Theresa May, for all her faults (like the rest of us!), seems to understand very well that government undertaking made by the previous Prime Minister.
Good Morning Tuesday 12th May 2026
Gransnet forums
News & politics
Theresa May 3
(1001 Posts)Very interesting article about T May. Forgive me if it's been posted before.
I think that the author is proposing that the Murdoch media have been superseded by the Daily Mail in setting the agenda for 'British' and that Theresa May is a product and perpetrator of its agenda.
www.opendemocracy.net/uk/anthony-barnett/daily-mail-takes-power-0
The Daily Mail takes power
Anthony Barnett 5 October 2016
After 25 years in politics Theresa May has no obvious connections to any think tank. She shows no interest in ideas. Asked by Conservative Home in a Quick Quiz session to choose between Burke’s “Reflections on the Revolution in France” or Louise Bagshawe’s “Desire”, she replied, “I wouldn’t read either of them, sorry.” The prime minister who faces arguably the Kingdom’s deepest constitutional predicament since George III was driven from the Cabinet by the loss of the American colonies dismissed out of hand the idea that she might ever turn to the pages of Burke, even though as a student she had chaired a society named after him.
As the country faces an unprecedented concatenation of economic, strategic, diplomatic and constitutional uncertainty, the woman at the helm seems devoid of intellectual resources. The one decision she has definitely taken is to give the go ahead to Hinkley Point C nuclear power station, a boondoggle incapable of justification by any criteria of integrity. The Pharaohs built their own pyramids, Theodoric built his own mausoleum. But these were designed as monuments to generate the admiration of posterity. Surely only an idiot would make their first decision the go-ahead for a colossal radioactive tombstone to her regime.
But Theresa May should not be dismissed as an idiot. There is a striking and potentially formidable coherence to the general direction she has set for her new government, evidenced by the self-confidence of her ministers who remarkably quickly are singing from the same song-sheet. She does seem to have a clear ideology refreshingly different from her predecessors. Where has it come from?
The answer is The Daily Mail. On Sunday in her first speech to her party as its leader, she set out her view of Brexit and announced that she intends to trigger Article 50 to start the UK’s withdrawal from the EU before March. This was a moment of upmost gravity, to recognise and measure the immense divisions that have been opened up within the country, and consider the implications for the entire continent that Britain once helped liberate from fascism. Instead, her tone, brevity and apparent practicality were drawn as if directly from a Daily Mail editorial.
Intelligent comments section, too.
Margaret,
I really think your comment about Trump's parentage is irrelevant. For a start, his mother was Scottish not English and his father was born in America. I would imagine that there are millions of Americans with similar ancestry, but they're not all like Trump. Secondly, he could have inherited his work ethic from his Scottish mother and common sense (whatever that is) from his American father with German ancestry.
I'm not sure it's completely a waste of time, margaretx, but I agree that the reaction to Trump's election, based on US democratic rules that have applied to every previous elected president, has been OTT.
I found this statement in an article this morning:
"Judging by actual recorded footage, rather than morality tales on social media with implausibly emotive narratives, the overwhelming majority of violence around the US election has been conducted by opponents of Donald Trump. "
I tend to agree with you about the referendum, thatbags. What's done is done and we have to move on. I still think it was a bad decision and I would be delighted if people changed their minds when it's clearer what Brexit will actually mean, but I'm not holding my breath.
I am concerned about the lack of transparency and coherence about aims. It really does seem that the cabinet is still making it up as they go along and the reluctance to go to Parliament is shocking. It makes a mockery of democracy.
I am also concerned that the government could use Brexit to water down human rights and climate initiatives. I don't think anybody knows what they're doing about immigration or trade. I'm not optimistic that the people who voted Leave will get what they wanted and I think it's right that there should be a 'Brexit Watch'.
I'd be very happy for another referendum in five or ten years, but not now. The one from last June should stand.
Goodness knows why Theresa May wanted to be PM, but I'm quite relieved she is. The alternatives were dire.
Anyone see Teresa May on Andrew Marr show? She was spectacularly hopeless.
Yes, she looked very uncomfortable (understatement).
www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/01/23/2017-is-not-looking-good-economically/
That's before May has been to America and sucked up to Trump.
What I was saying, Bags, was that women did then, just as on Saturday it was the women's marches, even though there were men and boys involved in it.
If women hadn't shown how strong they were a century ago, we would not be having this debate now in my opinion.
Someone earlier said that the banners saying Nasty Women were wrong, and gave the wrong impression.
It was because Trump called Hillary Clinton a nasty woman.
