Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Meet the new boss – what TMay’s first 60 days tell us abou

SystemSystem Posts: 11,709
edited September 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Meet the new boss – what TMay’s first 60 days tell us about how she’ll govern

Theresa May has now been Prime Minister for 60 days.  It’s never too soon to start forming judgements.  So what have we learned so far about our new Prime Minister?  Actually, rather a lot says Alastair Meeks.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Options
    First again!
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,512
    Second like Smith
  • Options
    She would have been a better choice than either Cameron or Davis in 2005.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 59,015

    First again!

    Harumph!
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 59,015
    'Conversion to grammar schools'?

    https://twitter.com/rosschawkins/status/774150436399886336

    On the dithering points, I suspect there is work going on behind the scenes on both. For the latter this was confirmed by the leaked document a commuter snapped on the train.
  • Options
    I'm yet to psychologically accept May as PM. She certainly needs a popular mandate, asap.
  • Options

    She would have been a better choice than either Cameron or Davis in 2005.

    What's she done? What was Theresa May's headline achievement in six years at the Home Office?
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,953

    She would have been a better choice than either Cameron or Davis in 2005.

    What's she done? What was Theresa May's headline achievement in six years at the Home Office?
    Lasting six years in that graveyard of many political careers that is the home office!
    She deported Abu Hamza and didn't deport Gary McKinnon, two huge achievements given the backgrounds to their cases.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    So now I'm being told I don't understand US politics by people who post obvioisly fake quotes as if they have found the smoking gun that will blow this election wide open.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,099
    There are parts of Mrs May's government I like, and parts I don't.

    I like that she is fundamentally a practical person. She is in the mold of "the art of the possible", and I think that makes a pleasant change.

    But I do not like her interventionism (Hinkley Point C is a 1970s solution to a early 2000s problem that will act as a tariff on all energy consuming British businesses), and I prefer the Cameron style of letting ministers get on with it.

    She was right, I think, to lose Osborne and Gove. The new team does need to hang together, and that means loyalty is a virtue.

    We will see how she does: currently I'd rate her as 6/10.
  • Options
    Alistair said:

    So now I'm being told I don't understand US politics by people who post obvioisly fake quotes as if they have found the smoking gun that will blow this election wide open.

    Dick Morris :-D

  • Options
    AAGH the majority of 12 means she might not get Grammar Schools through canard!!!!!!!

    We have to do this again:

    1) Real majority is 16 as Sinn Fein Abstain.

    2) Ten Northern Ireland Unionists are solidly behind grammar schools and resist any attempt by Sinn Fein and SDLP to abolish them in NI. So Mayority 36 in NI

    3) Labour MP Kate Hoey is strongly in favour of Grammar schools (and seemingly most other conservative social policies) and has just written an entire article in praise of them in the Mail on Sunday http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3783576/As-grammar-girl-despair-kneejerk-party-Labour-MP-KATE-HOEY-dismayed-ideological-opposition-Theresa-s-plans.html

    So 38

    4) Independent Unionist MP Lady Sylvia Hernons position is unknown but as the Belfast Telegraph Suggests, not supporting them would be political suicide due to local issues http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/lady-sylvia-faces-a-lonely-walk-back-to-westminster-28525971.html

    So 40

    5) Douglas Carswell

    So 42

    6) Frank Field is an outspoken supporter of Grammar Schools http://www.economist.com/node/273766

    So 44.

    Margaret Thatchers 1979 majority was 44.


    And that is before we consider that Scottish MPs will likely be barred from voting on the Issue (EVEL) http://schoolsweek.co.uk/scottish-mps-not-ruling-out-attempt-to-block-theresa-mays-grammar-schools-plan/

    So if that happens Majority = 103

    So Theresa could still win the vote even if 51 of her own MPs vote against it.

    Mr Meeks - The political landscape is rather different now. A conservative majority of 12 now is a rather heathier majority than a majority of 22 was in 1992.

    And as for the Lords blocking it. - They can't. The parliament act can be used. The bill can go to them in April, and if they reject it the Parliament act can be used in June after the Queen opens the new parliamentary session.

    What better issue for Theresa to ruthlessly drive through and establish her authority with?








  • Options
    I find her deeply unimpressive. A mediocrity leading mediocrities. But given what she is up against that will be enough. I guess she is avoiding calling a GE because she knows that will involve developing a Brexit position - something that will inevitably tear the Tories apart.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,099

    AAGH the majority of 12 means she might not get Grammar Schools through canard!!!!!!!

    We have to do this again:

    1) Real majority is 16 as Sinn Fein Abstain.

    2) Ten Northern Ireland Unionists are solidly behind grammar schools and resist any attempt by Sinn Fein and SDLP to abolish them in NI. So Mayority 36 in NI

    3) Labour MP Kate Hoey is strongly in favour of Grammar schools (and seemingly most other conservative social policies) and has just written an entire article in praise of them in the Mail on Sunday http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3783576/As-grammar-girl-despair-kneejerk-party-Labour-MP-KATE-HOEY-dismayed-ideological-opposition-Theresa-s-plans.html

    So 38

    4) Independent Unionist MP Lady Sylvia Hernons position is unknown but as the Belfast Telegraph Suggests, not supporting them would be political suicide due to local issues http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/lady-sylvia-faces-a-lonely-walk-back-to-westminster-28525971.html

    So 40

    5) Douglas Carswell

    So 42

    6) Frank Field is an outspoken supporter of Grammar Schools http://www.economist.com/node/273766

    So 44.

    Margaret Thatchers 1979 majority was 44.


    And that is before we consider that Scottish MPs will likely be barred from voting on the Issue (EVEL) http://schoolsweek.co.uk/scottish-mps-not-ruling-out-attempt-to-block-theresa-mays-grammar-schools-plan/

    So if that happens Majority = 103

    So Theresa could still win the vote even if 51 of her own MPs vote against it.

    Mr Meeks - The political landscape is rather different now. A conservative majority of 12 now is a rather heathier majority than a majority of 22 was in 1992.

    And as for the Lords blocking it. - They can't. The parliament act can be used. The bill can go to them in April, and if they reject it the Parliament act can be used in June after the Queen opens the new parliamentary session.

    What better issue for Theresa to ruthlessly drive through and establish her authority with?

    Are Scottish MPs "barred" from voting?
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    AAGH the majority of 12 means she might not get Grammar Schools through canard!!!!!!!

    We have to do this again:

    1) Real majority is 16 as Sinn Fein Abstain.

    2) Ten Northern Ireland Unionists are solidly behind grammar schools and resist any attempt by Sinn Fein and SDLP to abolish them in NI. So Mayority 36 in NI

    3) Labour MP Kate Hoey is strongly in favour of Grammar schools (and seemingly most other conservative social policies) and has just written an entire article in praise of them in the Mail on Sunday http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3783576/As-grammar-girl-despair-kneejerk-party-Labour-MP-KATE-HOEY-dismayed-ideological-opposition-Theresa-s-plans.html

    So 38

    4) Independent Unionist MP Lady Sylvia Hernons position is unknown but as the Belfast Telegraph Suggests, not supporting them would be political suicide due to local issues http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/lady-sylvia-faces-a-lonely-walk-back-to-westminster-28525971.html

    So 40

    5) Douglas Carswell

    So 42

    6) Frank Field is an outspoken supporter of Grammar Schools http://www.economist.com/node/273766

    So 44.

    Margaret Thatchers 1979 majority was 44.


    And that is before we consider that Scottish MPs will likely be barred from voting on the Issue (EVEL) http://schoolsweek.co.uk/scottish-mps-not-ruling-out-attempt-to-block-theresa-mays-grammar-schools-plan/

    So if that happens Majority = 103

    So Theresa could still win the vote even if 51 of her own MPs vote against it.

    Mr Meeks - The political landscape is rather different now. A conservative majority of 12 now is a rather heathier majority than a majority of 22 was in 1992.

    And as for the Lords blocking it. - They can't. The parliament act can be used. The bill can go to them in April, and if they reject it the Parliament act can be used in June after the Queen opens the new parliamentary session.

    What better issue for Theresa to ruthlessly drive through and establish her authority with?

    Are Scottish MPs "barred" from voting?
    They are not sure yet as the Schoolsweek article mentions.
  • Options

    rcs1000 said:

    AAGH the majority of 12 means she might not get Grammar Schools through canard!!!!!!!

    We have to do this again:

    1) Real majority is 16 as Sinn Fein Abstain.

