Does TM really want to win this election?

Recent events and performance has led me to believe That TM doesn't want to be PM anymore.

Didn't find your answer?

Why would TM (with a majority) call an election (knowing the turmoil it would cause) in the first place? She actually doesn't look as though she is a PM in the waiting. Maybe she realises that she can't handle the enormous task ahead of her. Or perhaps she might have been badly advised by those that see JC as a better bet for unbrexit.

What do you think? Or couldn't you care less.

Replies (82)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By newstarter01
01st Jun 2017 10:19

This election was all about Brexit. We haven't heard anything about Brexit from TM. This election is about leadership. She couldn't be bothered to turn up last night. Labour's costings are inaccurate. The Tories haven't published any costings in their manifesto. Am I going nuts. Who's running this country. In case you are wondering, I will tell you. Paul Dacre. Fact.

Thanks (1)
Replying to newstarter01:
By mrme89
01st Jun 2017 11:20

By getting involved in debated, TM has more to lose than gain at present. If the debate on the BBC was anything to go by, it would seem she did the right thing.

Thanks (0)
By Tim Vane
01st Jun 2017 10:20

I think she knows she will win comfortably, with a bigger majority, and have a much easier time of Brexit negotations as a result. She is doing exactly what John Major did by ensuring she gets a solid mandate on her own terms rather than an inherited one.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tim Vane:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
01st Jun 2017 10:45

I would say that was her view in the past tense, when called that was the thought, right now not so sure. I think she is also body swerving Radio 4 today, again, Amber being put up, poor show.

Basically we have here a case of cowardice in the face of the enemy, it is just not acceptable. If you are booed and hissed great, they don't like you but respect you, when your party is laughed at by an audience (twice this has now happened) this could become a big, big, problem.

I do actually think they will get over the line, I think the You Gov poll was an outlier, but I am not convinced the massive majority will manifest itself.

The trouble with the , give me a big mandate it will make me appear stronger to the Europeans in negotiations argument is:

1. It was b******s
2. It you don't get it you are weaker.

Re John Major he of course did not call an early election, he ran the term out from 87 to 92 and I think they possibly expected to lose. Back then taking the term to five years tended to suggest a weak position, if ascendant parties tended to go after four years so they could pick the best moment to avoid, as Macmillan is alleged to have said, "events dear boy, events"

Right now they are scrambling to get back on track, someone is likely compiling a little list in Central office of those that will "surely not be missed" in the event of a disaster and Michael Gove is probably busy sharpening a dagger, ironing his shirts and laying out his suits in the sure and certain hope that if she falters he believes he is the resurrection, the truth and the light for the Tories.

Omnishambles anyone?

Thanks (1)
Replying to Tim Vane:
By johngroganjga
01st Jun 2017 10:58

I don't think a comparison with what John Major did is historically accurate. He became PM in November 1990 when the last general election had been in June 1987. He called, and won, the general election in April 1992, just two months before there would have had to be one anyway (i.e. 5 years after June 1987).

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tim Vane:
avatar
By johnjenkins
01st Jun 2017 11:07

Labour were set to win that election. The only reason JM won was because they got MT to come out and praise JM. In my view JM was another disaster for the Tories.

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnjenkins:
avatar
By Mr_awol
01st Jun 2017 16:24

johnjenkins wrote:

Labour were set to win that election. The only reason JM won was because they got MT to come out and praise JM. In my view JM was another disaster for the Tories.

I think JM was fairly unremarkable and neutral really, rather than being a disaster for anyone.

MT was a disaster - but for the country, rather than the Tories (for whom she was in a way strangely successful)

Thanks (0)
Replying to Mr_awol:
avatar
By johnjenkins
01st Jun 2017 16:52

For some MT was evil which I can understand, although not agree. She destroyed the union grip on business and gave everyone a chance to buy their own home. The eighties were an unbelievable time. The south was flooded with liverpudlians working, there were jobs for many. Yes the miners had it extremely rough, but there was no need. Re-training was put in place and if AS had negotiated instead of trying to be better than JG, things would have been different for them.
If the poll tax had been implemented you wouldn't have had the "binge drink" craze nor perhaps kids having to stay on at school when they clearly weren't suited (education, education,education).
Oh yes wasn't JM partly to blame for the Housing crash because of the £50k per person tax break being taken away which led to a recession which changed the country. Business bankrupted, houses repossessed etc. etc.

