing there.
Apart from upsetting the police and, IIRC, the firemen. Among others.
Can you name any Home/Education/Health Sec who hasn't annoyed the producer interest groups - it is their job to look out for the consumers!
Looking out for the consumer does no involve rendering the service they use unfit for purpose.
And what happens if the service is already unfit for purpose ?
I suspect that a Home Secretary might have her views on the police changed when those same police are engaged in criminal conspiracies against a fellow cabinet minister.
Andrew Marr just got Angela Rayner to admit that Corbyn's promise to pay off student debt was another misleading statement by him. The cost apparently is an eye watering 100 billion.
The real **** hits the fan when/if Corbyn gets into power, and he'll have to implement his stuff. Lots of angry Corbynites
Andrew Marr just got Angela Rayner to admit that Corbyn's promise to pay off student debt was another misleading statement by him. The cost apparently is an eye watering 100 billion.
You would think with this guy on the way to government that we would be looking more on his policies.
Andrew Marr just got Angela Rayner to admit that Corbyn's promise to pay off student debt was another misleading statement by him. The cost apparently is an eye watering 100 billion.
The real **** hits the fan when/if Corbyn gets into power, and he'll have to implement his stuff. Lots of angry Corbynites
Interesting analysis on my old committee, worthy of PB. Nicky Morgan and JRM sound like the really obvious favourites. (The candidates are all Tories because the parties divvy up the Select Committee chairs.)
It is a bit tiresome seeing the same thing repeated all over again.
The issue is not that May is terrible - it is that the anti-Brexit crowd realise that the easiest way to avoid Brexit is if she can somehow be replaced with a remainer. OK, we get it, you don't like hard Brexit. But at the moment it is wish-fulfilment masquerading as analysis.
And you will go on seeing them as long as TMay clings onto power.
Explain her dire personal poll ratings then.
She's a broken reed. Only the absence of an obvious successor is keeping her in place.
Surely Hammond is the obvious successor? I think the problem he - and anyone else for that matter - has is that May has just won most seats in a GE. It would have been odd if Cameron had been overthrown for a similar set of numbers in 2015.
I know that it's all about expectations on this site, but it isn't like that in the real world. This is a bit of a problem for the Tories. They think their leader is rubbish but she's just racked up more votes than any Tory leader in over 25 years. It would only make sense for someone to overthrow her if they had the guts to have another election in the autumn.
Hammond as PM would simply be May without the charisma.
He has a degree of realism about Brexit, unlike May. That's a problem amongst elements of his party that don't share his realism. On the other hand Brexit is the looming issue that's going to hit in 18 months time.
Why don't some of you Theresa may haters on here that the real reason you want rid is about leaving the EU.
Theresa may in some eyes on here represents hard brexit or even just leaving the EU and must go now.
To some extent you are right. I find it strange that losing her majority seems to have strengthened her resolve towards hard Brexit Perhaps if she took on a more conciliatory tone she would be taken more seriously.
It is also clear from the election and beyond that she appears to have absolutely no grasp of pragmatism or even common-sense, hence her stock continues to fall.
And you will go on seeing them as long as TMay clings onto power.
Unless her numbers change - but you've discounted that, haven't you?
Oh well, two years of 'Theresa May is Rubbish.com' it is then.
I expect you and TSE will enjoy yourselves, at least.....
So you think she has some merits apart from just being a Tory? She's like IDS except she's proved her total electoral ineptness.
She is Prime Minister - and probably will be for another 2 years or more.
Get over it.
I fear for the future of the UK as never before should the Corbyn agenda prevail.
But that's the point - it will be the UK......whatever her overall 'disaster' (sic) May's GE has seen off the SNP in Scotland - down to Davidson - the narrative of 'inevitable momentum' is dead - and in 20 years time that may well be seen as the most significant impact of this election. Not Blair, not Brown, not Cameron - but whisper it quietly - possibly May - has (inadvertently) killed nationalism in our lifetimes....
You are probably right with respect to Scotland (i.e. the unity of GB has been strengthened), but the future of the 6 counties within the UK has become much more tenuous following the Brexit/NI assembly/GE votes there in the last 13 months. The SNP are a busted flush, but SF have been invigorated.
The DUP has won both elections in NI this year, the SNP has fallen to its lowest voteshare for 10 years, this year has given a big boost to the Union
Sinn Fein have been invigorated, but they're a long way from a path to victory, and bereft of a strategy.
Sinn Fein clearly were hoping to come firsr in NI in the Assembly elections this year and the general election, they failed on both occasions even if they improved their performance. Their strategy now seems to be refuse to powershare with the DUP despite their being no alternative to take Stormont forward
Andrew Marr just got Angela Rayner to admit that Corbyn's promise to pay off student debt was another misleading statement by him. The cost apparently is an eye watering 100 billion.
You would think with this guy on the way to government that we would be looking more on his policies.
There has been more discussion on Corbyn's zany economics since the election than anything during the campaign. That in itself is remarkable
I find it strange that losing her majority seems to have strengthened her resolve towards hard Brexit Perhaps if she took on a more conciliatory tone she would be taken more seriously.
Moderates aren't daft enough (yet) to topple her and let Corbyn take over.
She has to keep appeasing the headbangers. They know Corbyn's Brexit would be absolute, so they wouldn't mind him delivering it.
It is a bit tiresome seeing the same thing repeated all over again.
The issue is not that May is terrible - it is that the anti-Brexit crowd realise that the easiest way to avoid Brexit is if she can somehow be replaced with a remainer. OK, we get it, you don't like hard Brexit. But at the moment it is wish-fulfilment masquerading as analysis.
And you will go on seeing them as long as TMay clings onto power.
Explain her dire personal poll ratings then.
She's a broken reed. Only the absence of an obvious successor is keeping her in place.
Surely Hammond is the obvious successor? I think the problem he - and anyone else for that matter - has is that May has just won most seats in a GE. It would have been odd if Cameron had been overthrown for a similar set of numbers in 2015.
I know that it's all about expectations on this site, but it isn't like that in the real world. This is a bit of a problem for the Tories. They think their leader is rubbish but she's just racked up more votes than any Tory leader in over 25 years. It would only make sense for someone to overthrow her if they had the guts to have another election in the autumn.
Hammond as PM would simply be May without the charisma.
He has a degree of realism about Brexit, unlike May. That's a problem amongst elements of his party that don't share his realism. On the other hand Brexit is the looming issue that's going to hit in 18 months time.
Why don't some of you Theresa may haters on here that the real reason you want rid is about leaving the EU.
Theresa may in some eyes on here represents hard brexit or even just leaving the EU and must go now.
She is basically IDS With a Fanny but getting rid of her wouldn't stop hard Brexit as we'd just get #DD4PM.
She's a thousand miles better than IDS but her judgement over Brexit was the same as his and that's why she's damaged beyond repair
It's a more interesting topic than this ding dong.
Theresa "rubbish".
What has happened illustrates that the premiership is an order of magnitude leap from any other job in cabinet. Events, in Macmillan's immortal phrase, will seek out the individual's peculiar weaknesses and these will be the cause of his or her downfall. May was cold, controlling uncommunicative and unstrategic,
Mrs May is not uniquely bad but she was tested early, gave in to temptation and suffered an especially severe fall.
Good comment, however I would say Mrs May was tested late on a major character issue that only became apparent after she became PM. She can't cope at all with situations she doesn't control. Arguably this should preclude her from politics entirely but it certainly makes her unsuitable to be prime minister of a divided country implementing the biggest structural change the country has seen in recent times, and where others mostly decide what's possible.
Home Secretary is mostly about stopping bad things happen so her need to control helped her there
I always thought she was rubbish in her six years at the Home Office. She achieved nothing there.
Apart from upsetting the police and, IIRC, the firemen. Among others.
Can you name any Home/Education/Health Sec who hasn't annoyed the producer interest groups - it is their job to look out for the consumers!
There are times when you have no choice but to upset people. But, one should avoid doing it needlessly. And one should choose one's enemies with care. It's fine to piss off groups like the NUT. One should avoid pissing off sensible teachers like Ydoethur.
I don't disagree. Her performance as Home Sec flattered to deceive her potential as a PM. TBF it deceived an awful lot of people and not just Tory loyalists. We are where we are and the biggest danger right now which is getting very little scrutiny here is this sort of thing;
Labour's obsession with ensuring it never wins an election again is hugely damaging to the country as it means the worst government in British history essentially gets no opposition. But given that Labour is ensuring the Tories will retain power, surely what they are doing with this power is of much more importance.
I find it strange that losing her majority seems to have strengthened her resolve towards hard Brexit Perhaps if she took on a more conciliatory tone she would be taken more seriously.
Moderates aren't daft enough (yet) to topple her and let Corbyn take over.
She has to keep appeasing the headbangers. They know Corbyn's Brexit would be absolute, so they wouldn't mind him delivering it.
Not sure that the headbangers are ready to lose their own seats in an early election
I find it strange that losing her majority seems to have strengthened her resolve towards hard Brexit Perhaps if she took on a more conciliatory tone she would be taken more seriously.
Moderates aren't daft enough (yet) to topple her and let Corbyn take over.
She has to keep appeasing the headbangers. They know Corbyn's Brexit would be absolute, so they wouldn't mind him delivering it.
Not sure that the headbangers are ready to lose their own seats in an early election
It's a more interesting topic than this ding dong.
