Theresa May is looking like should could be the best PM since Churchill!

Scroll to see replies

As a 'hard' brexiteer, I was a bit miffed when Theresa was appointed PM. However she has exceeded my wildest expectations, and been far far better than I expected.

She is not weak like Cameron, not slimey like Blair and is a damn sight more reasonable than the current joke leadership trio of Labour in Corbyn, Abbott and Chakrabati.

With her nationalist, right-leaning social policies counterbalanced by her slightly more liberal touch economically, we could really be entering a golden age of one-nation Toryism.

Thoughts?

What?

Her Government hasn't achieved anything. Article 50 hasn't even been triggered yet...

Reply 21

sleepysnooze

she's weak. she should just trigger article 50 now goddamn it - it makes hardly any difference. she shouldn't be cock-blocking the UK from realising our democratic decision.

Reply 22

Josb

Original post by Spratty

It's not politics when you decide to kill 3+ million people who have done nothing to you and your country.

Churchill didn't "decide" to kill 3 million people. :rolleyes:

Whilst it is true that he refused to send additional grainfood to India, it can be explained by the following facts.

At this time, the British Government chose to feed the army in priority, notably because they wanted to start an offensive on the Japanese army in Burma in 1944. There was also an obsession to protect soldiers from malaria and other deceases so the army was overfed (including Indian soldiers), causing massive food shortages in Bengal.

The British Government also blindly believed the reports of the colonial administration, which overestimated the food available in Bengal, leading the Government to ask for more food to feed the rest of the Empire. Colonial statesmen also refused to admit the reality, fearing that they would be blamed for it; for instance, the Secretary of State for India, Leo Amery, said before the British Parliament on 14 October 1943 that only a thousand people died of hunger per week in Bengal, whilst it was possibly 10 to 50 times more... It's difficult to blame Churchill for not having helped Bengal when the situation was not described properly.

Moreover, when the famine started, the colonial administration thought that the food shortage was caused by "hoarders" and mostly took action against this (ineffectively). They also arrested thousands of starving people for vagrancy and even banned private cantines as they feared that they would undermine the authority of the administration.

Once the Viceroy Linlithgow was replaced by Wavell (October 1943), the famine ended, as the latter understood that it was caused by shortage, not hoarding, and used the army and imported food from the rest of India to solve the situation (albeit epidemics continued to kill the following year). Wavell did not hide the situation and also threatened the Government to resign if he did not receive food, and was successful (he was also supported by Mountbatten and Auchinleck). Linlithgow did not have the same concern for Indian lives (for example, he never visited Bengal during the famine).

On the top of that, Muslims and Hindus did not want to help the "others" and the charities they set up were hindered by the fact that they could only help Hindus, or Muslims. Muslim and Hindu parties mutually accused each other and couldn't agree on an effective relief plan.

I encourage you to read this PhD thesis on the famine in Bengal, you may revise your judgement: https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/86383/jsmuk_1.pdf

The incompetence of the colonial administration was staggering.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 23

jamestg

Original post by sleepysnooze

she's weak. she should just trigger article 50 now goddamn it - it makes hardly any difference. she shouldn't be cock-blocking the UK from realising our democratic decision.

She's in the worst position a politician could ever be in. Let her have thinking time.

She's got to:
- please those who voted to leave
- ensure businesses remain in the UK
- not hugely upset remoaners
- get the EU to treat us nicely, although I doubt they will because it will provide an incentive for other countries to leave
- unpick lorries full of legislation

All with a slim majority. Good luck ma'am.

Reply 24

MemeworksStudios

Shariah May is looking like I'd hit it from the front and the back :sexface:

Reply 25

username878267

Original post by jamestg

As you're a liberal tory, what do you think of May so far?

If she matches her rhetoric with policies I can't really see much there to appeal to liberal tories. Given her overall message seems to be 'shut the door and close the curtains and hope all our problems go away'.

Reply 26

username878267

Original post by Josb

Politics isn't for nice guys.

Churchill compared Atlee, the man who had been running the country during the war to the Gestapo.

Churchill was a strong wartime leader but domestically, he was pretty poor.

Reply 27

Little Popcorns

reason being.... you're on crack

Reply 28

sleepysnooze

Original post by jamestg

She's in the worst position a politician could ever be in. Let her have thinking time.