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnjenkins:
RLI
By lionofludesch
01st Jun 2017 17:19

johnjenkins wrote:

For some MT was evil which I can understand, although not agree. She destroyed the union grip on business and gave everyone a chance to buy their own home.

By selling it to them cheap? Great idea. Then the councils had no housing stock and no money either. Tremendous.

She epitomised Toryism - no thoughts for anyone but herself and her cronies. Entered into a war with Argentina, murdered hundreds of sailors who were sailing away from the action, destroyed the economy of the North of England in a way not seen since the Harrying of the North in the 11th century, authorised aggressive tactics by the police against miners in a story yet to come to light and insisted on the caging of football fans which culminated in the deaths of 96 Liverpool fans at Hillsborough.

By those standards, the Poll Tax was a minor peccadillo.

But I expect her mum looked on her with fondness.

Thanks (1)
Replying to lionofludesch:
Out of my mind
By runningmate
01st Jun 2017 21:07

Perhaps the greatest damage MT inflicted on our nation was the belief that macro-economics could be treated like the family shopping budget. If you don't have money in your purse you can't spend it.
Keynes must still be spinning in his grave!
RM

Thanks (0)
Replying to runningmate:
RLI
By lionofludesch
02nd Jun 2017 09:49

It was worse than that. She sold off the UK's family silver and used it to fund tax cuts for the gentry.

Eventually, she ran out of silver.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By johnjenkins
02nd Jun 2017 11:29

Er I think you'll find that it was GB who sold everything including our gold reserves. Famous note "No money left".

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnjenkins:
RLI
By lionofludesch
02nd Jun 2017 11:36

Council houses, BT, the electricity companies, British Rail, CEGB, British Gas - all at a ridiculously low price so that her mates got a bit of a windfall.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
02nd Jun 2017 11:48

lionofludesch wrote:

Council houses, BT, the electricity companies, British Rail, CEGB, British Gas - all at a ridiculously low price so that her mates got a bit of a windfall.

I had not appreciated I was one of her mates as I must confess I took advantage of the BT and B Gas issues in the 1980s. (Buzby and Sid)

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By johnjenkins
02nd Jun 2017 11:51

Great, now we're getting some passion into the debate.
In most cases the discounted houses had already been paid for by the tenants many times over, so cheap, definitely not.
Councils did have the money from the sales, however they were restricted to the amount of new houses that could be built and that continued during TB's watch. What would you have said if the Argies had've taken the Falklands "Oh that's ok cos it doesn't affect me I'm too far away". War will always cause mistakes. I'm sure TB was conned into the Iraqui war. So flying pickets intimidating a legal workforce is ok is it? No, the Unions destroyed the northern economy. I cannot comment on Hillsborough as I haven't read the outcome of the enquiry. I don't really know enough about her relationship with her mum to comment. Or perhaps was that just a flippant remark.

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnjenkins:
RLI
By lionofludesch
02nd Jun 2017 12:03

johnjenkins wrote:

Great, now we're getting some passion into the debate.
In most cases the discounted houses had already been paid for by the tenants many times over, so cheap, definitely not.

I never understood the logic that tenants should get the houses cheap because they'd rented them for donkeys years.

Quote:

What would you have said if the Argies had've taken the Falklands "Oh that's ok cos it doesn't affect me I'm too far away". War will always cause mistakes.

Only the losers are ever tried for war crimes.

Quote:
I'm sure TB was conned into the Iraqi war.

Probably. He's ingenuous.

Quote:

So flying pickets intimidating a legal workforce is ok is it? No, the Unions destroyed the northern economy.