Theresa "rubbish".
What has happened illustrates that the premiership is an order of magnitude leap from any other job in cabinet. Events, in Macmillan's immortal phrase, will seek out the individual's peculiar weaknesses and these will be the cause of his or her downfall. May was cold, controlling uncommunicative and unstrategic,
Mrs May is not uniquely bad but she was tested early, gave in to temptation and suffered an especially severe fall.
Good comment, however I would say Mrs May was tested late on a major character issue that only became apparent after she became PM. She can't cope at all with situations she doesn't control. Arguably this should preclude her from politics entirely but it certainly makes her unsuitable to be prime minister of a divided country implementing the biggest structural change the country has seen in recent times, and where others mostly decide what's possible.
Home Secretary is mostly about stopping bad things happen so her need to control helped her there
I always thought she was rubbish in her six years at the Home Office. She achieved nothing there.
Apart from upsetting the police and, IIRC, the firemen. Among others.
Can you name any Home/Education/Health Sec who hasn't annoyed the producer interest groups - it is their job to look out for the consumers!
There are times when you have no choice but to upset people. But, one should avoid doing it needlessly. And one should choose one's enemies with care. It's fine to piss off groups like the NUT. One should avoid pissing off sensible teachers like Ydoethur.
I don't disagree. Her performance as Home Sec flattered to deceive her potential as a PM. TBF it deceived an awful lot of people and not just Tory loyalists. We are where we are and the biggest danger right now which is getting very little scrutiny here is this sort of thing;
Labour's obsession with ensuring it never wins an election again is hugely damaging to the country as it means the worst government in British history essentially gets no opposition. But given that Labour is ensuring the Tories will retain power, surely what they are doing with this power is of much more importance.
Andrew Marr just got Angela Rayner to admit that Corbyn's promise to pay off student debt was another misleading statement by him. The cost apparently is an eye watering 100 billion.
No, £100 billion is the outstanding debt. Most of which will never be repaid, and the rest will be repaid over many years.
It is a bit tiresome seeing the same thing repeated all over again.
The issue is not that May is terrible - it is that the anti-Brexit crowd realise that the easiest way to avoid Brexit is if she can somehow be replaced with a remainer. OK, we get it, you don't like hard Brexit. But at the moment it is wish-fulfilment masquerading as analysis.
And you will go on seeing them as long as TMay clings onto power.
Explain her dire personal poll ratings then.
She's a broken reed. Only the absence of an obvious successor is keeping her in place.
Surely Hammond is the obvious successor? I think the problem he - and anyone else for that matter - has is that May has just won most seats in a GE. It would have been odd if Cameron had been overthrown for a similar set of numbers in 2015.
I know that it's all about expectations on this site, but it isn't like that in the real world. This is a bit of a problem for the Tories. They think their leader is rubbish but she's just racked up more votes than any Tory leader in over 25 years. It would only make sense for someone to overthrow her if they had the guts to have another election in the autumn.
Hammond as PM would simply be May without the charisma.
He has a degree of realism about Brexit, unlike May. That's a problem amongst elements of his party that don't share his realism. On the other hand Brexit is the looming issue that's going to hit in 18 months time.
Why don't some of you Theresa may haters on here that the real reason you want rid is about leaving the EU.
Theresa may in some eyes on here represents hard brexit or even just leaving the EU and must go now.
I think you're right. If you piss off nearly 50% of the electorate a lot of whom would be natural Tory supporters it's not smart.
Andrew Marr just got Angela Rayner to admit that Corbyn's promise to pay off student debt was another misleading statement by him. The cost apparently is an eye watering 100 billion.
No, £100 billion is the outstanding debt. Most of which will never be repaid, and the rest will be repaid over many years.
But Corbyn promised to pay it all off and that is the point
FWIW, I think May has been oversold, and her ratings will recover a bit. The normal opponents to any Tory PM have been reinforced by Tories who are shocked that she didn't win plus Tories who rather fancy being PM themselves, so there's a broad spectrum of the political world that has a reason to rubbish her. She's only a moderately competent commuinicator but she doesn't keep making Boris-like gaffes and in quiet times she'd make a adequate administrator.
The problems for her, and Britain, are (a) these are not quiet times and we need a Government with a clear direction on Bexit, which we don't appear to have and (b) she leads a party which has no obvious agreed purpose except a dislike of Jeremy Corbyn, which is not proving sufficient to win a majority. Both are serious snags, and if the Conservatives had a candidate who could answer both points they should switch to him or her at once. Since they apparently don't, they may as well stumble on with May.
Interesting analysis on my old committee, worthy of PB. Nicky Morgan and JRM sound like the really obvious favourites. (The candidates are all Tories because the parties divvy up the Select Committee chairs.)
Surely Rees-Mogg is hopelessly compromised if he is still active in the hedge fund he runs (in such an anti-establishment way :-D). Would any opposition MPs outside the DUP and a few of the pro-Brexit Labour MPs, like Corbyn and McDonnell, back him?
Andrew Marr just got Angela Rayner to admit that Corbyn's promise to pay off student debt was another misleading statement by him. The cost apparently is an eye watering 100 billion.
No, £100 billion is the outstanding debt. Most of which will never be repaid, and the rest will be repaid over many years.
If you write it off then it comes due now (or has to be refinanced)
Andrew Marr just got Angela Rayner to admit that Corbyn's promise to pay off student debt was another misleading statement by him. The cost apparently is an eye watering 100 billion.
No, £100 billion is the outstanding debt. Most of which will never be repaid, and the rest will be repaid over many years.
If you write it off then it comes due now (or has to be refinanced)
or you treat it as a balance sheet item and write it off
And you will go on seeing them as long as TMay clings onto power.
Unless her numbers change - but you've discounted that, haven't you?
Oh well, two years of 'Theresa May is Rubbish.com' it is then.
I expect you and TSE will enjoy yourselves, at least.....
So you think she has some merits apart from just being a Tory? She's like IDS except she's proved her total electoral ineptness.
She is Prime Minister - and probably will be for another 2 years or more.
Get over it.
I fear for the future of the UK as never before should the Corbyn agenda prevail.
But that's the point - it will be the UK......whatever her overall 'disaster' (sic) May's GE has seen off the SNP in Scotland - down to Davidson - the narrative of 'inevitable momentum' is dead - and in 20 years time that may well be seen as the most significant impact of this election. Not Blair, not Brown, not Cameron - but whisper it quietly - possibly May - has (inadvertently) killed nationalism in our lifetimes....
You are probably right with respect to Scotland (i.e. the unity of GB has been strengthened), but the future of the 6 counties within the UK has become much more tenuous following the Brexit/NI assembly/GE votes there in the last 13 months. The SNP are a busted flush, but SF have been invigorated.
The DUP has won both elections in NI this year, the SNP has fallen to its lowest voteshare for 10 years, this year has given a big boost to the Union
Since you appear to think it's an important metric, the SNP has won both elections in Scotland this year.
Debbie Abrahams getting roasted by Sophy Ridge on labour's spending pledges. If I was a labour supporter I would be hiding behind the sofa. Absolute car crash and excellent interview technique by Sophy
FWIW, I think May has been oversold, and her ratings will recover a bit. The normal opponents to any Tory PM have been reinforced by Tories who are shocked that she didn't win plus Tories who rather fancy being PM themselves, so there's a broad spectrum of the political world that has a reason to rubbish her. She's only a moderately competent commuinicator but she doesn't keep making Boris-like gaffes and in quiet times she'd make a adequate administrator.
The problems for her, and Britain, are (a) these are not quiet times and we need a Government with a clear direction on Bexit, which we don't appear to have and (b) she leads a party which has no obvious agreed purpose except a dislike of Jeremy Corbyn, which is not proving sufficient to win a majority. Both are serious snags, and if the Conservatives had a candidate who could answer both points they should switch to him or her at once. Since they apparently don't, they may as well stumble on with May.
It is a bit tiresome seeing the same thing repeated all over again.
The issue is not that May is terrible - it is that the anti-Brexit crowd realise that the easiest way to avoid Brexit is if she can somehow be replaced with a remainer. OK, we get it, you don't like hard Brexit. But at the moment it is wish-fulfilment masquerading as analysis.
And you will go on seeing them as long as TMay clings onto power.
Explain her dire personal poll ratings then.
She's a broken reed. Only the absence of an obvious successor is keeping her in place.
Surely Hammond is the obvious successor? I think the problem he - and anyone else for that matter - has is that May has just won most seats in a GE. It would have been odd if Cameron had been overthrown for a similar set of numbers in 2015.
I know that it's all about expectations on this site, but it isn't like that in the real world. This is a bit of a problem for the Tories. They think their leader is rubbish but she's just racked up more votes than any Tory leader in over 25 years. It would only make sense for someone to overthrow her if they had the guts to have another election in the autumn.
Hammond as PM would simply be May without the charisma.
He has a degree of realism about Brexit, unlike May. That's a problem amongst elements of his party that don't share his realism. On the other hand Brexit is the looming issue that's going to hit in 18 months time.
Why don't some of you Theresa may haters on here that the real reason you want rid is about leaving the EU.
Theresa may in some eyes on here represents hard brexit or even just leaving the EU and must go now.
I think you're right. If you piss off nearly 50% of the electorate a lot of whom would be natural Tory supporters it's not smart.
Some of these natural tory supporters wanted her as leader but I'm sure she will try bring both sides together,it depends on how hardball the EU wants to be.