    2) Ten Northern Ireland Unionists are solidly behind grammar schools and resist any attempt by Sinn Fein and SDLP to abolish them in NI. So Mayority 36 in NI

    3) Labour MP Kate Hoey is strongly in favour of Grammar schools (and seemingly most other conservative social policies) and has just written an entire article in praise of them in the Mail on Sunday http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3783576/As-grammar-girl-despair-kneejerk-party-Labour-MP-KATE-HOEY-dismayed-ideological-opposition-Theresa-s-plans.html

    So 38

    4) Independent Unionist MP Lady Sylvia Hernons position is unknown but as the Belfast Telegraph Suggests, not supporting them would be political suicide due to local issues http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/lady-sylvia-faces-a-lonely-walk-back-to-westminster-28525971.html

    So 40

    5) Douglas Carswell

    So 42

    6) Frank Field is an outspoken supporter of Grammar Schools http://www.economist.com/node/273766

    So 44.

    Margaret Thatchers 1979 majority was 44.


    And that is before we consider that Scottish MPs will likely be barred from voting on the Issue (EVEL) http://schoolsweek.co.uk/scottish-mps-not-ruling-out-attempt-to-block-theresa-mays-grammar-schools-plan/

    So if that happens Majority = 103

    So Theresa could still win the vote even if 51 of her own MPs vote against it.

    Mr Meeks - The political landscape is rather different now. A conservative majority of 12 now is a rather heathier majority than a majority of 22 was in 1992.

    And as for the Lords blocking it. - They can't. The parliament act can be used. The bill can go to them in April, and if they reject it the Parliament act can be used in June after the Queen opens the new parliamentary session.

    What better issue for Theresa to ruthlessly drive through and establish her authority with?

    Are Scottish MPs "barred" from voting?
    They are not sure yet as the Schoolsweek article mentions.

    If Scottish MPs are, Northern Irish MPs will be too.

    Clearly, the outcome will depend on what the final plans are.

  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,913

    I find her deeply unimpressive. A mediocrity leading mediocrities. But given what she is up against that will be enough. I guess she is avoiding calling a GE because she knows that will involve developing a Brexit position - something that will inevitably tear the Tories apart.


    I think she is unpolished and ill prepared for the top job, but considering how she got it this is surely understandable.

    It will be interesting to see if and how she matures.
  • Options

    rcs1000 said:

    AAGH the majority of 12 means she might not get Grammar Schools through canard!!!!!!!

    We have to do this again:

    1) Real majority is 16 as Sinn Fein Abstain.

    2) Ten Northern Ireland Unionists are solidly behind grammar schools and resist any attempt by Sinn Fein and SDLP to abolish them in NI. So Mayority 36 in NI

    3) Labour MP Kate Hoey is strongly in favour of Grammar schools (and seemingly most other conservative social policies) and has just written an entire article in praise of them in the Mail on Sunday http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3783576/As-grammar-girl-despair-kneejerk-party-Labour-MP-KATE-HOEY-dismayed-ideological-opposition-Theresa-s-plans.html

    So 38

    4) Independent Unionist MP Lady Sylvia Hernons position is unknown but as the Belfast Telegraph Suggests, not supporting them would be political suicide due to local issues http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/lady-sylvia-faces-a-lonely-walk-back-to-westminster-28525971.html

    So 40

    5) Douglas Carswell

    So 42

    6) Frank Field is an outspoken supporter of Grammar Schools http://www.economist.com/node/273766

    So 44.

    Margaret Thatchers 1979 majority was 44.


    And that is before we consider that Scottish MPs will likely be barred from voting on the Issue (EVEL) http://schoolsweek.co.uk/scottish-mps-not-ruling-out-attempt-to-block-theresa-mays-grammar-schools-plan/

    So if that happens Majority = 103

    So Theresa could still win the vote even if 51 of her own MPs vote against it.

    Mr Meeks - The political landscape is rather different now. A conservative majority of 12 now is a rather heathier majority than a majority of 22 was in 1992.

    And as for the Lords blocking it. - They can't. The parliament act can be used. The bill can go to them in April, and if they reject it the Parliament act can be used in June after the Queen opens the new parliamentary session.

    What better issue for Theresa to ruthlessly drive through and establish her authority with?

    Are Scottish MPs "barred" from voting?
    They are not sure yet as the Schoolsweek article mentions.

    If Scottish MPs are, Northern Irish MPs will be too.

    Clearly, the outcome will depend on what the final plans are.

    Only if the bill does not apply to NI which seems unlikely as they have grammar schools?

    But as you say, it depends on how competently they handle the final plans
  • Options
    Sandpit said:

    She would have been a better choice than either Cameron or Davis in 2005.

    What's she done? What was Theresa May's headline achievement in six years at the Home Office?
    Lasting six years in that graveyard of many political careers that is the home office!
    She deported Abu Hamza and didn't deport Gary McKinnon, two huge achievements given the backgrounds to their cases.
    Theresa May lasted six years at the Home Office because David Cameron was averse to reshuffles, despite her failures on immigration and the Border Force. Iain Duncan Smith lasted six years at DWP.
  • Options

    rcs1000 said:

    AAGH the majority of 12 means she might not get Grammar Schools through canard!!!!!!!

    We have to do this again:

    1) Real majority is 16 as Sinn Fein Abstain.

    2) Ten Northern Ireland Unionists are solidly behind grammar schools and resist any attempt by Sinn Fein and SDLP to abolish them in NI. So Mayority 36 in NI

    3) Labour MP Kate Hoey is strongly in favour of Grammar schools (and seemingly most other conservative social policies) and has just written an entire article in praise of them in the Mail on Sunday http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3783576/As-grammar-girl-despair-kneejerk-party-Labour-MP-KATE-HOEY-dismayed-ideological-opposition-Theresa-s-plans.html

    So 38

    4) Independent Unionist MP Lady Sylvia Hernons position is unknown but as the Belfast Telegraph Suggests, not supporting them would be political suicide due to local issues http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/lady-sylvia-faces-a-lonely-walk-back-to-westminster-28525971.html

    So 40

    5) Douglas Carswell

    So 42

    6) Frank Field is an outspoken supporter of Grammar Schools http://www.economist.com/node/273766

    So 44.

    Margaret Thatchers 1979 majority was 44.


    And that is before we consider that Scottish MPs will likely be barred from voting on the Issue (EVEL) http://schoolsweek.co.uk/scottish-mps-not-ruling-out-attempt-to-block-theresa-mays-grammar-schools-plan/

    So if that happens Majority = 103

    So Theresa could still win the vote even if 51 of her own MPs vote against it.

    Mr Meeks - The political landscape is rather different now. A conservative majority of 12 now is a rather heathier majority than a majority of 22 was in 1992.

    And as for the Lords blocking it. - They can't. The parliament act can be used. The bill can go to them in April, and if they reject it the Parliament act can be used in June after the Queen opens the new parliamentary session.

    What better issue for Theresa to ruthlessly drive through and establish her authority with?

    Are Scottish MPs "barred" from voting?
    They are not sure yet as the Schoolsweek article mentions.

    If Scottish MPs are, Northern Irish MPs will be too.

    Clearly, the outcome will depend on what the final plans are.

    Only if the bill does not apply to NI which seems unlikely as they have grammar schools?

    But as you say, it depends on how competently they handle the final plans

    Rducation is a devolved matter in NI, Wales and Scotland.

  • Options
    asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276
    edited September 2016
    My understanding of EVEL was that England only bills would go via grand committee of English only MPs that could block the bill somewhere around 2nd reading.

    It essentially gives them a veto on-laws being imposed without their support, but it's a only blocking mechanism, it doesn't give them the ability to pass laws, as the bill still requires a vote in the full HoC at third reading.
  • Options
    Tess is a pragmatist:

    She will do enough to assuage the UK electorate. I do not see her as a PM much past 2021 because she will have done enough by then.

    Personally I'd rather a more radical approach but: Yes we won the Brexit referendum but we have to seek common-ground moving forward. Hence the need for pragmatism.
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    "Dithers" is nonsense. A sensible review of a questionable project.. To say no immediately to the Chinese was going to be bad, but without a review, infinitely worse
  • Options

    rcs1000 said:

    AAGH the majority of 12 means she might not get Grammar Schools through canard!!!!!!!

    We have to do this again:

    1) Real majority is 16 as Sinn Fein Abstain.

