Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think Teresa May has just won the election?

964 replies

desertmum · 04/06/2017 11:12

Listening to TM outside Downing Street vs JC - I think she may have just won the election - saying what people wnat to hear and hopefully some of what she says needs to be done will be followed through with.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
13
Tapandgo · 05/06/2017 21:01

May is u turning ill thought out policies, and clearly has offered no support or investment to the police - the people we rely upon to challenge the bloody murderers who
are determined to wreck our society. She will demolish the NHS to polish off her anti public service drive.
No - her speeches don't impress me.

IDontBowlOnShabbos · 05/06/2017 21:01

I had to laugh at previous poster saying Corbyn was homophobic when Theresa May came out with shit like this. Laugh or cry really.

To think Teresa May has just won the election?
TearsOnTheGround · 05/06/2017 21:01

Just a question but who, as in the past, do you think was a "good" PM?

nerysw · 05/06/2017 21:04

TearsOnTheGround - that Gordon Brown chap, all round decent and quite good at running the country (press didn't like him though)....

TearsOnTheGround · 05/06/2017 21:05

Oh, Shock, okay. Really!

Blueink · 05/06/2017 21:09

Yes - if people believe the rhetoric and don't bother to look at the facts for themselves. I don't know how May can stand up there and have the gall to "thank" staff. The cuts haven't only been in real terms, NHS Nurse pay just went down in actual terms by £100 per month in April. That is devaluing and destabilising, the thanks are rather hollow. John Major (ex Conservative Prime Minister) has just publically come out and said the NHS is NOT SAFE in their hands. Regarding terrorism, unfortunately Prevent knew about the Manchester bomber and at least one of those named in the recent London attack - but said the resources were not sufficient to investigate or act upon the intelligence received. And yes, Brexit is an expensive diversion of money and time by those who believed the rhetoric plastered on buses and didn't learn the facts for themselves. As well as hypocritical, May gave an aggressively worded speech e.g. "stamping out". Fighting hate with hate is not the answer but the angry, afraid and stupid might buy in to it.

user1471448556 · 05/06/2017 21:14

TM is an unimpressive leader. She lacks warmth and charisma, and the Tory manifesto offers very little that I like. Her record in the Home Office is not good - she could have imposed limits on immigration from outside the EU, but failed to. If she had lowered those numbers, perhaps people wouldn't have wanted Brexit (which will be a disaster for our economy if she presses ahead with her plans). I was initially not keen on JC either - however, I have had a massive change of heart since reading the Labour manifesto. I think it's really strong and offers the chance for real change. The Lib Dems and Greens also have some good policies. I am hoping that people get out there and vote tactically because if we end up with the Tories again then it's bye bye to the NHS, and God knows what'll happen to school funding.

Livelovebehappy · 05/06/2017 21:14

Don't get that people keep harping on about the cuts in the police quota having resulted in the attacks in London and Manchester. You could double the police force and they still wouldn't be able to prevent some lunatic getting into his van and driving into a crowd of people. And the police are now discouraged from doing random stop and searches. The intelligence services were already aware of the murderers who were on their radar, but presumably couldn't arrest them when they hadnt done anything yet to justify being incarcerated, so can someone explain how increasing the police force would have stopped either of these attacks?

nerysw · 05/06/2017 21:15

TearsOnTheGround - yes, I really think that. Who would you go for then, Thatcher, Major, Blair, Cameron, May?

falange · 05/06/2017 21:17

I agree livelovebehappy that it's going to be hard/impossible to stop these attacks but am assuming that more police would mean more staff to follow up intelligence.

IDontBowlOnShabbos · 05/06/2017 21:21

More police means better links with communities. It means freeing up officers to do actual investigations and intelligence gathering not just reacting to situations as they happen. It means instead of having tired burnt out officers doing 15 hour shifts day in day out having someone to relieve them.

The terrorist in Manchester had been reported to police but they didn't have the staff to follow up. The terrorist in London had been reported to the police but they didn't have the staff to follow it up.

Theresa May reduced the stop and search powers.

Livelovebehappy · 05/06/2017 21:25

Falange; but my understanding is that the intelligence services are very aware of the 3000 plus suspected of being involved with terrorist activities\sympathisers, but action can't be taken against them until they've done something that's an arrestable offence. The police and prosecution services have to behave airtight cases before they can detain anyone.

Evewasinnocent · 05/06/2017 21:36

and you can gather evidence by approved surveillance - which takes a lot of resources!