And you will go on seeing them as long as TMay clings onto power.
Unless her numbers change - but you've discounted that, haven't you?
Oh well, two years of 'Theresa May is Rubbish.com' it is then.
I expect you and TSE will enjoy yourselves, at least.....
So you think she has some merits apart from just being a Tory? She's like IDS except she's proved her total electoral ineptness.
What an absurd comment. May won 42% of the vote and 318 seats, apart from Cameron no Tory leader has got anywhere near that since Thatcher and Major
Do you really believe that under the circumstances that was an achievment?
She was clearly hoping for better but ran a far too risky manifesto with the Dementia Tax and ending free school meals and the triple lock etc which she has now sensibly dumped
Interesting analysis on my old committee, worthy of PB. Nicky Morgan and JRM sound like the really obvious favourites. (The candidates are all Tories because the parties divvy up the Select Committee chairs.)
Surely Rees-Mogg is hopelessly compromised if he is still active in the hedge fund he runs (in such an anti-establishment way :-D). Would any opposition MPs outside the DUP and a few of the pro-Brexit Labour MPs, like Corbyn and McDonnell, back him?
Don't believe he has any involvement in Somerset Capital any more.
It's a more interesting topic than this ding dong.
Theresa May became PM a year ago to near universal acclaim. She was apparently the only grown up left standing whose reputation had not been destroyed by the disastrous referendum. Even those who held no special brief for her - George Osborne included - were saying she was the right, indeed only, choice to be PM. She must have had positive qualities (and luck) to have carried her as far as she had come. It is shallow and stupid to conclude that she is just "rubbish".
What has happened illustrates that the premiership is an order of magnitude leap from any other job in cabinet. Events, in Macmillan's immortal phrase, will seek out the individual's peculiar weaknesses and these will be the cause of his or her downfall. May was cold, controlling uncommunicative and unstrategic, Cameron was complacent and arrogamt, Brown an anti-social control freak, Blair a case of a messiah complex ... All of us must expect to be be found out if tested severly enough.
Mrs May is not uniquely bad but she was tested early, gave in to temptation and suffered an especially severe fall.
Good comment, however I would say Mrs May was tested late on a major character issue that only became apparent after she became PM. She can't cope at all with situations she doesn't control. Arguably this should preclude her from politics entirely but it certainly makes her unsuitable to be prime minister of a divided country implementing the biggest structural change the country has seen in recent times, and where others mostly decide what's possible.
Home Secretary is mostly about stopping bad things happen so her need to control helped her there
I always thought she was rubbish in her six years at the Home Office. She achieved nothing there.
Apart from upsetting the police and, IIRC, the firemen. Among others.
Can you name any Home/Education/Health Sec who hasn't annoyed the producer interest groups - it is their job to look out for the consumers!
Looking out for the consumer does no involve rendering the service they use unfit for purpose.
And what happens if the service is already unfit for purpose ?
I suspect that a Home Secretary might have her views on the police changed when those same police are engaged in criminal conspiracies against a fellow cabinet minister.
Perhaps. But only a small minority of the public are hostile to the police, and that minority is not going to vote Conservative.
After this year's events, most people see them as their last line of defence against the animals.
Andrew Marr just got Angela Rayner to admit that Corbyn's promise to pay off student debt was another misleading statement by him. The cost apparently is an eye watering 100 billion.
No, £100 billion is the outstanding debt. Most of which will never be repaid, and the rest will be repaid over many years.
But Corbyn promised to pay it all off and that is the point
That is not the point if you want to know how much the policy will cost rather than what is the biggest number you can get into a headline. It is like after the bank nationalisations which were going to cost trillions of pounds -- but only if every single derivative contract went against the banks, which was impossible.
The current tuition fee and debt system is good for the universities and should be defended as such, but depending on what assumptions are made about repayment rates, it might actually be more expensive than the old grants system.
And you will go on seeing them as long as TMay clings onto power.
Unless her numbers change - but you've discounted that, haven't you?
Oh well, two years of 'Theresa May is Rubbish.com' it is then.
I expect you and TSE will enjoy yourselves, at least.....
So you think she has some merits apart from just being a Tory? She's like IDS except she's proved her total electoral ineptness.
She is Prime Minister - and probably will be for another 2 years or more.
Get over it.
I fear for the future of the UK as never before should the Corbyn agenda prevail.
But that's the point - it will be the UK......whatever her overall 'disaster' (sic) May's GE has seen off the SNP in Scotland - down to Davidson - the narrative of 'inevitable momentum' is dead - and in 20 years time that may well be seen as the most significant impact of this election. Not Blair, not Brown, not Cameron - but whisper it quietly - possibly May - has (inadvertently) killed nationalism in our lifetimes....
You are probably right with respect to Scotland (i.e. the unity of GB has been strengthened), but the future of the 6 counties within the UK has become much more tenuous following the Brexit/NI assembly/GE votes there in the last 13 months. The SNP are a busted flush, but SF have been invigorated.
The DUP has won both elections in NI this year, the SNP has fallen to its lowest voteshare for 10 years, this year has given a big boost to the Union
Since you appear to think it's an important metric, the SNP has won both elections in Scotland this year.
Both with less than 40%, the latest figures from Yougov for Scotland give Labour 36%, SNP 31%, Tories 25%. Whatever else I may think of Corbyn he is clearly going to massacre the SNP in the central belt next time and that should finally kill off indyref2 for a generation, I now think Kezia Dugdale will be elected First Minister in 2021, which would be the first Unionist FM for 14 years
Andrew Marr just got Angela Rayner to admit that Corbyn's promise to pay off student debt was another misleading statement by him. The cost apparently is an eye watering 100 billion.
No, £100 billion is the outstanding debt. Most of which will never be repaid, and the rest will be repaid over many years.
But Corbyn promised to pay it all off and that is the point
That is not the point if you want to know how much the policy will cost rather than what is the biggest number you can get into a headline. It is like after the bank nationalisations which were going to cost trillions of pounds -- but only if every single derivative contract went against the banks, which was impossible.
The current tuition fee and debt system is good for the universities and should be defended as such, but depending on what assumptions are made about repayment rates, it might actually be more expensive than the old grants system.
The figure is not mine and was accepted by Angela Rayner
Interesting analysis on my old committee, worthy of PB. Nicky Morgan and JRM sound like the really obvious favourites. (The candidates are all Tories because the parties divvy up the Select Committee chairs.)
Surely Rees-Mogg is hopelessly compromised if he is still active in the hedge fund he runs (in such an anti-establishment way :-D). Would any opposition MPs outside the DUP and a few of the pro-Brexit Labour MPs, like Corbyn and McDonnell, back him?
Don't believe he has any involvement in Somerset Capital any more.
And you will go on seeing them as long as TMay clings onto power.
Unless her numbers change - but you've discounted that, haven't you?
Oh well, two years of 'Theresa May is Rubbish.com' it is then.
I expect you and TSE will enjoy yourselves, at least.....
So you think she has some merits apart from just being a Tory? She's like IDS except she's proved her total electoral ineptness.
She is Prime Minister - and probably will be for another 2 years or more.
Get over it.
I fear for the future of the UK as never before should the Corbyn agenda prevail.
But that's the point - it will be the UK......whatever her overall 'disaster' (sic) May's GE has seen off the SNP in Scotland - down to Davidson - the narrative of 'inevitable momentum' is dead - and in 20 years time that may well be seen as the most significant impact of this election. Not Blair, not Brown, not Cameron - but whisper it quietly - possibly May - has (inadvertently) killed nationalism in our lifetimes....
You are probably right with respect to Scotland (i.e. the unity of GB has been strengthened), but the future of the 6 counties within the UK has become much more tenuous following the Brexit/NI assembly/GE votes there in the last 13 months. The SNP are a busted flush, but SF have been invigorated.
The DUP has won both elections in NI this year, the SNP has fallen to its lowest voteshare for 10 years, this year has given a big boost to the Union
Since you appear to think it's an important metric, the SNP has won both elections in Scotland this year.
Both with less than 40%, the latest figures from Yougov for Scotland give Labour 36%, SNP 31%, Tories 25%. Whatever else I may think of Corbyn he is clearly going to massacre the SNP in the central belt next time and that should finally kill off indyref2 for a generation, I now think Kezia Dugdale will be elected First Minister in 2021, which would be the first Unionist FM for 14 years
What odds will you give me for a gentleman's bet on that?
Andrew Marr just got Angela Rayner to admit that Corbyn's promise to pay off student debt was another misleading statement by him. The cost apparently is an eye watering 100 billion.
No, £100 billion is the outstanding debt. Most of which will never be repaid, and the rest will be repaid over many years.
But Corbyn promised to pay it all off and that is the point
That is not the point if you want to know how much the policy will cost rather than what is the biggest number you can get into a headline. It is like after the bank nationalisations which were going to cost trillions of pounds -- but only if every single derivative contract went against the banks, which was impossible.
The current tuition fee and debt system is good for the universities and should be defended as such, but depending on what assumptions are made about repayment rates, it might actually be more expensive than the old grants system.
The current system does not work
the younger generaion is in for a double whammy
once when they get taxed for the "loan" after they graduate
secondly in later life when the loans arent repaid in 30 years time and the bill gets dumped on their generation to pick up the tab
And you will go on seeing them as long as TMay clings onto power.