    2) Ten Northern Ireland Unionists are solidly behind grammar schools and resist any attempt by Sinn Fein and SDLP to abolish them in NI. So Mayority 36 in NI

    3) Labour MP Kate Hoey is strongly in favour of Grammar schools (and seemingly most other conservative social policies) and has just written an entire article in praise of them in the Mail on Sunday http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3783576/As-grammar-girl-despair-kneejerk-party-Labour-MP-KATE-HOEY-dismayed-ideological-opposition-Theresa-s-plans.html

    So 38

    4) Independent Unionist MP Lady Sylvia Hernons position is unknown but as the Belfast Telegraph Suggests, not supporting them would be political suicide due to local issues http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/lady-sylvia-faces-a-lonely-walk-back-to-westminster-28525971.html

    So 40

    5) Douglas Carswell

    So 42

    6) Frank Field is an outspoken supporter of Grammar Schools http://www.economist.com/node/273766

    So 44.

    Margaret Thatchers 1979 majority was 44.


    And that is before we consider that Scottish MPs will likely be barred from voting on the Issue (EVEL) http://schoolsweek.co.uk/scottish-mps-not-ruling-out-attempt-to-block-theresa-mays-grammar-schools-plan/

    So if that happens Majority = 103

    So Theresa could still win the vote even if 51 of her own MPs vote against it.

    Mr Meeks - The political landscape is rather different now. A conservative majority of 12 now is a rather heathier majority than a majority of 22 was in 1992.

    And as for the Lords blocking it. - They can't. The parliament act can be used. The bill can go to them in April, and if they reject it the Parliament act can be used in June after the Queen opens the new parliamentary session.

    What better issue for Theresa to ruthlessly drive through and establish her authority with?

    Are Scottish MPs "barred" from voting?
    They are not sure yet as the Schoolsweek article mentions.

    If Scottish MPs are, Northern Irish MPs will be too.

    Clearly, the outcome will depend on what the final plans are.

    Only if the bill does not apply to NI which seems unlikely as they have grammar schools?

    But as you say, it depends on how competently they handle the final plans

    Rducation is a devolved matter in NI, Wales and Scotland.

    Ok.

    I think she will happily lose 10 NI supporters in return for 59 disbarred hostiles in Scotland though
  • Options
    Good morning, everyone.
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    Jonathan said:

    I find her deeply unimpressive. A mediocrity leading mediocrities. But given what she is up against that will be enough. I guess she is avoiding calling a GE because she knows that will involve developing a Brexit position - something that will inevitably tear the Tories apart.


    I think she is unpolished and ill prepared for the top job, but considering how she got it this is surely understandable.

    It will be interesting to see if and how she matures.
    That is ridiculous. Noone is "prepared" to be Prime Minister, bur she has an impressive back story both in and out of politics.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,209
    edited September 2016

    Education is a devolved matter in NI, Wales and Scotland.

    Ok.

    I think she will happily lose 10 NI supporters in return for 59 disbarred hostiles in Scotland though
    And Welsh MPs presumably? But I think asjohnstone is right to suggest that EVEL doesn't stop Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish MPs having a vote at the third reading.
  • Options

    Sandpit said:

    She would have been a better choice than either Cameron or Davis in 2005.

    What's she done? What was Theresa May's headline achievement in six years at the Home Office?
    Lasting six years in that graveyard of many political careers that is the home office!
    She deported Abu Hamza and didn't deport Gary McKinnon, two huge achievements given the backgrounds to their cases.
    Theresa May lasted six years at the Home Office because David Cameron was averse to reshuffles, despite her failures on immigration and the Border Force. Iain Duncan Smith lasted six years at DWP.
    I'm no fan of IDS but he was doing a good job at DWP. Better than any predecessor in recent times I can think of.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,913

    Jonathan said:

    I find her deeply unimpressive. A mediocrity leading mediocrities. But given what she is up against that will be enough. I guess she is avoiding calling a GE because she knows that will involve developing a Brexit position - something that will inevitably tear the Tories apart.


    I think she is unpolished and ill prepared for the top job, but considering how she got it this is surely understandable.

    It will be interesting to see if and how she matures.
    That is ridiculous. Noone is "prepared" to be Prime Minister, bur she has an impressive back story both in and out of politics.
    Come off it. First, few expected Dave to go now. Second, the leadership election terminated abruptly. She got the job and was expected to form a govt with hours notice.

  • Options

    Ok.

    I think she will happily lose 10 NI supporters in return for 59 disbarred hostiles in Scotland though

    She can't. It's English Vetoes for English Laws.

    We ought to pass a proper English Votes for English Laws but that hasn't happened, yet.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    I came here as quick as I would to breathlessly supports my book on the US presidential election

    http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1181a12016Election.pdf

    Lots of really interesting stuff in here, but the key thing is in a 2 way race Clinton is above 50% and has a +8 lead over Trump.
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    I find her deeply unimpressive. A mediocrity leading mediocrities. But given what she is up against that will be enough. I guess she is avoiding calling a GE because she knows that will involve developing a Brexit position - something that will inevitably tear the Tories apart.


    I think she is unpolished and ill prepared for the top job, but considering how she got it this is surely understandable.

    It will be interesting to see if and how she matures.
    That is ridiculous. Noone is "prepared" to be Prime Minister, bur she has an impressive back story both in and out of politics.
    Come off it. First, few expected Dave to go now. Second, the leadership election terminated abruptly. She got the job and was expected to form a govt with hours notice.


    I am sure that all of the potential candidates were preparing/scheming what they would do if Dave had to go in the event of a no vote/fell under a bus so to speak.. its in the nature of the beast that is politics.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,913

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    I find her deeply unimpressive. A mediocrity leading mediocrities. But given what she is up against that will be enough. I guess she is avoiding calling a GE because she knows that will involve developing a Brexit position - something that will inevitably tear the Tories apart.


    I think she is unpolished and ill prepared for the top job, but considering how she got it this is surely understandable.

    It will be interesting to see if and how she matures.
    That is ridiculous. Noone is "prepared" to be Prime Minister, bur she has an impressive back story both in and out of politics.
    Come off it. First, few expected Dave to go now. Second, the leadership election terminated abruptly. She got the job and was expected to form a govt with hours notice.


    I am sure that all of the potential candidates were preparing/scheming what they would do if Dave had to go in the event of a no vote/fell under a bus so to speak.. its in the nature of the beast that is politics.
    I think you're wrong. If you're right, what's her excuse for being so rough around the edges?
  • Options

    Tess is a pragmatist:

    She will do enough to assuage the UK electorate. I do not see her as a PM much past 2021 because she will have done enough by then.

    Personally I'd rather a more radical approach but: Yes we won the Brexit referendum but we have to seek common-ground moving forward. Hence the need for pragmatism.

    Seems to me that market developments in recent years show the strike price to be deeply flawed. Perhaps the way out would be to say that we think now the fair strike price would be £60 and we would sign contracts with that, if they say no (which they will) then the deal is off. If they say yes, we go ahead on a sensible price.
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,125
    Overall I like her style and politics but it's early days. The opposition of left-wingers and Liberals allied with right-wingers who seek to protect Public schools [ where they send their offspring to avoid the dreaded comprehensives] suggests she is on the right track regarding education. However, she needs to slap down Boris - who is pushing for hard Brexit and challenging her authority and as for Liam and DD - the only kind thing to say is they are living up fully to my expectations regarding their abilities. :) Gove was/is a total b****** but he's a clever b****** and could probably have replaced all 3 of them!
  • Options

    I find her deeply unimpressive. A mediocrity leading mediocrities. But given what she is up against that will be enough. I guess she is avoiding calling a GE because she knows that will involve developing a Brexit position - something that will inevitably tear the Tories apart.

    As can be deduced from my thread header, I haven't made up my mind about Theresa May. She could yet go one of two ways. If she can channel John Major 1992, she could prove a capable Prime Minister on the subjects that matter. She could, however, become a less accomplished Gordon Brown.

    She has a good instinct for who she needs to appeal to (unlike David Cameron, who saw modernisation and moderation as one and the same thing). So far she seems less sure footed about what policies for this base will be successful.
  • Options
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    I find her deeply unimpressive. A mediocrity leading mediocrities. But given what she is up against that will be enough. I guess she is avoiding calling a GE because she knows that will involve developing a Brexit position - something that will inevitably tear the Tories apart.


    I think she is unpolished and ill prepared for the top job, but considering how she got it this is surely understandable.

    It will be interesting to see if and how she matures.
    That is ridiculous. Noone is "prepared" to be Prime Minister, bur she has an impressive back story both in and out of politics.
    Come off it. First, few expected Dave to go now. Second, the leadership election terminated abruptly. She got the job and was expected to form a govt with hours notice.


