1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

May announces her resignation - what is her legacy?

Discussion in 'Personal' started by FrankWolley, May 24, 2019.

  1. George_Randle

    George_Randle Occasional commenter

    Strange things happen at the end of May.

    Les extrêmes se touchent...

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  2. FrankWolley

    FrankWolley Star commenter


    You are being silly. It's a shame you are trying to divert this thread from its more serious topic of the legacy of our PM. I suspect that's actually a form of trolling, and so might well be contrary to T & Cs...
     
  3. gainly

    gainly Lead commenter

    Thatcher's legacy: The destruction of British industry and the glorification of greed.

    Blair's legacy: The Iraq war.

    Brown's legacy: The financial crash.

    Cameron's legacy: The shambles of Brexit.

    May's legacy: Nothing.

    Actually by comparison she did rather well.
     
  4. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    Can you explain to me why anyone should vote for a climate change denier?
     
  5. FrankWolley

    FrankWolley Star commenter

    monicabilongame likes this.
  6. towncryer

    towncryer Senior commenter

    Absolutely. The hostile environment will be hard to shake off as it has such a good grip now...that's if anyone in power is minded to make changes.
    Families living apart, families settled here but their closest relatives not allowed to visit, destitute Wind rush generation and British expats stuck in countries they dont want to live in because they have married the "wrong" nationality. This will be her legacy for many.
     
    monicabilongame and needabreak like this.
  7. artboyusa

    artboyusa Lead commenter

    David Miliband nails it you say?
    That has to be the most work he's ever done in his life.
     
  8. needabreak

    needabreak Star commenter

    Back to my point can you explain on what basis you would deny someone a vote?
     
  9. Happygopolitely

    Happygopolitely Established commenter

    An amazing pm who stood up when Cameron ran - and Boris scarpered and Gove too. A woman true to her word who believed in the voice of the ordinary people and not egotistical and lazy mps.

    She stood firm while those round her jeered, refused to leave, sneered, rejected the will of those they represent and fought amongst themselves to protect their lazy do nothing life styles.

    A true PM who showed the world that uk mps are subversive and had the guts to say it to their faces.
     
  10. monicabilongame

    monicabilongame Star commenter

  11. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    I haven't said I would. Anywhere.

    If I have, you can post where I have done so.

    If I haven't, can you acknowledge that fact?

    And then explain why anyone would or should vote for a climate change denier, given what we know about the predicament we are in?
     
  12. irs1054

    irs1054 Star commenter

    The problem with asking people to vote as in the '16 referendum compared with voting in an election is that you have to be very clear about the question you are asking people to vote on. If the question isn't clear the vote is invalid, it is that simple. It is invalid because the people voting cannot know what they are voting on and therefore cannot give informed consent on the proposition.

    In Switzerland, recently, a referendum result was declared void because the question wasn't clear enough. Switzerland is a country that has a direct democracy and therefore frequent referendums. It also has the good sense to say occasionally that it got a referendum wrong.

    The '16 referendum was anything but clear. This was a deliberate act which meant that people could not be clear about what they were voting on. It did not matter how clever they were, they could not be clear. If they thought they knew what they were voting on when they voted "leave", they were wrong. This wasn't a function of the people voting, it was the fact that the question was made unclear deliberately by people who knew what they were doing. They knew that the question was unanswerable and yet they went ahead anyway. The '16 referendum was based on a wholly dishonest premise.

    The result was we ended up with a Parliament trying to enact something that wasn't defined and was incoherent. The phrases such as "Leave means leave" and "Brexit means Brexit" simply serve to underline the fact that no one knew what they meant and had less idea how to deliver it.

    We have reached the stage where party politics no longer apply, it does not matter about Tory vs Labour or anything else, all that matters now is Reality vs The Brexit Fantasy. It is time for MPs to work out what they really stand for in that divide and do all in their power to pull the plug on this car crash of a Tory Government. The Tories have lost the right to govern, ever. They have to go, now. If this does not happen the future of our country and the fabric of our society are in serious jeopardy.

    Sources within the Tory party are talking about ways in which Parliament can be circumvented and a no deal Brexit delivered without Parliament being able to stop it. They have no madate for such a thing and it is the very antithesis of democracy. These are pure maniacs doing this out of a ignorant peurile belief and taking the rest of the country with them.
     
    bombaysapphire and Duke of York like this.
  13. florian gassmann

    florian gassmann Star commenter

    The Electoral Commission did not agree with you. I know you think you know better than the Commission, but you do not. They are legally charged with ensuring that questions asked in referendums are clear and unambiguus. They were responsible for the wording used on the ballot paper.