Unless her numbers change - but you've discounted that, haven't you?
Oh well, two years of 'Theresa May is Rubbish.com' it is then.
I expect you and TSE will enjoy yourselves, at least.....
So you think she has some merits apart from just being a Tory? She's like IDS except she's proved her total electoral ineptness.
She is Prime Minister - and probably will be for another 2 years or more.
Get over it.
I fear for the future of the UK as never before should the Corbyn agenda prevail.
But that's the point - it will be the UK......whatever n, not Cameron - but whisper it quietly - possibly May - has (inadvertently) killed nationalism in our lifetimes....
You are probably right with respect to Scotland (i.e. the unity of GB has been strengthened), but the future of the 6 counties within the UK has become much more tenuous following the Brexit/NI assembly/GE votes there in the last 13 months. The SNP are a busted flush, but SF have been invigorated.
The DUP has won both elections in NI this year, the SNP has fallen to its lowest voteshare for 10 years, this year has given a big boost to the Union
Since you appear to think it's an important metric, the SNP has won both elections in Scotland this year.
Both with less than 40%, the latest figures from Yougov for Scotland give Labour 36%, SNP 31%, Tories 25%. Whatever else I may think of Corbyn he is clearly going to massacre the SNP in the central belt next time and that should finally kill off indyref2 for a generation, I now think Kezia Dugdale will be elected First Minister in 2021, which would be the first Unionist FM for 14 years
What odds will you give me for a gentleman's bet on that?
Andrew Marr just got Angela Rayner to admit that Corbyn's promise to pay off student debt was another misleading statement by him. The cost apparently is an eye watering 100 billion.
No, £100 billion is the outstanding debt. Most of which will never be repaid, and the rest will be repaid over many years.
If you write it off then it comes due now (or has to be refinanced)
or you treat it as a balance sheet item and write it off
Some of the debt the government would need to buy back from investors, which would be a cash item.
I don't know the details of how government accounting works (it's even weirder than bank or insurance accounting) but presumably they can't just write it off without accounting for the liability somewhere
It is a bit tiresome seeing the same thing repeated all over again.
The issue is not that May is terrible - it is that the anti-Brexit crowd realise that the easiest way to avoid Brexit is if she can somehow be replaced with a remainer. OK, we get it, you don't like hard Brexit. But at the moment it is wish-fulfilment masquerading as analysis.
And you will go on seeing them as long as TMay clings onto power.
Explain her dire personal poll ratings then.
She's a broken reed. Only the absence of an obvious successor is keeping her in place.
Surely Hammond is the obvious successor? I think the problem he - and anyone else for that matter - has is that May has just won most seats in a GE. It would have been odd if Cameron had been overthrown for a similar set of numbers in 2015.
I know that it's all about expectations on this site, but it isn't like that in the real world. This is a bit of a problem for the Tories. They think their leader is rubbish but she's just racked up more votes than any Tory leader in over 25 years. It would only make sense for someone to overthrow her if they had the guts to have another election in the autumn.
Hammond as PM would simply be May without the charisma.
He has a degree of realism about Brexit, unlike May. That's a problem amongst elements of his party that don't share his realism. On the other hand Brexit is the looming issue that's going to hit in 18 months time.
Why don't some of you Theresa may haters on here that the real reason you want rid is about leaving the EU.
Theresa may in some eyes on here represents hard brexit or even just leaving the EU and must go now.
I think you're right. If you piss off nearly 50% of the electorate a lot of whom would be natural Tory supporters it's not smart.
Some of these natural tory supporters wanted her as leader but I'm sure she will try bring both sides together,it depends on how hardball the EU wants to be.
I think it's time for you Faragists to dry your eyes an accept the inevitable. Brexit isn't happening. My only sadness is that the leaders of the movement aren't being put up against a wall and shot.
And you will go on seeing them as long as TMay clings onto power.
Unless her numbers change - but you've discounted that, haven't you?
Oh well, two years of 'Theresa May is Rubbish.com' it is then.
I expect you and TSE will enjoy yourselves, at least.....
So you think she has some merits apart from just being a Tory? She's like IDS except she's proved her total electoral ineptness.
She is Prime Minister - and probably will be for another 2 years or more.
Get over it.
I fear for the future of the UK as never before should the Corbyn agenda prevail.
But that's the point - it will be the UK......whatever n, not Cameron - but whisper it quietly - possibly May - has (inadvertently) killed nationalism in our lifetimes....
You are probably right with respect to Scotland (i.e. the unity of GB has been strengthened), but the future of the 6 counties within the UK has become much more tenuous following the Brexit/NI assembly/GE votes there in the last 13 months. The SNP are a busted flush, but SF have been invigorated.
The DUP has won both elections in NI this year, the SNP has fallen to its lowest voteshare for 10 years, this year has given a big boost to the Union
Since you appear to think it's an important metric, the SNP has won both elections in Scotland this year.
Both with less than 40%, the latest figures from Yougov for Scotland give Labour 36%, SNP 31%, Tories 25%. Whatever else I may think of Corbyn he is clearly going to massacre the SNP in the central belt next time and that should finally kill off indyref2 for a generation, I now think Kezia Dugdale will be elected First Minister in 2021, which would be the first Unionist FM for 14 years
What odds will you give me for a gentleman's bet on that?
2/1
£30?
I promise I won't arb it with the 8/1 available with Lads.
1. I don't see how a Court can direct MP's to vote, or not to vote, in a particular manner.
2. If successful, then it must follow that Northern Irish MP's cannot participate in Parliament. That would seem to breach the principle of consent, which underpins the GFA, and would be highly discriminatory against Northern Ireland's voters.
Andrew Marr just got Angela Rayner to admit that Corbyn's promise to pay off student debt was another misleading statement by him. The cost apparently is an eye watering 100 billion.
No, £100 billion is the outstanding debt. Most of which will never be repaid, and the rest will be repaid over many years.
But Corbyn promised to pay it all off and that is the point
That is not the point if you want to know how much the policy will cost rather than what is the biggest number you can get into a headline. It is like after the bank nationalisations which were going to cost trillions of pounds -- but only if every single derivative contract went against the banks, which was impossible.
The current tuition fee and debt system is good for the universities and should be defended as such, but depending on what assumptions are made about repayment rates, it might actually be more expensive than the old grants system.
The current system does not work
the younger generaion is in for a double whammy
once when they get taxed for the "loan" after they graduate
secondly in later life when the loans arent repaid in 30 years time and the bill gets dumped on their generation to pick up the tab
I'm amazed as to how casually we're told "Don't worry about student loans as they'll get written off after 30 years".
If they get written off then someone's finances are going to take a hit.
I wouldn't be surprised if the 30 years time limit is steadily increased either.
Interesting analysis on my old committee, worthy of PB. Nicky Morgan and JRM sound like the really obvious favourites. (The candidates are all Tories because the parties divvy up the Select Committee chairs.)
Surely Rees-Mogg is hopelessly compromised if he is still active in the hedge fund he runs (in such an anti-establishment way :-D). Would any opposition MPs outside the DUP and a few of the pro-Brexit Labour MPs, like Corbyn and McDonnell, back him?
Don't believe he has any involvement in Somerset Capital any more.
Isn't he a director?
Member of the LLP, but can't penetrate beyond that without more hassle than it's worth on a Sunday morning
The Government should make repayment of Student Loans a pre tax expense (I don't think it is at the moment?). If the argument for fees is that a student is investing to achieve higher career pay then the only pay that should be taxed is that earned after repayment of the investment.
Amid all the talk about tuition fees creating a huge debt burden, the elephant in the room is the student debt caused by non-tuition loans. One consequence of the loan system is that student accommodation is of a far higher quality these days, because students don't need to actively seek out cheap accommodation and live frugally as might have been the case in the past.
And you will go on seeing them as long as TMay clings onto power.
Unless her numbers change - but you've discounted that, haven't you?
Oh well, two years of 'Theresa May is Rubbish.com' it is then.
I expect you and TSE will enjoy yourselves, at least.....
So you think she has some merits apart from just being a Tory? She's like IDS except she's proved her total electoral ineptness.
She is Prime Minister - and probably will be for another 2 years or more.
Get over it.
I fear for the future of the UK as never before should the Corbyn agenda prevail.
But that's the point - it will be the UK......whatever n, not Cameron - but whisper it quietly - possibly May - has (inadvertently) killed nationalism in our lifetimes....
You are probably right with respect to Scotland (i.e. the unity of GB has been strengthened), but the future of the 6 counties within the UK has become much more tenuous following the Brexit/NI assembly/GE votes there in the last 13 months. The SNP are a busted flush, but SF have been invigorated.
The DUP has won both elections in NI this year, the SNP has fallen to its lowest voteshare for 10 years, this year has given a big boost to the Union
Since you appear to think it's an important metric, the SNP has won both elections in Scotland this year.
Both with less than 40%, the latest figures from Yougov for Scotland give Labour 36%, SNP 31%, Tories 25%. Whatever else I may think of Corbyn he is clearly going to massacre the SNP in the central belt next time and that should finally kill off indyref2 for a generation, I now think Kezia Dugdale will be elected First Minister in 2021, which would be the first Unionist FM for 14 years
What odds will you give me for a gentleman's bet on that?
2/1
£30?
I promise I won't arb it with the 8/1 available with Lads.