    I am sure that all of the potential candidates were preparing/scheming what they would do if Dave had to go in the event of a no vote/fell under a bus so to speak.. its in the nature of the beast that is politics.
    I think you're wrong. If you're right, what's her excuse for being so rough around the edges?
    David Cameron has tested to destruction the theory that being polished is the most critical characteristic of a prime minister.
  • Options

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    I find her deeply unimpressive. A mediocrity leading mediocrities. But given what she is up against that will be enough. I guess she is avoiding calling a GE because she knows that will involve developing a Brexit position - something that will inevitably tear the Tories apart.


    I think she is unpolished and ill prepared for the top job, but considering how she got it this is surely understandable.

    It will be interesting to see if and how she matures.
    That is ridiculous. Noone is "prepared" to be Prime Minister, bur she has an impressive back story both in and out of politics.
    Come off it. First, few expected Dave to go now. Second, the leadership election terminated abruptly. She got the job and was expected to form a govt with hours notice.


    I am sure that all of the potential candidates were preparing/scheming what they would do if Dave had to go in the event of a no vote/fell under a bus so to speak.. its in the nature of the beast that is politics.
    I expect a few Cabinet Ministers (current and former) are wishing they'd thrown their hats in the ring. Remember Boris was odds-on favourite.
  • Options

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    I find her deeply unimpressive. A mediocrity leading mediocrities. But given what she is up against that will be enough. I guess she is avoiding calling a GE because she knows that will involve developing a Brexit position - something that will inevitably tear the Tories apart.


    I think she is unpolished and ill prepared for the top job, but considering how she got it this is surely understandable.

    It will be interesting to see if and how she matures.
    That is ridiculous. Noone is "prepared" to be Prime Minister, bur she has an impressive back story both in and out of politics.
    Come off it. First, few expected Dave to go now. Second, the leadership election terminated abruptly. She got the job and was expected to form a govt with hours notice.


    I am sure that all of the potential candidates were preparing/scheming what they would do if Dave had to go in the event of a no vote/fell under a bus so to speak.. its in the nature of the beast that is politics.
    I expect a few Cabinet Ministers (current and former) are wishing they'd thrown their hats in the ring. Remember Boris was odds-on favourite.
    Leadsom's implosion is now taken as a given. If things had played out slightly differently she would have stood a good chance of winning the members' ballot.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,913

    I find her deeply unimpressive. A mediocrity leading mediocrities. But given what she is up against that will be enough. I guess she is avoiding calling a GE because she knows that will involve developing a Brexit position - something that will inevitably tear the Tories apart.

    As can be deduced from my thread header, I haven't made up my mind about Theresa May. She could yet go one of two ways. If she can channel John Major 1992, she could prove a capable Prime Minister on the subjects that matter. She could, however, become a less accomplished Gordon Brown.

    She has a good instinct for who she needs to appeal to (unlike David Cameron, who saw modernisation and moderation as one and the same thing). So far she seems less sure footed about what policies for this base will be successful.
    So, May his a choice of being the new Major or the new Brown? How inspirational!
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited September 2016
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    I find her deeply unimpressive. A mediocrity leading mediocrities. But given what she is up against that will be enough. I guess she is avoiding calling a GE because she knows that will involve developing a Brexit position - something that will inevitably tear the Tories apart.


    I think she is unpolished and ill prepared for the top job, but considering how she got it this is surely understandable.

    It will be interesting to see if and how she matures.
    That is ridiculous. Noone is "prepared" to be Prime Minister, bur she has an impressive back story both in and out of politics.
    Come off it. First, few expected Dave to go now. Second, the leadership election terminated abruptly. She got the job and was expected to form a govt with hours notice.


    I am sure that all of the potential candidates were preparing/scheming what they would do if Dave had to go in the event of a no vote/fell under a bus so to speak.. its in the nature of the beast that is politics.
    I think you're wrong. If you're right, what's her excuse for being so rough around the edges?
    I make no excuses for Mrs May. no need to. All PM's grow into the job, just remember Dave's first few weeks in office with the cringing Nick and Dave show in the rose garden.

    Brown's start was initially perceived as less awkward as the Labour publicity machine was trying to polish a turd, and it soon all fell apart.

    How you are initially perceived largely depends on the state of the nation when you take the reins of power.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,913

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    I find her deeply unimpressive. A mediocrity leading mediocrities. But given what she is up against that will be enough. I guess she is avoiding calling a GE because she knows that will involve developing a Brexit position - something that will inevitably tear the Tories apart.


    I think she is unpolished and ill prepared for the top job, but considering how she got it this is surely understandable.

    It will be interesting to see if and how she matures.
    That is ridiculous. Noone is "prepared" to be Prime Minister, bur she has an impressive back story both in and out of politics.
    Come off it. First, few expected Dave to go now. Second, the leadership election terminated abruptly. She got the job and was expected to form a govt with hours notice.


    I am sure that all of the potential candidates were preparing/scheming what they would do if Dave had to go in the event of a no vote/fell under a bus so to speak.. its in the nature of the beast that is politics.
    I think you're wrong. If you're right, what's her excuse for being so rough around the edges?
    David Cameron has tested to destruction the theory that being polished is the most critical characteristic of a prime minister.
    And Brown tested to destruction the theory that polish is not critical.

    It will be fascinating to see how she matures.
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    There are parts of Mrs May's government I like, and parts I don't.

    I like that she is fundamentally a practical person. She is in the mold of "the art of the possible", and I think that makes a pleasant change.

    But I do not like her interventionism (Hinkley Point C is a 1970s solution to a early 2000s problem that will act as a tariff on all energy consuming British businesses), and I prefer the Cameron style of letting ministers get on with it.

    She was right, I think, to lose Osborne and Gove. The new team does need to hang together, and that means loyalty is a virtue.

    We will see how she does: currently I'd rate her as 6/10.

    I'm confused, you don't like her interventionism and don't like Hinkley Point C. But her intervention on Hinkley Point was to pause and potentially cancel it, at the cost of irritating the French and Chinese.

    So if you don't want Hinkley Point and don't want her to intervene stopping it, what do you want?
  • Options
    Jonathan said:

    I find her deeply unimpressive. A mediocrity leading mediocrities. But given what she is up against that will be enough. I guess she is avoiding calling a GE because she knows that will involve developing a Brexit position - something that will inevitably tear the Tories apart.

    As can be deduced from my thread header, I haven't made up my mind about Theresa May. She could yet go one of two ways. If she can channel John Major 1992, she could prove a capable Prime Minister on the subjects that matter. She could, however, become a less accomplished Gordon Brown.

    She has a good instinct for who she needs to appeal to (unlike David Cameron, who saw modernisation and moderation as one and the same thing). So far she seems less sure footed about what policies for this base will be successful.
    So, May his a choice of being the new Major or the new Brown? How inspirational!
    Major was a good PM, brought down by Europe and the bastards. If May can unite her party around her vision for Brexit then being a Major would be a very good thing.
  • Options
    Mr. Thompson, an English Parliament is necessary.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,372
    Interesting analysis and seems pretty accurate so far, though it's early days - not that long in Government outside the recess. I think she has the mood right for the country at the moment - serious and businesslike - but whatever one thinks about grammar schools it's an odd choice to dominate her first full session, and risks the public reassessing her as more dogmatic than the pragmatist they probably want.

    On Paul from Beds' calculations, as others have said the SNP will be able to vote against, and I wouldn't count on Field and Hoey doing more than abstaining, so the true majority on this isd probably around 30. I'd expect some fudges to be needed, especially if it goes into the tedious business of Parliament Acts, which give cover to people who don't like the policy and can oppose it as "not in the manifesto". Been there, got the T-shirt (Hunting Act).
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,913

    Jonathan said:

    I find her deeply unimpressive. A mediocrity leading mediocrities. But given what she is up against that will be enough. I guess she is avoiding calling a GE because she knows that will involve developing a Brexit position - something that will inevitably tear the Tories apart.

    As can be deduced from my thread header, I haven't made up my mind about Theresa May. She could yet go one of two ways. If she can channel John Major 1992, she could prove a capable Prime Minister on the subjects that matter. She could, however, become a less accomplished Gordon Brown.

    She has a good instinct for who she needs to appeal to (unlike David Cameron, who saw modernisation and moderation as one and the same thing). So far she seems less sure footed about what policies for this base will be successful.
    So, May his a choice of being the new Major or the new Brown? How inspirational!
    Major was a good PM, brought down by Europe and the bastards. If May can unite her party around her vision for Brexit then being a Major would be a very good thing.
    Major was a risible catastrophe who fully deserved his unprecedented drubbing in the polls.
  • Options

    Mr. Thompson, an English Parliament is necessary.

