How can anyone defend TM right now?

[Bearbehind]

And I ask that as a life long Tory voter

• She repeatedly, categorically ruled out having a GE now, then completely u-turned
• she is too spineless to participate in tv debates
• she won't deny triple lock pensions will be scrapped
• she won't deny the freeze on tax hikes will be scrapped
• her 'red line' is immigration, which if you ask most Leavers, wasn't their 'red line'
• she is hell bent on screwing the economy to prove a point
• her Brexit team cannot answer even the most basic questions
• she showed her petticoat to Trump and even he has said the EU will come first
• she is operating under some kind of delusion that EU agencies can remain in what will be a non EU country.

Really, who in their right mind would vote for her?

Life long labour voters who are considering now voting Tory blow my mind.

Seriously, what was ever so bad about the EU that makes it worth all this?

It's a bit thin on the ground wrt to answers to the thread title isn't it?

We're back with the usual 'change the subject to something I can argue about' aren't we?

Surely if there is going to be a landslide for TM someone on here could attempt to answer the points in my OP.

Bear,

As someone who seems to be a fan of rigour, your thread title is ludicrously vague. 'Defend' against what charge? And then you post a huge laundry list of things you don't personally like...

larry, I think you are being more than a little disingenious in order to avoid coming up with any answers.

Given the choice between May and Corbyn, I would still vote Corbyn even though I don't think he'd be a convincing leader. It's not just about the leader, it's about the underlying principles as well. I could never vote Tory given the PIP fiasco and their lack of compassion towards the ill and disabled.

However, given that I live in a Tory stronghold, with only the lib-dems getting close in recent years, I'll probably go with them, (lib-dems) especially as my borough largely voted remain, so people may feel more inclined to vote for them given their advocation for a soft brexit.

Triple lock pensions protection needs to go. Pensioners used to be very poor but no longer. In 2011, the income of the average pensioner (median), after housing and tax, overtook that of the average working person. Pensioners' income has merrily risen since whilst the working young have had little rise in income. By the time the young themselves get to be old, they will either get nothing (if, say, they are 66 yo, 67yo or even 68yo) or a lot less (defined benefits pension schemes are not available to the current young, and society will not be able to afford the current state and public pension levels once the balance of the population changes).

If the country has spare money then more of it should be used to help the young in society. It's just silly to go on giving pensioners rises in standard of living above the rest of the population when they are already better off. BTW: No, they did NOT pay in a commensurate amount when they worked. If all their tax and NI and pension contributions had been put in a pot at the time (it wasn't, it was spent) then it would be nowhere near sufficient to purchase an annuity for the amounts they are now taking out. It just doesn't add up any more and there is no overwhelming need.

If Labour or any other party say they are maintaining the triple lock then I would interpret that as superficial virtue signalling that should be rephrased as "we are going to raise taxes and/or reduce help for the young".

It's anti-feminist to criticise a woman? I think not. I think feminism means that I, as a woman, have access to the means to express my thoughts.

She's no Margaret Thatcher. Nor was David Cameron. I didn't like Thatcher's politics but even I can see that this level of incompetent self-harm would have stunned Thatcher.

With regard to your comment:

'Citizens of nowhere' quite clearly references a group of well paid bankers, consultants and strategists who feel equally at home in London, New York or Singapore (or anywhere who taxes them little and has an abundance of places they like to go).

I'm working on it. There's so much wrong with it, it's hard to know where to begin. But it needs unpacking because it's the sort of nonsense that brought us to this mess. It's dangerous, slippery 'Oh I didn't mean that rhetoric that is emblematic of the sort of rhetoric that the libertarian, Putin-loving, Leave-Eu people poisoned the political discourse with.

1. It contains a slippery anti-semitism ("Goldman Sachs are part of a Jewish conspiracy that runs the EU").

1. It makes reference to a spurious populism ("The Bankers and the elites are screwing the people - let's turn the UK into a low-tax, no-public services haven for people who want to shore their money here, or employ people for low wages and no Health and Safety regulation").

1. It makes reference to an empty patriotism ("These evil 'no-place' people are swamping our land - fuck, I hate everything about the UK and want to turn it into something completely different").

1. It's indeterminate hate speech("Hey, it's OK to hate someone, anyone. Hate other people, instead of thinking. Hate these 'citizens of nowhere'. It's pretty vacuous - fill in any group you don't know very much about and feel comfortable about hating on.")

Let's be clear: the group currently around TM - and that is not the whole of the Conservative Party - consists of people with a vision of the UK as a low-cost, low-regulations, low-public responsibility tax-haven - similar to Belize.

Trying to claim her rhetoric as a promise that she will protect UK workers from this scenario is a lie. The absolute opposite is true.

OP I still don't know why you think she wants to ruin the economy.

Cat "She's just fairly stupid and uninformed - not utterly stupid"

Have you met her? I might not like her but this is not remotely a fair description.

zen1 That sounds like a sensible option.