£30 agreed though obviously no pay out either way until 2021
Andrew Marr just got Angela Rayner to admit that Corbyn's promise to pay off student debt was another misleading statement by him. The cost apparently is an eye watering 100 billion.
No, £100 billion is the outstanding debt. Most of which will never be repaid, and the rest will be repaid over many years.
But Corbyn promised to pay it all off and that is the point
That is not the point if you want to know how much the policy will cost rather than what is the biggest number you can get into a headline. It is like after the bank nationalisations which were going to cost trillions of pounds -- but only if every single derivative contract went against the banks, which was impossible.
The current tuition fee and debt system is good for the universities and should be defended as such, but depending on what assumptions are made about repayment rates, it might actually be more expensive than the old grants system.
The current system does not work
the younger generaion is in for a double whammy
once when they get taxed for the "loan" after they graduate
secondly in later life when the loans arent repaid in 30 years time and the bill gets dumped on their generation to pick up the tab
I'm amazed as to how casually we're told "Don't worry about student loans as they'll get written off after 30 years".
If they get written off then someone's finances are going to take a hit.
I wouldn't be surprised if the 30 years time limit is steadily increased either.
More likely is the loan books will be sold to some shysters at a discount who will then make graduates lives hell as they try to collect the debt
Andrew Marr just got Angela Rayner to admit that Corbyn's promise to pay off student debt was another misleading statement by him. The cost apparently is an eye watering 100 billion.
No, £100 billion is the outstanding debt. Most of which will never be repaid, and the rest will be repaid over many years.
But Corbyn promised to pay it all off and that is the point
That is not the point if you want to know how much the policy will cost rather than what is the biggest number you can get into a headline. It is like after the bank nationalisations which were going to cost trillions of pounds -- but only if every single derivative contract went against the banks, which was impossible.
The current tuition fee and debt system is good for the universities and should be defended as such, but depending on what assumptions are made about repayment rates, it might actually be more expensive than the old grants system.
The current system does not work
the younger generaion is in for a double whammy
once when they get taxed for the "loan" after they graduate
secondly in later life when the loans arent repaid in 30 years time and the bill gets dumped on their generation to pick up the tab
I'm amazed as to how casually we're told "Don't worry about student loans as they'll get written off after 30 years".
If they get written off then someone's finances are going to take a hit.
I wouldn't be surprised if the 30 years time limit is steadily increased either.
Exactly. And it's the same with the plan to use houses to fund social care. My biggest worry about May's plans as per the GE is what happens if house prices fall?
She was clearly hoping for better but ran a far too risky manifesto with the Dementia Tax and ending free school meals and the triple lock etc which she has now sensibly dumped
Interesting that as usual you witter on about vote shares and explain how May's result was better than Thatcher or Major's. Yes, two problems - elections under FPTP are won by getting bums on benches not by vote share (why not try a good proportional system ?)
On numbers of seats, May has done worse than Thatcher, Major and Cameron. Better than Hague and Howard I'll grant you but that's where we are setting the bar.
Then your ludicrous comment about the manifesto pledges. They were dumped because the DUP wanted them dumped as condition of the agreement. There was also the not insignificant notion that had May won a small majority there might have been enough rebels in her own party for the measures to have been lost on the floor of the Commons.
Andrew Marr just got Angela Rayner to admit that Corbyn's promise to pay off student debt was another misleading statement by him. The cost apparently is an eye watering 100 billion.
No, £100 billion is the outstanding debt. Most of which will never be repaid, and the rest will be repaid over many years.
If you write it off then it comes due now (or has to be refinanced)
or you treat it as a balance sheet item and write it off
Some of the debt the government would need to buy back from investors, which would be a cash item.
I don't know the details of how government accounting works (it's even weirder than bank or insurance accounting) but presumably they can't just write it off without accounting for the liability somewhere
do we actually have a national balance sheet ? I didnt think we have
Good comment, however I would say Mrs May was tested late on a major character issue that only became apparent after she became PM. She can't cope at all with situations she doesn't control. Arguably this should preclude her from politics entirely but it certainly makes her unsuitable to be prime minister of a divided country implementing the biggest structural change the country has seen in recent times, and where others mostly decide what's possible.
Home Secretary is mostly about stopping bad things happen so her need to control helped her there
I always thought she was rubbish in her six years at the Home Office. She achieved nothing there.
Apart from upsetting the police and, IIRC, the firemen. Among others.
Can you name any Home/Education/Health Sec who hasn't annoyed the producer interest groups - it is their job to look out for the consumers!
Looking out for the consumer does no involve rendering the service they use unfit for purpose.
And what happens if the service is already unfit for purpose ?
I suspect that a Home Secretary might have her views on the police changed when those same police are engaged in criminal conspiracies against a fellow cabinet minister.
Perhaps. But only a small minority of the public are hostile to the police, and that minority is not going to vote Conservative.
After this year's events, most people see them as their last line of defence against the animals.
I suspect there's a much larger number who are distrustful of the police and that many of them are potential Conservative voters.
1. I don't see how a Court can direct MP's to vote, or not to vote, in a particular manner.
2. If successful, then it must follow that Northern Irish MP's cannot participate in Parliament. That would seem to breach the principle of consent, which underpins the GFA, and would be highly discriminatory against Northern Ireland's voters.
Presumably also whilst the Government can seek to allocate additional funding to Northern Ireland, technically this can only be achieved with Parliamentary consent?
It is a bit tiresome seeing the same thing repeated all over again.
The issue is not that May is terrible - it is that the anti-Brexit crowd realise that the easiest way to avoid Brexit is if she can somehow be replaced with a remainer. OK, we get it, you don't like hard Brexit. But at the moment it is wish-fulfilment masquerading as analysis.
And you will go on seeing them as long as TMay clings onto power.
Explain her dire personal poll ratings then.
She's a broken reed. Only the absence of an obvious successor is keeping her in place.
Surely Hammond is the obvious successor? I think the problem he - and anyone else for that matter - utumn.
Hammond as PM would simply be May without the charisma.
He has a degree of realism about Brexit, unlike May. That's a problem amongst elements of his party that don't share his realism. On the other hand Brexit is the looming issue that's going to hit in 18 months time.
Why don't some of you Theresa may haters on here that the real reason you want rid is about leaving the EU.
Theresa may in some eyes on here represents hard brexit or even just leaving the EU and must go now.
I think you're right. If you piss off nearly 50% of the electorate a lot of whom would be natural Tory supporters it's not smart.
Some of these natural tory supporters wanted her as leader but I'm sure she will try bring both sides together,it depends on how hardball the EU wants to be.
I think it's time for you Faragists to dry your eyes an accept the inevitable. Brexit isn't happening. My only sadness is that the leaders of the movement aren't being put up against a wall and shot.
Of course if Brexit does not happen Farage would be back as UKIP leader quicker than Faragists can cry 'betrayal!'
It is a bit tiresome seeing the same thing repeated all over again.
The issue is not that May is terrible - it is that the anti-Brexit crowd realise that the easiest way to avoid Brexit is if she can somehow be replaced with a remainer. OK, we get it, you don't like hard Brexit. But at the moment it is wish-fulfilment masquerading as analysis.
And you will go on seeing them as long as TMay clings onto power.
Explain her dire personal poll ratings then.
She's a broken reed. Only the absence of an obvious successor is keeping her in place.
Surely Hammond is the obvious successor? I think the problem he - and anyone else for that matter - has is that May has just won most seats in a GE. It would have been odd if Cameron had been overthrown for a similar set of numbers in 2015.
I know that it's all about expectations on this site, but it isn't like that in the real world. This is a bit of a problem for the Tories. They think their leader is rubbish but she's just racked up more votes than any Tory leader in over 25 years. It would only make sense for someone to overthrow her if they had the guts to have another election in the autumn.
Hammond as PM would simply be May without the charisma.
He has a degree of realism about Brexit, unlike May. That's a problem amongst elements of his party that don't share his realism. On the other hand Brexit is the looming issue that's going to hit in 18 months time.
Why don't some of you Theresa may haters on here that the real reason you want rid is about leaving the EU.
Theresa may in some eyes on here represents hard brexit or even just leaving the EU and must go now.
I think you're right. If you piss off nearly 50% of the electorate a lot of whom would be natural Tory supporters it's not smart.
Some of these natural tory supporters wanted her as leader but I'm sure she will try bring both sides together,it depends on how hardball the EU wants to be.
I know the comedy of the headline was supposed to be Trump meeting Putin, but (aside from the obvious trolling), does Putin even have an approval rating?
Does anyone conduct opinion polls and ratings in countries that are not free and fair democracies (and if they did, what would be the point)?
She was clearly hoping for better but ran a far too risky manifesto with the Dementia Tax and ending free school meals and the triple lock etc which she has now sensibly dumped
Interesting that as usual you witter on about vote shares and explain how May's result was better than Thatcher or Major's. Yes, two problems - elections under FPTP are won by getting bums on benches not by vote share (why not try a good proportional system ?)
On numbers of seats, May has done worse than Thatcher, Major and Cameron. Better than Hague and Howard I'll grant you but that's where we are setting the bar.
Then your ludicrous comment about the manifesto pledges. They were dumped because the DUP wanted them dumped as condition of the agreement. There was also the not insignificant notion that had May won a small majority there might have been enough rebels in her own party for the measures to have been lost on the floor of the Commons.
May actually did better in terms of seats than Cameron 2010 too even if not Cameron 2015, she also did miles better than Major 1997 even if not Major 1992. So the Tories have only done better than May in seats once in 25 years.