Yogimummy123 · 05/06/2017 21:43

From what the police have said they need more staff not more powers. Beware of the Tories with human rights & civil liberties. Need stop terrorism but listen to the people doing it! Cressida Dick isn't highly regarded amongst the police or independent police complaints commission. She was a political choice because she'd toe the Tory party line. Listen to the people doing the job, at the coal face so to speak. Beware politicians at election time!! Think long term. What kind of country & future do you want for your children, grandchildren, the elderly, vulnerable & disabled. Who's going to provide it best. Who has a track record of being on "the right side of history". Who can you really trust to deliver?

nemoni · 05/06/2017 21:54

No, I don't, and I think the events in Manchester & London reflect that the government has been getting it wrong, and reducing policing, on her watch www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/05/london-bridge-attacker-named-as-khuram-butt?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

CoolCarrie · 05/06/2017 22:12

The phrase, "Lions lend by donkeys" springs to mind in the case of all politicians at the moment, the police & NHS staff being the lions...!

sleeponeday · 05/06/2017 22:17

In a way, I do want May to win, and the comment below is why. I think we are headed into an extremely dark period, economically and socially, and for her to hand over to a different party precisely at this stage would be to saddle them with the blame when the shit hits the fan. Inflation for essential items such as food is already up, and house prices starting to fall. Brexit may well tank the economy and whoever is in power is likely to carry the can - especially the Conservatives, given they held the referendum that kicked it all off. Given it was called solely to sort out an on-going squabble in the Tory party, rather than for any principle, that actually seems fair. If Labour win, the coming disaster will eagerly be laid at their door, even though they've had no part in creating it. Realistically, though, I think a hung Parliament is probably best. Apart from anything else they'll be more likely to put any deal to a second referendum, which gives us a chance to back out when the chips are down.

My worry is labour are talking about putting money into everything, which is good to think, but in reality the money isn't there to go on a spending spree. I'm scared they will do what they did last time and spend spend spend and trap people on benefits again with no way out and screw the NHS again with all their funding of mangers and pen pushers. Labour scare me a lot.

I absolutely appreciate why you think that, given it;s been repeated so often, but if you look at the data, then it isn't actually true. At the time the financial crisis actually hit, Labour was borrowing less than John Major's administration (and he left power at a time of economic growth) the deficit (as opposed to national debt - not the same, but below certain levels isn't an issue, as manageable) was as close to zero as dammit. The recession hit 38 countries globally, including all the G7 nations, so I don't think that can be laid at Labour's door either. This article is from last month, by the way - it sets out the current governments fiscal failures despite being out of recession.

The comments on the NHS are not accurate, either. We were assessed, in 2010, as having the most efficient healthcare system from the G7 nations. Less bureaucracy and better use of funding than any other.

I am not a fan of Gordon Brown's style of government at all, but he handled the economic crisis pretty faultlessly. He supported the housing market via increased mortgage interest support for those who lost their jobs and low interest rates for all, avoiding total crash; he supported the banking system, avoiding economic collapse; and he worked with the Bank of England to support the economy more generally via quantatitive easing, and those very low interest rates. All of those steps meant we came through the period relatively intact as an economy. It was, again, a global collapse. It wasn't caused by government spending, which was wholly affordable, as the figures show, before the collapse, and necessary afterwards to stop the economy grinding to a halt.

National borrowing isn't the same as household. It's a lot more complex. Some spending grows the economy, so while you shouldn't be in deficit in economic boom, it's SOP in economic bust - Major was three times during his administration, for just that reason.

The reality is that Labour did provably better until a global crisis hit: less debt, stronger economy, and a lot of support for the income and services for the average person - and it was done at pretty much zero deficit in the good times, too, which the Conservatives simply have not managed. I do have to say though, I admire them for managing to persuade people that the massively better lifestyle they enjoyed under Labour is the reason for their economic pain now. It just is not true, and it's a shame it goes so unchallenged. I can only imagine that the Labour party felt they were on a losing wicket if referring back to the global financial crisis, because it was such a terrifying time, and people associate it so strongly with Labour now.

