Theresa May's conference speech is a political earthquake

Announcements
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Theresa May yesterday

    'We can build that new united Britain in which everyone plays by the same rules, and in which the powerful and privileged no longer ignore the interests of the people'

    Theresa May today
    Ignores the views of residents and overrides the local council to give Cuadrila permission to start fracking in Flyde in Lancolnshire.


    Well that lasted long.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    When Ed Miliband made a very similar speech (except immigration) he was regarded as anti-business and anti-aspiration.

    Yet the Daily Mail today headlined about how wonderful it is that May is going after tax dodgers.

    Suddenly being 'liberal' and not hating immigration makes you the enemy of the state.

    The DM is a hypocritical nonsensical rag.

    In any case I've learned history is written by the winners and in politics at least it simply doesn't matter. For Instance Tuitin Fees were introduced by Labour and would be far worse if Labour had won in 2010 - that didn't stop them or people trashing The Lib dems
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    The DM is a hypocritical nonsensical rag.

    In any case I've learned history is written by the winners and in politics at least it simply doesn't matter. For Instance Tuitin Fees were introduced by Labour and would be far worse if Labour had won in 2010 - that didn't stop them or people trashing The Lib dems
    True.
    But it's incredibly frustrating to see how badly Miliband was treated when Theresa May gets a huge thumbs up for standing largely on the same platform.

    I find it bizarre that tories on here, who backed Cameron and Osborne's neoliberalism to the hilt are now going on about how great May is, even though she trashed everything they stood for.

    In fact Theresa May called Labour a threat to economic security even though she has now gone and pinched Miliband's manifesto.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke7456)
    i started of disliking her and she has said some things that rubbed me the wrong way but as time has gone on I have started to like her more and more. Generally I think i agree with her politics overall.
    I have it the complete opposite, she was growing on me, but then I read this speech and it turned out she's just another Cameron and not another Thatcher, and seems to be completely forgetting the 9 scariest words in English.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    True.
    But it's incredibly frustrating to see how badly Miliband was treated when Theresa May gets a huge thumbs up for standing largely on the same platform.

    I find it bizarre that tories on here, who backed Cameron and Osborne's neoliberalism to the hilt are now going on about how great May is, even though she trashed everything they stood for.

    In fact Theresa May called Labour a threat to economic security even though she has now gone and pinched Miliband's manifesto.
    Yeah but she went antivimmigrantion when she did it, didn't look like a mong when eating a bacon sandwich and her dad was a local vicar rather than a leading Marxist . The Daily Mails far more anti immigration than it is pro capitalist . Always has been. That's why they liked Hitler so much :
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Yeah but she went antivimmigrantion when she did it, didn't look like a mong when eating a bacon sandwich and her dad was a local vicar rather than a leading Marxist . The Daily Mails far more anti immigration than it is pro capitalist . Always has been. That's why they liked Hitler so much :

    They also loved Thatcher's economics.

    I actually think, given the current state of the Labour party and the way that May appears to be shifting the tories, that history will be kind to Miliband.

    For all his faults, he held the Labour party together which now seems an incredible achievement and May seems keen on implementing pretty much his entire economic policy.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I have it the complete opposite, she was growing on me, but then I read this speech and it turned out she's just another Cameron and not another Thatcher, and seems to be completely forgetting the 9 scariest words in English.
    Which are...
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Which are...
    "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    In that sense, it is an ambitious strategy but given how utterly useless Corbyn is and how UKIP now basically have no reason to exist, it's an eminently justifiable one and one which will deliver a decade in power if she can pull it off
    Isn't any strategy a justifiable one if your opponent is ****?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    She's shot Labour's fox in quite a few ways. And why would she feel the need to go to the country to seek her own mandate now? If she did, and Corbyn lost as badly as most serious commentators anticipate, it would force him out and then Labour might get their ducks in a row and elect someone credible to the leadership - Chukka maybe. Then she could actually face a threat at the following election. By allowing Labour to become a joke she sees through the fixed-term parliament, is guaranteed a win at the 2020 election and, if she comes good, ensures Conservative government for at least the next term, if not after.

    Her speech was heavy on rhetoric but low on detail - as you'd expect at this point. In the end, she'll be judged by what she does, rather than what she says but it's encouraging from my point of view. Now UKIP is over, their supporters are once again up for grabs, so May needs to show that the sneering at middle England is over - the conservatives are once again a party for them.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reality Check)
    She's shot Labour's fox in quite a few ways. And why would she feel the need to go to the country to seek her own mandate now? If she did, and Corbyn lost as badly as most serious commentators anticipate, it would force him out and then Labour might get their ducks in a row and elect someone credible to the leadership - Chukka maybe. Then she could actually face a threat at the following election. By allowing Labour to become a joke she sees through the fixed-term parliament, is guaranteed a win at the 2020 election and, if she comes good, ensures Conservative government for at least the next term, if not after.

