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?

- called it with only 7 weeks to go despite repeatedly saying it wouldn't happen

Not only that, but caught her own party on the hop, so that they don't have candidates in place, and are rushing to fill vacancies. This won't leave time for proper scrutiny of candidates, but since they already have idiots like Jacob Rees-Mogg representing them, perhaps that won't make much difference.

I am disappointed with two things - that there isn't more outcry from Leavers about the lack of money for the NHS, and disappointed that more moderate Tories aren't showing their anger, with some notable exceptions of course.

The EU continue to be quite clear in their objectives with this from Tusk this morning

We also need solid guarantees for all citizens and their families who will be affected by Brexit on both sides.

This must be the number one priority for the EU and the UK

And the Commission has already prepared a precise and detailed list of citizens' rights we want to protect

I think the Brexit team might need to refer to a dictionary here as 'precise' and 'detailed' appear to be alien concepts to them.

I am disappointed with two things - that there isn't more outcry from Leavers about the lack of money for the NHS, and disappointed that more moderate Tories aren't showing their anger, with some notable exceptions of course.
Certainly the leavers who post on the Referendum threads have been very quiet about the NHS.

Just on one point, I'm not convinced the triple lock on pensions should be guaranteed. Pensioners, as a group, are now I believe, wealthier than people of working age. Obvs there are some pensioners who rely on their state pension, but there are other, more targeted ways of providing for them. There are plenty of pensioners who have plenty of other income on top of their state pension. If we want a more equitable society and progressive redistribution of wealth, at some point pensioners need to stop being discussed, politically, as if they are all starving in a garret. It just isn't the reality. Would anyone like to give their reasons why the triple lock must be guaranteed?

I agree with you wrong (bet you never thought that would happen !]

My point is TM is not being clear about this either way because she's refusing to answer question on it, or anything else for that matter.

I keep chuckling to myself about that comment from Tusk about 'precise' and 'detailed'.

TM and her team are so far away from that it's a joke, 'ambiguous' and 'vague' are more like it.

I also agree with you wrongtrouser - to make the Triple Lock sacrosanct is wrong. But if that's the case, then TM should have the courage of her convictions and say so.

Why on earth would TM say anything? She has a guaranteed majority coming up and any statement she makes will be a hostage to fortune.

I agree that the Triple Lock should go but there is absolutely no benefit to TM in making any policy statement she can be held to, so she won't.

But surely a "strong and stable" leader would have the courage of their convictions and would be prepared to make the case for the decisions they made/were planning to take.

Funny that : I thought that in elections we were supposed to make informed choices and that politicians should actually say what they plan to do - which of course, they can surround with caveats - so that we as an electorate can then judge them by how well they deliver against those commitments.

But I realise that that that is hopelessly naive. Or it it that as an body, the UK electorate now has shockingly low expectations?

Unfortunately I think you're right annandale but that's my point; what kind of hell are we descending into when people want to vote for someone who makes no commitment to anything?

It is a cult and it's quite unbelievable to witness.

I agree with Wrong about triple lock pensions.

And with Bear about the of TM asking us to vote for them on meaningless sound bites and no substance.

"If we want a more equitable society and progressive redistribution of wealth, at some point pensioners need to stop being discussed, politically, as if they are all starving in a garret. It just isn't the reality. Would anyone like to give their reasons why the triple lock must be guaranteed?"

The reason is that this generation of pensioners is very unusual. Many are from the Baby Boomer generation, although not all.

That's not set to last. The following generations will be poorer, as were the preceding generations. I for one do not want to return to the days where pensioners actually froze to death because they were afraid to turn on the heating. The odious Ms. Curry famously advised them all to knit themselves scarves

Why are politicians so hell-bent on dragging everyone down to the lowest level? The current level of pensioner support is exactly what it should be in a civilised society. Why begrudge it?

I struggle to believe the faux naïveté of clearly well educated and politically astute posters to further their dislike of TM.

Since Blair, at least, elections have been professionally managed. There are two approaches: dog whistle to your core support or fight for centre ground. Which approach you take will depend on your lead, focus groups and the advice of your very well paid psephologists.

I would love a return to conviction politics. However TM is just following the trend started (in the UK) by TB. And, given her huge lead, you can hardly castigate her for following the obvious strategy.

TM's instinct at all times is to do the job, not talk about it. That sometimes has positives, in that I think she is quite a competent administrator and perhaps even a leader, more so than Corbyn anyway, though I wouldn't like to work for her. Mostly however I think she is wedded to secrecy, opaqueness and 'stability' of the sort that dictators like. I really don't think she is a dictator but she doesn't really look like that much of a democrat either.

I'm going to have to go and lie down in a darkened room for a while as not only Bear but also Elements have agreed with a post of mine

What is stopping May returning to conviction politics? Blair was first elected 20 years ago, times have moved on since then.

We are at the opposite end of the scale to conviction politics now though larry

Seeng as you're clearly not going to answer my previous questions, could you tell us why you are happy to vote for someone who has made no commitment to anything and has no intention of doing so.

I actually detest Tony Blair for exactly the reason that Larrygrylls describes.

Up until him, I had been a lifelong Labour voter (except when I lived in Peter Lilley's constituency, when I voted SDP so that it was slightly less of wasted vote ) - voted for them in as soon as I could vote, in 1979. After him, I realised that Labour had sold its soul.

Fortunately, I have a viable alternative. Sometimes it is worth looking longer term.

"Since Blair, at least, elections have been professionally managed."

It was Margaret Thatcher who used Saatchi and Saatchi in the 1979 General Election.

I think everyone is going to vote for TM for many reasons:

1. She is the only strong leader in the running.
2. She is the only leader that can and will actually take us out of the EU.
3. Anyone but JC
4. To give her a stronger mandate against the EU in negotiations.
5. The country has had enough uncertainty recently, TM brings certainty and continuity to the country.
6. She has been doing a good job so far.

anon I'll give you 3)

Can you explain 4) and 5) though as I do not see how either is the case.

I don't think "everyone" is going to vote for TM - especially in Scotland

4. How will this work, mechanistically?
5. The country voted for uncertainty and now they're complaining? What happened to "brave" and "leap of faith" and "just believe"?
6. Compared to anoutbreak of bubonic plague followed by direct strike by a comet, yes.

I am obviously a non person. I have no intention of voting for her party, and know of 5 others the same. As for 5) we shall see. I wouldn't myself say that someone who declares at least five times that there will be no general election and has now called one as being someone bringing certainty. If any of us had been asked about a General Election on 17th April, (and we are still in April), when the next election was planned we would have said 2020.

4) To give her a stronger mandate against the EU in negotiations
It makes a massive difference in negotiations for everyone to know you have a large majority of your share holders agreeing with your stance. With a larger majority the EU wont be able to play on the uncertainty of her losing votes in Parliament. If the EU deal is so bad TM has to be able to threaten with the conviction of having Parliament behind her that we will walk away without a deal.

5) The country has had enough uncertainty recently, TM brings certainty and continuity to the country
The Brexit result which was followed by the PM resigning, the descent into chaos of the Labour party and the upcoming talks with the EU has/is bringing a lot of change in the country. The choice between the chaos JC would bring and the continuity of TM, to me means only TM can keep as much stability in the country as is possible.