May needed a majority to get through tough but arguably fiscally prudent measures, the electorate decided no so they went
Debbie Abrahams getting roasted by Sophy Ridge on labour's spending pledges. If I was a labour supporter I would be hiding behind the sofa. Absolute car crash and excellent interview technique by Sophy
Yes, apparently according to those who think like you, every interview with every Shadow Minister is a car crash yet Labour still got 40%.
As far as the Labour 2017 Manifesto is concerned, it was rejected by the electorate so to be honest it's not worth worrying about. Labour, and indeed all Opposition parties, have to go back to the beginning and re-think the policies.
There's nothing wrong with spending - the problem has always been on the income side of the balance sheet based on attitudes to taxation (primarily everyone else should pay more but not me).
As for manifesto pledges, given the Conservatives won the election (apparently) they can now go ahead and implement the new adult social care payment policy and see how much can be saved from ending free school meals.
Good comment, however I would say Mrs May was tested late on a major character issue that only became apparent after she became PM. She can't cope at all with situations she doesn't control. Arguably this should preclude her from politics entirely but it certainly makes her unsuitable to be prime minister of a divided country implementing the biggest structural change the country has seen in recent times, and where others mostly decide what's possible.
Home Secretary is mostly about stopping bad things happen so her need to control helped her there
I always thought she was rubbish in her six years at the Home Office. She achieved nothing there.
Apart from upsetting the police and, IIRC, the firemen. Among others.
Can you name any Home/Education/Health Sec who hasn't annoyed the producer interest groups - it is their job to look out for the consumers!
Looking out for the consumer does no involve rendering the service they use unfit for purpose.
And what happens if the service is already unfit for purpose ?
I suspect that a Home Secretary might have her views on the police changed when those same police are engaged in criminal conspiracies against a fellow cabinet minister.
Perhaps. But only a small minority of the public are hostile to the police, and that minority is not going to vote Conservative.
After this year's events, most people see them as their last line of defence against the animals.
I suspect there's a much larger number who are distrustful of the police and that many of them are potential Conservative voters.
I suspect that 'potential Conservative voters' trust the police in general but experience of, for example, individual traffic policemen, tends to mean that the same people distrust them in particular.
She was clearly hoping for better but ran a far too risky manifesto with the Dementia Tax and ending free school meals and the triple lock etc which she has now sensibly dumped
Interesting that as usual you witter on about vote shares and explain how May's result was better than Thatcher or Major's. Yes, two problems - elections under FPTP are won by getting bums on benches not by vote share (why not try a good proportional system ?)
On numbers of seats, May has done worse than Thatcher, Major and Cameron. Better than Hague and Howard I'll grant you but that's where we are setting the bar.
Then your ludicrous comment about the manifesto pledges. They were dumped because the DUP wanted them dumped as condition of the agreement. There was also the not insignificant notion that had May won a small majority there might have been enough rebels in her own party for the measures to have been lost on the floor of the Commons.
May actually did better in terms of seats than Cameron 2010 too even if not Cameron 2015, she also did miles better than Major 1997 even if not Major 1992. So the Tories have only done better than May in seats once in 25 years.
May needed a majority to get through tough but arguably fiscally prudent measures, the electorate decided no so they went
TMay called an unnecessary election in order to secure a bigger majority. She ended up without one at all. That says FAILURE. It also meant that she ceased to have a mandate for her Brexit strategy. She's more than a lame duck but a corpse blocking the road as a Speccie writer observed yesterday
It is a bit tiresome seeing the same thing repeated all over again.
The issue is not that May is terrible - it is that the anti-Brexit crowd realise that the easiest way to avoid Brexit is if she can somehow be replaced with a remainer. OK, we get it, you don't like hard Brexit. But at the moment it is wish-fulfilment masquerading as analysis.
And you will go on seeing them as long as TMay clings onto power.
Explain her dire personal poll ratings then.
She's a broken reed. Only the absence of an obvious successor is keeping her in place.
To some extent you are right. I find it strange that losing her majority seems to have strengthened her resolve towards hard Brexit Perhaps if she took on a more conciliatory tone she would be taken more seriously.
It is also clear from the election and beyond that she appears to have absolutely no grasp of pragmatism or even common-sense, hence her stock continues to fall.
She has shown a more conciliatory tone since the election. She stood up in front of the entire parliamentary party and said she has served the party since she is 14 and will go if they want her to. She removed her two top aides who were alleged to be too controlling. She has allowed a bigger role for Hammond and others.
The only thing she hasn't done is commit to staying in the single market. Why should she, when we have seen a return to a two party system only after both parties backed single market exit and Remainer parties stagnated? The issue is that Remainers interpret whatever happens as favouring staying involved with European integration.
Labour's poor polling against the Conservatives was supposedly due to Corbyn supporting hard Brexit. Then Labour's better polling against the Conservatives was due to May supporting hard Brexit. Bad economic data is because of Brexit. Good economic data is because we are still in the EU and still benefitting from it. Populism in other EU countries is bad for Brexit because they will give us a bad deal to stop others following. Populism declining in other EU countries is bad for Brexit as we are the odd ones out. In the end it just stops being credible.
Andrew Marr just got Angela Rayner to admit that Corbyn's promise to pay off student debt was another misleading statement by him. The cost apparently is an eye watering 100 billion.
No, £100 billion is the outstanding debt. Most of which will never be repaid, and the rest will be repaid over many years.
If you write it off then it comes due now (or has to be refinanced)
or you treat it as a balance sheet item and write it off
Some of the debt the government would need to buy back from investors, which would be a cash item.
I don't know the details of how government accounting works (it's even weirder than bank or insurance accounting) but presumably they can't just write it off without accounting for the liability somewhere
do we actually have a national balance sheet ? I didnt think we have
We have estimates of future liabilities - not sure if it is a "balance sheet" as you or I would recognise it.
But presumably if expectation of future income is reduced, then future liabilities would go up (in the way that adjustments to retirement age have an impact on some measure of future liabilities that gets published every so often)
Verstappen tip depends on rain (or enormous luck, but rain's likelier). The Williams drivers' bet(s) could come off either way, I think. The Williams was seriously unbalanced even in the dry.
She was clearly hoping for better but ran a far too risky manifesto with the Dementia Tax and ending free school meals and the triple lock etc which she has now sensibly dumped
Interesting that as usual you witter on about vote shares and explain how May's result was better than Thatcher or Major's. Yes, two problems - elections under FPTP are won by getting bums on benches not by vote share (why not try a good proportional system ?)
On numbers of seats, May has done worse than Thatcher, Major and Cameron. Better than Hague and Howard I'll grant you but that's where we are setting the bar.
Then your ludicrous comment about the manifesto pledges. They were dumped because the DUP wanted them dumped as condition of the agreement. There was also the not insignificant notion that had May won a small majority there might have been enough rebels in her own party for the measures to have been lost on the floor of the Commons.
May actually did better in terms of seats than Cameron 2010 too even if not Cameron 2015, she also did miles better than Major 1997 even if not Major 1992. So the Tories have only done better than May in seats once in 25 years.
May needed a majority to get through tough but arguably fiscally prudent measures, the electorate decided no so they went
TMay called an unnecessary election in order to secure a bigger majority. She ended up without one at all. That says FAILURE. It also meant that she ceased to have a mandate for her Brexit strategy. She's more than a lame duck but a corpse blocking the road as a Speccie writer observed yesterday
She called an election for two reasons. The first was to get a bigger majority. The second was to get an extra two years of Conservative governance, giving more breathing space after Brexit. She has achieved one of two goals, so a mixed result.
It's a more interesting topic than this ding dong.
Theresa "rubbish".
What has happened illustrates that the premiership is an order of magnitude leap from any other job in cabinet. Events, in Macmillan's immortal phrase, will seek out the individual's peculiar weaknesses and these will be the cause of his or her downfall. May was cold, controlling uncommunicative and unstrategic,
Mrs May is not uniquely bad but she was tested early, gave in to temptation and suffered an especially severe fall.
Good comment, however I would say Mrs May was tested late on a major character issue that only became apparent after she became PM. She can't cope at all with situations she doesn't control. Arguably this should preclude her from politics entirely but it certainly makes her unsuitable to be prime minister of a divided country implementing the biggest structural change the country has seen in recent times, and where others mostly decide what's possible.
Home Secretary is mostly about stopping bad things happen so her need to control helped her there
I always thought she was rubbish in her six years at the Home Office. She achieved nothing there.
Apart from upsetting the police and, IIRC, the firemen. Among others.
Can you name any Home/Education/Health Sec who hasn't annoyed the producer interest groups - it is their job to look out for the consumers!
There are times when you have no choice but to upset people. But, one should avoid doing it needlessly. And one should choose one's enemies with care. It's fine to piss off groups like the NUT. One should avoid pissing off sensible teachers like Ydoethur.
I don't disagree. Her performance as Home Sec flattered to deceive her potential as a PM. TBF it deceived an awful lot of people and not just Tory loyalists. We are where we are and the biggest danger right now which is getting very little scrutiny here is this sort of thing;
Labour's obsession with ensuring it never wins an election again is hugely damaging to the country as it means the worst government in British history essentially gets no opposition. But given that Labour is ensuring the Tories will retain power, surely what they are doing with this power is of much more importance.
