Nobody is saying she needs to know everything, she will take advice from her negotiators, experts etc but ultimately she will make the final decisions. To say she will not be leading the negotiations is factually wrong.
Of course there will be advice and information coming to any Prime Minister from all directions, but it is normal for decisions to be made in cabinet. Only if that body does not agree then the PM will have a final say. Every now and again you might see a PM try to close that process down to just a few ministers, but history shows it seldom works well. This PM has a reputation for trying to micro manage everything, and her time at the Home Office showed up the problems that it created.
The PM was recognised as one of the longest serving and most successful Home Secretaries. Most recent Prime Ministers have employed a small inner core within the cabinet including Thatcher Blair and Cameron. Ultimately the PM will make the big decisions, it is her head on the block!!
I agree she was at the Home Office for a long time, but struggling to remember the successes that she had.
Most do not last very long because they are not up to the job, she did exceptionally well in comparison. It is known as one of the most difficult jobs in government. You seem to have a strong bias against her so have your own agenda.
I will further refine this by saying she 'may' be leading the negotiations - or it might just be Corbyn leading them.
We need plenty of scare stories about the Tories losing their majority, it will ensure those blue voters, who are cheesed off about the ill thought through social care proposal, to go out and register their vote.
Don't bother SH. Stay at home on polling day......there are so many other things to do, like relaxing enjoying the sun etc. As always it will be the non voters who decide - and, unfortunately, opinion polls do not really measure how many 'stay at homes' there will be. This is one reason they often get their results wrong.
The pollsters often find that many Tories are shy at admitting they will vote Conservative, I don't know why
In the absence of any reason to doubt OFH first hand experience in diplomatic circles and lack of evidence for SH having any experience in the field, I'm willing to risk bowing to OFH and his argument from authority on this.
Yes darling, put that job on the list, will definitely do it after the football, cricket, rugby ......
I don't suppose Theresa has use for my diplomatic skills dealing with the garlic munching Johnny foreigners.
I am afraid that my experiences are far below the level of Yorkies. I stood for election five times, and each time won. Despite requests I refused to stand under a party banner, preferring to keep my independence. It did however bring me into contact with politicians of all strands of opinion, and it was not that difficult to pick out the good from the bad. It means that today as I am well away from the infighting going on within the parties, I can watch and see the old sad tactics coming into play and recognize them for what they are. Do not say anything that could come back to bite you later, and hope that no one notices you have told them nothing, or suggest that your plans will work, and then later find that something comes along to blow them off course. Talking to my daughter and son in law today, they both believe that the PM is treating them like children by saying nothing. Corbyn has at least tried to engage with the public, and despite not liking some of his policies, at least they know what they are. They feel they cannot vote to give anyone a blank cheque. Like many they refuse to back the Tories again, but it then becomes harder to know where to place their votes. They do not wish to see the Tories return by default, so when they get home they will see how they can make a tactical vote giving the best chance to another party, even if it means holding their nose while doing it.
