Maybot’s lack of self belief, alarms Tory members

And they are actually sorting out his visit again, for later on this year. Not sure how that will improve her standing in the country.

Major demonstration guaranteed if the Stable Genius does brave it to visit

jura the position of PM isn’t vacant and the Cabinet is filled btw.
I think May will be in that position for at least a year, until the date we leave the EU formally in March 2019.
Maybe longer!
As to who will replace her, Hammond is a possibility but don’t discount an almost unknown, after all Cameron wasn’t a household name at the time he was put forward for PM.

The position would be vacant in a nano-second if they could find someone else.

And are we content to leave homelessness, social and healthcare funding and child poverty for another year? Oh, hang on they can now enter the realm of the new Fake News unit.

oh and a great success Cameron turned out to be hey ;)

the vultures are out lemongrove - but they are not fit to replace who they will destroy (I'm sure you know it as well as we all do).

Eh?

Cameron was hoist by his own petard.
He was over confident of a Remain vote, and got too involved in the campaigning to stay in the EU, so when the Remain vote lost the referendum, he had little choice but to go.
Other than that, he wasn’t a bad PM at all.

as said, I am sure you know the vultures are out for Mrs May - and not from the opposition, but her own Ministers.

Never mind 'other than that' for Cameron- at the end of the day, offering a Referendum and illegally promise to make it binding- was bad enough. According to our own Sovereign Parliamentary Democracy and constitution- he had absolutely no political or legal right to do so- none whatsoever. Our own Laws say that a Referendum can only be 'advisory'. I thought you wanted to get your own Sovereingnty and Laws back - was this not the case?

Wouldn’t you like another ‘advisory’ referendum?

I think our elected MPs, who represent us in Parliament, should have a full adn significant vote on the deal- with full and detailed knowledge of what the deal will entail.

But yes, why not have a second Referendum on the final deal, again with full and detailed knowledge of the implications- why not. And put a minimum % on it too- we all knew, Farage and all, that 48/52 could never ever be a done deal. You too, I'm sure.

But....if the first referendum was only advisory, and the second was advisory then neither would be binding!
You can’t keep having referendums until you get the answer you like.We had one, it’s done now and that’s it.
52/48 is good enough.

you can repeatit, again and again- it does not make it true.
52/48 was not good enough- especially since the massive and blatant lies have been uncovered, and so many of those who voted have now left this world, and so many youngsters have replaced them.

No-one is talking about a second Referendum on the same thing- at all - but on the actual deal proposed, with a full and unbiased description of likely consequences based on truth and proper assessments.

But as said, I'd forego that- if our elected representatives, in our own Sovereing Parliamentary GVT and democracy - are given a meaningful vote on the final deal, with full knowledge and detail of what it entails.

52/48 would work in Switzerland- but not in the UK Parliamentary Democracy system. I thought, shall I repeat- that you wanted your Sovereignty back, your own UK Laws.

You could argue that our Sovereign Parliamentary Democracy, including the Lords as a balancing chamber - should be changed. But this is indeed another lettle of fish altogether, for sure.

You wouldn't have thought so if it had been the other way round.
As jura said, but you continue to ignore, Farage didn't.

That was to lemon, by the way, who only wants the laws back that suit her.

Who cares about Farage?

I am not talking about Farage- I am talking about you wanting to get our Sovereign Parliamentary Democracy, Laws and Constitution back, including the Lords - so do you, or don't you?

Our own Laws and Constitution are totally clear about Referendums being advisory and nothing else- and that therefore not PM has the legal right to offer for a referendum to be implemented. It is one, or the other- can't be both. As for our MPs, we do elect them to represent us and make major decisions for our country- so they have to have a meaningful vote on the final deal, with all the necessary information to be able to make an informed decision - again, either you want our own Sovereign system of Government, or you don't- Can't have both, I am afraid- it would make no sense at all.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2018/01/25/socialising-the-economy/

Smiling broadly when reading this.

"Almost every serious commentator from the right wing of politics who also has some knowledge of the real world is pretty worried right now. From Martin Wolf to the IMF via many a political leader who sees inequality stripping them of any residual electoral appeal they had, they’re all quaking at the inevitability that at some point soon over valued asset prices, from shares to bonds to property, will collapse and drag with them much of the world’s banking system that they fear they will be unable to bail out again. The odour of their fear is pretty unappealing as it spreads throughout the pages of the FT and into the blogs of those who once sold the Washington Consensus as the answer to all the world’s travails.

At the same time the right wing think tanks are bereft of ideas. Take the Centre for Policy Studies as an example. At the weekend they demonstrated the limited of their real world business comprehension by claiming that nationalisation was a cost on every household because they could not understand that in exchange for the price paid an asset would be acquired. And this week they attacked Oxfam for suggesting that there was a problem with inequality and that instead the charity should be celebrating the increasing inequality in the world despite the severe economic, social and political consequences of that trend that literally billions of people around the world understand, but which is beyond the ken of these public school educated policy wonks who believe that the only solution to every problem in the world is more market focussed individualism."

First two paragraphs for those who can't be bothered to read links - usually the ones who can't be bothered to read long paragraphs either.

Yes there is also a really good article by Francis Fukuyama writing in a publication by Credit Suisse recognising just as McDonnell did in his speech at Davros that ordinary folk and those in poverty want change. The result has been the rise of nationalistic politics, but there is no doubt that there is a real movement.

You can read it on social media, see it in movements like Momentum, votes for Trump and Brexit.

People know that they want to reject the old politics and show their anger in these differing ways.

The New York Times

“A stark sign of Britain’s slide as a global economic power: empty seats for Theresa May’s speech in Davros.

And many people left during the speech.

It’s the politics of madness. Yesterday the OBR told us that Brexit will do more harm than any future trade we may have with other countries.

Brexiters rhetoric collides daily with reality and yet the clowns continue to run the show.

Prof. Brian Cox tweeted

The reason that no one outside the U.K. knows what “we” want from Brexit is because there are no outside goals.
Brexit was conceived as a means of keeping the Tory party together, and became a proxy for internal political and structural struggles which has little or nothing to do with Europe

I'd say that is an excellent assessment.

How can Cameron stand there in Davos and say 'a mistake but not as bad as expected' ??? We have NOT left yet!

BTW can anyone explain to me what Cameron is doing in Davos? In what capacity? Why was he invited??? He has no rôle at all- so why. Oh andwho is paying for his fat expenses (talking of which, he has gone very chubby- must be all the hiding he has had to do).

Anyone got any answers as to why he is there?

He's rich.