Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Across the UK political divide voters regard Theresa May as a
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Across the UK political divide voters regard Theresa May as a much better leader than Donald Trump
To coincide with the Trump visit the latest ICM/Guardian poll has a series of findings examining the attitudes of British voters to the current incumbent at the White House. The responses to two of the questions are featured above with breakdown on party support.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Given that the Chequers agreement does not help at all with the NI backstop text, she has a HUUUUUUGE problem.
Also, doesn't it come with freedom of movement ?
And migration could be tackled in exactly the same way the Swiss do, by requiring the compulsory purchase of health insurance. Plans for foreigners start - IIRC - at about CHF4,000/year, which removes the vast majority of low skilled immigrants, and largely prevents people from hanging around looking for a job.
The Chequers plan does the exact opposite. It grants the EU free access for their goods and restricts our abilities to export services and then restricts our ability to strike these types of FTAs. Like the EU, it a strategy locked in the past.
London can survive on services alone - but Wales would be decimated.. as would most of England outside of SE..
Vassal State Brexit is not such a bad outcome. The EU makes decent rules and will be a benign master. Of course it would have been better to stay in and have a way in writing the rules, but re joining to do that will be much simpler with Mats proposal.
Boris is probably the closest we have to a Trump figure even if he does not replicate him exactly but offers a British version of him
For your second point, I would have agreed with you three years ago. However, now Selmayr is so powerful I'm not sure I still can. Nasty piece of work and in effect running the Commission as a private fiefdom despite having no legal right to do so.
Do you mean a racist bigot who's in league with literal fascists?
Do you mean someone simply anti-immigration?
Do you mean a buffoonish loudmouth? (hello Boris - Ed)
Do you mean a leader putting their own country first?
Or something completely different?
I imagine especially after the Chequers news there might be people out there who wouldn't hold any truck with the racist sentiments but might appreciate a leader that is vocally and strongly pro-Britain on the international stage.
The Swiss outside the EU can discriminate between their own citizens and foreigners. Inside the EU we can not.
That said I also agree with your second point. Equally, reforming welfare has been a goal of all administrations for forty years and they have made pretty well zero progress.
Bit peeved I hedged the wrong damn semi. Oh well. Will probably hedge Croatia in the final, just hope the odds aren't too long.
The whole purpose of Brexit is not to be ruled from Brussels/Berlin.
It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
Sovereignty means more than some transient opportunities. Opportunities come and go but once we're sovereign that [should] be forever. We can then use the democratic process to hold our politicians to account for what they do to give people better lives and opportunities rather than passing the buck to Brussels.
Did Indian (or Irish, or Jamaican, or Ghanaian) independence improve people's life chances, boost the economy, or get rid of corruption? No. In many cases, it made matters worse - two of those examples plunged into civil war on independence. But they took the Asquithian principle that self-government is better than good governance. So do Leavers.
Where the parallel falls down is that unlike any country in the Empire except Ireland, we had significant influence in Europe and were therefore not being ruled by it. I don't think however that was enough for Leavers who wanted to see that we always got our own way, because anything else is not by definition self-government.
It is funny to say the other side are the bad guys and like bad people you don't like but it takes a massive lack of understanding to pretend it is actually true...
He may not realise those things are what he is, but that's because he's also as dim as a three watt bulb.
I'm still not seeing your objection to the parallel.
Political sovereignty is only half of it. Economic sovereignty in a globalised economy is more important. Sadly we're finding out Brexit actually undermines that.
That's like saying someone in a domineering and controlling relationship who is told what to do by their partner all the time has free will as they can leave.
But please don't talk about armed uprisings. We could do without giving the ERG ideas.
'MR Speaker, we must be prepared to give up a part or, if need be, the whole of our constitution, in order to preserve the remainder.'
He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
https://twitter.com/emporersnewc/status/1016768242944237568?s=21
And it's dead easy to imagine him doing those things you say are unimaginable - just not for those groups. Try substituting 'privately educated' and 'Jew.'
Mr. 43, those advocating we follow EU laws after we leave are also those who thought we shouldn't have left. [For the sake of fairness, it's worth noting some soft leavers appear ok-ish with the May-Chequers proposition. But many are furious, and even more are less than thrilled].
If the electorate vote to leave the EU and the political class decide that means we should continue to follow EU laws, that's not a flaw with those who want to leave but deliberately thwarting of the electorate's decision by those tasked with representing them.
Difficult to separate from the policies, though - people look at Putin and think "Salisbury", or at Merkel and think "immigration crisis". I reckon there's a market for nationalist loudmouths in every country, but no more than 25% in most, and a market for quiet competence that is larger. May does quite well at times when she's perceived as competent...
Part of the problem of course is the confusion between the EU and the European Court of human rights that many if not most people have.
I'm not sure Corbyn does intend to raise taxes on the poor, your secret knowledge of his intentions or knowledge that it will definitely go wrong so will mean he does have to raise taxes on the poor don't count... although that aside I'm not sure Trump has or wants to raise taxes on the poor? and it certainly isn't a big thing about being Trump if he does so that line seems a little weird... Admittedly I haven't been paying a huge amount of attention to US politics so maybe Trump does intend that....
From what I remember pre election the Tories and Trump had a more similar tax policy...
The immigration line I'll give you, can't remember exactly his wording but close enough to that goal. Although let's be honest Trump would think Labour are far too soft on immigration, definitely a Conservative vote there, although they would be too soft as well!
Yeah I am sure Trump would be well up for appointing Naz Shah... Also freeing the Palestinians does not equal ethnic cleansing, although I can understand why Trump would object to anything positive towards Muslims.
You may not like the fact that you and Trump would vote in sync in the UK but it just makes you look silly to pretend that somehow Trump is your opponent.
The British people cannot be forced into a situation where the UK follows EU law. If they oppose that, they will vote for a government that will change it.
That is regular people not MPs.
My objection to the EU is to the whole push towards making it one state. I never wanted EU citizenship, but had it foisted on me.
I doubt there are many in parliament with a better record on civil liberties than Corbyn.
The internal battles in the conservative party echo the pro and anti treaty forces in 1920s. Let's hope we can do it without blood.
I have little doubt that we will continue to work closely with the US in intelligence gathering and politically in the UN but our common interests are fewer and weaker than they have been since WW2. Most PMs, of whatever stripe, have thought that the national interest required them to cosy up to the President of the day. May does not feel that need or, perhaps, just finds Trump too repulsive in his views.
We are seeing this increasingly often. Her very blunt criticism of his policies on breaking up would be immigrant families at PMQs was pretty much unprecedented. Our position on Iran, our concerns about the war in Yemen, our opposition to moving Israel's capital to Jerusalem, our position on trade tariffs, I cannot recall a time when we disagreed about so much and it seems unlikely these areas of disagreement are going to diminish.
We are fortunate enough to live in a quiet part of the world with no obvious strategic threats. But I do think that the working assumption that military action on our part is going to be based around US logistical support (which remains unmatched and unparalleled) is no longer valid and we need to start shaping our forces so that they are more autonomous.
The reason we got a referendum was because UKIP was on the rise. But for that, we would've continued to have the political class make sceptical promises and EU-phile actions, binding us ever closer to the EU.
By George, I think he's a Corbynite!
As for Naz Shah, she has apologised, and what she retweeted was wrong, but she isn't in favour of banning Jews from the country and it will never be labour policy to do so.