How long will Theresa May last as PM?

Can she tough it out, or is she as Osborne says 'a dead woman' walking? To be fair she has lasted longer than Nuttall and Farron post-election! Also, looking into your crystal balls do you feel the Tories can survive this rocky patch and stay in power for a little while yet or do you feel another general election is not too far away?

I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories with DUP help manage to cling on for a 5 year term, but there is no way May is leading them into the next election. I also think there's no appetite for another leadership contest in the Conservative party in the near term, especially given all the delays in getting the Brexit negotiations going.

My suspicion is that May will be leader until the end of the Brexit negotiation process (which I'm sure will be extended by about a year), and then out on her ear, so 2-4 years, most likely about 2.5 to 3

Since the election there's been lots of rumours in parts of media of a leadership challenge. One school of thought is that May will go imminently, after the Queen's Speech, clearing the way for a leadership contest over the summer. Another is that May will at least stay to steer Brexit through - so another couple of years.

The knives are certainly being sharpened behind the scenes though and a leadership challenge may emerge at any time.

seems like Michael gove and boris Johnson are already trying to undermine her by openly criticising her on key things such as the public sector pay freeze etc.

Both of those men wanted to be leader but lost to May and so it wouldn't surprise me if they were just criticising her not because they disagree with her but they see it as an easy way to get public support.

Just bumping this up in light of recent political stories in the headlines.  She's lasted over 4 months to date and I can see her clinging on a little while yet, but I do think anything more than 2 years looks unlikely.

I do think that if key ally Damian Green is forced out she will be gone.

Would predict, without any great certainty, that she'll be gone by next summer.

At the very least, if the Tories want to gain a majority at the next GE, they will need a new leader to take them into it.

May needs a quiet spell....Universal credit fiasco....Sex stuff...Israel saga....Bad time.

Leader ratings improve when they are out of sight and out of mind....Less is more.

Always a problem for Party leaders after elections...When people lose seats at a local level the MP for that Constituency gets a swollen eardrum....So..

Nothing will happen before May 2018..and possibly not even then if they do okay.

She will be gone in 2019.. think the Tories are pretty clear on that one and I believe they will skip a generation like they did picking Cameron.

Keep an eye on the the new Defence secretary I imagine he is there so he can raise his profile...

McVey...Ellwood are dark horses.

She will stay for the Brexit negotiations. I don't think any new leader wants to be at the helm when the negotiations are taking place as I believe they will not end up great for the UK and the leader will get the blame. So any potential leader would rather Mrs May gets the blame and then they can take over and 'save the day'.

April 2019 is my guess with a conservative leadership election to take place followed by a General election.

There could be as many as 40 Tory MP’s ready to sign a bill of no confidence in May. The end could be closer than we think.

Mistake letting Patel resign and not sacking her...She hasn't got a following in the party by all accounts...Missed a chance to look strong.

May's fortunes are inextricably linked to Boris.. In any sane World he would have had to resign over this Iranian debacle..

He is hurting her the longer he stays...But it is..Catch 22.

Get rid of him and risk causing a leadership election or let him stay and pee off 48 Tories and lose any chance you have in any future ballot because you didn't have the guts to kick him out.

May is managing to make John Major look strong and stable.

Pr4wn wrote:May is managing to make John Major look strong and stable.

John Major is looking better with hindsight. He was not in power during the easiest of times, but rather watching over the end of a long Tory downward spiral. (Gordon Brown was in the same boat with Labour really). We might have seen him as grey and with a passion for peas but he was a lot better at his job than May is. May even makes Cameron look competent.

Major's problem is that Thatcher never lost.............like Brown's problem with Blair......

Gives them the lightweight tag when it comes to placing......

Cameron is lucky in a way because he made the Tories electable again after four election losers (Helped by Labour becoming long in the tooth and the banking crisis).....Major, Hague, Smith, Howard........They of course had the problem of Blair and a functioning Economy..

Brexit whilst being a huge negative can't change the fact the guy was a proven winner and politics is a binary choice for plenty of historians.....

My guess is history will be kind to Cameron....Competent or not..

As we near the end of May's reign, bumping this up one final time. Looks like Dummy-half was the only one who opted for 2-4 years - congratulations - impressive political punditry there, worthy of a place on Andrew Neil's 'This Week' sofa.

I personally was surprised at how long May lasted - underestimated her sheer stubbonness in the face of multiple vote losses in the Commons.

Now for a fun 'who will be next Tory leader' poll?

MrInvisible wrote:As we near the end of May's reign, bumping this up one final time. Looks like Dummy-half was the only one who opted for 2-4 years - congratulations - impressive political punditry there, worthy of a place on Andrew Neil's 'This Week' sofa.  

I personally was surprised at how long May lasted - underestimated her sheer stubbonness in the face of multiple vote losses in the Commons.

Now for a fun 'who will be next Tory leader' poll?

To no doubt be followed by 'For how long will we consider May to be the worst PM in history?'