    Her speech was heavy on rhetoric but low on detail - as you'd expect at this point. In the end, she'll be judged by what she does, rather than what she says but it's encouraging from my point of view. Now UKIP is over, their supporters are once again up for grabs, so May needs to show that the sneering at middle England is over - the conservatives are once again a party for them.
    The thing is, if an early election were called it would unlikely lead to Labour moderating, after all they've just shown that they don't care about electoral success, Corbyn wouldn't resign, and even if he did momentum will have got more than enough MPs in to get McDonnel or Abbot or whoever's turn it is next to be able to get the nominations needed and push the party even further down, especially if it's Abbot
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Of course, and that's what I said; I will be very impressed if she acts on them. But from what I know of her, and I have been following her career with interest, there's no question she wants to implement this policy platform. May has a small coterie of advisors who have basically been with her since the beginning, she is extremely loyal to them and vice-versa. They are known around Whitehall to have very different ideas to traditional Tory mindset, and that this group is not interested in the normal trappings of power, the white tie dinners and the days out at Ascot, the obsequious civil servants saying "Yes Secretary of State" and having your butt kissed by lobbyists. She has some very intelligent people around her, and this group is now saying "This is our time". I really hope she is able to make a difference; I think the fact that noises have been made about reforming party funding might mean she feels that she can obtain maximum independence by getting rid of the Tories need to raise money from the rich.



    Of course. As I said, based on rhetoric she has gone far further than Osborne ever has; she's gone further in rhetoric than the last Labour government did in calling for a real industrial strategy, in talking about government intervention, in repudiating the cult of individualism. These are things she really believes, and I think she has always had the big picture in mind, the trends (again, that's why all the way back in 2002 she already saw how obsolete the Tories had become in the New Labour age and made the "Nasty Party" speech, much to the disgust of many in her party). I think now the big picture she has in mind is how post-2008 has changed the landscape, the rise of populist demagogues, the increase in inequality.. I think her great ambition is to stem the tide of populist demagogues and provide real economic change.



    I disagree. The inheritance tax threshold is not particularly high, at all. £500,000 is not even half the value of a decent house in London, I think that's not at all bad threshold to have it at. It's not particularly regressive, it's not like we have it at $3.5 million like in America. Also, remember this government ended dividend imputation; that is pretty much the most fundamental taxation-based privilege of the capitalist class.

    And you can see how different she is from ordinary Tories in saying she wants to repeal the prohibition on councils borrowing to build council housing. That is absolutely massive; council housing essentially pays for itself which means that councils can leverage themselves pretty high, which means they can afford to build a lot of council housing once this prohibition is repealed. That really is massive.



    Of course, this 100% depends on whether this actually happens. I really want her to succeed, her biggest obstacle is her own side. But I don't think the problem is that she is being phoney and doesn't actually want this, everything I've heard (I'm quite involved in Lab politics, I live about a mile from the Palace of Westminster, have lots of friends on both sides who work in the palace as staffers for MPs or as aides to ministers) she and her tight coterie of advisors do have great ambitions. What I think has to be feared is the Tory counter-revolution; a rear-guard action by the metro neoliberals and the turnip Taliban who view the May agenda as basically being communism.
    I get what you're saying and can see your optimism in hearing her speak of an end to neoliberalism but I just have very little faith that she'll follow through with any of the economic reforms she is proposing.

    She was Home Secretary, one of the big four, in a very right wing, neoliberal government and had no trouble pushing through and supporting that agenda. I get you need to be pragmatic, but pragmatism isn't the same as going against everything you believe in, which if we believe her speech yesterday, she must have been doing for the last six years. Remember she voted through every cut to public services, every cut to the poor and disabled. Will she now reverse the cuts to welfare of her predecessor? Will she stop the impending tax credit cuts?

    She also called Ed Miliband a threat to economic security but now suddenly wants to implement his manifesto?!
    As for her populism, she wants to force companies to draw up lists of their foreign workers, is that what we, as Labour voters, really want? Yes I understand there are immigration concerns, but naming and shaming employers for having foreign staff?
    Or how about her idea of reducing foreign students? What a bizarre idea.

