[Closed] Is May about to call an election?

makes me wonder what he might have been like in an office more suited to him (kind of like Gove in justice)

Gove's seriously under-rated. People who have worked with him reckon he's sharp as a button with terrific capacity to take on a brief.

In the same way insiders didn't rate May, and I think most people would say they got that right.

Is she looking tired?

Gove's seriously under-rated. People who have worked with him reckon he's sharp as a button with terrific capacity to take on a brief.

Which may be true, but he'll never be forgiven in certain parts of the Tory party for knifing Boris, even if Boris had it coming in spades.

In the same way insiders didn't rate May, and I think most people would say they got that right.

There was a thing I read in the paper by Clegg, I think, which said she has great attention to detail on whatever she's focussed on, but has very poor interpersonal skills and no ability to see the wider picture.

Apparently Cameron disliked her enough that when she was home Sec he used to palm off all meetings with her onto the deputy PM.

Gove's seriously under-rated. People who have worked with him reckon he's sharp as a button with terrific capacity to take on a brief.

yeah his king james bible wtf moment speaks to a failure to get some things

regards May
while Johnson & Gove were busy knifing each other that left just May & Leadsome- who from what Ive heard of someone whos worked with her is monumentally dim
the warning signs were there, plenty of people, not just us lefties were saying that May's record at the home office was a red flag

who from what Ive heard of someone whos worked with her is monumentally dim

I think her interveiws during the leadership campaign were evidence for that, tbh.

So, given the views above, and making the assumption The Conservatives win, if May was to step down, who would be the next PM?

Boris will have another crack at it, I think.

Or some total headbanger like Raab?

next PM?

Im torn

[img] [/img]

or

[img] [/img]

Time for IDS to rise again!

outofbreath - Member

Gove's seriously under-rated. People who have worked with him reckon he's sharp as a button with terrific capacity to take on a brief.

Yup, it's just a shame he has such unshakable faith in his own half-understandings. Bibles, schwas, leadership elections and such.

I almost agree

Phew.

but mays u-turn and cap is stupid

Yup, but not for really for the reasons you're about to state.

those with assets above her cap (ie the richest) will have their assets above it protected, meaning they could some could save millions

Only if they need millions of pounds worth of care in the home which is unlikely and people with many millions don't pay wealth taxes, they're too easy to avoid. ..and that assumes they want state provided care in the home which I'd say is highly unlikely. Those people are already paying for this care themselves.

those with less than the cap see their inheritance taken away, so the poorest could loose everything theyve worked for their entire lives

They'd be losing anyway without the cap and the tax payer shouldn't be funding legacies.

Would a proper inheritance tax reform not be fairer on all?

Firstly, there's no objective measure of fairness. ...and if there was what if the fair amount to pay for Social care was zero, the 'fair' rate wouldn't pay for anything?

Put it another way, the uk tax take has always been about 35pc of GDP. Supposing we all agreed the 'fair' rate was 10pc of GDP? What do we do, just have far less services?

Most importantly, though, if the govt say 'we're taking your kids inheretance as general taxation', I reckon people will get narked and plan for it. If people pay for their own care I think people are more likely to suck it up and just pay. ie there will be less avoidance.

Also people will be more likely to choose residential care if social care has a cost and I think that's a good thing, freeing up much needed houses and allowing carers to spend more time looking after people and less time in the car.

Yup, it's just a shame he has such unshakable faith in his own half-understandings. Bibles

The bibles thing was utterly mis-represented by the press. IIRC they came to him and offered to do it and pay. He shrugged and said fine. I'd have done the same, what's the harm?

Only if they need millions of pounds worth of care in the home which is unlikely and people with many millions don't pay wealth taxes, they're too easy to avoid.

Firstly, there's no objective measure of fairness.

Firstly, there's no objective measure of fairness.

Well enabling people to be closer to evasion than efficient might get closer to fairness...
Fairness would be to spread the burden among more people.

In your opinion fairness is spreading the burden widely. In Corbyn's opinion the burden needs to be bourne by 5pc of people.

As I say, there's no objective measure of fairness everyone has their own subjective view.

This is a question of political philosophy.

Do you think allowing people to evade taxes is fair?
Parts of the care tax doesn't really add up, it needs a proper think, the idea is a start but it's nowhere near finished or ready to implement.

some great Trolling of May by the Blackpool Gazette

[img] [/img]

[quote=lunge ]So, given the views above, and making the assumption The Conservatives win, if May was to step down, who would be the next PM?

Ms Rudd?

Do you think allowing people to evade taxes is fair?

Do you think the people in the Boston Tea party thought evading tax was fair? I bet they did. Were they wrong? Subjective, innit.

Personally I look at the moral aspect of tax as the same as the legal. Evasion = immoral. Avoidance = fine. Society seems to agree. We all do the latter, very few people do the former.

ah obscure reference.

Point being fix the rules, take a fresh look at inheritance and other taxes to see if the right balance is there. Otherwise expect a new generation of middle class asset shifting to maximise their tax planning and screwing of others.

Personally I look at the moral aspect of tax as the same as the legal. Evasion = immoral. Avoidance = fine. Society seems to agree.

The bibles thing was utterly mis-represented by the press. IIRC they came to him and offered to do it and pay.

You misremembered. When it was pointed out to him that a £400,000 vanity project was a duff way of spending public cash... Donors stepped in the rescue the project

So if I make sufficient bribes, sorry, donations to a political party and get a loophole put in to reduce my tax bill that is moral?

Yes. I'd hope illegal too.

