Discussion
AmitG said:
I'm beginning to think that Boris taking over as leader might not be a bad idea.
Well he might look like the lesser of two evils when lined up with May, but I see him as too controversial and devisive to be PM.He is intelligent enough and I like his humour and irreverence, but his basic lack of diplomacy seems like too much of a stumbling block.
I have time for him as a backbencher, newspaper columnist and an occasional Have I Got News For You appearance, but not as a frontline politician...
mx-6 said:
Well he might look like the lesser of two evils when lined up with May, but I see him as too controversial and devisive to be PM.
He is intelligent enough and I like his humour and irreverence, but his basic lack of diplomacy seems like too much of a stumbling block.
I have time for him as a backbencher, newspaper columnist and an occasional Have I Got News For You appearance, but not as a frontline politician...
The thing is, May isn't really showing herself to be a 'Frontline Politician' either. Perhaps the UK does need someone who is divisive and has faith in what they believe, rather than appeasing the Twitterati because that's the safest line to take.He is intelligent enough and I like his humour and irreverence, but his basic lack of diplomacy seems like too much of a stumbling block.
I have time for him as a backbencher, newspaper columnist and an occasional Have I Got News For You appearance, but not as a frontline politician...
It's just a blessing she isn't up against real opposition, as she would be crushed - she's seemingly only just holding out against Corby's parody of Labour, FFS!
chris watton said:
The thing is, May isn't really showing herself to be a 'Frontline Politician' either. Perhaps the UK does need someone who is divisive and has faith in what they believe, rather than appeasing the Twitterati because that's the safest line to take.
It's just a blessing she isn't up against real opposition, as she would be crushed - she's seemingly only just holding out against Corby's parody of Labour, FFS!
I agree with the point about May, she's obviously effective in the Whitehall backrooms but is unsuited to being PM for the opposite reasons to Johnson - no charisma or, seemingly, strong principles. I don't think I'm in favour of any of the leading contenders for the PM job. I liked Cameron though I know not everyone felt that way, not perfect but May has made him look like Churchill in comparison though...It's just a blessing she isn't up against real opposition, as she would be crushed - she's seemingly only just holding out against Corby's parody of Labour, FFS!
I was of the same opinion on Corbyn, but he's clearly shown now that he is a threat and held in some regard by a significant proportion of the electorate, not to be under-estimated.
mx-6 said:
I agree with the point about May, she's obviously effective in the Whitehall backrooms but is unsuited to being PM for the opposite reasons to Johnson - no charisma or, seemingly, strong principles. I don't think I'm in favour of any of the leading contenders for the PM job. I liked Cameron though I know not everyone felt that way, not perfect but May has made him look like Churchill in comparison though...
I was of the same opinion on Corbyn, but he's clearly shown now that he is a threat and held in some regard by a significant proportion of the electorate, not to be under-estimated.
Why do you think she's effective in Whitehall? From what I have heard, she's a disaster there as well. Scared to make a decision, never around when needed. Maybe that's what is required to be good - not being around and refusing to make decisions.I was of the same opinion on Corbyn, but he's clearly shown now that he is a threat and held in some regard by a significant proportion of the electorate, not to be under-estimated.
She, like so many others, gets slagged by many for being discreet, ie ‘playing the cards close to her chest’. By many more who have axes to grind because of perceived slights of her decisions taken in other roles and in the light of many other vital factors that have to be observed in the bigger picture. By many more of dogmatic political opposition for its own unreasoning bias. They seem to think she acts in a vacuum, surrounded by savagely loyal acolytes, and with not a care for wider issues.
One wonders how the anonymous detractors would fare in similar positions and how long they would last when they learn the ropes of survival in such a position of responsibility. Many of her loudest critics never get beyond their bedroom or closed sympathetic circle of wannabees. Everyone’s a critic. Except of course when stupidity prevails and government gets accused of murder as in the Grenfell tragedy. And the boss of the accuser says nothing to admonish him.