    That would be the whole of parliament (save only for the SNP) would it? As well as the Electoral Commission? You do realise that you need at least a modicum of evidence for a conspiracy theory? :D:p:D
     
    needabreak likes this.
  14. needabreak

    needabreak Star commenter

    If you read back it was a question based on intolerance of opposing views and their supporters, the red flag for me is name calling... When you assume people who disagree with you or support those who disagree with you are idiots it implies they are not able to function in a democracy and should hold your view so as not to be idiots, thus your view would be supporting totalitarianism.

    To put it another way, if you would not deny someone a vote why call them idiots and allow them to vote?

    You might have noticed I don't really hold with name calling on either side, it's easy to do but ineffective in putting points across.
     
  15. irs1054

    irs1054 Star commenter

    The Electoral Commission got it wrong and the reason they got wrong lies in their terms of reference. They had to assess the question in connection with the "intent of Parliament". How could they know this when Parliament itself did not know? Also, the terms of reference for the Commission are very narrow and it can only do what it can within those terms. Plus the Commission hasn't had to deal with that many referendum questions and can make mistakes. They are not infallible in spite of what you might think. But this is not merely my opinion, it is the opinion of experts whose job it is to look at this sort of thing.

    Conspiracy no, but political bidding war, yes. It was a case of once the Tories promised something the other side felt they had to as well. (this was not the only thing where this happened) Ditto with the voting. That this set aside good sense is not in doubt and most of Parliament rendered itself guilty in this respect. (except for a few honourable exceptions)

    Previous attempts at having a referendum failed because someone at some point had the good sense to point out what an insanely complicated thing it is that they were intending putting before the electorate. What allowed the '16 referendum to go ahead was that the people who decided this simply ignored that fact. This was a deliberate act of gross dishonesty which set the seeds for everything that has followed and has led us to the current situation. It was also something that gave a huge advantage to the Leave campaign because they could indulge in any fantasy (which is what they did) without any effective means of challenge.
     
  16. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    What you are trying to say is this:

    "No, you didn't say you would not allow some people to vote."

    Many people call others idiots, fools, stupid etc. They are not advocating taking away the right to vote when they do so. Which, of course, you know. I do think that anyone who doesn't accept that the climate is warming our planet to very dangerous levels, due to our actions, is an idiot.

    They can, however, vote how they like. Can you explain why anyone would vote for a climate change denier like Farage, knowing what we know about the predicament we are in?
     
    coffeekid and monicabilongame like this.
  17. needabreak

    needabreak Star commenter

    I have no idea why someone would vote in that way, perhaps you should ask someone who would vote for him at any time for any reason, since clearly you are barking up the wrong tree with me.

    As for what I was saying I said it, I wasn't trying to say anything else, to suppose I was trying to say something but was unable to is fairly insulting though as you probably know I don't take things personally here.
     
  18. florian gassmann

    florian gassmann Star commenter

    What did they say when you pointed that out to them?

    I was referring to the wording of the 2016 referendum question. It was agreed by all MPs except the SNP. Why would Labour, the Lib Dems and others think they had to agree with the Tories? If they thought the wording was unclear they could have opposed it.

    The people being, in this case, the entire parliamentary Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem and DUP parties.

    Frankly, I think you are onto a loser trying to argue that people did not understand what was meant by remain in the EU or leave the EU. The question was simply enough; approved by parliament and verified by the Electoral Commission.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2019
  19. MrMedia

    MrMedia Star commenter

    Theresa May was brilliant. She made sure we stayed in the EU throughout her tenure. She poisoned the landscape for any no deal Brexit - the EU says it’s the WA or no Brexit at all.
    And she sacked Gove, and then what happened with Morgan and Greening? I forget. And she appointed D Hinds as Ed sec. He’s brilliant as well. He’s done absolutely nothing in the whole time. What a man. Best Ed sec in a long time.
    That’s it. That all I’ve got. Apart from that the country has been going to the dogs with stabbings, council services slashed, zero hours contracts, no regulation of scams or shyster companies and so forth. I’m not a Corbyn man but I do think we need a pro public services PM back at the helm.
     
    monicabilongame likes this.
  20. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    Then post the bit where I advocate not allowing some people to vote.

    I don't make things up about you.
     

Share This Page