Lefties mostly are oppositionists. Most socialists are at least 50% anarchists. Reality, we think, is a cruel Tory trick & we want nowt to do with it!
1. I don't see how a Court can direct MP's to vote, or not to vote, in a particular manner.
2. If successful, then it must follow that Northern Irish MP's cannot participate in Parliament. That would seem to breach the principle of consent, which underpins the GFA, and would be highly discriminatory against Northern Ireland's voters.
Presumably also whilst the Government can seek to allocate additional funding to Northern Ireland, technically this can only be achieved with Parliamentary consent?
Yes. And, I don't see how a Court can overturn a Finance Act.
Andrew Marr just got Angela Rayner to admit that Corbyn's promise to pay off student debt was another misleading statement by him. The cost apparently is an eye watering 100 billion.
No, £100 billion is the outstanding debt. Most of which will never be repaid, and the rest will be repaid over many years.
But Corbyn promised to pay it all off and that is the point
That is not the point if you want to know how much the policy will cost rather than what is the biggest number you can get into a headline. It is like after the bank nationalisations which were going to cost trillions of pounds -- but only if every single derivative contract went against the banks, which was impossible.
The current tuition fee and debt system is good for the universities and should be defended as such, but depending on what assumptions are made about repayment rates, it might actually be more expensive than the old grants system.
The current system does not work
the younger generaion is in for a double whammy
once when they get taxed for the "loan" after they graduate
secondly in later life when the loans arent repaid in 30 years time and the bill gets dumped on their generation to pick up the tab
I'm amazed as to how casually we're told "Don't worry about student loans as they'll get written off after 30 years".
If they get written off then someone's finances are going to take a hit.
I wouldn't be surprised if the 30 years time limit is steadily increased either.
More likely is the loan books will be sold to some shysters at a discount who will then make graduates lives hell as they try to collect the debt
With the debt now over £100bn its likely to be over £300bn when the 30 year limit arrives - possibly much more if the individual debts are growing rather than reducing.
We'd then be looking at write offs in the tens of billions year after year.
That's pretty likely to have an effect on the government balance sheet and/or public finances.
She was clearly hoping for better but ran a far too risky manifesto with the Dementia Tax and ending free school meals and the triple lock etc which she has now sensibly dumped
On numbers of seats, May has done worse than Thatcher, Major and Cameron. Better than Hague and Howard I'll grant you but that's where we are setting the bar.
In seats terms only, she has done better than Cameron's first election and worse than Cameron's second election. And on vote share she has beaten him on both. If Corbyn fails to hold his 40% together, which seems likely, we could do very well next time. That would require the handful of plotters to stop undermining the Conservative government. Theresa May never engaged in such disloyalty under previous leaders, and the big egos owe her the same level of duty.
May actually did better in terms of seats than Cameron 2010 too even if not Cameron 2015, she also did miles better than Major 1997 even if not Major 1992. So the Tories have only done better than May in seats once in 25 years.
May needed a majority to get through tough but arguably fiscally prudent measures, the electorate decided no so they went
Again, you hide behind the statistics and ignore the politics.
May chose to call an unnecessary election - she already had a majority in the Commons of 12 which though not much would have been enough to implement the fiscally prudent measures of which you speak (surely there's not a single Conservative who isn't fiscally prudent ?)
Of the others, Major in 1997 almost went to the end of the line on time and Cameron in 2010 was dependent on Brown calling the election while in 2015 Cameron was locked into the FTPA so she's the first Conservative since 1987 (Major went pretty much to the buckle end of his time in 1992) to call an election at her convenience.
I'm struggling to think of an example of a Prime Minister with a majority who went to the country early and not only failed to increase that majority but lost the majority.
That's the magnitude of her folly - many Conservative activists were egging her on to call an election but only a few days before she walked out of Downing Street to call the election she was saying there would be no election until 2020. Yes, it's her responsibility but the fault lies with those who encouraged or cajoled her into an election.
I notice not one of those (Twitter journalists and provocateurs) has stepped forward to say they were wrong. I suppose being on Twitter means never having to say you're sorry because you'd only have 135 characters left for the abuse.
Debbie Abrahams getting roasted by Sophy Ridge on labour's spending pledges. If I was a labour supporter I would be hiding behind the sofa. Absolute car crash and excellent interview technique by Sophy
Yes, apparently according to those who think like you, every interview with every Shadow Minister is a car crash yet Labour still got 40%.
As far as the Labour 2017 Manifesto is concerned, it was rejected by the electorate so to be honest it's not worth worrying about. Labour, and indeed all Opposition parties, have to go back to the beginning and re-think the policies.
There's nothing wrong with spending - the problem has always been on the income side of the balance sheet based on attitudes to taxation (primarily everyone else should pay more but not me).
As for manifesto pledges, given the Conservatives won the election (apparently) they can now go ahead and implement the new adult social care payment policy and see how much can be saved from ending free school meals.
Oh wait...
Free school meals for middle class kids was an idiotic policy. Not least the unexpected capital expenditure.
The government has limited resources and should target it where most effective
(as an aside, I am a huge believer in the importance of nutrition in behaviour and learning)
Good comment, however I would say Mrs May was tested late on a major character issue that only became apparent after she became PM. She can't cope at all with situations she doesn't control. Arguably this should preclude her from politics entirely but it certainly makes her unsuitable to be prime minister of a divided country implementing the biggest structural change the country has seen in recent times, and where others mostly decide what's possible.
Home Secretary is mostly about stopping bad things happen so her need to control helped her there
I always thought she was rubbish in her six years at the Home Office. She achieved nothing there.
Apart from upsetting the police and, IIRC, the firemen. Among others.
Can you name any Home/Education/Health Sec who hasn't annoyed the producer interest groups - it is their job to look out for the consumers!
Looking out for the consumer does no involve rendering the service they use unfit for purpose.
And what happens if the service is already unfit for purpose ?
I suspect that a Home Secretary might have her views on the police changed when those same police are engaged in criminal conspiracies against a fellow cabinet minister.
Perhaps. But only a small minority of the public are hostile to the police, and that minority is not going to vote Conservative.
After this year's events, most people see them as their last line of defence against the animals.
I suspect there's a much larger number who are distrustful of the police and that many of them are potential Conservative voters.
I suspect that 'potential Conservative voters' trust the police in general but experience of, for example, individual traffic policemen, tends to mean that the same people distrust them in particular.
May actually did better in terms of seats than Cameron 2010 too even if not Cameron 2015, she also did miles better than Major 1997 even if not Major 1992. So the Tories have only done better than May in seats once in 25 years.
May needed a majority to get through tough but arguably fiscally prudent measures, the electorate decided no so they went
Again, you hide behind the statistics and ignore the politics.
May chose to call an unnecessary election - she already had a majority in the Commons of 12 which though not much would have been enough to implement the fiscally prudent measures of which you speak (surely there's not a single Conservative who isn't fiscally prudent ?)
Of the others, Major in 1997 almost went to the end of the line on time and Cameron in 2010 was dependent on Brown calling the election while in 2015 Cameron was locked into the FTPA so she's the first Conservative since 1987 (Major went pretty much to the buckle end of his time in 1992) to call an election at her convenience.
I'm struggling to think of an example of a Prime Minister with a majority who went to the country early and not only failed to increase that majority but lost the majority.
That's the magnitude of her folly - many Conservative activists were egging her on to call an election but only a few days before she walked out of Downing Street to call the election she was saying there would be no election until 2020. Yes, it's her responsibility but the fault lies with those who encouraged or cajoled her into an election.
I notice not one of those (Twitter journalists and provocateurs) has stepped forward to say they were wrong. I suppose being on Twitter means never having to say you're sorry because you'd only have 135 characters left for the abuse.
An interesting 'what if' is what if May waits to see the results of the May local elections before calling a general election - as Thatcher did in 1983 and 1987.
With the hammering Labour received in May (plus possibly the loss of Manchester Gorton to the LibDems) there would have been renewed pressure on Corbyn.
Plus the Conservatives would have had a bit longer to get their manifesto properly prepared.
I know the comedy of the headline was supposed to be Trump meeting Putin, but (aside from the obvious trolling), does Putin even have an approval rating?
Does anyone conduct opinion polls and ratings in countries that are not free and fair democracies (and if they did, what would be the point)?
Yes, Russians mostly seem to like him, though they're not so sure about Government policy in general. A reasonably credible analysis here:
It's obvious why they like him. The country has experienced little but decline since the collapse of the Soviet Union, including the loss of large parts of what was their country. Imagine that British governments had lost Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and that successive PMs were seen as incompetent, alcoholic, corrupt or all three. Along comes someone who speaks coherently, is not obviously corrupt, regains some territory and gets a hearing on the international stage. Of course they think he's an improvement. Yes, he's tiresomely macho, not addressing the economic fundamentals and distinctly dodgy on social issues, but none of these are popularity-killers in Russia.
She was clearly hoping for better but ran a far too risky manifesto with the Dementia Tax and ending free school meals and the triple lock etc which she has now sensibly dumped
On numbers of seats, May has done worse than Thatcher, Major and Cameron. Better than Hague and Howard I'll grant you but that's where we are setting the bar.
In seats terms only, she has done better than Cameron's first election and worse than Cameron's second election. And on vote share she has beaten him on both. If Corbyn fails to hold his 40% together, which seems likely, we could do very well next time. That would require the handful of plotters to stop undermining the Conservative government. Theresa May never engaged in such disloyalty under previous leaders, and the big egos owe her the same level of duty.
