May has basically been talked up but has never put up. Do people not think it a bit strange that we hear what a great show of leadership she showed in front of back bench TORY MPs. The only time she does it, we hear about it from biased accounts, we never see it. We saw how incompetent she was post the Grenfall Tower tragedy. The point I am making here isn't party political, it is about leadership. A strong leader would have got on top of the support on day one - it was an opportunity - a tragic one - but an opportunity to show leadership.
We get told too much. We get told May is a strong leader but the people who tell us forget that this has to be backed up with actions. Whatever your thoughts on Corbyn - you can see he is a strong leader despite us being constantly told he isn't. We are not stupid. To quote the bard - give me the ocular proof!
She is a political pygmy - who puts her party before the country. The problem is they currently have only one leader in their ranks and she would never be supported by the right of the party and isn't even an MP.
Tory leader who puts party ahead of country, shock!
It is well out of date - and mostly a figment of your imagination I would suggest. The labour manifesto was a social democratic one. All of the policies in it are hard to dosagree with. The only argument against it is really whether we can afford it, but the leading economists in the world say we can - I'm nuch more willing to trust them than you I'm afraid!
She is a political pygmy - who puts her party before the country. The problem is they currently have only one leader in their ranks and she would never be supported by the right of the party and isn't even an MP.
Tory leader who puts party ahead of country, shock!
She also seems to put herself ahead of the party.
It looks to me as though she was just in the right place at the right time and was so lucky to become leader. She was in the envious position of having to clear up someone else's mess. By that I mean she wanted to stay in Europe yet she was willing (probably very keen) to lead the country through the exit from the EU (something that Cameron was not willing to do) so if it all went wrong she could claim she was making the best of a situation she inherited.
Instead of doing the job that needed doing (i.e. Brexit) she decided to call for a General Election to strengthen her hand. Had they won by a landslide majority, which everyone was predicting, she would have boasted about the 'mandate' that the country had given her. Now she's hanging on for dear life.
Let's look at the facts, Cameron and Osborne had five years of austerity, cut budgets everywhere and reduced most peoples standard of living but they managed to secure a majority in 2015. Quite an achievement. Due to May's arrogance and incompetence she has turned one of the biggest leads in the polls to what is, in reality, a failure at the election that she was supposed, and expected, to win easily. How did she go from being the leader of a party that won an election despite the least popular five years in modern times to losing the majority and being hated by, virtually, everyone? I never remember Cameron or Blair being grilled on TV like May is now!
Despite what people think of her, Thatcher was a massive success in the elections she fought. Her policies were not for everyone, but her strategy and her persona made her one of the most successful leaders this country has ever had and probably the most successful Conservative leader. I'm not talking about political or economic outcomes, just the election success. Even though she didn't, really, want to resign Thatcher did so in the best interests of the Tory party - as I remember it.
May is, desperately, hanging on to power. She must know that it's in the best interests of her party for her to go now. She much know it's in the best interests of the country to not make a deal with the DUP - not only will they demand, and get concessions that are not in the best interests of the UK, I, genuinely, worry for the peace process in Ireland if she allows them to secure things that were given away as part of the negotiations in the past.
In reality she gambled and lost. She should pay up and resign.
It is well out of date - and mostly a figment of your imagination I would suggest. The labour manifesto was a social democratic one. All of the policies in it are hard to dosagree with. The only argument against it is really whether we can afford it, but the leading economists in the world say we can - I'm nuch more willing to trust them than you I'm afraid!
I wouldn't have a clue how to dosagree with them, even if I wanted to! ;-)
Please answer without using the words Corbyn or Labour.
I used to. The main problem she has is that her USP, if you like, was her ability to look almost like a headmistress, a safe, authoritive pair of hands, something she could portray herself as if she had won the landslide. Instead it's like all the naughty children have just thrown a party in her office and left an unwanted present on her desk.
Now, it's got to the point where people are legitimately able to use her own slogans against her "coalition of chaos" etc.
She's gone from headmistress to headless chicken in the space of a few weeks...