One wonders how the anonymous detractors would fare in similar positions and how long they would last when they learn the ropes of survival in such a position of responsibility. Many of her loudest critics never get beyond their bedroom or closed sympathetic circle of wannabees. Everyone’s a critic. Except of course when stupidity prevails and government gets accused of murder as in the Grenfell tragedy. And the boss of the accuser says nothing to admonish him.
Thorodin said:
She, like so many others, gets slagged by many for being discreet, ie ‘playing the cards close to her chest’. By many more who have axes to grind because of perceived slights of her decisions taken in other roles and in the light of many other vital factors that have to be observed in the bigger picture. By many more of dogmatic political opposition for its own unreasoning bias. They seem to think she acts in a vacuum, surrounded by savagely loyal acolytes, and with not a care for wider issues.
One wonders how the anonymous detractors would fare in similar positions and how long they would last when they learn the ropes of survival in such a position of responsibility. Many of her loudest critics never get beyond their bedroom or closed sympathetic circle of wannabees. Everyone’s a critic. Except of course when stupidity prevails and government gets accused of murder as in the Grenfell tragedy. And the boss of the accuser says nothing to admonish him.
Perhaps the reason she gets 'slagged off' is because of her performance. She's been a disaster for the tory party and more to the point, a disaster for the country. In addition to that she's given credence to Corbyn. That smacks of genius.One wonders how the anonymous detractors would fare in similar positions and how long they would last when they learn the ropes of survival in such a position of responsibility. Many of her loudest critics never get beyond their bedroom or closed sympathetic circle of wannabees. Everyone’s a critic. Except of course when stupidity prevails and government gets accused of murder as in the Grenfell tragedy. And the boss of the accuser says nothing to admonish him.
As for how her detractors would far in the same position; that is irrelevant. It's like asking what a mess I'd make of rewiring my house when after employing an electrician, the lights didn't work.
Given the hash she's made of her time in the Home Office and as PM, everyone is entitled to criticise.
Let's look at the bigger picture. The UK is in a most critical time. The brexit negotiations will be something my kids will have to cope with in years to come and yet she has managed to reduce a majority government to a coalition with the apologists for terrorists. The EU negotiators must be laughing. And all this was on her watch.
Einion Yrth said:
Derek Smith said:
she has managed to reduce a majority government to a coalition
It's not a coalition, "it's a confidence and supply" deal; I fully expect you to be a bit of a richard, but at least get your facts straight.One can rename a thing. How about calling a car a teddy bear. It sounds so much nicer and softer but if it hits anyone, they'll still suffer the same injuries. It's a coalition.
Anyone who thinks that the DUP will have no influence on policy doesn't understand politics. It's a coalition.
For someone who repeatedly posts merely to correct, you should really look to what May has done before trying to correct.
It's a coalition.
Derek Smith said:
Perhaps the reason she gets 'slagged off' is because of her performance. She's been a disaster for the tory party and more to the point, a disaster for the country. In addition to that she's given credence to Corbyn. That smacks of genius.
As for how her detractors would far in the same position; that is irrelevant. It's like asking what a mess I'd make of rewiring my house when after employing an electrician, the lights didn't work.
Given the hash she's made of her time in the Home Office and as PM, everyone is entitled to criticise.
Let's look at the bigger picture. The UK is in a most critical time. The brexit negotiations will be something my kids will have to cope with in years to come and yet she has managed to reduce a majority government to a coalition with the apologists for terrorists. The EU negotiators must be laughing. And all this was on her watch.
So, not a fan? As for how her detractors would far in the same position; that is irrelevant. It's like asking what a mess I'd make of rewiring my house when after employing an electrician, the lights didn't work.
Given the hash she's made of her time in the Home Office and as PM, everyone is entitled to criticise.
Let's look at the bigger picture. The UK is in a most critical time. The brexit negotiations will be something my kids will have to cope with in years to come and yet she has managed to reduce a majority government to a coalition with the apologists for terrorists. The EU negotiators must be laughing. And all this was on her watch.
I don't think that I can comprehend the level of ineptitude that's needed to make Corbyn look electable, to anyone.
Derek Smith said:
Perhaps the reason she gets 'slagged off' is because of her performance. She's been a disaster for the tory party and more to the point, a disaster for the country. In addition to that she's given credence to Corbyn. That smacks of genius.