    We have one already. Just say to devolved areas the quid pro quo of devolution is losing your MPs vote in Westminster.
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited September 2016

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    I find her deeply unimpressive. A mediocrity leading mediocrities. But given what she is up against that will be enough. I guess she is avoiding calling a GE because she knows that will involve developing a Brexit position - something that will inevitably tear the Tories apart.


    I think she is unpolished and ill prepared for the top job, but considering how she got it this is surely understandable.

    It will be interesting to see if and how she matures.
    That is ridiculous. Noone is "prepared" to be Prime Minister, bur she has an impressive back story both in and out of politics.
    Come off it. First, few expected Dave to go now. Second, the leadership election terminated abruptly. She got the job and was expected to form a govt with hours notice.


    I am sure that all of the potential candidates were preparing/scheming what they would do if Dave had to go in the event of a no vote/fell under a bus so to speak.. its in the nature of the beast that is politics.
    I expect a few Cabinet Ministers (current and former) are wishing they'd thrown their hats in the ring. Remember Boris was odds-on favourite.
    Leadsom's implosion is now taken as a given. If things had played out slightly differently she would have stood a good chance of winning the members' ballot.
    Did Leadsom implode? I see it more that she was swiftboated by a party establishment terrified she might win. If Mrs May had been opposed by another cabinet minister instead of Leadsom, the men in grey suits might not have panicked and the membership would have been allowed to vote.
  • Options
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    I find her deeply unimpressive. A mediocrity leading mediocrities. But given what she is up against that will be enough. I guess she is avoiding calling a GE because she knows that will involve developing a Brexit position - something that will inevitably tear the Tories apart.

    As can be deduced from my thread header, I haven't made up my mind about Theresa May. She could yet go one of two ways. If she can channel John Major 1992, she could prove a capable Prime Minister on the subjects that matter. She could, however, become a less accomplished Gordon Brown.

    She has a good instinct for who she needs to appeal to (unlike David Cameron, who saw modernisation and moderation as one and the same thing). So far she seems less sure footed about what policies for this base will be successful.
    So, May his a choice of being the new Major or the new Brown? How inspirational!
    Major was a good PM, brought down by Europe and the bastards. If May can unite her party around her vision for Brexit then being a Major would be a very good thing.
    Major was a risible catastrophe who fully deserved his unprecedented drubbing in the polls.
    He won in 92. It was only after 18 years of Tory one party rule facing Tony Blair that he lost.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,913

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    I find her deeply unimpressive. A mediocrity leading mediocrities. But given what she is up against that will be enough. I guess she is avoiding calling a GE because she knows that will involve developing a Brexit position - something that will inevitably tear the Tories apart.

    As can be deduced from my thread header, I haven't made up my mind about Theresa May. She could yet go one of two ways. If she can channel John Major 1992, she could prove a capable Prime Minister on the subjects that matter. She could, however, become a less accomplished Gordon Brown.

    She has a good instinct for who she needs to appeal to (unlike David Cameron, who saw modernisation and moderation as one and the same thing). So far she seems less sure footed about what policies for this base will be successful.
    So, May his a choice of being the new Major or the new Brown? How inspirational!
    Major was a good PM, brought down by Europe and the bastards. If May can unite her party around her vision for Brexit then being a Major would be a very good thing.
    Major was a risible catastrophe who fully deserved his unprecedented drubbing in the polls.
    He won in 92. It was only after 18 years of Tory one party rule facing Tony Blair that he lost.
    Lost doesn't quite cover it. 165 seats. An unmatched result, that even Corbyn would be ashamed of. A catastrophe from which the Tories are still yet to fully recover.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,099
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    I find her deeply unimpressive. A mediocrity leading mediocrities. But given what she is up against that will be enough. I guess she is avoiding calling a GE because she knows that will involve developing a Brexit position - something that will inevitably tear the Tories apart.

    As can be deduced from my thread header, I haven't made up my mind about Theresa May. She could yet go one of two ways. If she can channel John Major 1992, she could prove a capable Prime Minister on the subjects that matter. She could, however, become a less accomplished Gordon Brown.

    She has a good instinct for who she needs to appeal to (unlike David Cameron, who saw modernisation and moderation as one and the same thing). So far she seems less sure footed about what policies for this base will be successful.
    So, May his a choice of being the new Major or the new Brown? How inspirational!
    Major was a good PM, brought down by Europe and the bastards. If May can unite her party around her vision for Brexit then being a Major would be a very good thing.
    Major was a risible catastrophe who fully deserved his unprecedented drubbing in the polls.
    He will be remembered for peace in Northern Ireland. That is quite an achievement.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,099

    rcs1000 said:

    There are parts of Mrs May's government I like, and parts I don't.

    I like that she is fundamentally a practical person. She is in the mold of "the art of the possible", and I think that makes a pleasant change.

    But I do not like her interventionism (Hinkley Point C is a 1970s solution to a early 2000s problem that will act as a tariff on all energy consuming British businesses), and I prefer the Cameron style of letting ministers get on with it.

    She was right, I think, to lose Osborne and Gove. The new team does need to hang together, and that means loyalty is a virtue.

    We will see how she does: currently I'd rate her as 6/10.

    I'm confused, you don't like her interventionism and don't like Hinkley Point C. But her intervention on Hinkley Point was to pause and potentially cancel it, at the cost of irritating the French and Chinese.

    So if you don't want Hinkley Point and don't want her to intervene stopping it, what do you want?
    Hey, I'm confused. That's OK,right?
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rcs1000 said:

    There are parts of Mrs May's government I like, and parts I don't.

    I like that she is fundamentally a practical person. She is in the mold of "the art of the possible", and I think that makes a pleasant change.

    But I do not like her interventionism (Hinkley Point C is a 1970s solution to a early 2000s problem that will act as a tariff on all energy consuming British businesses), and I prefer the Cameron style of letting ministers get on with it.

    She was right, I think, to lose Osborne and Gove. The new team does need to hang together, and that means loyalty is a virtue.

    We will see how she does: currently I'd rate her as 6/10.

    Presumably, though, she's going to can Hinkley, but (a) needs to soft soap the Chinese and (b) wants to announce it as part of an overall infrastructure plan in the autumn?

    It may be interventionist, but on this occasion the right decision?
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,209
    Toynbee v Hitchens on Marr.
  • Options
    Missing the Vaz story already? Want a story (entirely lawyer-friendly) about the law and the illegal handling of cock? The free story "Sir Edric and the Wig" is now up here:
    http://thaddeuswhite.weebly.com/writing-blog/sir-edric-and-the-wig
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    The most significant story today is Boris on Brexit, natch.
  • Options
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    I find her deeply unimpressive. A mediocrity leading mediocrities. But given what she is up against that will be enough. I guess she is avoiding calling a GE because she knows that will involve developing a Brexit position - something that will inevitably tear the Tories apart.

    As can be deduced from my thread header, I haven't made up my mind about Theresa May. She could yet go one of two ways. If she can channel John Major 1992, she could prove a capable Prime Minister on the subjects that matter. She could, however, become a less accomplished Gordon Brown.

    She has a good instinct for who she needs to appeal to (unlike David Cameron, who saw modernisation and moderation as one and the same thing). So far she seems less sure footed about what policies for this base will be successful.
    So, May his a choice of being the new Major or the new Brown? How inspirational!
    Major was a good PM, brought down by Europe and the bastards. If May can unite her party around her vision for Brexit then being a Major would be a very good thing.
    Major was a risible catastrophe who fully deserved his unprecedented drubbing in the polls.
    He won in 92. It was only after 18 years of Tory one party rule facing Tony Blair that he lost.
    Lost doesn't quite cover it. 165 seats. An unmatched result, that even Corbyn would be ashamed of. A catastrophe from which the Tories are still yet to fully recover.
    Corbyn will get less seats than Major, especially if there are fair boundaries. That Major was starting from a higher watermark just shows how well Major and Cameron did previously and how bad Miliband and Kinnock did.

    Plus of course Europe divisions, the bastards, 18 years of Tory one party rule, Tony Blair and a boundary review all had an influence in the 165 seats too.
  • Options
    Mr. Taffys, what's happened with Boris?
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753

    Mr. Taffys, what's happened with Boris?

    He's throwing his weight behind 'no single market, no surrender' effectively. And he is after all foreign secretary.
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,062
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    I find her deeply unimpressive. A mediocrity leading mediocrities. But given what she is up against that will be enough. I guess she is avoiding calling a GE because she knows that will involve developing a Brexit position - something that will inevitably tear the Tories apart.