Still though, I like her because she's not Corbyn or Labour.... ;-)
Can I ask what was it about her running of the Home Office that led to you believing she was a safe pair of hands?
He said "look like a safe pair of hands".
Which I should fair enough, she did, she was portrayed in such a way until she was put under even the tiniest bit of scrutiny.
Nothing wrong with Huskaris' post imo.
I didn't say there was anything "wrong with" his post though. He's entitled to his view on what impression she gave and I'm entitled to point out that little she did as Home Secretary backs up that impression in my own opinion.
She has overseen cuts to general policing and our border force, a failing prison service, several botched attempts at a public enquiry into child abuse, a fortune wasted on Operation Midland, failed to implement an IT system for border control which is years late and £100m's over budget, overseen some extremely strange and harmful visa decisions and of course annually failed to meet her own targets on immigration. I could go on but you probably get the point and that in light of these examples I was interested in why someone might consider her a competent, "safe pair of hands", hence my question.
I think it raises an interesting point how people can be talked up. When you look at May's record in 6 years at the Home Office - it wasn't good. It just shows that being useless doesn't stop you gaining support. Her big problem was that events forced people to look at the details of her achievements in key areas - or more to the point, lack of them.
She is a political pygmy - who puts her party before the country. The problem is they currently have only one leader in their ranks and she would never be supported by the right of the party and isn't even an MP.
Tory leader who puts party ahead of country, shock!
She also seems to put herself ahead of the party.
It looks to me as though she was just in the right place at the right time and was so lucky to become leader. She was in the envious position of having to clear up someone else's mess. By that I mean she wanted to stay in Europe yet she was willing (probably very keen) to lead the country through the exit from the EU (something that Cameron was not willing to do) so if it all went wrong she could claim she was making the best of a situation she inherited.
Instead of doing the job that needed doing (i.e. Brexit) she decided to call for a General Election to strengthen her hand. Had they won by a landslide majority, which everyone was predicting, she would have boasted about the 'mandate' that the country had given her. Now she's hanging on for dear life.
Let's look at the facts, Cameron and Osborne had five years of austerity, cut budgets everywhere and reduced most peoples standard of living but they managed to secure a majority in 2015. Quite an achievement. Due to May's arrogance and incompetence she has turned one of the biggest leads in the polls to what is, in reality, a failure at the election that she was supposed, and expected, to win easily. How did she go from being the leader of a party that won an election despite the least popular five years in modern times to losing the majority and being hated by, virtually, everyone? I never remember Cameron or Blair being grilled on TV like May is now!
Despite what people think of her, Thatcher was a massive success in the elections she fought. Her policies were not for everyone, but her strategy and her persona made her one of the most successful leaders this country has ever had and probably the most successful Conservative leader. I'm not talking about political or economic outcomes, just the election success. Even though she didn't, really, want to resign Thatcher did so in the best interests of the Tory party - as I remember it.
May is, desperately, hanging on to power. She must know that it's in the best interests of her party for her to go now. She much know it's in the best interests of the country to not make a deal with the DUP - not only will they demand, and get concessions that are not in the best interests of the UK, I, genuinely, worry for the peace process in Ireland if she allows them to secure things that were given away as part of the negotiations in the past.
In reality she gambled and lost. She should pay up and resign.
The issue is the country has no other option to lead in my eyes.
Short of running another election and most likely ending up in exactly the same place at the end of it.
Please answer without using the words Corbyn or Labour.
I used to. The main problem she has is that her USP, if you like, was her ability to look almost like a headmistress, a safe, authoritive pair of hands, something she could portray herself as if she had won the landslide. Instead it's like all the naughty children have just thrown a party in her office and left an unwanted present on her desk.
Now, it's got to the point where people are legitimately able to use her own slogans against her "coalition of chaos" etc.
She's gone from headmistress to headless chicken in the space of a few weeks...
Still though, I like her because she's not Corbyn or Labour.... ;-)
Can I ask what was it about her running of the Home Office that led to you believing she was a safe pair of hands?
He said "look like a safe pair of hands".
