Can we really Trust Teresa May with a blank cheque?

A thoughtful OP James but I am afraid there are some on here who think any degree of worrying about a landslide for May is verging on or even reaching err ... derangement.

However, there are those of us who do see the issues. May is certainly sly. Here is someone who, in her usual 'keeping her head down' mode professed to think the best thing was for us to stay in the EU - although, of course, she did not say it loudly nor did she say it often. By a very clever, but totally dishonest, slight of hand, she is now the heroine of Brexit, the Boadicea of Bashing the EU. It is because of this mask or removal of the mask - who knows - that she is attracting so many votes in to a coalition of the alt-right, the far right and the bewildered right.

However, as I have said elsewhere, what we will find at the end of five years of 'small government' and 'low tax society' will be poorer pensioners, more rough sleeping, the destruction of the NHS, the abandonment of the old and those needing care and the return of Victorian style benefits for those who cannot get jobs in a country with a shrinking economy. Our place in the world will diminish and all because May who has shown no sign of strength told us she was strong and the same woman who told us we would have a stable society will have people rising up against her because there is nothing else they can do.

Then, after five years of driving us down others will have to pick up the pieces.

And your point about wandering apostrophes was spot on, Jalima!

And I must add that our 'well-known local person' runs a rural business and works extremely hard as far as I know.

The only rural area I know anything about is Northumberland, where the Duke still owns a big part of the land in in the county, and elsewhere.
One of my cousins farms there, and his farm belongs to the Duke, even though his family has farmed there for many generations.
If this is the same in other parts of England it's obvious that the "gentry" is in charge. And they're Tories, wanting to perpetuate the control of the ruling class.

Do you mean rural villages where many 'workers' still live or do you mean people in the few large houses in the countryside?

Oops, I only read that post and didn't realise it was a serious question!

Sorry James!

I don't think that people are 'subservient to the rule of the local gentry^ in this day and age. In fact, most people would be hard pressed to name their local gentry, including me; we do have a very well-known person living nearby but I have no idea how he votes.
Nor are that many people extremely wealthy although there must be some as there are some very large houses around, but I have no idea who owns them or how they vote and I doubt that many other people know either.

Could it be that rural areas tend to be inhabited more by wealthy middle class people than 'workers'? 'Workers' having been priced out of the area years ago..

Does your GS have any rural areas in particular in mind?

I can forgive the abundance of split infinitives as I love them too!!

ps the Squire funds the local school too so I learnt about wandering apostrophes when I went with my little blackboard and chalk.

I live in a rural area and always, always curtesy and DH doffs his cap when we see the local gentry ride by in their carriages. I step out of the way into the mud and dare not lift my eyes until they have passed.

ps I only vote according to what The Squire dictates and am very grateful that he allows me to do so.

Does that answer his question?

My 15 year old grandson who is very articulate asked me why rural area's are more likely to be Tory than Urban, he asked was it due to wealth or that rural area's are more subservient to the rule of the local gentry.

Gosh! I have not yet found the true answer for him. Can anybody truthfully help?

Pardon? Did I not just say that they would be sued?

Ana, do you really believe Teresa May and her Government is above English law?

Well I'm sure someone will sue the government, so not a problem really is it?

Paul Lewis (of BBC Moneybox prog.) has posted this on twitter:

Govt delays state pension age rise announcement until after the election despite law which says "report must be published before 7 May 2017"

Paul Lewis Retweeted Paul Lewis
From this morning, Sunday 7 May 2017, the Government is in breach of the Pensions Act 2014 s.27(2) as this report has not been published

Why would the government delay (illegally) announcing the state pension age rise? Could it be because it might be a vote loser?

We need to be quite clear the election is NOT on Brexit it is on policies for healing and improving the quality of life of the nation over the next five years.

I absolutely agree with you James.

May didn't need this election for Bexit. She had a majority and very little opposition in Parliament. Brexit is an irrelevance. It concerns me greatly that with a large majority and a crushed opposition the Tories will be free to carry on with the destruction of our public services and their damaging and unnecessary austerity policy.

I realise that the tories are highly unlikely to lose this election but we need strong opposition to their domestic policies, not what would be in effect one party dictatorship.

May was exuding confidence in her ability to get Brexit done and dusted by 2019. Why has she apparently changed her mind? Or is it that she just can't resist the chance to crush the opposition? And conveniently have the chance to ignore the fact that almost half of the voters in the referendum do not want Brexit. Worse, to be able to claim that the country is united behind her, when they really aren't.

You're very welcome on here James and I hope you will feel that you can freely express your opinions whatever they may be, and that they and you will be treated with respect and courtesy.

Welcome to the forum James

May I thank you Ladies for the kind courtesy of allowing this elderly Granddad to have his say. I look forward to reading more of your views and from the few I have read in other chats some most interesting subjects and differing views.

That's one reason that I was happy with the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition we had James
It's usually never the best thing for one party to have a landslide victory, but if they do, that's when you need a really strong opposition party, and that's exactly what we haven't got at the moment.
IMHO the best result is that T May gets in with an increased majority in order to carry out Brexit in a way that gives our government confidence to deal with the EU.
Who knows how well they will do during the next five years, but that's the great thing about a democracy, they can be voted out at the next GE.
Voting at this stage for Corbyn and the extreme left wing is, for me not even worth thinking about.

Ana, apologies my young great granddaughter is Anna, so Imwas on auto I presume.

Jane, I was once more inclined to tribalism in politics and was never prepared to see the good side of other parties other than blues. I mellowed after Thatcherism.

Perhaps you'd better wait for the manifestos then James?

Thank you Rosesarered for your sound comments. I could not bring myself to vote for Corbyn, would be different if it was David Miliband standing as their leader though it is over 50 years since I voted Labour.. However, I am coming round to the Lib Dem is that is the best way to ensure that we do not give Teresa May a landslide that allows extreme draconian unfair policies that again hit families and low/ middle earners. She needs sufficient MP's to get policies through that create sound government, but not extreme policies such as more grammar schools that she is likely to claim she has a mandate for, even though the electorate would not agree and not fully support such a policy. If she stood on that policy alone she would lose hands down. I am afraid I need greater faith in her words than those I am hearing to fully trust her and her party at present.

I'd rather trust Theresa May and her cohorts than any of the alternatives.

It's Ana, not Anna, thanks James.