Got to admit I find the whole 'worst prime minister' in history thing bit silly - difficult to evaluate a prime minister from a bygone era which we haven't personally lived through and there is a real tendency to over-hype things without looking at the bigger picture.  That said, you could argue that May hasn't actually achieved anything in office.  As a child of the 80s/90s, you could probably make a case for each of the following:

Thatcher: A marmite figure.  V successful at driving through her agenda but at what cost?  Terrible legacy of high unemployment and social discord.  A lot of today's problems (housing crisis, post-industrial malaise in regions) have their roots in her time in office.
Major: Widely derided at the time and suffered from fallout of ERM crash-out in 1993.  However, history will probably be bit kinder to him - with Ken Clarke as chancellor left economy in good state in 1997, and internationally played a positive role in Northern Ireland peace process.  
Blair: 1997-2002: This period in isolation would be looked upon v favourably - popular, charismatic, with economy going well, and investment in education and NHS starting to make difference.  Helped deliver Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland.  2003 onwards: forever sullied by Iraq, and domestically would also argue some decisions then paved the way for problems down the road later (e.g. PFI, academies).
Brown: 2007-2010: Brown - v different character to Blair - less charismatic and more prickly, had a real tough time of it in media and there was a sense that the New Labour project was starting to crumble under him.  Would personally argue though he dealt v well with financial crisis and together with Alistair Darling left the economy in good shape in 2010, considering
Cameron: 2010-2015: Would argue most of the achievements weren't 'pure Tory ones' e.g. same-sex marriage required Lib Dem/Labour support and initiatives like Pupil Premium and green incentives (the latter reversed subsequently) originated from Lib Dems.  Failed in central objective of deficit reduction in spite/because of severe austerity.  However, it was actually a relatively 'strong and stable' coalition, so that's a success of sorts.
Cameron 2015-2016: Secured an unexpected Tory majority but rapidly downhill from there.  Decision to hold the referendum was classic short-term thinking and in hindsight worst decision made by UK prime minister in several generations.
May: 2016-2019: Nice speech at start, cleared out some deadwood in cabinet from Cameron/Osborne days but rapidly downhill from there.  Her only raison d'etre was to deliver Brexit, which she failed to do.  No achievements, but worth pointing out she inherited terrible legacy from Cameron.

If I had to choose though I would opt for Cameron as worst prime minister for creating a massive problem that didn't exit.

MrInvisible wrote:Got to admit I find the whole 'worst prime minister' in history thing bit silly - difficult to evaluate a prime minister from a bygone era which we haven't personally lived through and there is a real tendency to over-hype things without looking at the bigger picture.  That said, you could argue that May hasn't actually achieved anything in office.  As a child of the 80s/90s, you could probably make a case for each of the following:

Thatcher: A marmite figure.  V successful at driving through her agenda but at what cost?  Terrible legacy of high unemployment and social discord.  A lot of today's problems (housing crisis, post-industrial malaise in regions) have their roots in her time in office.
Major: Widely derided at the time and suffered from fallout of ERM crash-out in 1993.  However, history will probably be bit kinder to him - with Ken Clarke as chancellor left economy in good state in 1997, and internationally played a positive role in Northern Ireland peace process.  
Blair: 1997-2002: This period in isolation would be looked upon v favourably - popular, charismatic, with economy going well, and investment in education and NHS starting to make difference.  Helped deliver Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland.  2003 onwards: forever sullied by Iraq, and domestically would also argue some decisions then paved the way for problems down the road later (e.g. PFI, academies).
Brown: 2007-2010: Brown - v different character to Blair - less charismatic and more prickly, had a real tough time of it in media and there was a sense that the New Labour project was starting to crumble under him.  Would personally argue though he dealt v well with financial crisis and together with Alistair Darling left the economy in good shape in 2010, considering
Cameron: 2010-2015: Would argue most of the achievements weren't 'pure Tory ones' e.g. same-sex marriage required Lib Dem/Labour support and initiatives like Pupil Premium and green incentives (the latter reversed subsequently) originated from Lib Dems.  Failed in central objective of deficit reduction in spite/because of severe austerity.  However, it was actually a relatively 'strong and stable' coalition, so that's a success of sorts.
Cameron 2015-2016: Secured an unexpected Tory majority but rapidly downhill from there.  Decision to hold the referendum was classic short-term thinking and in hindsight worst decision made by UK prime minister in several generations.
May: 2016-2019: Nice speech at start, cleared out some deadwood in cabinet from Cameron/Osborne days but rapidly downhill from there.  Her only raison d'etre was to deliver Brexit, which she failed to do.  No achievements, but worth pointing out she inherited terrible legacy from Cameron.

If I had to choose though I would opt for Cameron as worst prime minister for creating a massive problem that didn't exit.

Definitely May as the worst for me. Leaving Brexit to the side for a moment she presided over the disgusting Project Windrush of which she played a big part in it as she was at the head of the Home Office when expulsions were going on. When it came out she was PM and flung others to the wolves to cover up her glaringly massive mistakes at the Home Office. Her handling of the Grenfell Disaster was shameful. Again it was a disaster of Tory making and she showed little in the way of compassion or guilt in the aftermath. We could go onto the false claims such as 'strong and stable' which turned out to be hilariously off the mark. And then we had the 'no magic money tree' sound byte but one sprung from somewhere to pay the DUP. And all that before we even get started on Brexit.