As for how her detractors would far in the same position; that is irrelevant. It's like asking what a mess I'd make of rewiring my house when after employing an electrician, the lights didn't work.
Given the hash she's made of her time in the Home Office and as PM, everyone is entitled to criticise.
Let's look at the bigger picture. The UK is in a most critical time. The brexit negotiations will be something my kids will have to cope with in years to come and yet she has managed to reduce a majority government to a coalition with the apologists for terrorists. The EU negotiators must be laughing. And all this was on her watch.
Once again I'm afraid your confirmed antipathy to both the individual and the party overrides any sense of understanding, and somewhat misses (deliberately?) the point I thought I made reasonably well. As for how her detractors would far in the same position; that is irrelevant. It's like asking what a mess I'd make of rewiring my house when after employing an electrician, the lights didn't work.
Given the hash she's made of her time in the Home Office and as PM, everyone is entitled to criticise.
Let's look at the bigger picture. The UK is in a most critical time. The brexit negotiations will be something my kids will have to cope with in years to come and yet she has managed to reduce a majority government to a coalition with the apologists for terrorists. The EU negotiators must be laughing. And all this was on her watch.
The individual: your apparent hatred of her arises from your previous occupation where you riled about her refusal as HomSec to bend to the demands from politicised police officers to, amongst other things, increase pay and improve conditions. Whether or not those demands were justified is irrelevant in this instance - the point being she is now the devil incarnate as far as you are concerned and my point was her critics have absolutely no idea why any decisions are taken in politics.They see only to the end of their noses with no appreciation of the pressures and difficulties Crown Ministers face! A case of 'we can all do somebody else's job better than they can'!
The party: you are on lengthy record as anti-Tory. That's fine, but please don't criticise blindly just because you can! Coalition with terrorists? A bit strong, also rather more than a bit wrong. I don't recall you criticising the two earlier attempts by Labour politicians to forge exactly the same 'coalition' for their very own political survival. Your deliberate misinterpretation or mere laziness? You know full and well how dirty a game politics can be, you owe at least a nod to avoid equivocation.
Derek Smith said:
I too think it is vital what we call it what it is. It's a coalition. Just because the tory government invented a phrase to replace 'coalition government' doesn't make it so.
Except it isn't. And the phrase was not invented by the Tories. HTH.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_and_suppl...
Derek Smith said:
One can rename a thing. How about calling a car a teddy bear. It sounds so much nicer and softer but if it hits anyone, they'll still suffer the same injuries. It's a coalition.
No it isn't.Derek Smith said:
Anyone who thinks that the DUP will have no influence on policy doesn't understand politics. It's a coalition.
Still wrong.Derek Smith said:
For someone who repeatedly posts merely to correct, you should really look to what May has done before trying to correct.
It's a coalition.
And again. You are wrong.It's a coalition.
Derek Smith said:
I too think it is vital what we call it what it is. It's a coalition. Just because the tory government invented a phrase to replace 'coalition government' doesn't make it so.
One can rename a thing. How about calling a car a teddy bear. It sounds so much nicer and softer but if it hits anyone, they'll still suffer the same injuries. It's a coalition.
Anyone who thinks that the DUP will have no influence on policy doesn't understand politics. It's a coalition.
For someone who repeatedly posts merely to correct, you should really look to what May has done before trying to correct.
It's a coalition.
I note merely that sidicks has already fisked this drivel. You are are sad and generally erroneous individual, occasionally amusing for your ridiculous flights of fancy, but plainly not wedded to anything approximating to the truth. Good evening to you.One can rename a thing. How about calling a car a teddy bear. It sounds so much nicer and softer but if it hits anyone, they'll still suffer the same injuries. It's a coalition.
Anyone who thinks that the DUP will have no influence on policy doesn't understand politics. It's a coalition.
For someone who repeatedly posts merely to correct, you should really look to what May has done before trying to correct.
It's a coalition.
Derek Smith said:
I too think it is vital what we call it what it is. It's a coalition. Just because the tory government invented a phrase to replace 'coalition government' doesn't make it so.