Is drafting in soldiers to bolster the police ranks OK? Impersonating a police officer was illegal back in the 1980s.

{quote]
I cannot comment on Hillsborough as I haven't read the outcome of the enquiry.[/quote]

You don't need to. The facts were clear back in April 1989.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By johnjenkins
02nd Jun 2017 12:49

Again they weren't cheap when you take the rent that was paid. Perhaps even by previous tenants. So let's not start saying "Poor hard doneby councils, best they put up hospital parking to boost the coffers".
I don't remember any Japanese tried for war crimes.
A conman is sometimes the most easiest to con.
If I had any say I would always have the Army and Police working together. My recollection (someone will no doubt tell me if I am wrong) is that innocent people going about their job to pay their bills were hounded and bullied, cars and buses set fire to etc.etc.
As far as Hillsborough is concerned I will read and learn.
What about MT's mum?

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnjenkins:
RLI
By lionofludesch
02nd Jun 2017 13:01

johnjenkins wrote:

Again they weren't cheap when you take the rent that was paid.

Why would I do that ? Does that ever happen in a commercial situation? Or just in Government Dreamland?

Quote:

What about MT's mum?

Yeah, you're right. SHe probably hated her too.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By johnjenkins
02nd Jun 2017 13:39

To a certain extent you're right it was "Government Dreamland". Giving people the right to buy their own home with a view to coming out of the "lower classes" into "middle England" not such a bad idea, giving first time buyers a rung on the property ladder. Certainly a vote winner.
Who hated whom?

Thanks (0)
By Duggimon
01st Jun 2017 10:22

I hope everyone loses the election.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Duggimon:
RLI
By lionofludesch
01st Jun 2017 14:14

Me too.

Northern Ireland set the pace here.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Mr_awol
01st Jun 2017 10:34

I cant imagine anyone would be daft enough to vote for her.

Then again I couldn't have seen many people being daft enough to vote for Corbyn either, but on the face of it he seems to be the lesser of two evils.

Thanks (0)
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
01st Jun 2017 11:01

I think she does want to win, but doesn't know how. Doesnt help that she has not announced a single policy of any substance, apart from ones undermining her main voting army!

Corbyn gets awful press, but is your classic underdog.

People (well decent ones) instinctively back those they think are getting picked on unfairly, and boy does he get picked on unfairly so I think a lot of floating voters who dont like any of them will give him a tick just out of sympathy if nothing else.

Personally i would much rather have a PM who is a bit too liberal and woolly for my liking than one who is too right wing, albeit "none of the above" would win for me at the moment. There seems to be very little talent in any camp. If the best the Tories can come up with is Amber Rudd to sub for May, there is no depth in that team, ditto Labour's "big gun" no.2 being the woeful Diane Abbott.

Whilst Labour will be a nightmare in terms of over spending and over taxing I think as a society we need a lurch in that direction before there is a complete collapse in public services.

Thanks (2)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
01st Jun 2017 11:26

Labour has Rebecca Long-Bailey my dark horse (or not so dark horse as the bookies have her in the race) as a future Labour leader. I have £5 on her at 12-1 to be next Labour leader after Corbyn, then again I have £5 at 7-1 for Corbyn to be next PM (This is not really my bet but my son's, catch is if it wins he will want the money if it loses (which I expect it will) he will not pay me the fiver)

Last I looked Yvette Cooper was favourite, pardon me, I want to be sick but it does amply demonstrate the dearth of talent.

I should probably mention that as you typed D***e A****t you now probably need to do penance, it is a bit like saying Macbeth in a theatre.

Talent does appear thin and there are a couple of Conservatives that are repellent in my eyes (Gove and Hunt), Rudd annoys in the extreme-I feel like she is ticking me off , and when we get to our beloved Chancellor-zzzzzzzzzzzzz. And then , in the big 4, we have Boris, the big beast with the mane of a Lion, gravitas of a kitten.

Personally I think what we now need to do is get Jane Horrocks to take the job, she looked decent enough at it in the "Amazing Mrs Pritchard"

Thanks (0)
Replying to DJKL:
RLI
By lionofludesch
01st Jun 2017 14:13

DJKL wrote:

Last I looked Yvette Cooper was favourite, pardon me, I want to be sick but it does amply demonstrate the dearth of talent.

Oi!! That's our MP you're slagging off !!

That's our job!

Anyway, she's Scottish - not from round here at all. It's not like the old days, when our MP had worked down tpit man and boy before taking a second career in politics. Blokes like Joe Harper (not the Aberdeen footballer) and Geoff Lofthouse and - errm - actually, that's all we've had since I started voting 45 years ago.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
01st Jun 2017 14:34

lionofludesch wrote:

Oi!! That's our MP you're slagging off !!

Amber Rudd is ours.

Slagging her off has practically become a sport down our way, so anyone that wants to join in is more than welcome.

Thanks (2)
Replying to stepurhan:
RLI
By lionofludesch
01st Jun 2017 14:39

stepurhan wrote:

lionofludesch wrote:

Oi!! That's our MP you're slagging off !!

Amber Rudd is ours.

Slagging her off has practically become a sport down our way, so anyone that wants to join in is more than welcome.

I'm too busy to help. Yvette Cooper is a full time job.

Thanks (2)
Replying to stepurhan:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
01st Jun 2017 15:55

Re Amber Rudd I keep thinking her name ought to be rhyming slang for something, don't know why, never worked out what, it is just that sort of name.

Thanks (1)
Replying to DJKL:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
01st Jun 2017 16:39

DJKL wrote:

Re Amber Rudd I keep thinking her name ought to be rhyming slang for something, don't know why, never worked out what, it is just that sort of name.

If it helps any, a popular alteration is simply to add a C (for Conservative obviously) before her surname.
Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnjenkins
01st Jun 2017 11:18

As an aside. It really has struck me as wierd. The Tories kicked out MT for JM (a disaster). Labour kicked out TB for GB (a disaster). Labour voted for Ed instead of Dave (a disaster). The Tories voted for DC instead of DD (resigning when the going got tough). Which leads us to where we are now. The stupid thing is that if TB had've stood against JC, he would win this election hands down.
My own view is that politics in the UK is totally abstract and we need a Boris to sort things out.

Thanks (1)
Replying to johnjenkins:
RLI
By lionofludesch
01st Jun 2017 14:17

Too many initials.

Thanks (2)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By johnjenkins
01st Jun 2017 14:50

FU (Frugal Units)

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Matrix
01st Jun 2017 11:18

Isn't JC going to put corporation tax up to 33% or something like that. Again I feel we live in a volatile economy which makes it hard to advise clients since the rules keep changing.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Matrix:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
01st Jun 2017 11:34

Back to 26% over life of parliament with small company rate reintroduced,though exact rate not mentioned but I expect 20%. In effect we go back to circa 2010/2011.

I think the Conservatives were mad with the pre-announced drop down to 17% (albeit we have only just reached the 19% mark)

I do not have a problem with 26% compared with rest of Europe , in fact too low a CT rate could be an issue when we negotiate with the EU re our relationship.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By SpreadsheetUser
01st Jun 2017 11:24

I'm not normally a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist but one agenda has occurred to me.
The Establishment didn't expect the Leave vote to win. In turmoil, with no plans in place, we've had the actions of the last 12 months. Then TM will lose, Labour or a Coalition will win then we'll have another referendum and/or Article 50 will be withdrawn.
Yes sounds a bit far out but after 2016 world politics, anything goes.

Thanks (2)
Replying to SpreadsheetUser:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
01st Jun 2017 11:44

But, the conspiracy theory does not work, the fact that we voted leave and Trump was elected will have alerted them to the fact that they cannot trust the electorate to be rational.

I more favour the interpretation, we do not have a clue what we are doing but if we come on air spouting our b*******s mantra enough some idiot will fall for it.