I think Teresa May poses a serious threat to the UK. Teresa May being returned to power, with an increased majority, will unleash havoc on the UK's way of life and economy on a scale unprecedented in my lifetime.

Forget Corbyn. The real risk comes from the group behind May. Which the Conservative Party - and Margaret Thatcher - worked for years to keep from power.

Cameron let the UK down badly by opening the door to this lot.

Teresa May is a donkey being led by jackals.

Is it because the 'People have Spoken' and she has all 65 million of us behind her 100% in full support of Brexit?

Seriously, if you were a supporter of the Conservatives of Margaret Thatcher and John Major, Teresa May is not the candidate you should be voting for.

goldfish, maybe you could tell my why the path Brexit is heading down isn't going to ruin the economy then?

From where I'm standing

• inflation has already increased
• we are a net importer so the slump in sterling has an adverse affect
• any tariffs will make goods even more expensive
• there appear to be no plans in place for dealing with NTB
• we are likely to lose financial passporting
• if companies like Nissan do decide to stay it will be because we will be paying through the nose for them to do so

Can you tell us how these things will be countered?

Bear In answer to your points:

the pound falling by 20% has made our exports 20% cheaper so even if we end up with WTO terms of a 10% tariff on our exports, they will still be cheaper for the buyers who will carry on buying them. Meanwhile, the Government can collect and redistribute (as it chooses) tariffs collected on imports. This will help our trade deficit considerably and might be the only way we get out of our massive public debt. Yes, it will be painful to find that imports are more expensive but that is the austerity we have always known we need to face as we had been spending more than we got in.

If we stay in Europe, we will get caught up in the big financial collapse that is inevitable within the next decade and, as one of the wealthier members, we would be made to foot a large part of the bill. We still might not escape in time...

We will not lose financial passporting.

Pensioners used to be very poor but no longer.
Yes, and no to this one. A lot of women pensioners will not be well off. I can speak from experience being a pensioner. I get the full state pension, but many women of my age don't because they paid the "married woman's stamp". This doesn't give them a full pension. Similarly many women will have worked spasmodically or part time in non-pensionable jobs, so any work pension will be small or non-existent. They may have a decent family income if their husband has a good pension.

Then again the pension age has been rising and particularly discriminated against a group of women born in 1953 or thereabouts who had to wait significantly longer for their state pension (and in England, entitlement to a bus pass.)

We will not lose financial

Says who?

Re sterling, we are a net importer therefore we are going to be more adversely affected by price rises and tariffs than we will benefit- it's not a difficult concept- it's basic maths.

I love notgettingyounger's bold statement "We will not lose financial passporting."

Based on what, precisely other than wishful thinking?

Oh op you mean Brexit!
Sorry I thought you meant a specific economic policy.

I might not think Brexit is a good idea but after the ref the choices were follow the result or run another ref surely?

It seems many are annoyed about the GE after shouting for months about May being unelected because after June she will indeed be elected. It's not her fault there is no credible opposition, is it?

Tax hikes are unpopular but probably necessary. Speaking as someone originally from another European country that's often mentioned as the an example of a brilliant education, health and social care system, those things don't come cheap. (For comparison, that country has a 30% basic rate income tax and 24% VAT rate.) More money is being invested into the NHS all the time but costs are going up quicker and will only keep going up as the population ages and lifestyle related illnesses increase in general.

As for Brexit, the majority of Brexit voters absolutely voted that way mainly or at least partly based on immigration.

I hate that Brexit has to go ahead but how can any Remain voter seriously suggest we could ignore the referendum? It was made very clear in advance that whatever the result, the government would not ignore it. And Corbyn has always been a lot more anti-EU than May. It's very unlikely a Labour government would get a "better" deal; Corbyn has often talked about how seriously we need to take people's concerns about immigration, anyway, and would surely have to draw a line there too.

Exactly pretty, I'm looking forward to nots answer on this one.

It's exactly this kind of arrogance which will ultimately be our downfall.

The EU have already said the location of EMA and EBA is not up for negiotiation, they will be located in a member country- end of.

We might not lose passporting overnight but it will eventually move to the EU- why wouldn't it?

Oh op you mean Brexit!

On a thread in the EU referendum section- shocker

My head is in a spin about how to vote in the GE. I am trying to improve my knowledge so I can make an informed choice.
Would someone mind explaining what 'financial passporting' is please?

It seems many are annoyed about the GE after shouting for months about May being unelected because after June she will indeed be elected.

No, many are annoyed about her constant re-iteration that there will be no election until 2020 and then she does a complete U-turn, not based on new information but political expediency. How can such a person be trusted?

for fruitbats

thanks - off to look.

I agree with thecatfromjapan that May is a third-rate politician. It's only because she is up against the worst Labour leader in a generation that she seems to be doing well. In any other circumstances the opposition would be making mincemeat of her.

Thank you Bear. That just reinforces my view as a remainer. I don't see that there is any way back from Brexit. I hold the same view as NotDavidTennant in that there is no credible opposition.