Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think Theresa May looks rattled

251 replies

WhoIsRonniePickering · 15/05/2017 22:37

I watched the interview she gave on BBC News. She looked nervous and shaky. Do you think she's now thinking she's made a massive mistake and misjudged the Corbyn juggernaut? She looked like she was thinking "fcccccccccccccck."

OP posts:
Peregrina · 18/05/2017 04:58

and changes his opinion on everything (starting with Brexit)

Why use that as a criticism of Corbyn? This is the example set by two of our most recent Prime Ministers:

Cameron was asked, if he lost the Referendum would he stay on as PM, and gave a one word answer 'Yes', only to throw in the towel the next morning. He was then going to stay on as MP and was gone by October.

Theresa May - supported Remain (supposedly) and was seen campaigning for it, having made speeches on the benefits of the EU. Is now supporting a hard Brexit. Said five times that she was not going to call an early General Election. Is now doing exactly that, thus wasting time which could be used to negotiate with the rest of the EU.
May also lacks charisma, coming across as a robot.

Clandestino · 18/05/2017 06:16

Pregrino the thing is - May has a certain charisma. She comes across as strict and decisive and knowing what she wants, even if she contradicts herself.
She can face a confrontation and remain calm.
Corbyn has always actively avoided confrontation or he goes into rage. And then lets his minions do the dirty work. You look at him and his minions now, they would make Stalin and his helpers in the Russia of the 30s proud. That is the reason why I believe that despite all the Momentum's efforts the Labour will completely fail in the GE. Local elections were just the beginning.

RedHelenB · 18/05/2017 06:41

Having to pay for social care if your home is worth over £100000. No triple lock guarantee on pensions and means tested benefits. Think the Tories are over confident if they are stabbing their core vote on the back!

makeourfuture · 18/05/2017 06:43

Well if she is rattled, I can't blame her; she knows her policies are not working.

Failure on education. Failure on the housing crisis. A failing No-Plan Brexit. Failure on public assistance reform. Stalled wages. Low growth. Employment figures propped up by low pay and zero-hour contracts.

We can argue all day about whether Tories are evil, but what we do know is that their policies just don't work.

PigletWasPoohsFriend · 18/05/2017 07:01

Why use that as a criticism of Corbyn?

His supporters say he is a decent honest principled man. It just shows that actually he is just like everyone else.

PigletWasPoohsFriend · 18/05/2017 07:04

Having to pay for social care if your home is worth over £100000.

Hasn't having to sell homes and pay a certain amount been the case for a long time. It certainly was when my GP were in care homes.

No triple lock guarantee on pensions

It isnt sustaibable though with the increase of those of pernsionable age and people are living longer.

and means tested benefits

Not sure what is wrong with this. Why should those on either big pensions or with lots in the bank get a winter fuel allowance? I know quite a few pensioners will agree with this actually.

makeourfuture · 18/05/2017 07:11

Nonsense, piglets. It exposes exactly what they think about. Not growing the economy. Not sorting out Brexit. Not helping the sick or aged.

Just punishment for those less fortunate. A spite-filled manifesto.

I17neednumbers · 18/05/2017 07:12

Yes Red it will be interesting to see the response to the social care means testing proposals.

I think there will be quite negative coverage at first (not on mn necessarily - means testing benefits for the old is something lots of mners have supported in the past). But on the other hand it can be described as a 'we're all in together' type measure - 'why should rich pensioners get benefits' etc. Will be interesting to see what effect it has on voter turnout in that segment.

Peregrina · 18/05/2017 07:15

Watch May at PMQs if you want to see her get rattled. The only reason she doesn't in 'real life' is because she only meets selected tame audiences. She had no answer on Monday when challenged in Abingdon Market, when she met a real member of the public. I don't vote Labour, but I get sick of the Press constantly slagging him off, and giving May a free ride, when I think she is a nasty piece of work.

Winter fuel allowance sacrificed - not too bad, only £200 per couple, a bit more for the really elderly. Triple lock? Possibly a vote loser. Maybe not given that people would voted for a monkey with a blue rosette on. Losing your home to pay for care has been going on for years, but I don't think anyone has written it down as policy.

Peregrina · 18/05/2017 07:18

A spite-filled manifesto.

A good soundbite - get it in the Press.
So the Tories have nothing for the young, because they tend not to vote, so they don't count. They are not interested in the sick and disabled, as they have made clear, and now they are going to kick the old in the teeth.

Only the stinking rich will benefit. What a surprise!

I17neednumbers · 18/05/2017 07:22

Piglet yes value of the house has always been taken into account for care homes - the difference is that it will now be taken into account for carers at home as well - anything above £100k.