Which I should fair enough, she did, she was portrayed in such a way until she was put under even the tiniest bit of scrutiny.
Nothing wrong with Huskaris' post imo.
I didn't say there was anything "wrong with" his post though. He's entitled to his view on what impression she gave and I'm entitled to point out that little she did as Home Secretary backs up that impression in my own opinion.
She has overseen cuts to general policing and our border force, a failing prison service, several botched attempts at a public enquiry into child abuse, a fortune wasted on Operation Midland, failed to implement an IT system for border control which is years late and £100m's over budget, overseen some extremely strange and harmful visa decisions and of course annually failed to meet her own targets on immigration. I could go on but you probably get the point and that in light of these examples I was interested in why someone might consider her a competent, "safe pair of hands", hence my question.
I suspect that she did 'look like a safe pair of hands'. What I think you need to remember Bournemouth is that the majority of the general public don't follow politics closely enough to know that list, you have given, even happened, never mind be associated with May. I don't doubt your comments but I wasn't aware that she was responsible for any of it - save the cutting of the Police numbers which came up in the last week of the election. I don't even know what Operation Midland is.
On that basis there was no need for her credibility to be associated with past performance as most people don't know about it.
But her supporters who backed her leadership would have known it. This is not a party political point - half the Labour party decided Corbyn couldn't lead. Where do they get this info from? I think I have some insight as up until a few monts ago, I thought Corbyn couldn't lead. I realised I did this because everybody was telling me so! Th epower of influence over reason. I think political parties have to go a bit deeper and look for the real qulaities- not the qualities the daily mail says are there. I know there are many decent Tories, so there must be a few of those who have the qualities to be a better leader.
But her supporters who backed her leadership would have known it. This is not a party political point - half the Labour party decided Corbyn couldn't lead. Where do they get this info from? I think I have some insight as up until a few monts ago, I thought Corbyn couldn't lead. I realised I did this because everybody was telling me so! Th epower of influence over reason. I think political parties have to go a bit deeper and look for the real qulaities- not the qualities the daily mail says are there. I know there are many decent Tories, so there must be a few of those who have the qualities to be a better leader.
Even I am stumped, and I have a higher than average interest in Politics. As I swelter here I struggle to think of a current Tory MP who seems remotely close to being enough of a statesman/woman to be in charge. The last Tory voice that I heard who talked a lot of sense was John Major on the World at 1 last week.
Please answer without using the words Corbyn or Labour.
I used to. The main problem she has is that her USP, if you like, was her ability to look almost like a headmistress, a safe, authoritive pair of hands, something she could portray herself as if she had won the landslide. Instead it's like all the naughty children have just thrown a party in her office and left an unwanted present on her desk.
Now, it's got to the point where people are legitimately able to use her own slogans against her "coalition of chaos" etc.
She's gone from headmistress to headless chicken in the space of a few weeks...
Still though, I like her because she's not Corbyn or Labour.... ;-)
Can I ask what was it about her running of the Home Office that led to you believing she was a safe pair of hands?
He said "look like a safe pair of hands".
Which I should fair enough, she did, she was portrayed in such a way until she was put under even the tiniest bit of scrutiny.
Nothing wrong with Huskaris' post imo.
I didn't say there was anything "wrong with" his post though. He's entitled to his view on what impression she gave and I'm entitled to point out that little she did as Home Secretary backs up that impression in my own opinion.
She has overseen cuts to general policing and our border force, a failing prison service, several botched attempts at a public enquiry into child abuse, a fortune wasted on Operation Midland, failed to implement an IT system for border control which is years late and £100m's over budget, overseen some extremely strange and harmful visa decisions and of course annually failed to meet her own targets on immigration. I could go on but you probably get the point and that in light of these examples I was interested in why someone might consider her a competent, "safe pair of hands", hence my question.
Remember that the competition was Andrea Leadsom.
There's an outside chance that even I could appear competent by comparison.
I think it raises an interesting point how people can be talked up. When you look at May's record in 6 years at the Home Office - it wasn't good. It just shows that being useless doesn't stop you gaining support. Her big problem was that events forced people to look at the details of her achievements in key areas - or more to the point, lack of them.