    As can be deduced from my thread header, I haven't made up my mind about Theresa May. She could yet go one of two ways. If she can channel John Major 1992, she could prove a capable Prime Minister on the subjects that matter. She could, however, become a less accomplished Gordon Brown.

    She has a good instinct for who she needs to appeal to (unlike David Cameron, who saw modernisation and moderation as one and the same thing). So far she seems less sure footed about what policies for this base will be successful.
    So, May his a choice of being the new Major or the new Brown? How inspirational!
    Major was a good PM, brought down by Europe and the bastards. If May can unite her party around her vision for Brexit then being a Major would be a very good thing.
    Major was a risible catastrophe who fully deserved his unprecedented drubbing in the polls.
    A risible catastrophe? What exactly was so terrible? I would have preferred a more progressive government but what exactly did he preside over? War, famine, economic collapse? The biggest mistake the Tories made after 1997 was to try and blame everything on John Major when it was obvious to everyone with two eyes and ears (that were open) that people had had enough of the party not so much the leader. But the die hards couldn't accept that.
  • Options
    Mr. Taffys, interesting. Though I can't help but think in a trial of strength, May will simply overrule him.

    That said, if he adopts a die-in-a-ditch position, losing a Foreign Secretary early on would be significant.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,209
    edited September 2016
    taffys said:

    Mr. Taffys, what's happened with Boris?

    He's throwing his weight behind 'no single market, no surrender' effectively. And he is after all foreign secretary.
    I'm confused. In the immediate aftermath of the vote to leave, I thought there was a suggestion that Boris was rowing back on what exactly Brexit meant? Or was that when he thought he was going to be PM and ultimately be responsible for the outcome? He can't seriously be on manoeuvres, can he?
  • Options
    tlg86 said:

    taffys said:

    Mr. Taffys, what's happened with Boris?

    He's throwing his weight behind 'no single market, no surrender' effectively. And he is after all foreign secretary.
    I'm confused. In the immediate aftermath of the vote to leave, I thought there was a suggestion that Boris was rowing back on what exactly Brexit meant? Or was that when he thought he was going to be PM and ultimately be responsible for the outcome? He can't seriously be on manoeuvres, can he?

    Is that a serious question? Of course he is. Boris is Boris.

  • Options
    Good thread Mr Meeks. Only one area I'd differ and that's on "dithering" which implies vacillating between options. I think she just approaches problems thoroughly and takes her time to get to the "right" answer. Once she's got there - good luck shifting her.
  • Options

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    I find her deeply unimpressive. A mediocrity leading mediocrities. But given what she is up against that will be enough. I guess she is avoiding calling a GE because she knows that will involve developing a Brexit position - something that will inevitably tear the Tories apart.

    As can be deduced from my thread header, I haven't made up my mind about Theresa May. She could yet go one of two ways. If she can channel John Major 1992, she could prove a capable Prime Minister on the subjects that matter. She could, however, become a less accomplished Gordon Brown.

    She has a good instinct for who she needs to appeal to (unlike David Cameron, who saw modernisation and moderation as one and the same thing). So far she seems less sure footed about what policies for this base will be successful.
    So, May his a choice of being the new Major or the new Brown? How inspirational!
    Major was a good PM, brought down by Europe and the bastards. If May can unite her party around her vision for Brexit then being a Major would be a very good thing.
    Major was a risible catastrophe who fully deserved his unprecedented drubbing in the polls.
    A risible catastrophe? What exactly was so terrible? I would have preferred a more progressive government but what exactly did he preside over? War, famine, economic collapse? The biggest mistake the Tories made after 1997 was to try and blame everything on John Major when it was obvious to everyone with two eyes and ears (that were open) that people had had enough of the party not so much the leader. But the die hards couldn't accept that.
    Quite. He cemented the Thatcher reforms which Kinnock would have undone. 5 years later Blair didn't even try to touch them.
  • Options
    taffys said:

    The most significant story today is Boris on Brexit, natch.

    The most significant thing about Boris currently is that everyone is ignoring him.

  • Options
    Mr. Observer, that may be why he's got the job he has. It entails large periods of time out of the country.
  • Options
    Re: Boris, it's all hidden in plain sight. Look at this weeks accidental but clearly beautiful choreographed ' Three Brexiteers ' photo on the steps of Downing St. It was Boris in the centre and framed by the Black Door. It was clearly the ( re ) launch of a leadership campaign.
  • Options
    TonyETonyE Posts: 938

    Jonathan said:

    I find her deeply unimpressive. A mediocrity leading mediocrities. But given what she is up against that will be enough. I guess she is avoiding calling a GE because she knows that will involve developing a Brexit position - something that will inevitably tear the Tories apart.

    As can be deduced from my thread header, I haven't made up my mind about Theresa May. She could yet go one of two ways. If she can channel John Major 1992, she could prove a capable Prime Minister on the subjects that matter. She could, however, become a less accomplished Gordon Brown.

    She has a good instinct for who she needs to appeal to (unlike David Cameron, who saw modernisation and moderation as one and the same thing). So far she seems less sure footed about what policies for this base will be successful.
    So, May his a choice of being the new Major or the new Brown? How inspirational!
    Major was a good PM, brought down by Europe and the bastards. If May can unite her party around her vision for Brexit then being a Major would be a very good thing.
    I think you've forgotten the context of Majors selection as Tory leader. Thatcher was removed for one primary reason, she was going to kill the Maastricht treaty. Looking at what happened afterwards, with the disaster that has befallen the southern EU states, It do look like a disaster that he was PM.

    It's argueable that we might be in a very different EU environment had it not been for Maastricht.
  • Options
    TonyE said:

    Jonathan said:

    I find her deeply unimpressive. A mediocrity leading mediocrities. But given what she is up against that will be enough. I guess she is avoiding calling a GE because she knows that will involve developing a Brexit position - something that will inevitably tear the Tories apart.

    As can be deduced from my thread header, I haven't made up my mind about Theresa May. She could yet go one of two ways. If she can channel John Major 1992, she could prove a capable Prime Minister on the subjects that matter. She could, however, become a less accomplished Gordon Brown.

    She has a good instinct for who she needs to appeal to (unlike David Cameron, who saw modernisation and moderation as one and the same thing). So far she seems less sure footed about what policies for this base will be successful.
    So, May his a choice of being the new Major or the new Brown? How inspirational!
    Major was a good PM, brought down by Europe and the bastards. If May can unite her party around her vision for Brexit then being a Major would be a very good thing.
    I think you've forgotten the context of Majors selection as Tory leader. Thatcher was removed for one primary reason, she was going to kill the Maastricht treaty. Looking at what happened afterwards, with the disaster that has befallen the southern EU states, It do look like a disaster that he was PM.

    It's argueable that we might be in a very different EU environment had it not been for Maastricht.

    Wasn't it her pig-headedness over the poll tax?

  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,078

    Good thread Mr Meeks. Only one area I'd differ and that's on "dithering" which implies vacillating between options. I think she just approaches problems thoroughly and takes her time to get to the "right" answer.

    I don't see a huge dustinction there. I would class taking too long to come to a decision dithering, though it's hard to judge when something is taking too long. But Merkel is known for being cautious, careful and considered, it is usually a real strength, but it has been shown in some crises as being unable to take swift and decisive action early enough. May coukd be similar. Certainly she cannot be said to be characterised by bold and decisive actions. At present I'd put her do robe in the middle, but Alistari s right to raise the potential of the dithering, particularly given she is apparently very controlling. people who micromanage can dither the worst of all if the managing messes up and they do t know what to do.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,209

    TonyE said:

    Jonathan said:

    I find her deeply unimpressive. A mediocrity leading mediocrities. But given what she is up against that will be enough. I guess she is avoiding calling a GE because she knows that will involve developing a Brexit position - something that will inevitably tear the Tories apart.

    As can be deduced from my thread header, I haven't made up my mind about Theresa May. She could yet go one of two ways. If she can channel John Major 1992, she could prove a capable Prime Minister on the subjects that matter. She could, however, become a less accomplished Gordon Brown.

    She has a good instinct for who she needs to appeal to (unlike David Cameron, who saw modernisation and moderation as one and the same thing). So far she seems less sure footed about what policies for this base will be successful.
    So, May his a choice of being the new Major or the new Brown? How inspirational!
    Major was a good PM, brought down by Europe and the bastards. If May can unite her party around her vision for Brexit then being a Major would be a very good thing.
    I think you've forgotten the context of Majors selection as Tory leader. Thatcher was removed for one primary reason, she was going to kill the Maastricht treaty. Looking at what happened afterwards, with the disaster that has befallen the southern EU states, It do look like a disaster that he was PM.

