Queen's Speech

[uncleglen]

Yes- experts are what is needed not a load of people trying to make political capital out of a tragedy.

And as for Yvette Williams -whoever she is- it is probably her and her stirrers that say the survivors are becoming increasingly angry, because the survivors are more than likely glad to have survived and are just waiting patiently to be dealt with

[snowy]

"Stirrers" you are really scraping the bottom of a very deep barrel.

[rendelharris]

Yvette Williams MBE is a policy adviser to the Crown Prosecution Service and spokesperson for Justice4Grenfell, a group which has widespread community backing including from many of the survivors.

And sorry, no the survivors are not "just waiting patiently to be dealt with," much as you and your fellow Tories probably think they should and be grateful they're given anything at all: the merest glance at the news demonstrates that many of them are bloody furious and rightly so. I apologise for previously having said you've a one-eyed view of things - turns out you're completely blind.

ETA Just listening to PM and hearing victims complaining vociferously about the way they are being treated. Not "stirrers," actual victims: they are enraged.

[JohnL]

Some of the extreme brexiteers recently seem to have realised that an EU exit and a Corbyn victory at the next election could mean a more socialist government than if we remained in the EU.

In fact this may be what Corbyn hopes for 2 years or so down the line.

[red devil]

Likewise if the Tories deliberately ousted May, let Corbyn deal with Brexit and the economic fallout, blame him, and in effect there's a clean slate for a new Tory Gov post-Brexit...

[Jenny1]

Quite. Never was a chalice more poisoned.

[JohnL]

Jenny1 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Quite. Never was a chalice more poisoned.

so true .. it's almost "after you"

May looks so lonely whenever she's abroad these days - maybe she should just sit in front of the water cannon with the protesters.

[Jenny1]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> May looks so lonely whenever she's abroad these

> days - maybe she should just sit in front of the

> water cannon with the protesters.

She's never looked comfortable on the global stage. She's a funny old stick.

[robbin]

She's just awkward around people (always has been) and completely out of her depth (just as she was as Home Secretary, but the buck didn't stop with her then, so she could try to keep under the radar).

[robbin]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I notice - returning to my original point on this

> thread - that today May has intimated there will

> be no vote on foxhunting either. Good, say I and

> many others, I've no doubt, but again, how many

> votes in rural areas were swayed (or more likely

> how many who don't usually vote were persuaded to

> turn out) by a promise which has proved completely

> false?

Honestly, I would have though almost none. What's more it was a ridiculous potential net vote loser of a policy. a massive 84% of the UK population are reported to still be in favour of the fox hunting ban. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/fox-hunting-boxing-day-poll-opposition-all-time-high-theresa-may-hunting-ban-act-vote-a7495336.html

The policy would have put way more people off voting Conservative than would have been swayed into voting for them under false pretences hoping there would be a (pointless and bound to fail) free vote on repealing the ban.

I also think that of the very few people that actively yearn for the reinstatement of fox hunting (as opposed to those who might support it but don't really give a toss) most of them probably would have voted Tory anyway, whether or not there would have been a free vote. I think they would recognise from the polls that there is no way parliament would have legalised fox hunting even if there had been a vote - therefore it was all a bit academic. Actually, pretty bizarre May should think it a live issue anymore. Shows just how stupid she is.

[rendelharris]

I don't know, and obviously there's no way to find out. I would suspect that there were very few Tory voters who switched their vote on the sole issue of foxhunting, whereas I can imagine rural voters who usually wouldn't bother to vote turning out on that single issue. Otherwise, as you say, why would she have bothered with a massively unpopular policy if she thought there was no advantage to it?

In any case that's a minor point compared to my original one - how many voters were swayed by the promise of grammar schools and now find they're not going to get what they voted for?

[red devil]

It was a strange decision to include it in the manifesto. It would've never made it past the free vote stage in Parliament. As for gaining votes, very limited demographically, certainly flies in the face of her 'will of the people' schtick...

[rendelharris]

Interesting article here: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/june2017/2017/05/fox-hunting-deeply-unpopular-so-why-does-theresa-may-care-so-much-about (though obviously hardly an unbiased summation, written as it is by a Labour frontbencher) - posits that it was a cheap and easy way to pretend to be the party of the rural communities and cover their neglect of same.