You misremembered. When it was pointed out to him that a £400,000 vanity project was a duff way of spending public cash... Donors stepped in the rescue the project

Sounds plausible, linky, just to make sure?

[quote=aracer ]

Ms Rudd?

nah. rudderless is far too easy a headline.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/may/25/michael-gove-bibles-schools-plan
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/may/15/michael-gove-king-james-bible

Michael Gove's King James Bible plan rescued by millionaire Tory donors
Education secretary will send a copy of the Bible to every state school after donors club together to save £370,000 initiative

yay more religion in schools, hope it was made clear it was fiction to be critically studied.

yep Gove originally wanted the taxpayer to pay for his bibilical ego****

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/may/25/michael-gove-bibles-schools-plan

https://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/05/michael-gove-bible/

Point of order: None of those links say the tax payer was going to pay.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Everything-I-know-about-teaching/dp/1492912417

Millionaire Conservative party donors have clubbed together to rescue a plan by the education secretary, Michael Gove, to send a copy of the King James Bible to every state school in the country.

Gove hoped to mark the 400th anniversary of the Bible's completion by donating a leather-bound copy, written in 17th-century English, to all primary and secondary schools by Easter.

However, his plans were said to have run into trouble in January when government sources reported that David Cameron had told Gove to avoid using taxpayers' money for the £370,000 initiative.

The Department for Education denied aspects of the story, but said they did not know if the copies had yet been printed, or where the copies might currently be stored. They added the Bible was always intended to be distributed to schools at Easter, so there had been no slippage in the timetable due to the lack of a sponsor.

Sign up for the Bookmarks email
Read more
Education department officials said the prime minister supported the plan and said they did not recognise accounts of a conversation in which Gove was told no taxpayers' money could be used. But Whitehall sources said Gove was told at the highest levels that it would be wrong to spend nearly £400,000 on the project at a time when the government was in negotiations with teaching unions over cuts to their pension entitlement.

Education department officials insisted the bibles would be distributed before Easter even if no sponsor had been found. A senior education department source said enough public cash was available to press ahead and No 10 had merely indicated that "sponsorship was desirable". A Department for Education official said in a statement: "The prime minister was clear in his speech in December about the importance of the King James Bible, and marking this important anniversary. The prime minister supports the plan to send a copy to every school. We continue to seek philanthropic sponsorship."

didnt he also want the taxpayer to buy the queen a new royal yacht ?

all in the midst of 'austerity madness'

[b]Looks like[/b] the Ed Dep was picking up the bill if it didn't find sponsors and he wanted to let them pick up the tab.

Nah, it doesn't.

But it's academic, I asked for a linky and you did your best.

idnt he also want the taxpayer to buy the queen a new royal yacht ?

He suggested it:

"My suggestion would be a gift from the nation to her majesty; thinking about David Willetts's excellent suggestion of a royal yacht, and something tangible to commemorate this momentous occasion.".

The Press Association reported Gove saying: “The taxpayer is there to underwrite the costs but we are in conversation with a number of individuals and organisations that may share some of the burden.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/01/18/michael-goves-king-james-bibles-cost-taxpayers-thousands-_n_1212702.html

is a suggestion different from wanting it? is semantics all youve got

we all know Gove is a clown 😉

But it's academic, I asked for a linky and you did your best.

Looks like the Ed Dep was picking up the bill if it didn't find sponsors and he wanted to let them pick up the tab.

Nah, it doesn't.

Yeah, it does.

http://www.****/news/article-2088339/Michael-Goves-377k-plan-send-King-James-Bible-school.html

[sorry.....]

Mr Gove said talks were under way with a number of individuals and organisations that might 'share some of the burden' - but the taxpayer would underwrite the cost.
'The taxpayer is there to underwrite the costs but we are in conversation with a number of individuals and organisations that may share some of the burden,' he said.

None of it matters, if May gets her 50 seat majority She'll be safe for now, will there be a reshuffle after- Id have thought so, where might gove pop up?
like a bad turd.....

Only if its less than 50 (which I doubt) will she be under immediate threat, its just that she will have lost some measure of respect from within her party, though have at good 30+ new & loyal MPs

x2 post

is a suggestion different from wanting it?

No. Why do you ask?

'The taxpayer is there to underwrite the costs but we are in conversation with a number of individuals and organisations that may share some of the burden,' he said.

Thanks, that's conclusive.

The big point being that the PM then had to remind him that he really should make sure he had funding...
Quacks like a duck? get the oranges.

Not a definitive statement this, more a suggestion, but some people are just knobs, aren't they?

Opinium has published its final poll of the election campaign. It suggests the Conservatives have a seven-point lead.

Here are their figures.

Conservatives: 43%

Labour: 36%

Lib Dems: 8%

Ukip: 5%

Greens: 2%

Here is an extract from the Opinium news release.

All polls point to a Conservative majority, despite recent gains by the Labour party, and the final poll from Opinium indicates that the Conservatives will capture 43% of the vote on Thursday, compared to 36% for Labour. This is in stark contrast to the 19 point lead held by the Conservatives at the beginning of the party’s campaign. However, the Labour poll ‘surge’ appears to have crested with the party slipping back by a point as the Conservatives remain steady.

The campaign has damaged the reputation of the prime minister, despite a likely Conservative win, with Theresa May’s approval ratings falling from +21% at the start of the campaign to just +5% on average across all voters. While Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has seen his popularity increase to -7%, it doesn’t seem to been enough to challenge the Conservatives.

On the basis of these figures, Electoral Calculus says the Conservatives would get a majority of 48.

still reckon may will get 50+ seats