I agree, we don't want useless leaders who make cock ups. We want leaders who have never been in power, have no track record in exercising power, have the most likes on social media and only make cock ups on purpose to annoy people.
She is a political pygmy - who puts her party before the country. The problem is they currently have only one leader in their ranks and she would never be supported by the right of the party and isn't even an MP.
Tory leader who puts party ahead of country, shock!
She also seems to put herself ahead of the party.
It looks to me as though she was just in the right place at the right time and was so lucky to become leader. She was in the envious position of having to clear up someone else's mess. By that I mean she wanted to stay in Europe yet she was willing (probably very keen) to lead the country through the exit from the EU (something that Cameron was not willing to do) so if it all went wrong she could claim she was making the best of a situation she inherited.
Instead of doing the job that needed doing (i.e. Brexit) she decided to call for a General Election to strengthen her hand. Had they won by a landslide majority, which everyone was predicting, she would have boasted about the 'mandate' that the country had given her. Now she's hanging on for dear life.
Let's look at the facts, Cameron and Osborne had five years of austerity, cut budgets everywhere and reduced most peoples standard of living but they managed to secure a majority in 2015. Quite an achievement. Due to May's arrogance and incompetence she has turned one of the biggest leads in the polls to what is, in reality, a failure at the election that she was supposed, and expected, to win easily. How did she go from being the leader of a party that won an election despite the least popular five years in modern times to losing the majority and being hated by, virtually, everyone? I never remember Cameron or Blair being grilled on TV like May is now!
Despite what people think of her, Thatcher was a massive success in the elections she fought. Her policies were not for everyone, but her strategy and her persona made her one of the most successful leaders this country has ever had and probably the most successful Conservative leader. I'm not talking about political or economic outcomes, just the election success. Even though she didn't, really, want to resign Thatcher did so in the best interests of the Tory party - as I remember it.
May is, desperately, hanging on to power. She must know that it's in the best interests of her party for her to go now. She much know it's in the best interests of the country to not make a deal with the DUP - not only will they demand, and get concessions that are not in the best interests of the UK, I, genuinely, worry for the peace process in Ireland if she allows them to secure things that were given away as part of the negotiations in the past.
In reality she gambled and lost. She should pay up and resign.
The issue is the country has no other option to lead in my eyes.
Short of running another election and most likely ending up in exactly the same place at the end of it.
Agreed - and what a sorry state of affairs to be in.
About the only Tory I would have even the smallest belief in to be PM is Hammond, and I stress the word smallest.
I think it raises an interesting point how people can be talked up. When you look at May's record in 6 years at the Home Office - it wasn't good. It just shows that being useless doesn't stop you gaining support. Her big problem was that events forced people to look at the details of her achievements in key areas - or more to the point, lack of them.
I agree, we don't want useless leaders who make cock ups. We want leaders who have never been in power, have no track record in exercising power, have the most likes on social media and only make cock ups on purpose to annoy people.
Great post that made me smile. You might be on to something though. Maybe we need some red cock ups now to go along with the blue cock ups. Adds a bit of variety to the same porridge, gets a bit boring otherwise.
She is a political pygmy - who puts her party before the country. The problem is they currently have only one leader in their ranks and she would never be supported by the right of the party and isn't even an MP.
Tory leader who puts party ahead of country, shock!
She also seems to put herself ahead of the party.
It looks to me as though she was just in the right place at the right time and was so lucky to become leader. She was in the envious position of having to clear up someone else's mess. By that I mean she wanted to stay in Europe yet she was willing (probably very keen) to lead the country through the exit from the EU (something that Cameron was not willing to do) so if it all went wrong she could claim she was making the best of a situation she inherited.
Instead of doing the job that needed doing (i.e. Brexit) she decided to call for a General Election to strengthen her hand. Had they won by a landslide majority, which everyone was predicting, she would have boasted about the 'mandate' that the country had given her. Now she's hanging on for dear life.