    It's argueable that we might be in a very different EU environment had it not been for Maastricht.

    Wasn't it her pig-headedness over the poll tax?

    That was the excuse. Actually the poll tax was fairer than the current system.
  • Options
    Odd that I should have to go into bat for a Conservative PM on PB. But all things considered I think she's doing quite well. What ever you think of the Hinckley and Grammar schools moves they are absolutely not dithering. They are the opposite of dithering. They are the expending of significant political capital to fight powerful vested interests including sections of her own party. Putting the Three Brexiteers in charge of Brexit isn't dithering. Sacking figures as substantial as Osborne and Gove isn't dithering. Deciding to rule out a second referendum and to leave both the Customs Union and membership of the Single Market isn't dithering. Answering simply " Yes " to the Nuclear button question isn't dithering. The briefing Heathrow expansion is being brought back from the long grass via free vote isn't dithering. In fact all the evidence is she knows she may well be one of the most consequential PM's since WW2 and she's determned to decide some of those consequences herself.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,078

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    I find her deeply unimpressive. A mediocrity leading mediocrities. But given what she is up against that will be enough. I guess she is avoiding calling a GE because she knows that will involve developing a Brexit position - something that will inevitably tear the Tories apart.


    I think she is unpolished and ill prepared for the top job, but considering how she got it this is surely understandable.

    It will be interesting to see if and how she matures.
    That is ridiculous. Noone is "prepared" to be Prime Minister, bur she has an impressive back story both in and out of politics.
    Come off it. First, few expected Dave to go now. Second, the leadership election terminated abruptly. She got the job and was expected to form a govt with hours notice.


    I am sure that all of the potential candidates were preparing/scheming what they would do if Dave had to go in the event of a no vote/fell under a bus so to speak.. its in the nature of the beast that is politics.
    Quite. Practically everyone here though he would go very soon if he lost, even if they did not think he would lose. I'm sure the mps thought the same. My theory is its one reason few called for him to go, since they knew he would and they could present as loyal to the end even if a brexiter. And if course Mays positioning was seen at the time as helping her if leave lost by only cautiously backing Brexit. Either she was on maneuvers or she wasn't trying very hard.
  • Options
    I've adjusted to May as PM. Sadly, because I know she will let me down. I've got it into my head that her limitations as Home Secretary were due to overall Government policy. I've no real evidence for this.
  • Options

    Odd that I should have to go into bat for a Conservative PM on PB. But all things considered I think she's doing quite well. What ever you think of the Hinckley and Grammar schools moves they are absolutely not dithering. They are the opposite of dithering. They are the expending of significant political capital to fight powerful vested interests including sections of her own party. Putting the Three Brexiteers in charge of Brexit isn't dithering. Sacking figures as substantial as Osborne and Gove isn't dithering. Deciding to rule out a second referendum and to leave both the Customs Union and membership of the Single Market isn't dithering. Answering simply " Yes " to the Nuclear button question isn't dithering. The briefing Heathrow expansion is being brought back from the long grass via free vote isn't dithering. In fact all the evidence is she knows she may well be one of the most consequential PM's since WW2 and she's determned to decide some of those consequences herself.

    I agree. The only exception is that there's no apparent actual direction on Brexit, and since she's being so deliberate about everything else the best explanation is that she's made a conscious, considered decision to let the barge drift out to sea.
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Rudd slapping down Boris on TV. That's the Foreign Secretary, that is.

    Oh dear.


  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,078
    Oh, the NHS is at a tipping point over finances again? yawwwwwwwwwwwn. As inevitable as the sun rising in the east, or that it is impossible to make any savings despite the legendarily sclerotic bureaucracy of the place.
  • Options
    As for " She needs an election, she needs her own mandate" well of course she does. But the FTP limits her freedom, the spectre of Gordon Brown's cancelled election haunts us all, there's a car crash to clean up and she's a bit busy. But crucially it's precisely because a General Election is her biggest card to play that she needs to play it at time of maximum advantage. She can't call an election to validate her Brexit strategy until she has one. If she calls it before she has a Brexit strategy then the dynamic of the election campaign where Tory candidates will be pulled toward hard Brexit will decide the policy for her.
  • Options
    May strikes me as being no fool. She seems to have learned the lesson of Europe.

    Heath failed because he was on the wrong side of the argument about the EU.
    Thatcher ultimately failed in part because she was on the wrong side of the argument about the EU.
    Major failed because he was on the wrong side of the argument about the EU.
    Cameron failed because he was on the wrong side of the argument about the EU.

    May seems to have read the famous Einstein quote about the definition of insanity and realises that there is a right side and a wrong side on matters relating to the EU. Brexit means Brexit. At last a Tory PM who is not being turned insane by the Grimer Wormtongues of her party.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,631
    Something that has been doing the rounds over the weekend, Dell are going to fire 2-3k US workers and have also between Dell and EMC applied for 5k worth of H1b visas. The roles that are going are lower tier help desk and tech/field support ones, an area where they can get H1b workers in.

    If this is confirmed by Dell (and they will have to give a statement at some point) then it has the potential of giving Trump a massive helping hand for November as it looks very, very bad to fire domestic workers and replace them with cheaper foreign labour.
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited September 2016
    ''She can't call an election to validate her Brexit strategy until she has one. ''

    You would think, wouldn;t you, that any person wanting the position of Prime Minister would have a Brexit strategy.....????

    but apparently not. Theresa is 'driving' according to Rudd. And she has firmly decided so far to take us precisely nowhere.

    We're having a hard Brexit with a soft centre. Or a soft Brexit that has distinctly hard characteristics.

    May is a vacillating fudger. As I have said on here many times, the candidate UKIP would have chosen to keep them in business.
  • Options
    Patrick said:

    May strikes me as being no fool. She seems to have learned the lesson of Europe.

    Heath failed because he was on the wrong side of the argument about the EU.
    Thatcher ultimately failed in part because she was on the wrong side of the argument about the EU.
    Major failed because he was on the wrong side of the argument about the EU.
    Cameron failed because he was on the wrong side of the argument about the EU.

    May seems to have read the famous Einstein quote about the definition of insanity and realises that there is a right side and a wrong side on matters relating to the EU. Brexit means Brexit. At last a Tory PM who is not being turned insane by the Grimer Wormtongues of her party.

    Yes, but what does Brexit mean?

  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    taffys said:

    ''She can't call an election to validate her Brexit strategy until she has one. ''

    You would think, wouldn;t you, that any person wanting the position of Prime Minister would have a Brexit strategy.....????

    but apparently not. Theresa is 'driving' according to Rudd. And she has firmly decided so far to take us precisely nowhere.

    We're having a hard Brexit with a soft centre. Or a soft Brexit that has distinctly hard characteristics.

    May is a vacillating fudger. As I have said on here many times, the candidate UKIP would have chosen to keep them in business.

    So you don't like her.. OK we understand
  • Options

    Patrick said:

    May strikes me as being no fool. She seems to have learned the lesson of Europe.

    Heath failed because he was on the wrong side of the argument about the EU.
    Thatcher ultimately failed in part because she was on the wrong side of the argument about the EU.
    Major failed because he was on the wrong side of the argument about the EU.
    Cameron failed because he was on the wrong side of the argument about the EU.

    May seems to have read the famous Einstein quote about the definition of insanity and realises that there is a right side and a wrong side on matters relating to the EU. Brexit means Brexit. At last a Tory PM who is not being turned insane by the Grimer Wormtongues of her party.

    Yes, but what does Brexit mean?

    It's the geopolitical version of "The password is password"
  • Options

    "Dithers" is nonsense. A sensible review of a questionable project.. To say no immediately to the Chinese was going to be bad, but without a review, infinitely worse

    Your relocation from Cameron's fundament to that of May seems to have been seamless. Congratulations!
  • Options
    MaxPB said:

    Something that has been doing the rounds over the weekend, Dell are going to fire 2-3k US workers and have also between Dell and EMC applied for 5k worth of H1b visas. The roles that are going are lower tier help desk and tech/field support ones, an area where they can get H1b workers in.

    If this is confirmed by Dell (and they will have to give a statement at some point) then it has the potential of giving Trump a massive helping hand for November as it looks very, very bad to fire domestic workers and replace them with cheaper foreign labour.

