A Political Thread

[Vieux Talonneur]

I also think May has harmed the chances of the women standing and maybe a woman becoming PM for a long time.

Why?

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Why?

Well Leadsom - do I need to say more? McVey? Neither are PM material imo.

As for women PM in the future, well that is just my opinion. Perception is a big thing and May has probably harmed the chances of another woman PM; she was certainly no Thatcher. And There is no Jacinda on the British political horizon as far as I can see.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Well Leadsom - do I need to say more? McVey? Neither are PM material imo.

As for women PM in the future, well that is just my opinion. Perception is a big thing and May has probably harmed the chances of another woman PM; she was certainly no Thatcher. And There is no Jacinda on the British political horizon as far as I can see.

McVey is like Hancock and others, just too lightweight. Nothing to do with her gender, just totally unqualified. Leadsom has a better case and I'd guess she'll only just miss out on the final 2.

As for the future, May was no Thatcher, but Cameron, Brown, Blair and Major weren't exactly Churchill either.

The odds are that the next PM will be a bloke simply because blokes hold most of the senior cabinet roles. That needs changing but if anything May has shown that women can ascend to the top job and then be judged purely on their own performance. Which in her case was poor.

Just spotted a colleague in the front row on Question Time!

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I don't see why female MPs would see Thatcher as something of a target for how they want to be as a PM. We go on about how the economy is dominated by London, by the finance sector, how we lost manufacturing, how British brands died out etc yet that was all on Thatchers watch.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

The problem I see is that two female PMs we've Had so far have ended up having to become domineering to survive in a male dominated government. Thatcher ended up being too dictatorial and May just ended up being too stubborn (closed circle of aides) because she felt it was her duty to deliver Brexit and didn't listen. May really became PM by really not saying much in the lead up to Brexit and ended up being the default choice.

The next female PM will have to have different character and skillset to survive successfully and end up leaving the office on relatively good terms. Not that it is easy to leave being PM on good terms - either a general election defeat or forced out by their own colleagues or circumstances. But yes of course chances are next PM will be a man.

 

[ncurd]

Leadsome isn't really a heavyweight she was a nobody backbencher who rose to prominence during the referendum and had to be kept onside by May to give the cabinet balance.

I see Corbyn still understands bugger all despite the front bench all saying what needed to be said and the Corbynites are now going for the line that Labour are the only ones trying to heal a divided country rather than claim they are for a second referendum withh remain on the paper. Well must be doing well in the polls then...

 

[General Melchett]

May was VERY VERY fortunate to become PM. Here are a few bullet points of her journey:

1. Missing in action during the referendum campaign (almost as much as Corbyn) purely for reasons of self gain as she knew she'd have a shot at replacing Cameron if Leave won. At least Johnson and Gove stuck their necks out by joining the Leave camp. Tories messed up and should have picked a Leaver to deliver what they promised.

2. Blew a huge lead in the opinion polls before the snap General Election and was able to make Corbyn look good. She was a terrible campaigner and looked awkward as hell during rallies. Also, many thick voters somehow concluded that Corbyn was the British Bernie Sanders without checking what he stood for.

3. Refused to take part in election TV debates - showed how spineless she is in the public eye. Asking the public to boost her majority (to enable a strong and stable Government) and yet not letting them see her debate with her rivals?! Not at all media friendly and often failed to speak with conviction and authority.

4. Failed to connect with the public and show any sort of warmth or empathy in the aftermath of tragedies like Grenfell or terrorist attacks.

4. Overall very stubborn, wouldn't listen or compromise. Showed towards the end that she was more interested in her own legacy than the national interest. She's even now trying to salvage some kind of legacy with student fees.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

They made a good point on QT last night on student fees. What's the point of cutting it to £7.5k per year only to increase the period of loan repayment by 10 years. The additional interest payments would swallow up any saving. What is it 6% at the moment?

Also am I right in understanding that they propose removing the threshold above which students need to start paying back the loans? If so that is even more stupid and would penalize the lower earning graduates.

 

[ncurd]

The current system penalises higher earning graduates.

Okay I'll be clearer it penalises people who have degree's in areas which lead to high paying jobs as opposed to those who don't. That essentially means when the debt is written off those with the higher paying degrees paid for those with the lowers ones who never paid anything back.

Now I'm cool with higher earners being taxed more than lower earners what I object to is the fact whether you have a degree or not determining if you pay more. There are people only 5 years older than me that have never paid this additional tax. That means they have kept more of their earnings over the past 16 years by luck of when they were born.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

The problem I see is that two female PMs we've Had so far have ended up having to become domineering to survive in a male dominated government. Thatcher ended up being too dictatorial and May just ended up being too stubborn (closed circle of aides) because she felt it was her duty to deliver Brexit and didn't listen. May really became PM by really not saying much in the lead up to Brexit and ended up being the default choice.

Agree that May was an accidental PM. She just didn't have the skillset, gravitas or communication skills full stop.

More of a point on Thatcher. I think she had more natural clout and authority, but that was a different era altogether. Being the first anything is a tough gig, but in 1979 when she came to power culture was massively different and there were just 19 female MPs. In 2015 just before May took over there were 191, but even now only 5 of the 23 strong cabinet are female.

 

[Amiga500]

As for the future, May was no Thatcher, but Cameron, Brown, Blair and Major weren't exactly Churchill either.