She's got to:
- please those who voted to leave

yes, so that's why she should just take us out now and not in years and years time...it's totally unnecessary

- ensure businesses remain in the UK

she should cut taxes then (and cut spending too, obviously)

- not hugely upset remoaners

they lost though. they're irrelevant. all they're going to do whatever we do is mope.

- get the EU to treat us nicely, although I doubt they will because it will provide an incentive for other countries to leave

they never will though - it's hilarious that she thinks she'll get us a good deal after leaving the EU, as if cameron didn't already set an example of how the EU *never* negotiate reasonably. "will you allow us to stop free movement?" "no!" (years later) "will you allow us to stop free movement?" "no!" (we leave). "will you freely trade with us?" "no!". ffs. she should just give up like cameron did.

- unpick lorries full of legislation

"unpick"?

All with a slim majority. Good luck ma'am.

I'm really hoping that in your head you were pronouncing "ma'am" not like "mum" but literally "ma'am".

Reply 29

sleepysnooze

Original post by MemeworksStudios

Shariah May is looking like I'd hit it from the front and the back :sexface:

Reply 30

Joep95

Original post by Ambitious1999

Nicola Sturgeon has already said that she will call a second Scottish independence referendum if Scotland is taken out of the EU and thus the modern world against their will.

The majority of Catholics and republicans in NI want to remain in the EU. They also want an open border with the Republic of Ireland. If NI is taken out of the EU the border will be closed and people will feel they're being separated from their fellow Catholics in the south. They will do all they can to get full independence and unification with the Republic of Ireland. Who can blame them?
If they do become independent then unionists and Protestants in NI will do all they can to stop this.....Basically you have the troubles and provincial terror back again. the Good Friday agreement down the toilet. That will be May's legacy,

Now Wales and the Welsh national party is anti-Brexit.

Even if this doesn't happen you will get a lot of British firms moving over to the Republic of Ireland to enjoy the free trade and benefits of EU membership.

If I was May I'd not want this mess on my mind. I'd either offer a second EU referendum or do the decent thing and RESIGN!

You make me laugh

Wales voted for Brexit.

Reply 31

2016_GCSE

Original post by Pulse.

Lol you guys are trying too hard.

Posted from TSR Mobile

[video="youtube;bdoZEmiNXJY"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdoZEmiNXJY[/video]

Reply 32

Viva Emptiness

Original post by Andy98

I didn't think we could get worse than Blair, then Teresa starting doing stuff

Posted from TSR Mobile

What stuff?

Reply 33

jamestg

Original post by Bornblue

Mixed feelings about her.

Neutral about grammar schools, I think parents should have the choice but it should be fine tuned. What I dislike is the lack of a mandate she has to carry out such a plan. If she wants to push her agenda, that is far different from Cameron's, there needs to be an election.

I like the fact she is prepared to intervene in business and that she recognises the good government can do. However, she should not have spoken about it at the conference. Brexit looks bad in the short term for business with uncertainty and adding the threat of intervention doesn't help to incentivise investment of any kind.

Don't like her talk on immigration. She's going further than is necessary. She has a mandate to end freedom of movement and ensure skills-based immigration is in place. Nothing more.

Her 'Brexit means Brexit' is honestly complete bullsh*t but what else can she say to be fair to her. I honestly feel sorry for the poor woman, she'll be gone before 2020 I think.

Reply 34

jamestg

Original post by sleepysnooze

yes, so that's why she should just take us out now and not in years and years time...it's totally unnecessary

she should cut taxes then (and cut spending too, obviously)

they lost though. they're irrelevant. all they're going to do whatever we do is mope.

they never will though - it's hilarious that she thinks she'll get us a good deal after leaving the EU, as if cameron didn't already set an example of how the EU *never* negotiate reasonably. "will you allow us to stop free movement?" "no!" (years later) "will you allow us to stop free movement?" "no!" (we leave). "will you freely trade with us?" "no!". ffs. she should just give up like cameron did.

"unpick"?

I'm really hoping that in your head you were pronouncing "ma'am" not like "mum" but literally "ma'am".