    You can't get an H1b for a help desk role, when. I did mine the process was fairly rigorous. I worked at Dell. The EMC take over was always going to lead to consolidation of back office kobs

    They may be offshoring jobs, but that's a different debate.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,141
    Of course the Conservatives always say they're on the side of the poor and vulnerable. That's the kind of thing people want to hear. Cameron adopted the same posture, but in quantitative terms those on lowest incomes were among the hardest hit by the coalition government's policies. From what I've seen so far I very much doubt it will be different under the present government.
  • Options
    The next question in grading May out of 10 is what on earth would 10 be ? OK, Brexit hasn't killed anyone. Yet. Subject to a current police investigation. But Brexit will be the most complex and consequential event in the nation's history since .... The Norway Debate ? It happened by accident, with no plan in opposition to the British and Transatlantic deep states as well as advice of nearly all the global economic architecture. It happened on behest of 51.9% of the population who hold myriad and often contradictory views on what it means. So if you think May has been suboptimal ( A ) what would have been optimal ? (B) Abraham Lincoln wasn't available.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,078
    edited September 2016
    Patrick said:

    May strikes me as being no fool. She seems to have learned the lesson of Europe.

    Heath failed because he was on the wrong side of the argument about the EU.
    Thatcher ultimately failed in part because she was on the wrong side of the argument about the EU.
    Major failed because he was on the wrong side of the argument about the EU.
    Cameron failed because he was on the wrong side of the argument about the EU.

    May seems to have read the famous Einstein quote about the definition of insanity and realises that there is a right side and a wrong side on matters relating to the EU. Brexit means Brexit. At last a Tory PM who is not being turned insane by the Grimer Wormtongues of her party.

    You seem to be operating on the assumption that as long as we Brexit she will have no problem as that is being on the right side. But as we have seen some Tories have already claimed option X or y will not be true Brexit, so she could still be on the wrong side. It is more complicated than her accepting Brexit. For a start, that doesn't show any amazing judgement on her part, she was a remainer but political reality is what it is, if Cameron had been able to study on he'd say the same thing now. Until we know what she can get and how the awkward squad react to less than perfection, praising her simply for recognising poiliticalky the country crossed the rubicon with the referendum just shows basic common sense, not an aversion to the worm tongues.

    Heck, she was not an eu fanatic but supported remaining, isn't that worse than someone who at least adored the eu? I jest, but even as a leaver praising her simply knowing g Brexit means Brexit feels like praising a toddler for not drawing on the walls. She was the best choice and has enough positives to be great, but some are putting the bar a bit low I think.
  • Options
    theakestheakes Posts: 842
    Fort the umpteenth time, she has virtually no chance of an early election, to call for two votes of no confidence in herself would make her a laughing stock and lead to probable defeat, loss of majority anyway and her resignation, the 2010 Parliament Act rules okay.
  • Options
    perdixperdix Posts: 1,806
    taffys said:

    ''She can't call an election to validate her Brexit strategy until she has one. ''

    You would think, wouldn;t you, that any person wanting the position of Prime Minister would have a Brexit strategy.....????

    but apparently not. Theresa is 'driving' according to Rudd. And she has firmly decided so far to take us precisely nowhere.

    We're having a hard Brexit with a soft centre. Or a soft Brexit that has distinctly hard characteristics.

    May is a vacillating fudger. As I have said on here many times, the candidate UKIP would have chosen to keep them in business.

    A Brexit strategy will be made up of many complex considerations. Someone who was a sceptical remainer and who had no early expectation of being PM would not have had a strategy. The problem with kippers is that they hate the EU and immigration so much they go for the emotional jugular ( 80 million Turks tomorrow) and fail to come up with a coherent plan themselves.

  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,978
    edited September 2016

    Patrick said:

    May strikes me as being no fool. She seems to have learned the lesson of Europe.

    Heath failed because he was on the wrong side of the argument about the EU.
    Thatcher ultimately failed in part because she was on the wrong side of the argument about the EU.
    Major failed because he was on the wrong side of the argument about the EU.
    Cameron failed because he was on the wrong side of the argument about the EU.

    May seems to have read the famous Einstein quote about the definition of insanity and realises that there is a right side and a wrong side on matters relating to the EU. Brexit means Brexit. At last a Tory PM who is not being turned insane by the Grimer Wormtongues of her party.

    Yes, but what does Brexit mean?

    It's the geopolitical version of "The password is password"

    My guess is that May knows what Brexit means and for that reason we are going to get a lot more nods to the right before A50 is invoked. She needs plenty in the bank for when the Betrayal headlines get going.

  • Options
    taffys said:

    ''She can't call an election to validate her Brexit strategy until she has one. ''

    You would think, wouldn;t you, that any person wanting the position of Prime Minister would have a Brexit strategy.....????

    but apparently not. Theresa is 'driving' according to Rudd. And she has firmly decided so far to take us precisely nowhere.

    We're having a hard Brexit with a soft centre. Or a soft Brexit that has distinctly hard characteristics.

    May is a vacillating fudger. As I have said on here many times, the candidate UKIP would have chosen to keep them in business.

    UKIP exist to fight Postmodernity and Globalisation. UKIP will remain in healthy business what ever May does.
  • Options
    theakes said:

    Fort the umpteenth time, she has virtually no chance of an early election, to call for two votes of no confidence in herself would make her a laughing stock and lead to probable defeat, loss of majority anyway and her resignation, the 2010 Parliament Act rules okay.

    Corbyn has already called for an early general election. If May said she wanted one, would Labour really vote to keep her government in office?
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''they hate the EU and immigration so much they go for the emotional jugular ( 80 million Turks tomorrow) and fail to come up with a coherent plan themselves.''

    Then again, the EU is an organisation that is soon to grant visa free travel to islamist Turkey, whilst at the same time imposing visas on free, democratic western Nato cornerstone Britain.

    How is that sustainable? how is it logical? how is it defensible? how is it anything other that complete lunacy?
  • Options

    Odd that I should have to go into bat for a Conservative PM on PB. But all things considered I think she's doing quite well. What ever you think of the Hinckley and Grammar schools moves they are absolutely not dithering. They are the opposite of dithering. They are the expending of significant political capital to fight powerful vested interests including sections of her own party. Putting the Three Brexiteers in charge of Brexit isn't dithering. Sacking figures as substantial as Osborne and Gove isn't dithering. Deciding to rule out a second referendum and to leave both the Customs Union and membership of the Single Market isn't dithering. Answering simply " Yes " to the Nuclear button question isn't dithering. The briefing Heathrow expansion is being brought back from the long grass via free vote isn't dithering. In fact all the evidence is she knows she may well be one of the most consequential PM's since WW2 and she's determned to decide some of those consequences herself.

    I agree. The only exception is that there's no apparent actual direction on Brexit, and since she's being so deliberate about everything else the best explanation is that she's made a conscious, considered decision to let the barge drift out to sea.
    Agreed it is deliberate and quite clever.

    The whole Establishment position was that a Brexit vote would cause a recession and we would enter negotiations with the EU in a weak position desperate for a deal, any deal, to get us out of the mess.

    I think May has more confidence in our nation and is deliberately buying time doing absolutely nothing. If August's data starts a trend we are not only doing OK but potentially entering a Brexit Boom.

    If that continues then May will enter negotiations with the EU from a position of much greater strength.

    The art of negotiation is to let the other side think you are prepared to walk away without a deal if necessary. I suspect May wants to stay in the Single Market outside the EU and with some form of border controls. The EU does not want to give us that. If we enter negotiations weak they will not give us that.

    Paradoxically the best chance then to stay in the Single Market is to be able and prepared to leave it.
  • Options
    taffys said:

    ''they hate the EU and immigration so much they go for the emotional jugular ( 80 million Turks tomorrow) and fail to come up with a coherent plan themselves.''

    Then again, the EU is an organisation that is soon to grant visa free travel to islamist Turkey, whilst at the same time imposing visas on free, democratic western Nato cornerstone Britain.

    How is that sustainable? how is it logical? how is it defensible? how is it anything other that complete lunacy?

    If people need visas to move between Britain and the EU and back that'll be because Britain made that decision. I think it's lunatic, but the British voters seem to think it's a good idea.
  • Options
    theakes said:

    Fort the umpteenth time, she has virtually no chance of an early election, to call for two votes of no confidence in herself would make her a laughing stock and lead to probable defeat, loss of majority anyway and her resignation, the 2010 Parliament Act rules okay.

    No need for a no confidence vote just a vote that 'This house votes that there should be an early election'. The opposition parties having called for one can't add won't vote against that.
This discussion has been closed.