Theresa May

sminicooper

Well-known member
Jun 13, 2016
1,147
325
93
#31
It's very easy to underestimate Boris. Remember, we are comparing him to the standard Foreign Office product whose main aim in life is not to offend anybody. I believe there is a large body of people who quite admire Boris's stance but are unwilling to make their views known too publicly. That's why the pollsters have been wrong so often.

It seems to me that Theresa and Boris are doing the old "nice man/nasty man" routine that used to work so well in interrogations before the days of waterboarding. I note that Theresa hasn't slapped him down and I believe she has said something along the lines of that he was just making a perfectly reasonable point. So I think she either supports him or thinks he is doing less harm than if she gives him the sack. Either way, being overly nice and grovelling (like what Dave did) to the EU will, I think, achieve little of benefit for the UK.
 
Last edited:

Pat494

Well-known member
Mar 27, 2004
13,037
1,221
223
#32
Well well May has dropped a clanger over the election manifesto.
Who on earth does she ask ? The village idiot ?
Still punishing the poor and disabled with more tax etc.
 

Jason101

Well-known member
Oct 9, 2008
1,357
212
73
#34
Well well May has dropped a clanger over the election manifesto.
Who on earth does she ask ? The village idiot ?
Still punishing the poor and disabled with more tax etc.
I don't think that will matter, I reckon hardly anyone reads the manifesto. And most people will vote for whoever they usually vote for. Probably due to the fact that growing up their father voted a certain way.
 

Pat494

Well-known member
Mar 27, 2004
13,037
1,221
223
#35
I don't think that will matter, I reckon hardly anyone reads the manifesto. And most people will vote for whoever they usually vote for. Probably due to the fact that growing up their father voted a certain way.
Fortunately some pundit on the telly does the boring work of reading their blurb and then points out the main points.

I can't be bothered.
 

tomorton

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2002
7,004
901
173
62
Exeter
#36
Fortunately some pundit on the telly does the boring work of reading their blurb and then points out the main points.

I can't be bothered.

Agreed. And I too think that people are not swayed by the manifestos. If they're undecided, they're more likely to vote according to the level of trust (or distrust) they feel for the individual leader. Got to respect that.

But many people are passionate about single issues and any party who jerks their particular chain gets their vote. Usually these single issues are meaningless to the UK as a whole but these people will vote for the authors even if it means harm to the country. These people are sincere but nevertheless should be barred from voting in a general election on grounds of mental incompetence.
 

Atilla

Well-known member
Nov 15, 2006
18,113
2,482
323
#38
Somebody in a phone in on the LBC this morning pointed out that bringing troops in to help out with the policing is likely to reflect well on Theresa May.

Seeing the army on duty and call, helping out the police, makes her look like a strong leader.

However, he pointed out that police have come under much pressure under the tories with cut backs and reduced numbers so they are stretched when such incidents occur and don't have the numbers.

It is the perverse way that Tories get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to business and managing when in reality they are truly at the root cause of most failings be it meddling with schools and teachers, hospital management and nurses or subsidising private health and police numbers.


Call a referendum on Brexit because they are split and hemorrhaging to UKIP and suddenly they are the party to deliver the best Brexit deal. Theresa May comes out of the grass like a crawling slivering snake and hey presto she's the next best thing to sliced bread England has ever known. Hail Thatcherism. Hail Mayism. Yukkky.


Politics and the illusion of tory good management one big deception.
 

Pat494

Well-known member
Mar 27, 2004
13,037
1,221
223
#39
Thank goodness the silly woman doesn't want MORE submarines.
Trump is also cutting welfare to pay for even more weapons. If only the terrorists would crawl away - the politicians would not have the excuse to waste even more money on weapons.
 

tomorton

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2002
7,004
901
173
62
Exeter
#40
Somebody in a phone in on the LBC this morning pointed out that bringing troops in to help out with the policing is likely to reflect well on Theresa May.

Seeing the army on duty and call, helping out the police, makes her look like a strong leader.

However, he pointed out that police have come under much pressure under the tories with cut backs and reduced numbers so they are stretched when such incidents occur and don't have the numbers.

It is the perverse way that Tories get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to business and managing when in reality they are truly at the root cause of most failings be it meddling with schools and teachers, hospital management and nurses or subsidising private health and police numbers.


Call a referendum on Brexit because they are split and hemorrhaging to UKIP and suddenly they are the party to deliver the best Brexit deal. Theresa May comes out of the grass like a crawling slivering snake and hey presto she's the next best thing to sliced bread England has ever known. Hail Thatcherism. Hail Mayism. Yukkky.


Politics and the illusion of tory good management one big deception.

Use of the army in providing tough security is a double-edged sword for any UK government. It definitely suggests lack of readiness and resource and possibly equipment amongst the police forces.

Police funding cuts haven't helped but worth noting police funding cuts were started by Labour. Its wrong to blame the conservatives alone but we should all be concerned that we aren't fully protected. In 2011–12, there were 6,756 Authorised Firearms Officers, 12,550 police operations in which firearms were authorised throughout England and Wales and 5 incidents where conventional firearms were used. In 2014-15 the situation was significantly worse - we had 5,647 Authorised Firearms Officers (down 16%) and 14,666 police operations throughout England and Wales in which the deployment of firearms was authorised (up 17%). If this isn't scandalous, what is?

(By the way, in France, if you've been there the last few years, you will have seen a different approach. They put fully kitted infantry patrols in all public areas, they've recently upped the number of soldiers per patrol to 4 each but I have seen 5 occasionally. I have never been in a high street or city centre area without seeing a patrol in recent years. Obviously they will never bump into a terrorist or a terrorist incident accidentally but that's not the aim: these patrols are bait - they hope to be the targets of an attack - then they can respond with, hopefully, overwhelming force. Several have been attacked in recent years and the attackers dealt with so maybe France can claim a successful strategy.)