Even though when she stood for US senator in New York he donated to her cause.
The paper before Parliament said that the referendum was advisory but Cameron then said differently when it came to it but to be binding did really need a much bigger split because of the long term nature - unlike General Elections etc.
Today it is reported that Lloyds have decided to move out of London.
www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/01/23/theresa-mays-new-industrial-strategy-appears-to-be-about-job-destruction/
Theresa May trying to distract us from Trident, Trump and the destruction of the NHS.
but to be binding did really need a much bigger split because of the long term nature - unlike General Elections etc
That's an opinion only and a dubious one, since it equally applies to being IN the EU. It would be ridiculous if a minority vote for Remain held us imprisoned in it indefinitely. Of course these points should have been raised before the referendum anyway, you cant expect to change the rules after you lose.
I dont mind having a second referendum , provided its not for a decade at least. We waited forty years for this one.
Why should a system for voting about whether we are in or out of the EU be any easier than a vote in a union?
In or out of the EU affects far more people.
Daphne I think a lot of Americans are like Trump. There must be, they voted for him I have hated so many things which started in the US - Pornography, Brutal Films, Junk Food, Cosmetic Surgery. All these things were soon called NORMAL to make us think they really are normal and it all swept over the Atlantic and landed in GB.
So now we have a president who represents these people. This president is what most Americans want, that is why we have now got him to see and listen to on TV and Internet till we feel like throwing up!
Its worse than Brexit which is bad enough.
All this makes me feel that at my age I may be lucky enough not to see the damage it can do. My children and grand children will have to cope with it. DH says that we coped with the war and the aftermath and the next generation will cope with Trump and those others waiting on the sidelines for their turn at politics.
P.S. that about the parentage was to show that he is actually quite a normal person and that there are more of his ilk than is healthy for a democracy.
Apparently both India and Australia have told Theresa May that free trade comes with free movement of people. America will say it next.
So why did people want to get out of the EU?
I was pointing out Mair that mainly for a binding Referendum there needs to be a larger split than 48/52 . That does not apply to keeping the status quo - it is the vote for change which needs to be bigger.
I wonder what people would do if there were another vote when the actual deal is known and there would be many losers in both jobs and wages etc and it became clearer that immigration would not be less at all but just replaced by more from the Indian/African continents or the American/ Australian one's and less from the EU countries.
Apparently both India and Australia have told Theresa May that free trade comes with free movement of people.
Where's your evidence?
I can believe India could well try to pull that one because they know migration would be a one way street, but Australia? No way. Would they really want free movement of British citizens into Australia?
America will say it next.
As for the US, youve got to be kidding. No way would they open their borders to us! They have enough of an immigration problem already.
I was pointing out Mair that mainly for a binding Referendum there needs to be a larger split than 48/52 . That does not apply to keeping the status quo - it is the vote for change which needs to be bigger
Not at all. That is purely what the Remainers want. The 'status quo' was imposed upon us by trickery, and since the last vote was forty years ago most of the electorate have never had a say on it.
The 'status quo' is by no means a universally agreed 'default' in the way strikers would acknowledge continuing work iss the default in a union ballot.
I wonder what people would do if there were another vote when the actual deal is known and there would be many losers in both jobs and wages etc and it became clearer that immigration would not be less at all but just replaced by more from the Indian/African continents or the American/ Australian one's and less from the EU countries
This is just futurology and a pessimistic view.
What would you vote if you could actually see into the future and the outcome, after the first few years of adjustment showed that a decade on Britain thriving, immigration much reduced and highly selective , the NHS better financed, educational standards improving, more opportunities for women and older people to work flexibly as employers found themselves unable to access an infinite supply of cheap labour, and the housing shortage reducing?
Would you vote Brexiit in these circumstances?
You can find it in the Independent, Mair.
Another report put out without fanfare, no media coverage.
Anyone would think May and Leadsom didn't want us to know about it.
www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-risk-assessment-global-warming-government-accused-burying-report-a7540726.html
And on line. My son mentioned that New Zealand is interested in free movement.
So? I can't imagine that either the US or NZ would allow just anyone at all who applies to move/work there to do so, and neither would the UK. Mutual benefit.
Quite Ana, and certainly in the case of the US many British citizens including immigrants would be thrilled to be able to go there! Far better than the EU where they are discriminated against if they do not speak the language like a native.
DJ or WW.
Would either of you like to answer the question I put to Welsh on the point of 'if you could see into the future'?
I would be interested to here your Remainer views.
Oops : here hear!
This discussion thread has reached a 1000 message limit, and so cannot accept new messages.
Start a new discussion