Let's look at the facts, Cameron and Osborne had five years of austerity, cut budgets everywhere and reduced most peoples standard of living but they managed to secure a majority in 2015. Quite an achievement. Due to May's arrogance and incompetence she has turned one of the biggest leads in the polls to what is, in reality, a failure at the election that she was supposed, and expected, to win easily. How did she go from being the leader of a party that won an election despite the least popular five years in modern times to losing the majority and being hated by, virtually, everyone? I never remember Cameron or Blair being grilled on TV like May is now!
Despite what people think of her, Thatcher was a massive success in the elections she fought. Her policies were not for everyone, but her strategy and her persona made her one of the most successful leaders this country has ever had and probably the most successful Conservative leader. I'm not talking about political or economic outcomes, just the election success. Even though she didn't, really, want to resign Thatcher did so in the best interests of the Tory party - as I remember it.
May is, desperately, hanging on to power. She must know that it's in the best interests of her party for her to go now. She much know it's in the best interests of the country to not make a deal with the DUP - not only will they demand, and get concessions that are not in the best interests of the UK, I, genuinely, worry for the peace process in Ireland if she allows them to secure things that were given away as part of the negotiations in the past.
In reality she gambled and lost. She should pay up and resign.
The issue is the country has no other option to lead in my eyes.
Short of running another election and most likely ending up in exactly the same place at the end of it.
Agreed - and what a sorry state of affairs to be in.
About the only Tory I would have even the smallest belief in to be PM is Hammond, and I stress the word smallest.
I'm not a particular fan, but I have to say that Anna Soubry has at least demonstrated that she has the courage of her convictions over the last 18 months. She has certainly appeared braver than some other of the leading remainers.
Not that I can ever imagine that she could get enough support to be a leader of the Conservatives.
She is a political pygmy - who puts her party before the country. The problem is they currently have only one leader in their ranks and she would never be supported by the right of the party and isn't even an MP.
Tory leader who puts party ahead of country, shock!
She also seems to put herself ahead of the party.
It looks to me as though she was just in the right place at the right time and was so lucky to become leader. She was in the envious position of having to clear up someone else's mess. By that I mean she wanted to stay in Europe yet she was willing (probably very keen) to lead the country through the exit from the EU (something that Cameron was not willing to do) so if it all went wrong she could claim she was making the best of a situation she inherited.
Instead of doing the job that needed doing (i.e. Brexit) she decided to call for a General Election to strengthen her hand. Had they won by a landslide majority, which everyone was predicting, she would have boasted about the 'mandate' that the country had given her. Now she's hanging on for dear life.
Let's look at the facts, Cameron and Osborne had five years of austerity, cut budgets everywhere and reduced most peoples standard of living but they managed to secure a majority in 2015. Quite an achievement. Due to May's arrogance and incompetence she has turned one of the biggest leads in the polls to what is, in reality, a failure at the election that she was supposed, and expected, to win easily. How did she go from being the leader of a party that won an election despite the least popular five years in modern times to losing the majority and being hated by, virtually, everyone? I never remember Cameron or Blair being grilled on TV like May is now!
Despite what people think of her, Thatcher was a massive success in the elections she fought. Her policies were not for everyone, but her strategy and her persona made her one of the most successful leaders this country has ever had and probably the most successful Conservative leader. I'm not talking about political or economic outcomes, just the election success. Even though she didn't, really, want to resign Thatcher did so in the best interests of the Tory party - as I remember it.
May is, desperately, hanging on to power. She must know that it's in the best interests of her party for her to go now. She much know it's in the best interests of the country to not make a deal with the DUP - not only will they demand, and get concessions that are not in the best interests of the UK, I, genuinely, worry for the peace process in Ireland if she allows them to secure things that were given away as part of the negotiations in the past.
In reality she gambled and lost. She should pay up and resign.
The issue is the country has no other option to lead in my eyes.
Short of running another election and most likely ending up in exactly the same place at the end of it.
Agreed - and what a sorry state of affairs to be in.
About the only Tory I would have even the smallest belief in to be PM is Hammond, and I stress the word smallest.