Back here in the UK, let's face it, nobody can manage education or health.
 

Atilla

Well-known member
Nov 15, 2006
18,113
2,482
323
#41
Thank goodness the silly woman doesn't want MORE submarines.
Trump is also cutting welfare to pay for even more weapons. If only the terrorists would crawl away - the politicians would not have the excuse to waste even more money on weapons.

Defence industries need bogey men and a cause to fight against.

Trump bombs Syria and his ratings go up.

Russia's been fighting ISIS and Russia for some reason is the bogey man and US is weak.

People perceptions and reality are two different things.
 

Atilla

Well-known member
Nov 15, 2006
18,113
2,482
323
#42
Back here in the UK, let's face it, nobody can manage education or health.
Well if you are out of ideas let Labour manage it.

On Radio 4 this morning they said Tories promising 4bn by 2020 for education whilst 500m for grammer schools. All about segregation, exclusion and feeding the well off. :(

4bn is actually a 3% reduction by the time one factors in inflation and increase in class numbers.

Labour's manifesto has a 3% increase and LibDems keep it as we are now.


Tories keep saying they are putting more money in but they are not. They cut services and give away corporation and inheritance tax breaks.


Anyhow, I thought this was good news. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...oll-shows-tory-lead-narrows-after-bomb-attack

More young people registering to vote than ever before. Free education is the future for the UK. How stupid is it to staunt talent and burden young people with debt?

Then import skilled educated bodies from abroad. The old strategy sucks big time. About time it was put right. LibDems have got a kicking by the youth vote but the youth really need to turn their anger at the daft Tories, party of the fat cats.
:smart:
 

tomorton

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2002
7,004
901
173
62
Exeter
#43
Well if you are out of ideas let Labour manage it.

On Radio 4 this morning they said Tories promising 4bn by 2020 for education whilst 500m for grammer schools. All about segregation, exclusion and feeding the well off. :(

4bn is actually a 3% reduction by the time one factors in inflation and increase in class numbers.

Labour's manifesto has a 3% increase and LibDems keep it as we are now.


Tories keep saying they are putting more money in but they are not. They cut services and give away corporation and inheritance tax breaks.


Anyhow, I thought this was good news. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...oll-shows-tory-lead-narrows-after-bomb-attack

More young people registering to vote than ever before. Free education is the future for the UK. How stupid is it to staunt talent and burden young people with debt?

Then import skilled educated bodies from abroad. The old strategy sucks big time. About time it was put right. LibDems have got a kicking by the youth vote but the youth really need to turn their anger at the daft Tories, party of the fat cats.
:smart:

Indeed, the last people who should be entrusted with running something important, like education, health, defence, security etc. would be politicians. I don't believe they could even run a sweet-shop profitably.

But no particular party's politicians have a better than average ability in this regard, nor are they more honest or dedicated or corrupt or lazy than the other parties people aggregated together. So plumping for a party that is not in power because the party in power has b@llsed it up is naive: only the party in power can b@lls it up for pete's sake.

The party that might do better is the one that incentivises the population, from richest to poorest, to expand the economy and iron out its issues, without their interference. With the right incentives and freedoms, people are smart and hard-working, and they will find a way to do whatever it takes. On this score, Socialist, Marxist and Communist parties lose.

I have got no idea why the Conservatives are so committed to grammar schools but I expect they will b@lls it up even if they're right.

According to BBC, not me, the cut in corporation tax over the last few years has generated a higher tax income for the treasury. If high salary earners and profitable businesses end up paying more tax and I haven't, what's wrong with that?

Free university fees is a diversion. Martin Lewis on moneysavingexpert.com has consistently said for years that student loans are virtually free money given away by the government. Anyone considering voting for a party advocating zero fees should read what he says, not the self-serving politicians.
 

Pat494

Well-known member
Mar 27, 2004
13,037
1,221
223
#44
Our Mrs Poodle is like a Trump echo.
He is putting m0re troops into Afghanistan and she dutifully commits British troops there too !
What another total waste of taxpayers money.

And talking of wasted billions what about the £60bn she wants to blow on the high speed line up North ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16473296
The time saved is almost negligible.
The money pocketed by some will be huge though. Like the ex-Chancellor talking it up.
 

sminicooper

Well-known member
Jun 13, 2016
1,147
325
93
#45
Our Mrs Poodle is like a Trump echo.
He is putting m0re troops into Afghanistan and she dutifully commits British troops there too !
What another total waste of taxpayers money.

And talking of wasted billions what about the £60bn she wants to blow on the high speed line up North ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16473296
The time saved is almost negligible.
The money pocketed by some will be huge though. Like the ex-Chancellor talking it up.
We've been interfering in Afghanistan since the mid 19th century! Lady Theresa is just continuing a long-standing British tradition.

As far as trains are concerned I'm sure the average commuter would just like a seat at a price he can afford on a train that actually runs. 20 minutes off the time to get to the North is pretty meaningless to those commuters in London who subsidise the rest of the country.

The problem with Theresa (as was the same with "call me Dave") is that she doesn't know what she believes in and now that her original two brain cells have been sacked she now depends on some new implants. Strong leaders know where they are going and what they stand for. This is the woman who transmogrified from Remainer to Brexiteer. Like Dave, she does a good line in Yukspeak political talk but it ain't good enough.

Cometh the hour cometh the man ....... I wish :rolleyes:
 
Likes: Pat494