Indeed, May was loyal to Hague, IDS and Cameron, neither the modernisers nor the Tory right can say the same
She was clearly hoping for better but ran a far too risky manifesto with the Dementia Tax and ending free school meals and the triple lock etc which she has now sensibly dumped
Interesting that as usual you witter on about vote shares and explain how May's result was better than Thatcher or Major's. Yes, two problems - elections under FPTP are won by getting bums on benches not by vote share (why not try a good proportional system ?)
On numbers of seats, May has done worse than Thatcher, Major and Cameron. Better than Hague and Howard I'll grant you but that's where we are setting the bar.
Then your ludicrous comment about the manifesto pledges. They were dumped because the DUP wanted them dumped as condition of the agreement. There was also the not insignificant notion that had May won a small majority there might have been enough rebels in her own party for the measures to have been lost on the floor of the Commons.
May actually did better in terms of seats than Cameron 2010 too even if not Cameron 2015, she also did miles better than Major 1997 even if not Major 1992. So the Tories have only done better than May in seats once in 25 years.
May needed a majority to get through tough but arguably fiscally prudent measures, the electorate decided no so they went
TMay called an unnecessary election in order to secure a bigger majority. She ended up without one at all. That says FAILURE. It also meant that she ceased to have a mandate for her Brexit strategy. She's more than a lame duck but a corpse blocking the road as a Speccie writer observed yesterday
May might not have increased her majority but the facts don't lie however you try and spin it, she got more seats than all but 1 Tory leader in 25 years and more votes than any Tory leader in 25 years and 80% of voters voted for parties backing control of free movement and leaving the single market
Comments
Theresa may in some eyes on here represents hard brexit or even just leaving the EU and must go now.
could be a fun ride
Unfortunately there's too much of a ring of truth and this unlike Corbyn meeting terrorist leaders is going to be his achilles heel
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/john-mcdonnell-denies-row-with-angela-rayner-over-tuition-fees-policy-labour-manifesto-2017_uk_5918cce7e4b0fe039b3583f6
She is one of the very few in Labour right now whose position is strong enough to allow her to do that without fear of retribution. She's worth keeping an eye on.
I suspect that a Home Secretary might have her views on the police changed when those same police are engaged in criminal conspiracies against a fellow cabinet minister.
It is also clear from the election and beyond that she appears to have absolutely no grasp of pragmatism or even common-sense, hence her stock continues to fall.
She has to keep appeasing the headbangers. They know Corbyn's Brexit would be absolute, so they wouldn't mind him delivering it.
(PS and I'd want an affidavit from Mrs IDS).
How about Lord North's government?
G20 not exactly seen as a success in Germany due to violence - Hamburg just one big riot
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/g-20-gipfel/liveblog-und-ticker-zum-g-20-gipfel-2017-in-hamburg-15092540.html
No, £100 billion is the outstanding debt. Most of which will never be repaid, and the rest will be repaid over many years.
The problems for her, and Britain, are (a) these are not quiet times and we need a Government with a clear direction on Bexit, which we don't appear to have and (b) she leads a party which has no obvious agreed purpose except a dislike of Jeremy Corbyn, which is not proving sufficient to win a majority. Both are serious snags, and if the Conservatives had a candidate who could answer both points they should switch to him or her at once. Since they apparently don't, they may as well stumble on with May.
After this year's events, most people see them as their last line of defence against the animals.
The current tuition fee and debt system is good for the universities and should be defended as such, but depending on what assumptions are made about repayment rates, it might actually be more expensive than the old grants system.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/09/theresa-may-dup-deal-legal-challenge-crowdfunded-campaign-good-friday-agreement
the younger generaion is in for a double whammy
once when they get taxed for the "loan" after they graduate
secondly in later life when the loans arent repaid in 30 years time and the bill gets dumped on their generation to pick up the tab
I don't know the details of how government accounting works (it's even weirder than bank or insurance accounting) but presumably they can't just write it off without accounting for the liability somewhere
I promise I won't arb it with the 8/1 available with Lads.
1. I don't see how a Court can direct MP's to vote, or not to vote, in a particular manner.
2. If successful, then it must follow that Northern Irish MP's cannot participate in Parliament. That would seem to breach the principle of consent, which underpins the GFA, and would be highly discriminatory against Northern Ireland's voters.
If they get written off then someone's finances are going to take a hit.
I wouldn't be surprised if the 30 years time limit is steadily increased either.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/aEdQfmEjiBuB7tLwOP_Wfg-JA-8/appointments
Amid all the talk about tuition fees creating a huge debt burden, the elephant in the room is the student debt caused by non-tuition loans. One consequence of the loan system is that student accommodation is of a far higher quality these days, because students don't need to actively seek out cheap accommodation and live frugally as might have been the case in the past.
On numbers of seats, May has done worse than Thatcher, Major and Cameron. Better than Hague and Howard I'll grant you but that's where we are setting the bar.
Then your ludicrous comment about the manifesto pledges. They were dumped because the DUP wanted them dumped as condition of the agreement. There was also the not insignificant
notion that had May won a small majority there might have been enough rebels in her own party for the measures to have been lost on the floor of the Commons.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/10/theresa-mays-rude-abusive-and-childish-advisers-face-calls-to-quit
BREXIT nailed on!
Does anyone conduct opinion polls and ratings in countries that are not free and fair democracies (and if they did, what would be the point)?
May needed a majority to get through tough but arguably fiscally prudent measures, the electorate decided no so they went
As far as the Labour 2017 Manifesto is concerned, it was rejected by the electorate so to be honest it's not worth worrying about. Labour, and indeed all Opposition parties, have to go back to the beginning and re-think the policies.
There's nothing wrong with spending - the problem has always been on the income side of the balance sheet based on attitudes to taxation (primarily everyone else should pay more but not me).
As for manifesto pledges, given the Conservatives won the election (apparently) they can now go ahead and implement the new adult social care payment policy and see how much can be saved from ending free school meals.
Oh wait...
If that makes sense.
Roger for leader of remain,he's on winner when the shootings happen = less leavers.
The only thing she hasn't done is commit to staying in the single market. Why should she, when we have seen a return to a two party system only after both parties backed single market exit and Remainer parties stagnated? The issue is that Remainers interpret whatever happens as favouring staying involved with European integration.
Labour's poor polling against the Conservatives was supposedly due to Corbyn supporting hard Brexit. Then Labour's better polling against the Conservatives was due to May supporting hard Brexit. Bad economic data is because of Brexit. Good economic data is because we are still in the EU and still benefitting from it. Populism in other EU countries is bad for Brexit because they will give us a bad deal to stop others following. Populism declining in other EU countries is bad for Brexit as we are the odd ones out. In the end it just stops being credible.
But presumably if expectation of future income is reduced, then future liabilities would go up (in the way that adjustments to retirement age have an impact on some measure of future liabilities that gets published every so often)
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/austria-pre-race-2017.html
Verstappen tip depends on rain (or enormous luck, but rain's likelier). The Williams drivers' bet(s) could come off either way, I think. The Williams was seriously unbalanced even in the dry.
We'd then be looking at write offs in the tens of billions year after year.
That's pretty likely to have an effect on the government balance sheet and/or public finances.
May chose to call an unnecessary election - she already had a majority in the Commons of 12 which though not much would have been enough to implement the fiscally prudent measures of which you speak (surely there's not a single Conservative who isn't fiscally prudent ?)
Of the others, Major in 1997 almost went to the end of the line on time and Cameron in 2010 was dependent on Brown calling the election while in 2015 Cameron was locked into the FTPA so she's the first Conservative since 1987 (Major went pretty much to the buckle end of his time in 1992) to call an election at her convenience.
I'm struggling to think of an example of a Prime Minister with a majority who went to the country early and not only failed to increase that majority but lost the majority.
That's the magnitude of her folly - many Conservative activists were egging her on to call an election but only a few days before she walked out of Downing Street to call the election she was saying there would be no election until 2020. Yes, it's her responsibility but the fault lies with those who encouraged or cajoled her into an election.
I notice not one of those (Twitter journalists and provocateurs) has stepped forward to say they were wrong. I suppose being on Twitter means never having to say you're sorry because you'd only have 135 characters left for the abuse.
The government has limited resources and should target it where most effective
(as an aside, I am a huge believer in the importance of nutrition in behaviour and learning)
I hope we can take each other's word on the matter without bothering PtP?
With the hammering Labour received in May (plus possibly the loss of Manchester Gorton to the LibDems) there would have been renewed pressure on Corbyn.
Plus the Conservatives would have had a bit longer to get their manifesto properly prepared.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/how-to-understand-putins-jaw-droppingly-high-approval-ratings/2016/03/05/17f5d8f2-d5ba-11e5-a65b-587e721fb231_story.html?utm_term=.e6495c9a037d
It's obvious why they like him. The country has experienced little but decline since the collapse of the Soviet Union, including the loss of large parts of what was their country. Imagine that British governments had lost Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and that successive PMs were seen as incompetent, alcoholic, corrupt or all three. Along comes someone who speaks coherently, is not obviously corrupt, regains some territory and gets a hearing on the international stage. Of course they think he's an improvement. Yes, he's tiresomely macho, not addressing the economic fundamentals and distinctly dodgy on social issues, but none of these are popularity-killers in Russia.