    As we've both said all we can do is wait and see. I guess I just have far less faith in her. I hope to be proven wrong but I just don't think I will be.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The thing is, if an early election were called it would unlikely lead to Labour moderating, after all they've just shown that they don't care about electoral success, Corbyn wouldn't resign, and even if he did momentum will have got more than enough MPs in to get McDonnel or Abbot or whoever's turn it is next to be able to get the nominations needed and push the party even further down, especially if it's Abbot
    If they had any sense it would be Clive Lewis. Just as left wing economically but more keen on defence spending and trident.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I get what you're saying and can see your optimism in hearing her speak of an end to neoliberalism but I just have very little faith that she'll follow through with any of the economic reforms she is proposing.

    She was Home Secretary, one of the big four, in a very right wing, neoliberal government and had no trouble pushing through and supporting that agenda. I get you need to be pragmatic, but pragmatism isn't the same as going against everything you believe in, which if we believe her speech yesterday, she must have been doing for the last six years. Remember she voted through every cut to public services, every cut to the poor and disabled. Will she now reverse the cuts to welfare of her predecessor? Will she stop the impending tax credit cuts?

    She also called Ed Miliband a threat to economic security but now suddenly wants to implement his manifesto?!
    As for her populism, she wants to force companies to draw up lists of their foreign workers, is that what we, as Labour voters, really want? Yes I understand there are immigration concerns, but naming and shaming employers for having foreign staff?
    Or how about her idea of reducing foreign students? What a bizarre idea.

    As we've both said all we can do is wait and see. I guess I just have far less faith in her. I hope to be proven wrong but I just don't think I will be.
    Some of this was mainly just red meat for the party faithful at conference. It's not uncommon.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I'll believe it when I see it.
    Somehow I doubt it. The Tories have a huge advantage over Labour in terms of financial backing. No chance they'll give that up.
    If we assume similar union funding to 2010 and account for the increased membership then Labour has close to £20m available to fight the next election however the Tories have upwards of £50m it's speculated. Labour however has the proportion split about 70% union funding and 30% membership while the Tories are much less reliant on one or two people.

    Moral of the story is that even if May reduces funding from donors, she can do far more harm to Labour if it precludes organisations dishing out money.

    (Original post by Davij038)
    Interesting. I don't like her but-

    She is I think successfully attenpting to hoover up both Labour and ukip voters. She's handling Brexit as I would ( as a passionate but pragmatic remainer) and rightly concluded along with Rudd (who is becoming one of my favourites) that brexit means we need to massively reduce immigration and that we should negotiate for the best deal possible.
    If anything reading your posts over the years would have pushed towards thinking that you'd like May more than Rudd.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    When Ed Miliband made a very similar speech (except immigration) he was regarded as anti-business and anti-aspiration.

    Yet the Daily Mail today headlined about how wonderful it is that May is going after tax dodgers.

    Suddenly being 'liberal' and not hating immigration makes you the enemy of the state.
    The state and the center and such things are all relative depending on the part of the electorate your aiming towards.

    Blair and Cameron both aimed their message at the outer suburbs where there are a lot of middle class people who've done well and have a metropolitan outlook on life (younger, liberal, globalist). May appears to aiming her message both at the shires and the inner city. In the shires you have a lot of people who are older, more socially conservative and although they've done well they dislike change and dislike the EU for it's assault on sovereignty (those who defined themselves as English over British voted 80% to Leave). In the inner cities and small towns in the north you have a lot of people who suffer because of immigration, they are still poor and the suburban middle classes talk down to them on issues like immigration.

    Personally i think that although we have issues, the UK as a whole is still more middle class than not and hence i think she's aiming herself at a smaller group of people statistically. With all that being said i think her approach could reap electoral rewards when you consider that the middle classes are already voting Tory and may be dragged along anyway (only the Orange Bookers are a threat to that and they are subdued). Meanwhile, May's platform may indeed start to such Labour and Ukip dry. It all hinges really on how many liberals she can drag with her as she makes inroads into the working class vote.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    If we assume similar union funding to 2010 and account for the increased membership then Labour has close to £20m available to fight the next election however the Tories have upwards of £50m it's speculated. Labour however has the proportion split about 70% union funding and 30% membership while the Tories are much less reliant on one or two people.

    Moral of the story is that even if May reduces funding from donors, she can do far more harm to Labour if it precludes organisations dishing out money.



    If anything reading your posts over the years would have pushed towards thinking that you'd like May more than Rudd.



    The state and the center and such things are all relative depending on the part of the electorate your aiming towards.