As for 'what's wrong with meanstesting', well I think yours is the majority view to be fair! This may be quite a popular policy with some groups. But there are still a few of us lone voices plaintively supporting universal benefits and opposing means testing, so here goes:

  1. If you means test benefits the public's support for them dilutes and eventually they wither away. Doubt wfa will survive long once means tested (though I agree it would be simpler to add to the state pension anyway).
  2. Disincentive to save and be self-reliant.
  3. Not necessarily fairer - depends on definition of fairness.
  4. (Most fundamental, and doubt it resonates with many!) - universal benefits are a reflection of the fact that we are a society, have common interests, and are all in this life/world together. Divide and rule etc.
Where would we stop with means testing by the way - why shouldn't rich pensioners and rich everyone else pay for the nhs, state education, libraries, bin collection?
Bigbiscuits · 18/05/2017 07:22

Corbyn juggernaut?

PMSL Smile

PigletWasPoohsFriend · 18/05/2017 07:22

Nonsense, piglets.

In your opinion. Which is nonsense?

The triple lock isn't sustainable. Homes have for at least 20years been sold to help pay for care.

Why should fuel allowance be means tested like other benefits?

Or is it because it's a Tory policy it is automatically bad?

winkywinkola · 18/05/2017 07:22

Oh it doesn't matter if her policies aren't working. It really doesn't. People will still vote for her in droves.

Nobody seems to be asking how much Brexit will cost.

Or why kids free school meals are being scrapped.

And the debt still grows.

PigletWasPoohsFriend · 18/05/2017 07:24

Where would we stop with means testing by the way - why shouldn't rich pensioners and rich everyone else pay for the nhs, state education, libraries, bin collection?

Exactly.

PigletWasPoohsFriend · 18/05/2017 07:25

Or why kids free school meals are being scrapped.

Universal free school meals not all.

NoLotteryWinYet · 18/05/2017 07:26

the triple lock isn't some vintage cradle to grave policy - it's something Cameron introduced to shore up votes for the coalition and it's completely unsustainable. In fact, the tories doing this DOES show that they're responsible, not out for kicking people in the teeth.

I'll post this again - hard choices have to be faced due to the ageing population:

www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9219

Peregrina · 18/05/2017 07:26

the difference is that it will now be taken into account for carers at home as well - anything above £100k.

I thought this was already happening. Trying to put care in place at home for MIL, Social Services seemed only to be interested in how much money she had. She scrimped and saved for years so that she could pass money on to her children/grandchildren. Why did she bother?

I17neednumbers · 18/05/2017 07:28

"Losing your home to pay for care has been going on for years, but I don't think anyone has written it down as policy."

The big difference is that you will now have value of your home taken into account when assessing eligibility for care in your own home. Apparently (not an expert!) that previously applied only to care homes. So quite a bit change.
But you will be able to defer payment (with interest!) until death. A bit like equity release.

Triple lock - which bit will they drop? Earnings, prices or the 2.5%? If the 2.5% it may not make that much difference in the near future - if inflation stays around the 2% mark.

coconuttella · 18/05/2017 07:28

Just punishment for those less fortunate. A spite-filled manifesto.

But making the winter fuel allowance means tested and removing exemption on the value of your house being taken into account when receiving homecare hit the more fortunate in society.... as does removing universal free meals for infant children (and keeping them for those on low incomes).

It means that Gertrude with her £3m home will need to put that towards her social care costs at home, and not receive WFA to supplement her £75k pension from her late banker husband, nor will she be guaranteed a 2.5% state pension increase even if average earnings and inflation remain at 1%. Mavis in a council flat and a state pension won't pay a penny for her care and get her WFA.

The Clarke family with their £250k income will not have to pay for lunches for 5 year old Sebastian at the local primary school, the Joneses with their £15k income will not.

It's progressive and no more spite-filled than taxing those on more than £80k.

makeourfuture · 18/05/2017 07:28

And the debt still grows

This is the key point! Thanks!

Because they keep taking from the sick. They take from the disabled. The take from poor children. And now they target the old.

And yet Tory Debt Still Grows.

MacarenaFerreiro · 18/05/2017 07:30

the Corbyn juggernaut

What juggernaut? All that's happened is that he's releaased a manifesto which was leaked beforehand and he's doing slightly less badly than he was doing before. Labour are WAY behind in the polls and the COnservatives will win.

coconuttella · 18/05/2017 07:30

The Clarke family will now have to pay for lunches... lunches they can easily afford.

I17neednumbers · 18/05/2017 07:32

Sorry Peregrina just seen your latest post - I must sound like a broken record! That is interesting - I must say i had assumed value of house was taken into account for care at home already, and was surprised to read in the newspapers that this is new. Perhaps I've got this wrong judging by your experience.

Yes, the 'scrimping, saving, why bother' point is a real one - 'fairness' is not a simple concept. The 'joy' of universal benefits is that you don't have to judge that.

Piglet, matter of interest - do you think the rich should pay for NHS, state education etc? I agree it is the logical outcome of 'cb, state pension etc should be meanstested', but it is an unusual view at the moment!

NoLotteryWinYet · 18/05/2017 07:36

yes, similarly some of today's pensioners are wealthier than anyone currently working will ever be due to housing wealth and generous final salary pensions. Why should I pay for the richer ones when I'll be retiring 20 years later than some of them?

I don't understand why we would pay for people that don't need to be paid for - whether it's university tuition, school meals, social care or pensions - let's use taxes on people actually in need.