When I become dictator for life (and with the current crop of politicians sooner rather than later seems advised) some basic study of economics will become mandatory in schools, lesson one will be:

1.There are alternatives, economics is not a science with an absolute truth. (or in less academic terms, there is more than one way to skin a cat)

There will be no need for a lesson two.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Maslins
01st Jun 2017 13:01

The thought did cross my mind that TM had basically thought "Oh dear this country's falling off a cliff", and decided the best way she could come out of it would be to call an election and hope Labour/some coalition won.

That way:
- Labour/coalition will proceed with Brexit, plus independent of that debt spirals, country in an utter mess, and she can say "if you'd stuck with me it wouldn't have been like this".
- Labour/coalition will proceed with Brexit and all goes well, and she'll claim she laid the groundworks for it all.
- Labour/coalition will back out of Brexit, and she'll be largely forgotten about (which is perhaps better than her other outcomes if she remains in power).

Thanks (1)
Replying to Maslins:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
01st Jun 2017 13:43

Whilst it might work for TM washing her hands 9she is lukewarm re Brexit) not sure for the Conservative party itself, they cannot escape Brexit consequences.

Unlike an election where if you get a bunch of muppets you know they can show their incompetence over 4-5 years and then be heaved, the referendum was a once in a lifetime decision, like a puppy, for life.

So, political consequences:

1. If Brexit works out then fine, they retain the plaudits, they stood up to XYZ, perception good, but they know, and we know, that said popularity will be temporary, at some point the fickle electorate abandon them- I would guess with good outcome from negotiations they win 2022 and then lose 2027 as by then we are bored with the party, but this sort of presupposes Labour get no worse and do not get markedly better.

2. If Brexit bad, job relocations to EU escalate, tariffs abound, red tape selling into EU becomes horrendous, even more multinationals open operations within EU leaching employment then they can kiss goodbye to the following 20 years in office (provided some form of non extreme opposition), all those who voted leave and feel betrayed will turn on them with real venom- betrayal is worse than uncaring and incompetence with the electorate.

The Conservatives have taken a very big political gamble on Brexit, not just with the UK but with their very own relevance, a bad outcome and a sensible Social Democratic Party grabbing the centre ground and they will be swept out to the fringe of politics.

The referendum was a very brave political move (I use the term brave in its political/ civil service sense not as a mark of honour), it was maybe warranted by conviction but from an investment appraisal viewpoint, looking at political risk/reward , it appears to me that the political benefits re success were never enough to compensate for the political downside if a failure.

Thanks (0)
Out of my mind
By runningmate
01st Jun 2017 14:05

My theory is that TM expected to win easily because JC was so unpopular & Labour would beat themselves to death. So all TM believed she needed to do was call an election & stand well back.
It has not proved that simple.
During the referendum TM kept her head down. At the time I thought this was a shrewd move gambling that DC might lose & she could then step in. Which of course she did.
But perhaps I was wrong. Maybe TM kept her head down because she prefers to avoid a fight (which would explain her no-show at the debates).
If that is the case it does not bode well for the Brexit negotiations. It would suggest that the UK will not battle for a good deal, it will just leave with no deal at all.
What odds are the bookies offering on 'no deal'?
RM

Thanks (1)
Replying to runningmate:
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
01st Jun 2017 14:20

I think the Tories are so bunkered in their belief JC is rubbish, they ignore the fact his is hugely popular among with large swathes of the population, even if he is unpopular within his own party. Its only in the (not much read anymore) newspapers he is the devil. For lots of people he is Jesus Christ (complete with beard)

Have you seen his rallies? He gets 1000's of people to show up.

I am hoping for a coalition, as it will generally lead to more balanced policies and not lurching one way or the other.

Thanks (1)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
RLI
By lionofludesch
01st Jun 2017 14:33

ireallyshouldknowthisbut wrote:

I am hoping for a coalition, as it will generally lead to more balanced policies and not lurching one way or the other.