One can rename a thing. How about calling a car a teddy bear. It sounds so much nicer and softer but if it hits anyone, they'll still suffer the same injuries. It's a coalition.
Anyone who thinks that the DUP will have no influence on policy doesn't understand politics. It's a coalition.
For someone who repeatedly posts merely to correct, you should really look to what May has done before trying to correct.
It's a coalition.
Give it up Derek. You are just wrong. Any integrity and credibility you may have gained on this forum are inexorably being ground away due to you being completely blinded by your obvious emotional hatred of the woman. One can rename a thing. How about calling a car a teddy bear. It sounds so much nicer and softer but if it hits anyone, they'll still suffer the same injuries. It's a coalition.
Anyone who thinks that the DUP will have no influence on policy doesn't understand politics. It's a coalition.
For someone who repeatedly posts merely to correct, you should really look to what May has done before trying to correct.
It's a coalition.
Thorodin said:
Once again I'm afraid your confirmed antipathy to both the individual and the party overrides any sense of understanding, and somewhat misses (deliberately?) the point I thought I made reasonably well.
The individual: your apparent hatred of her arises from your previous occupation where you riled about her refusal as HomSec to bend to the demands from politicised police officers to, amongst other things, increase pay and improve conditions. Whether or not those demands were justified is irrelevant in this instance - the point being she is now the devil incarnate as far as you are concerned and my point was her critics have absolutely no idea why any decisions are taken in politics.They see only to the end of their noses with no appreciation of the pressures and difficulties Crown Ministers face! A case of 'we can all do somebody else's job better than they can'!
The party: you are on lengthy record as anti-Tory. That's fine, but please don't criticise blindly just because you can! Coalition with terrorists? A bit strong, also rather more than a bit wrong. I don't recall you criticising the two earlier attempts by Labour politicians to forge exactly the same 'coalition' for their very own political survival. Your deliberate misinterpretation or mere laziness? You know full and well how dirty a game politics can be, you owe at least a nod to avoid equivocation.
That's idiotic. You don't know me and you obviously don't know my political beliefs. You seem to invent things to make your point. The individual: your apparent hatred of her arises from your previous occupation where you riled about her refusal as HomSec to bend to the demands from politicised police officers to, amongst other things, increase pay and improve conditions. Whether or not those demands were justified is irrelevant in this instance - the point being she is now the devil incarnate as far as you are concerned and my point was her critics have absolutely no idea why any decisions are taken in politics.They see only to the end of their noses with no appreciation of the pressures and difficulties Crown Ministers face! A case of 'we can all do somebody else's job better than they can'!
The party: you are on lengthy record as anti-Tory. That's fine, but please don't criticise blindly just because you can! Coalition with terrorists? A bit strong, also rather more than a bit wrong. I don't recall you criticising the two earlier attempts by Labour politicians to forge exactly the same 'coalition' for their very own political survival. Your deliberate misinterpretation or mere laziness? You know full and well how dirty a game politics can be, you owe at least a nod to avoid equivocation.
She ruined the police service, and not for any reason other than personal ambition. You believe all the spin it seems. Just wait until there's another series of metropolitan riots. Mind you, you don't have to. Have a chat to your local bobby. Oh, no, that's right. There aren't any. The police pay and conditions were attacked. The police had no way of fighting back. They are not allowed to join a union so are stuck with whatever the HomSec demands. She kicked them when they could not defend their pay and conditions.
You criticise me. OK, I have little regard for your opinion. But that's opting out of the argument. I criticised May because of her record. That's what you should do, or rather try. You do know why she was called submarine in her time in the HO, don't you?
What has the woman done? Nothing positive.
I did not say the DUP were terrorists. You did. I don't remember the labour party entering into a coalition with anyone, so I saw no reason to criticise.
She's not the devil. She's inept, not something the devil has been criticised for. She's damaged the country at a time when we needed a strong government. We don't need to know why decisions are made. All we can judge by are results. And that's hardly May's strong suit.
It's not me blinded by political beliefs.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff