May set to be PM as Leadsom quits race

originally posted by: JAK

originally posted by: bastion
... who coincidentally is married to the head of G4S...

What evidence is there to support this claim?

If you are as concerned over the relationship between government and G4S then to avoid diluting your position through errors and so granting space to those who, for whatever reason, would rather the relationship doesn't come under scrutiny then it would seem of great importance to offer only arguments which stand on solid ground.

It's been in the public domain for three or four years, landlord is CID in Manchester, ask any high ranking police - here's a few news stories -

www.theguardian.com...

www.theguardian.com...

www.telegraph.co.uk... al-banner.html

www.telegraph.co.uk...

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Just as Labour is completely out of touch with its membership, so it seems are the tories.

I see a big mess coming. And UKIP may just pick up the pieces. Twitter is abuzz with tories renouncing their membership in favour of ukip

I agree that the Tories and Labour are in complete disarray and the only party to benefit from this will be UKIP.

I know quite a few Labour supporters who will be voting UKIP because of the mess they are in.

I think we need a GE now, maybe even before article 50 is invoked. Will we get one? Not a chance.

a reply to: DISRAELI

In other words, you would like to change the historic British constitution and adopt American-style Presidential elections instead.

I'm fine with the historic British constitution but believe we already have an American-style Presidential as well, the leader of the party is who people vote for , they are the one who set the agenda for the Parliamentary term of the government.

Someone has already remarked on how quickly our system works. That's because we've got a less cumbersome process.

By taking the electorate out of the process.

originally posted by: JAK
a reply to: bastion

G4S categorically states: Theresa May’s husband is NOT an officer, director or shareholder

That statement is going to need some validating too as, if correct, it certainly is newsworthy whereas if nothing more than a flimsy, casual passing shot it strengthens those who would speak in defence of government dealings with G4S it could be counterproductive to your apparent concerns.

See Local Government Finance Act 1982 Section 17 - there's a superinjunction in place, thype it into google and you'll see the government have banned UK people from access to all but a couple of sites, use a proxy to find the real info.

a reply to: bastion

There is nothing within those links to support the claim that her husband is anything to do with G4S barring his marriage to her.

originally posted by: crayzeed
If the Tories do defect to UKIP en- masse then a general election should be forced through.

If that happened then a motion of no confidence in the Government would be tabled and run. If the Government lost the Queen would dissolve Parliament initiating a General Election.

originally posted by: gortex
That's democracy , we get a PM we didn't vote for.

Er, you never vote for the PM. It does not work that way. You vote for MPs in political parties. Parties select who they want to lead them, and the process differs between parties. That person becomes the PM. The PM is not a president. It tends to happen quickly because it is in no one's interest for a long, drawn out process.

a reply to: bastion

I hate to deflect you with facts but -

heavy.com...

You're spreading rumours with no basis - actually not even the right rumour which was that he held shares in G4S and therefore benefited from any government deals the company tendered for and won.

It would have took you all of three minutes to check the reality - is there a reason why you didn't?

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: JAK

originally posted by: bastion
... who coincidentally is married to the head of G4S...

What evidence is there to support this claim?

If you are as concerned over the relationship between government and G4S then to avoid diluting your position through errors and so granting space to those who, for whatever reason, would rather the relationship doesn't come under scrutiny then it would seem of great importance to offer only arguments which stand on solid ground.

It's been in the public domain for three or four years, landlord is CID in Manchester, ask any high ranking police - here's a few news stories -

www.theguardian.com...

www.theguardian.com...

www.telegraph.co.uk... al-banner.html

www.telegraph.co.uk...

A few news stories none of which seem to say anything about May's husband being a major shareholder in G4S.

I don't like May but I think it is better to criticise based on things she has actually done wrong rather than apparently made up Internet rumours.
.

a reply to: ScepticScot
The system we have now is the system which in 1940 almost instantaneously replaced Neville Chamberlain with Winston Churchill. You would have had us calling another General Election in the middle of the Battle of Britain?