I'm not a particular fan, but I have to say that Anna Soubry has at least demonstrated that she has the courage of her convictions over the last 18 months. She has certainly appeared braver than some other of the leading remainers.
Not that I can ever imagine that she could get enough support to be a leader of the Conservatives.
Yeah she has impressed me. Clearly detests Labour which is her right, but refreshingly straight talking. She might be useless doing her actual work though, and I can't see the likes of Bill Cash or Rees Mogg going for her.
Please answer without using the words Corbyn or Labour.
I used to. The main problem she has is that her USP, if you like, was her ability to look almost like a headmistress, a safe, authoritive pair of hands, something she could portray herself as if she had won the landslide. Instead it's like all the naughty children have just thrown a party in her office and left an unwanted present on her desk.
Now, it's got to the point where people are legitimately able to use her own slogans against her "coalition of chaos" etc.
She's gone from headmistress to headless chicken in the space of a few weeks...
Still though, I like her because she's not Corbyn or Labour.... ;-)
Can I ask what was it about her running of the Home Office that led to you believing she was a safe pair of hands?
He said "look like a safe pair of hands".
Which I should fair enough, she did, she was portrayed in such a way until she was put under even the tiniest bit of scrutiny.
Nothing wrong with Huskaris' post imo.
I didn't say there was anything "wrong with" his post though. He's entitled to his view on what impression she gave and I'm entitled to point out that little she did as Home Secretary backs up that impression in my own opinion.
She has overseen cuts to general policing and our border force, a failing prison service, several botched attempts at a public enquiry into child abuse, a fortune wasted on Operation Midland, failed to implement an IT system for border control which is years late and £100m's over budget, overseen some extremely strange and harmful visa decisions and of course annually failed to meet her own targets on immigration. I could go on but you probably get the point and that in light of these examples I was interested in why someone might consider her a competent, "safe pair of hands", hence my question.
I suspect that she did 'look like a safe pair of hands'. What I think you need to remember Bournemouth is that the majority of the general public don't follow politics closely enough to know that list, you have given, even happened, never mind be associated with May. I don't doubt your comments but I wasn't aware that she was responsible for any of it - save the cutting of the Police numbers which came up in the last week of the election. I don't even know what Operation Midland is.
On that basis there was no need for her credibility to be associated with past performance as most people don't know about it.
Most people didn't know about her failing to get immigration down? Most people didn't hear about the prison officers striking or the various heads of the historic child sex abuse enquiry quiting, etc? I'm not sure I buy that, these were major stories right across the media not limited just to specialist political discussion forums like Charlton Life ;-)
From the BBC: Now members of the Commons process to the Lords to hear the Queen's Speech. Body language experts have fun trying to interpret the vibe as opposite numbers walk together.
Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May didn't exactly have a natter... They walked in silence most of the way. She did eventually say something to him - not sure what - but his succinct reply was: "No."
Hmmm I wonder if the question Jezza said No to was 'The DUP have told us to f*ck off, any chance we could do a deal?'
From the BBC: Now members of the Commons process to the Lords to hear the Queen's Speech. Body language experts have fun trying to interpret the vibe as opposite numbers walk together.
Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May didn't exactly have a natter... They walked in silence most of the way. She did eventually say something to him - not sure what - but his succinct reply was: "No."
Hmmm I wonder if the question Jezza said No to was 'The DUP have told us to f*ck off, any chance we could do a deal?'
Or was it 'do you still think you are Prime Minister'
more worrying for me seeing them together is that's the best this countries political system can come up with for who, we the public, can chose to run the country...... what a sorry mess we are in.
Chop Chop Bob and get that election campaign running!
If you can't even negotiate a deal with the DUP how are you expecting to do so with the EU?
To be fair Norn Irish very kindly gave me a thorough history of the situation over there. I think it's very nuanced and not that I'm one to defend her, she's probably got a lot of competing interests etc
Plus again not defending her, she's been battered from pillar to post recently. I imagine she's frazzled
I know people don't want another election but we can't go on like this. It doesn't help the Conservatives, it is never popular when you just look like you are trying to hang on!