A detailed analysis by a friend of mine: I feel it is time to state some truths about Brexit. The Conservative Party agreed to hold an EU in/out referendum because they were running scared of the influence of UKIP – not because they thought that it was in the best interest of the country. The referendum was supposed to be advisory – an indication of public sentiment, not a mandate for government action. As such, it didn’t have the safeguards that you would expect from a mandatory referendum – a raising of the bar to make the decision point for leave at say 60% of the votes, or at over 50% of those eligible to vote, to ensure that such an important decision for Britain’s future had a clear and unequivocal majority in favour. I don’t believe that David Cameron expected the outcome of the referendum to be a vote for Leave. Maybe that was why he didn’t put some safeguards into the referendum to ensure that it would require a clearer majority. But it is mostly the fault of his leadership that the Remain campaign was weak and ineffective. It failed to make a clear case for staying in the EU, failed to challenge the lies of the Leave campaign, failed to spell out clearly the likely consequences of Brexit. The referendum campaign was poorly run on both sides, with lies and scaremongering. It has only been since the referendum result that some of the complex realities of Brexit have come more clearly to light. These include: - The likelihood that the EU will restrict our access to the single market - The possibility of Scotland pursuing independence - The probability that leaving the EU will make most of us significantly worse off - The complexity of disentangling our laws from those of the EU (requiring a huge input of civil servant time and effort, thus significantly hampering day-to-day operation of government) - Many corporate organisations considering relocation of some of their activity to mainland Europe - Having to make a large payment to the EU in respect of liabilities that the UK is committed to - The issues regarding the border between Northern Ireland and Eire The outcome of the referendum was that a small majority of those who voted, voted for Brexit – 51.9% to 48.1%. But this represented only 37.44% of the electorate in favour of Brexit. Not exactly ‘Britain has decided’. Should such an important decision affecting all our futures be decided by so small a percentage of the electorate? And yet the Conservative and Labour parties have accepted the result as a mandate, without any challenge. Ask yourself – should a responsible government have allowed that result to mandate a decision to carry out Brexit, without any further checks and balances? It would make obvious sense not to have a final decision regarding Brexit until the full implications of this course of action become clear. This will depend on the outcome of negotiations with the EU. But our Conservative government are irresponsibly charging full tilt at Brexit at any cost – that’s not good government, nor even common sense. There is another agenda here, driven by billionaires who have spent millions of pounds to manipulate the public via social media to vote for Brexit. (See article in the Guardian at https://www.theguardian.com/…/the-great-british-brexit-robb… ) Ask yourselves who is going to benefit most from Brexit. Not the general public. Obviously the billionaires calculated that their investment would pay off for them. Theresa May claims that she is the best person to negotiate a Brexit that will be good for Britain. However she is too scared to debate with her opposition face-to-face in a televised debate, and is one of the worst performing Prime Ministers in the regular confrontation of Prime Minister’s Question Time in Parliament. Not a good start. To negotiate effectively you need to listen to what the other party is asking for, consider what you want to achieve, and then see if there is somewhere in the middle ground where you can come to an agreement. Out of a choice of Theresa May or Jeremy Corbin, a former British ambassador (Craig Murray) has said that he would prefer Jeremy Corbin as a negotiator any time (see http://nyebevannews.co.uk/british-ambassador-why-would-any…/ ). If as a country we look at the major challenges which face us, and try to prioritise them in terms of the impact on our lives, where in the list would you put Brexit? - Climate change, and the need to move to a zero-carbon economy (and the need to safeguard our food supplies under the impact of more extreme weather events) - An increasingly aged population, with more requirement for care and medical support - A growing problem of obesity with an impact on health especially diabetes - Underfunding of the NHS causing a deterioration of services just as the demand for them is increasing - Underfunding of our schools leading to loss of teachers, overcrowding in classes and poor morale of staff - A need for reskilling of our workforce to meet the challenges ahead - Some of our laws being decided in the EU rather than the UK - The threat of international terrorism, especially so-called Muslim fundamentalists - The pressure on our public services caused by uncontrolled immigration, partly from the EU - Increasing wealth gap between the rich and the poor, leading to a risk of social unrest The list isn’t complete, my apology for the omissions. Nor have I managed to prioritise them, your priorities may be different to mine. But I hope that you will agree that the issues around Brexit are not the major challenges that this country faces. And yet Brexit is the key issue on which Theresa May has focussed so far in the general election campaign. I’m not a fan of either Theresa May or Jeremy Corbin. The impression I get is that Jeremy Corbin is more principled and has greater integrity. I don’t know whether he could be a good Prime Minister. I don’t think Theresa May is. I conclude that I am best served by voting to put the Conservatives out of power – their savage cuts to welfare, their persistent underfunding of the NHS and of education, whilst also giving tax cuts to the rich, their failure to properly engage with climate change issues, all make me want to see an alternative. If that has to be a coalition of political parties, then so be it.
Theresa May has backed a plan that describes NHS resources as a “source of untapped value” and called on the health service to take “a more commercial approach” to selling off its assets. More desperation to sell off anything that the country, therefore the public own.