There's a theory that a hung Parliament is not a bad thing.

Thanks (2)
Replying to lionofludesch:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
01st Jun 2017 15:53

There is not enough space for all the gibbets in front of Westminster.

Thanks (2)
Replying to DJKL:
RLI
By lionofludesch
01st Jun 2017 16:00

Some sort of rota system, perhaps?

Thanks (0)
Replying to runningmate:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
01st Jun 2017 14:25

I am not sure they will offer odds on no deal as whatever arrangement is cobbled together will be sold by both sides as a deal;the catch will be definition, which frankly is the whole issue with Brexit in the first place, nobody really knows what it means, the best definition (and the most useless) is of course Brexit means Brexit.

Thanks (0)
Replying to DJKL:
avatar
By johnjenkins
01st Jun 2017 16:35

To me and many others brexit is quite clear. We leave the EU, end of. The only issue is that the remainers don't like it, don't want it and will do anything to stop it including voting for JC.
There is no deal. There can be common sense talks on peoples entitlements and law enforcement, but that's it.

Thanks (1)
Replying to johnjenkins:
RLI
By lionofludesch
01st Jun 2017 16:49

It's a pity that no-one in the Brexit camp thought that they might win.

It might have prompted someone to draw up a Plan.

The Government just look like complete idiots at the moment. Which is probably a fair assessment when I think about it.

There are some wholly unexpected consequences. Apparently Northern Ireland may be on the other side of the customs border, because the land border is a bit inconvenient. Which is an interesting concept.

Thanks (1)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By johnjenkins
01st Jun 2017 17:01

What you mean is no-one in Parliament thought that brexit might happen.
I posted some time before the referendum that all (282) my clients wanted out so it was pretty clear to me brexit was on the cards.
As usual Parliament don't listen to ordinary people. No wonder they look like idiots. What would they look like if Scotland won their independence?

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnjenkins:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
01st Jun 2017 16:56

johnjenkins wrote:

To me and many others brexit is quite clear. We leave the EU, end of. The only issue is that the remainers don't like it, don't want it and will do anything to stop it including voting for JC.
There is no deal. There can be common sense talks on peoples entitlements and law enforcement, but that's it.

So you expect nowt on product standards re goods and services, we just expect the EU to tear up their regulations re acceptable standards/ accountability/ benchmarking/ enviromental protectione etc and we do likewise with them, in effect anything goes?

Do you really believe such a deal will be put in place?

This is the banner on the EU website re TTIP

"A balanced EU-US free trade agreement
Freer trade – without sacrificing Europe’s standards"

This is the main headed points:

"Policy areas

Negotiations cover three main areas.

Better access to the US market

The EU aims to lower or remove customs duties to the US, meaning big savings for consumers and companies in Europe. TTIP will also help Europe's firms, especially those smaller companies who face complicated rules when wanting to export.

Working together to cut red tape and costs

The EU and US often share safety and quality levels – in car safety, engineering, medical devices, etc. – while differing technical procedures can be costly, especially for smaller firms. Closer work between regulators would ease trade – while keeping the EU’s strict levels of protection for people and the environment. And encouraging regulators to share their expertise would help with new regulatory challenges in areas like electric cars or nanotechnology.

Making exports, imports and investment fair and easy

This agreement should go further than ever before when it comes to rules for environment protection and labour standards. The EU wants to cooperate with the US on these important global issues, pool our influence on the international stage, and inspire others to act responsibly along entire international production chains."

Surely nobody gets a deal with them without dealing with these sorts of issues but yet somehow we are special and can forget about such things?

Thanks (0)
Replying to DJKL:
avatar
By johnjenkins
01st Jun 2017 17:08

I believe (and I think TM does as well) we start with a blank piece of paper and go from there. We cannot have access to the single market because we do not accept free movement of people so we have to come up with a completely different agreement that suits both sides. The only way to do that is to start fron scratch.

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnjenkins:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
01st Jun 2017 17:11

In two years!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks (1)

Pages