This is the old conflict between idealism - "let us devise the most perfect system which we can imagine"- and pragmatism -"let''s go for what works". I'm one for good old-fashioned British pragmatism.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: DISRAELI

In other words, you would like to change the historic British constitution and adopt American-style Presidential elections instead.

I'm fine with the historic British constitution but believe we already have an American-style Presidential as well, the leader of the party is who people vote for , they are the one who set the agenda for the Parliamentary term of the government.

Someone has already remarked on how quickly our system works. That's because we've got a less cumbersome process.

By taking the electorate out of the process.

Why do you think the electorate has been taken out of the process? The Conservative party won the last election (slenderly, yes) and they are now getting a new party leader - but it's still the same party that won the last election. I'm not sure what your problem is - I'm having a hard time you 'voted' Tory believing you would get Cameron.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: ScepticScot
The system we have now is the system which in 1940 almost instantaneously replaced Neville Chamberlain with Winston Churchill. You would have had us calling another General Election in the middle of the Battle of Britain?

This is the old conflict between idealism - "let us devise the most perfect system which we can imagine"- and pragmatism -"let''s go for what works". I'm one for good old-fashioned British pragmatism.

Roosevelt actually died during WW2 and the American presidential system seemed to cope. Besides which its not the 1940's any more.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: JAK

originally posted by: bastion
... who coincidentally is married to the head of G4S...

What evidence is there to support this claim?

If you are as concerned over the relationship between government and G4S then to avoid diluting your position through errors and so granting space to those who, for whatever reason, would rather the relationship doesn't come under scrutiny then it would seem of great importance to offer only arguments which stand on solid ground.

It's been in the public domain for three or four years, landlord is CID in Manchester, ask any high ranking police - here's a few news stories -

www.theguardian.com...

www.theguardian.com...

www.telegraph.co.uk... al-banner.html

www.telegraph.co.uk...

A few news stories none of which seem to say anything about May's husband being a major shareholder in G4S.

I don't like May but I think it is better to criticise based on things she has actually done wrong rather than apparently made up Internet rumours.
.

Erm all those stories were from when police were walking out because she cut 20,000 police and gave the contracts to SERCO and G4S.
It's not a rumour ask any police officer - I've been a journalist for 15 years - in the uk you can only access 6 stories out of 220,000 on him due to data protection. Write to the information comisioner or write to G4S or Serco and ask for a copy of their board member minutes if you don't want to take my word for it. It's a fact on legally binding paper and official government documents, not random online blogs. The whole reddit conspiracy about him and g4s is a complete lie though. I'm basing it on the true story I have the papers for.


Here's a taster, warning requires weeks of researcherch and to ctually follow and vet politics daily, not jut reading the odd blog.

Home Secretary Theresa May has rejected an accusation of a conflict of interest in Lincolnshire Police's decision to award a £200m contract to G4S.

At the Police Federation conference, Mrs May was asked about Tom Winsor, a partner of a law firm which advised the security company on the deal.

In 2010, Mr Winsor was appointed by the government to author an independent report on police reform.

Ms Adams said: "When you appointed Tom Winsor to carry out your independent review of policy, did you know that the law firm Tom Winsor is part of, which is White and Case, was negotiating the multi-million groundbreaking deal for G4S with Lincolnshire Police?

"How can it be fair and independent if there's a vested interest?"

a reply to: uncommitted

I'm not sure what your problem is

It's here in the thread.

I'm having a hard time you 'voted' Tory believing you would get Cameron.

I didn't vote Tory.

a reply to: paraphiBlimey, Paraphi please take your rose coloured glasses off.
Even if a vote of no confidence took place could you honestly say the pigs would take their snouts out of the trough and vote themselves out of a job?
They may not like Ms May as PM, they might defect to UKIP, but they'll still be Tory enough to back the government.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Roosevelt actually died during WW2 and the American presidential system seemed to cope. Besides which its not the 1940's any more.

Roosevelt was not replaced by the calling of a fresh election.
Cumbersome procedures can be a disadvantage at any time. They would have been a disadvantage now, when we need to sort things out as quickly as possible. And you can't assume that a crisis demanding swift action will never occur again, just because we have moved on from a particular date.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: BlueAjah

The UK seems to handle transitions more expediently than the US!

That's democracy , we get a PM we didn't vote for.

a reply to: SprocketUK
There goes the internet , we'll have a copper on every router.
All praise the dear leader.

There goes every damn thing. I think she was possibly the worst of all the hopefuls for leader.

originally posted by: gortex
I didn't vote Tory.

So you got a P.M. "you didn't vote for" even at the last election.
Then how has the selection of Theresa May made things worse?
How would the endorsement of Theresa May at a fresh election make things any better?

a reply to: DISRAELI

So you got a P.M. "you didn't vote for" even at the last election.

Yeah , didn't ask for a second vote either.

Then how has the selection of Theresa May made things worse?

Maggie May , Theresa Thatcher can't decide which but she does remind me of someone.

How would the endorsement of Theresa May at a fresh election make things any better?

Democracy , given the self inflicted mess the labour party is in she would win her own mandate for her own policies.

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: JAK

originally posted by: bastion
... who coincidentally is married to the head of G4S...

What evidence is there to support this claim?

If you are as concerned over the relationship between government and G4S then to avoid diluting your position through errors and so granting space to those who, for whatever reason, would rather the relationship doesn't come under scrutiny then it would seem of great importance to offer only arguments which stand on solid ground.

It's been in the public domain for three or four years, landlord is CID in Manchester, ask any high ranking police - here's a few news stories -

www.theguardian.com...

www.theguardian.com...

www.telegraph.co.uk... al-banner.html

www.telegraph.co.uk...

A few news stories none of which seem to say anything about May's husband being a major shareholder in G4S.

I don't like May but I think it is better to criticise based on things she has actually done wrong rather than apparently made up Internet rumours.
.

Erm all those stories were from when police were walking out because she cut 20,000 police and gave the contracts to SERCO and G4S.
It's not a rumour ask any police officer - I've been a journalist for 15 years - in the uk you can only access 6 stories out of 220,000 on him due to data protection. Write to the information comisioner or write to G4S or Serco and ask for a copy of their board member minutes if you don't want to take my word for it. It's a fact on legally binding paper and official government documents, not random online blogs. The whole reddit conspiracy about him and g4s is a complete lie though. I'm basing it on the true story I have the papers for.

Here's a taster, warning requires weeks of researcherch and to ctually follow and vet politics daily, not jut reading the odd blog.

Home Secretary Theresa May has rejected an accusation of a conflict of interest in Lincolnshire Police's decision to award a £200m contract to G4S.

At the Police Federation conference, Mrs May was asked about Tom Winsor, a partner of a law firm which advised the security company on the deal.

In 2010, Mr Winsor was appointed by the government to author an independent report on police reform.

Ms Adams said: "When you appointed Tom Winsor to carry out your independent review of policy, did you know that the law firm Tom Winsor is part of, which is White and Case, was negotiating the multi-million groundbreaking deal for G4S with Lincolnshire Police?

"How can it be fair and independent if there's a vested interest?"

Again nothing to do with May's husband holding shares in GS4. Saying police officers know (how would they) is not evidence.

I am not saying it is not possible May benefited from holding shares in GS4. But there seems to be no evidence that he did and certainly none that he was a major shareholder.

Claiming to be a journalist with super secret knowledge doesn't really cut it if you can't provide evidence.

a reply to: bastion

bastion, the bolded section offered there, the reports of questions over a potential conflict of interest, the £200m Lincolnshire Police contract, I don't think that's being questioned here.

What I think is being called into question, the accuracy of which would quite possibly to show that certain matters do indeed offer legitimate cause for concern and cannot then be lightly dismissed purely because they share a seat with what appears to be nothing more than speculation at best - perhaps even purposefully weak propaganda with that specific goal in mind - is the suggestion that her husband has a particular relationship to G4S.