Sorry, just stop you right there.

Churchill was a grade A ****** who by fluke of circumstance ended up in a role where his stubbornness was a prized asset and his stupidity and inability to stop getting involved in things he knew little about with disastrous consequences was largely overlooked.


Imagine now if anyone presided over the Dardanelles. You think they'd ever be let into a role of directing anything more than traffic at a stop-go sign?

 

[General Melchett]

Why do the media and many people think Boris is the only one capable of competing with Farage in a General election?

This isn't the popular and quirky 'Have I got news for you' Boris who became mayor of London. He's pretty much despised in London now which is largely Remain. Is he popular with anyone else apart from his 120,000 over 55 Brexit loving Tory party members or is he just being pimped out by his supporters?

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

May's problem was she lacked any backbone once in power.
Nothing about being stubborn, she was bullied by a minoirty in her party and she let it happen.


Leadsom **** up her first chance and in the time between then and now has done nothing really.

 

[Reiser99]

The current system penalises higher earning graduates.

Okay I'll be clearer it penalises people who have degree's in areas which lead to high paying jobs as opposed to those who don't. That essentially means when the debt is written off those with the higher paying degrees paid for those with the lowers ones who never paid anything back.

Now I'm cool with higher earners being taxed more than lower earners what I object to is the fact whether you have a degree or not determining if you pay more. There are people only 5 years older than me that have never paid this additional tax. That means they have kept more of their earnings over the past 16 years by luck of when they were born.

Slightly confused by this. I get that the more you earn the more you pay back. However not sure what you meant by people with higher paying degrees pay for those with lower paying degrees. When the debt is written off it's the tax payer that foots the bill. So yes technically they will help pay for it, but not directly.

The problem was that this was never about allowing more people to go to university or make the system fairer. These costs were always there, but students only paid £3000 before and £1200 before that. The rest was funded by the government. When the Tories needed to make savings under austerity they realised they could wipe an extra 7k per student from the deficit, because even though they do pay the money, because it is in the form of a loan it doesn't count towards the deficit as it's assumed people will pay it back. However because the majority of people will not pay it back all they did was shift the problem from now to 40 years down the line as when people reach the limit and get the debt wiped, the government at that time will lose all the income it's owed.

All these changes are doing is trying to get more money paid back. However as most still won't pay it all back, future governments are going to have a fall in income because of today's government.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

11 killed in Virginia shooting. Tragic and condolences to those affected, but not much to say that we haven't said a hundred times before.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Slightly confused by this. I get that the more you earn the more you pay back. However not sure what you meant by people with higher paying degrees pay for those with lower paying degrees. When the debt is written off it's the tax payer that foots the bill. So yes technically they will help pay for it, but not directly.

The problem was that this was never about allowing more people to go to university or make the system fairer. These costs were always there, but students only paid £3000 before and £1200 before that. The rest was funded by the government. When the Tories needed to make savings under austerity they realised they could wipe an extra 7k per student from the deficit, because even though they do pay the money, because it is in the form of a loan it doesn't count towards the deficit as it's assumed people will pay it back. However because the majority of people will not pay it back all they did was shift the problem from now to 40 years down the line as when people reach the limit and get the debt wiped, the government at that time will lose all the income it's owed.

All these changes are doing is trying to get more money paid back. However as most still won't pay it all back, future governments are going to have a fall in income because of today's government.

More than that, it is shifting the burden of paying for Uni onto those who use it. I think the point that was being made is those who go to Uni and get a high paying job are essentially being double taxed now (income and paying off the debt) whereas before the cost of Uni was paid by everyone regardless as it was government funded. To that end someone who goes to Uni and doesn't get a well paying job won't really have to actually pay much for it but if you go to uni and get a good job you will have to pay for it.

Governments 40 years down the line won't have a problem though as the government has already spent the money. The difference is in the past they would never have got it back, now they will get some back. Someone having their debt wiped is in essence just the same as when the government funded the whole thing, although it now costs more because it is lining the pockets of a few more already wealthy people along the way. That's where the extra costs for uni education are going, not on written off loans.

On a different note, Trump is supporting Boris to be next PM. This means clearly Boris would be an absolutely terrible choice. Trump also said he always liked Boris and he was a good guy, which means in a year he'll be rage tweeting at 3 in the morning about how Boris was always an idiot and he never trusted him.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Thoughts and prayers time in Virginia. It now feels very "normalized."

 

[Which Tyler]

Thoughts and prayers time in Virginia. It now feels very "normalized."

It feels normalised now because it has become normal for that country.

They've had so many opportunities to do something about it - like every other developed country; but they've decided as a nation, that 40,000 deaths a year is a price worth paying for the right to own a murder-weapon. Only foetal lives matter.

 

[General Melchett]

Not a cat's chance in hell that gun laws will change under a Republican President.

Trump taking it upon himself to interfere in the Tory leadership race when he really should be staying out of it and keeping it shut like the EU leaders are doing. Not sure if his endorsement will be a good thing for Boris given that Trump is despised here.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

It feels normalised now because it has become normal for that country.

They've had so many opportunities to do something about it - like every other developed country; but they've decided as a nation, that 40,000 deaths a year is a price worth paying for the right to own a murder-weapon. Only foetal lives matter.

Yep, gun victims are now acceptable collateral damage in the USA.