The national debt is currently higher than it ever was under Labour and the deficit isn't remotely down to where it was prior to the crash, either. This after years of austerity, and cuts to basic services. I can see no way whatsoever that that can be honestly presented as fiscal competence by the Conservatives. They've been good at assisting the very wealthy, definitely. But everyone else is worse off on just about any measure you care to name: provision of core services such as health and education and libraries and leisure, wages which for the low-paid have shrunk (almost uniquely in the EU and the G7) and unavoidable expenses have grown. Inflation on food is climbing, and as we Brexit, inflation will apply to pretty much everything. The housing market has been artificially inflated and distorted into another bubble via the Help to Buy schemes, which in turn has pushed up rents to crazy levels. That affects all of us because everyone has to pay to live somewhere... unless they are in a position to own outright, of course. And when prices fall, so will confidence, and a lot of people will be in negative equity. Brown supported homeowners through that with generous mortgage interest support payments - that's been removed. And we've already had 3 months of falls now. Finally: if we repatriate lots of young, tax-paying, goods-consuming migrant workers - supported by their nation of origin through their expensive educational years - then prices will fall further and the tax take plus economy is likely to fall, all the while while we repatriate all the elderly people who've retired to the southern EU, their medical and care needs are our responsibility instead of the host nation. That's going to be a problem. No wonder May wanted a dementia tax introduced - it's not going to come cheap.

Having said all of the above: PPI was an absolute fucker. If you want to slam New Labour for that, then I'm in. But it's a fairly minor point, when set against the above charge sheet.

Oakster1 · 05/06/2017 22:20

TearsOnTheGround
"But we live in a democracy. Having a second referendum is like saying I want is to vote until we get the result I want. Surely it doesn't work like that. I voted out but if the majority had voted to remain I would have had to except that and not dreamt of saying we need to vote again."

I know this thread isn't about another referendum. And I don't think either Labour or the Conservatives will give us another one. But we were told there would be an extra £350 million A WEEK for the NHS during the campaign. But now Mrs May is explaining to nurses "there is no magic money tree". And I guess that goes for the police as well - no extra money there then. Maybe, just maybe we have been conned and people might want to vote again when we know the facts about the final deal?

Offred · 05/06/2017 22:34

Tears the actual economic data clearly demonstrates that this thing about labour 'overspending' is made up. The tories have a worse record. Partly because the nation's economy is more about where you direct the money that is there rather than a household budget where you spend your wages of save it.

wherestheweightlosspill · 05/06/2017 22:36

TearsOnTheGround
"But we live in a democracy. Having a second referendum is like saying I want is to vote until we get the result I want'.
No it isn't, it's like the country voted to move house and we're shown images of lovely houses, but when we get to exchange day and discover we're swapping a 4 bed detached for a damp bed sit, shouldn't we have the right to change our mind? If it turns out we're getting a mansion then great, people will vote for it. Every 5 years (or so) we democratically elect a government based on their promises, if/when they deliver something different/don't deliver we vote again, that's democracy

sleeponeday · 05/06/2017 22:37

I'm no fan of May, but in fairness, that was promised by the Leave campaign and she was on the Remain side at the time.

Having said that, I think we need a second referendum on whatever deal is on the table (or no deal), because it's glaringly apparent that most people had no idea what they were voting for. Given the porkies both sides told in their campaign material, that's not surprising. The clarity an initiated split, and a clear deal of some sort, can offer can only be helpful.

Besides, more democracy is surely a good thing - no? Especially when there was such a tiny majority to begin with.

Offred · 05/06/2017 22:38

There is a letter signed by prominent economists validating labour's fully costed economic plan.

The tory's austerity is costly as it creates a leaky economy with poor local economies and increases budgets for things like welfare by directing much of the money spent on many layers of costly bureaucracy and administration as well as leaving people poorer so they have less money to spend as consumers, which is ridiculous in an economy that depends highly on consumer spending.

Maireadplastic · 05/06/2017 22:45

Great assessment, sleeponeday- I hope people read and digest it. I cannot understand why you'd want May to win though!
Totally agree about PPI. Schools and hospitals here in Lewisham, London are totally screwed by it.

sleeponeday · 05/06/2017 23:04

Because I don't want another party blamed when the Conservative chickens come home to roost. Honestly, that worries me. I'd far rather a wafer-thin majority, and the government collapsing in acrimony when the consequences become plain. I don't want them swanning in and winning another two elections by dint of blaming a fragile, tiny-majority Labour or coalition government for what they created.

On another note, this is the New York Times's view on her approach to national security:

[[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/05/world/europe/london-attack-theresa-may.html She held the portfolio in charge of security for six years before replacing David Cameron as prime minister, and she oversaw a reduction in police forces, including armed officers, during that time.

“I am so sick of Theresa May blaming others for terror when the system she presided over has obviously failed so lamentably,” Steve Hilton, once a close adviser to Mr. Cameron, wrote on Twitter. Mrs. May, he added in a separate tweet, “should be resigning, not seeking re-election.]]

Mapenzi · 05/06/2017 23:07

A country that does not even allow women to drive....Again...Opposite attract#sacasm 😂🤔

Swipe left for the next trending thread