1) it isn't, suddenly jumping into the unknown is no good without a solid negotiating position.
2) not at the moment, low tax society can come later
3) 48% is not irrelevant, and that's coming from someone who would have voted leave
4) Cameron's aims were literally impossible, any idiot could work that out
5) well that's what they're doing. They're making all EU law, UK law and will go through all of it to decide bits to chuck out.

Reply 35

sleepysnooze

Original post by jamestg

1) it isn't, suddenly jumping into the unknown is no good without a solid negotiating position.

we aren't going to get any concessions. the EU doesn't work like that. they operate on a "take it all 100% or **** off" basis.

2) not at the moment, low tax society can come later

why

3) 48% is not irrelevant, and that's coming from someone who would have voted leave

how are they relevant then? we voted to leave, so what, we're not going to leave? or is taking a million years to leave the appeasement?

4) Cameron's aims were literally impossible, any idiot could work that out

they shouldn't have been "impossible" - that was my point, but the EU makes it impossible because they don't negotiate reasonably. cameron was never even asking for an end to free movement.

5) well that's what they're doing. They're making all EU law, UK law and will go through all of it to decide bits to chuck out.

...so...why can't we just leave and *then* decide which EU laws to keep, or to make law?

Reply 36

RF_PineMarten

Original post by Ambitious1999

If May attempts to start Brexit and Scotland has another independence referendum to leave the UK and rejoin the EU and modern world then May will be remembered as the PM who tore the UK apart and ended a 300 year Union when she could have offered a second EU referendum instead.

May will also be remembered as the PM who took Britain back 50 years.

May will be remembered as the leader who restarted the troubles in Northern Ireland if the Irish are taken out of the EU against their will and separated from Republic of Ireland. Similarly if NI gets a referendum to join with the south then unionists could start the troubles.

Mays only saving grace is she'll be loved by the far right and Britain first for taking us out of the EU but then who gives a toss what the far right thinks?

Any leader who starts Brexit is gonna cause a lot of grief and widespread consequences.

Putting aside the sensationalised arguments here, David Cameron would be the one remembered for it, given that the EU referendum was his decision and his successor can't exactly ignore a referendum result.

If she held a second referendum she'd be remembered as a remainer who redid the referendum in an attempt get the result she wanted. She would not be remembered kindly by a lot of people.

And for crying out loud, wanting to leave the EU does not make someone "far right". The far right (and I mean the actual far right) doesn't really have any serious support in the UK, while Euroskepticism is widespread enough to have won a referendum. This "Euroskeptics are far right" meme is just as ridiculous as the arguments by some Euroskeptics where the remain side is stereotyped as just "the left" when there are plenty of right wing, left wing and centrist people supporting remain.

Reply 37

Ambitious1999

Original post by RF_PineMarten

Firstly the referendum result was the result of lies especially on immigration. We even had fee paying foreign students classed as immigrants by the Brexit campaign figures, plus lies saying illegal immigrants get unlimited benefits, free house and car and its the EUs fault which is untrue. The of course xenophobic racist and islsmpohobic BS which the gullible bigoted types believe.
In all it amounts to electoral fraud and the result should be made void.

Second. Parties Left to right we have:

Labour: centre left
Lib dems: centre
Tory party: right wing
UKIP: far right
BNP: ultra right wing

Reply 38

ineedA

i do not like a lott of her policies

Reply 39

RF_PineMarten

Original post by Ambitious1999

Things like racism and xenophobia are actual terms with actual definitions, you know. They are not catch all terms for "things I disagree with". There is nothing racist or xenophobic about wanting to leave the EU, or wanting to restrict immigration in the way most other countries in the world do. Same with that much misused term "Islamophobia".

Going by this "lies and broken promises are electoral fraud" argument, every election we've ever had should be re-done over and over again. Even if remain won we would still have this argument, as the remain side were using misleading information just like the leave side were. I really wish this narrative about how "evil disgusting leave campaigners were lying all along and the enlightened remain side were perfectly honest and open and reasonable" would just go away, because it's not true at all. Both sides were sometimes lying or using misleading arguments.

So going by this "let's do the referendum again because the winning side lied" argument, if remain won, they would also have won based at least partly on lies and half-truths. So we could very easily do what some remain supporters are doing now, and call for a re-run of the referendum pretty much immediately. I doubt the same people currently calling for a second referendum would be sympathetic if remain had won and it was the leavers calling for another vote.