    Blair and Cameron both aimed their message at the outer suburbs where there are a lot of middle class people who've done well and have a metropolitan outlook on life (younger, liberal, globalist). May appears to aiming her message both at the shires and the inner city. In the shires you have a lot of people who are older, more socially conservative and although they've done well they dislike change and dislike the EU for it's assault on sovereignty (those who defined themselves as English over British voted 80% to Leave). In the inner cities and small towns in the north you have a lot of people who suffer because of immigration, they are still poor and the suburban middle classes talk down to them on issues like immigration.

    Personally i think that although we have issues, the UK as a whole is still more middle class than not and hence i think she's aiming herself at a smaller group of people statistically. With all that being said i think her approach could reap electoral rewards when you consider that the middle classes are already voting Tory and may be dragged along anyway (only the Orange Bookers are a threat to that and they are subdued). Meanwhile, May's platform may indeed start to such Labour and Ukip dry. It all hinges really on how many liberals she can drag with her as she makes inroads into the working class vote.
    Liberal tories, Labourites and Lib Dems really should form a party. What unites them against May's right wing authoritarianism is probably greater than their differences.

    IF May is true to her rhetoric, I can't really see anything there that's appealing to young liberal tories.
    George Osborne has been incredibly vocal so far and almost sees himself as the de facto leader of the resistance.

    Again IF May is true to her rhetoric, I don't see much for you there, given that you seem firmly a man of the markets and she seemingly wants to place huge restrictions on them. Could you ever imagine Osborne and Cameron taking a swipe at the 'libertarian right'.


    What's bizarre is that as a society we seem to be moving away from a right-left distinction, back towards a liberal/middle class - working class or globalist - nationalist distinction.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Liberal tories, Labourites and Lib Dems really should form a party. What unites them against May's right wing authoritarianism is probably greater than their differences.

    IF May is true to her rhetoric, I can't really see anything there that's appealing to young liberal tories.
    George Osborne has been incredibly vocal so far and almost sees himself as the de facto leader of the resistance.

    Again IF May is true to her rhetoric, I don't see much for you there, given that you seem firmly a man of the markets and she seemingly wants to place huge restrictions on them. Could you ever imagine Osborne and Cameron taking a swipe at the 'libertarian right'.


    What's bizarre is that as a society we seem to be moving away from a right-left distinction, back towards a liberal/middle class - working class distinction.
    Liberal Tories can be indistinguishable from Lib Dems in every way almost. Some Labourites who're centrist Blarite neoliberal-ish, are also natural allies but I am not sure how many there are left of them anymore (all seem to have shifted to Blue Labour communitarianism).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)

    If anything reading your posts over the years would have pushed towards thinking that you'd like May more than Rudd.
    What gave you that impression? I'm not particularly bothered about surveillance and think she's handling brexit right that's about it.

    Her traditionalist views are often antithetical to mine (I'd abolish faith schools not create more! Plus I'd legalise most victimless crimes)

    She was also a reluctant if ambivalent remainer whereas Rudd was like me passionately Pro remain (trashing Vote Leave and Boris on Live TV)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowMan)
    Liberal Tories can be indistinguishable from Lib Dems in every way almost. Some Labourites who're centrist Blarite neoliberal-ish, are also natural allies but I am not sure how many there are left of them anymore (all seem to have shifted to Blue Labour communitarianism).
    No there are a fair few differences. Blairites are ambivalent on civil liberties, Cameroons are still more socially conservative than lib dems and aren't interested in voting reform ...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Liberal tories, Labourites and Lib Dems really should form a party. What unites them against May's right wing authoritarianism is probably greater than their differences.

    IF May is true to her rhetoric, I can't really see anything there that's appealing to young liberal tories.
    George Osborne has been incredibly vocal so far and almost sees himself as the de facto leader of the resistance.

    Again IF May is true to her rhetoric, I don't see much for you there, given that you seem firmly a man of the markets and she seemingly wants to place huge restrictions on them. Could you ever imagine Osborne and Cameron taking a swipe at the 'libertarian right'.

    What's bizarre is that as a society we seem to be moving away from a right-left distinction, back towards a liberal/middle class - working class or globalist - nationalist distinction.
    I think the key thing here is how much the political space has changed. Right now May can drag middle class liberals along because most Tories will put the economy first (we may care about transgender policy, but it's generally a secondary issue) and they have nowhere to go. This was not the case during the coalition for example when the Orange Bookers would have welcomed those people with open arms.

    I certainly think that a classically liberal party could make waves but i'm not sure where the Blairites could go.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 8, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Which is the best season?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.