Comments
We get told too much. We get told May is a strong leader but the people who tell us forget that this has to be backed up with actions. Whatever your thoughts on Corbyn - you can see he is a strong leader despite us being constantly told he isn't. We are not stupid. To quote the bard - give me the ocular proof!
It looks to me as though she was just in the right place at the right time and was so lucky to become leader. She was in the envious position of having to clear up someone else's mess. By that I mean she wanted to stay in Europe yet she was willing (probably very keen) to lead the country through the exit from the EU (something that Cameron was not willing to do) so if it all went wrong she could claim she was making the best of a situation she inherited.
Instead of doing the job that needed doing (i.e. Brexit) she decided to call for a General Election to strengthen her hand. Had they won by a landslide majority, which everyone was predicting, she would have boasted about the 'mandate' that the country had given her. Now she's hanging on for dear life.
Let's look at the facts, Cameron and Osborne had five years of austerity, cut budgets everywhere and reduced most peoples standard of living but they managed to secure a majority in 2015. Quite an achievement. Due to May's arrogance and incompetence she has turned one of the biggest leads in the polls to what is, in reality, a failure at the election that she was supposed, and expected, to win easily. How did she go from being the leader of a party that won an election despite the least popular five years in modern times to losing the majority and being hated by, virtually, everyone? I never remember Cameron or Blair being grilled on TV like May is now!
Despite what people think of her, Thatcher was a massive success in the elections she fought. Her policies were not for everyone, but her strategy and her persona made her one of the most successful leaders this country has ever had and probably the most successful Conservative leader. I'm not talking about political or economic outcomes, just the election success. Even though she didn't, really, want to resign Thatcher did so in the best interests of the Tory party - as I remember it.
May is, desperately, hanging on to power. She must know that it's in the best interests of her party for her to go now. She much know it's in the best interests of the country to not make a deal with the DUP - not only will they demand, and get concessions that are not in the best interests of the UK, I, genuinely, worry for the peace process in Ireland if she allows them to secure things that were given away as part of the negotiations in the past.
In reality she gambled and lost. She should pay up and resign.
;-)
She has overseen cuts to general policing and our border force, a failing prison service, several botched attempts at a public enquiry into child abuse, a fortune wasted on Operation Midland, failed to implement an IT system for border control which is years late and £100m's over budget, overseen some extremely strange and harmful visa decisions and of course annually failed to meet her own targets on immigration. I could go on but you probably get the point and that in light of these examples I was interested in why someone might consider her a competent, "safe pair of hands", hence my question.
Short of running another election and most likely ending up in exactly the same place at the end of it.
On that basis there was no need for her credibility to be associated with past performance as most people don't know about it.
As I swelter here I struggle to think of a current Tory MP who seems remotely close to being enough of a statesman/woman to be in charge.
The last Tory voice that I heard who talked a lot of sense was John Major on the World at 1 last week.
There's an outside chance that even I could appear competent by comparison.
About the only Tory I would have even the smallest belief in to be PM is Hammond, and I stress the word smallest.
Maybe we need some red cock ups now to go along with the blue cock ups.
Adds a bit of variety to the same porridge, gets a bit boring otherwise.
Not that I can ever imagine that she could get enough support to be a leader of the Conservatives.
Clearly detests Labour which is her right, but refreshingly straight talking.
She might be useless doing her actual work though, and I can't see the likes of Bill Cash or Rees Mogg going for her.
Now members of the Commons process to the Lords to hear the Queen's Speech. Body language experts have fun trying to interpret the vibe as opposite numbers walk together.
Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May didn't exactly have a natter... They walked in silence most of the way. She did eventually say something to him - not sure what - but his succinct reply was: "No."
Hmmm I wonder if the question Jezza said No to was 'The DUP have told us to f*ck off, any chance we could do a deal?'
more worrying for me seeing them together is that's the best this countries political system can come up with for who, we the public, can chose to run the country...... what a sorry mess we are in.
Chop Chop Bob and get that election campaign running!
Plus again not defending her, she's been battered from pillar to post recently. I imagine she's frazzled