EDIT. Although in all fairness to her it is nothing compared to Tony Blair going to war based wholly on lies where thousands of innocent men, women and children died.

MrInvisible wrote:Got to admit I find the whole 'worst prime minister' in history thing bit silly - difficult to evaluate a prime minister from a bygone era which we haven't personally lived through and there is a real tendency to over-hype things without looking at the bigger picture.

I agree with the first bit. Often, the current PM of the day is regularly cited as 'the worst Prime Minister' or similar by those who dislike said PM, but the fuss dies down when they are out of office. I can remember Brown and Cameron being regularly cited as 'the worst Prime Minister' when they were in office, but it dies down once they're gone and a more objective analysis can take place. Doubtless, the next PM will be given the same title when in office by disaffected commentators.

And, on the second point, I think it's possible to be much fairer to evaluate a PM's era that you haven't lived through, because you're not personally prejudiced by the benefits/drawbacks that that particular PM has brought upon your life, and you can be more objective in your assessment.

I think, post WW2, Eden, Heath and Blair are the worst PMs this country have had. May won't be fondly remembered, though I think the difficulties she had during her tenure will soften the blow that future historians inflict. Pre the end of WW2, I think Churchill is massively overrated, and Chamberlain is given an unduly tough time.

Muscular-mouse wrote:She will stay for the Brexit negotiations. I don't think any new leader wants to be at the helm when the negotiations are taking place as I believe they will not end up great for the UK and the leader will get the blame. So any potential leader would rather Mrs May gets the blame and then they can take over and 'save the day'.

April 2019 is my guess with a conservative leadership election to take place followed by a General election.

I can see into the future haha

Blair is the best PM I have seen in my 50 years. The problem with any PM is that baggage grows with time in power, and in hindsight we remember the baggage and forget the good stuff. I would say there was a decrease in quality over the years of his time, but the best years were very good. Plus both the Conservatives and Labour have been doing their best to talk down his legacy for years.

'Yes but Iraq' - I think the pressure on the BBC was bad (Oh isn't hindsight wonderful given where we are now) I think the David Kelly death has not ever been fully resolved, but the war would have happened with any other PM. The greatest tragedy was the lack of planning for the aftermath, and that wasn't down to Blair.

Every PM's time ends in failure.

Last thought. How often has anyone here actually been optimistic about the government and what is was doing? That is why I rate Blair, because his first term was probably one of the very few times I actually felt that.

lostinwales wrote:Blair is the best PM I have seen in my 50 years. The problem with any PM is that baggage grows with time in power, and in hindsight we remember the baggage and forget the good stuff. I would say there was a decrease in quality over the years of his time, but the best years were very good. Plus both the Conservatives and Labour have been doing their best to talk down his legacy for years.

'Yes but Iraq' - I think the pressure on the BBC was bad (Oh isn't hindsight wonderful given where we are now) I think the David Kelly death has not ever been fully resolved, but the war would have happened with any other PM. The greatest tragedy was the lack of planning for the aftermath, and that wasn't down to Blair.

Every PM's time ends in failure.

Last thought. How often has anyone here actually been optimistic about the government and what is was doing? That is why I rate Blair, because his first term was probably one of the very few times I actually felt that.

You were doing well until that bit. Bliar was on a mission from God. War may have happened with any other PM, but I doubt you can make a universal claim like that. He'll go down in history tarred with being a lying so-and-so. If there were any justice, he'd be in The Hague one day, but that'll never happen.

The problem with Iraq is what were the alternatives anyway.

You still had a psycho in situ happy to use chemical warfare against his own people, and another psycho in the USA determined to get his name down in history and to complete his daddy's work. Let's not forget the neo cons behind Bush being cheered on by Halliburton too. We helped to give Bush a figleaf of respectability with the always ridiculous WMD argument but it was not a deciding factor.

lostinwales wrote:The problem with Iraq is what were the alternatives anyway.

You still had a psycho in situ happy to use chemical warfare against his own people, and another psycho in the USA determined to get his name down in history and to complete his daddy's work. Let's not forget the neo cons behind Bush being cheered on by Halliburton too. We helped to give Bush a figleaf of respectability with the always ridiculous WMD argument but it was not a deciding factor.

It's been so much better, hasn't it, since Hussein was butchered? He was a piece of work, but at the time all the evidence said he had no WMD; it's just that Bliar/W were on a mission from God. What should we have done? Well, how about await, and analyse, evidence from Blix/Kelly et al? How about consult the UN? Take your pick, but what actually happened was disgraceful.

I'm not sure about your point re. Halliburton etc. That only supports the idea that Bliar/W went to war on a series of lies.

The problem with Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria etc etc etc etc etc, is we have a political crowd who have no idea what war actually means and/or did their damndest to avoid being involved in one when they were called to fight themselves. They don't have a clue, but are happy to sound tough and bathe in reflected glory.

navyblueshorts wrote:

lostinwales wrote:The problem with Iraq is what were the alternatives anyway.

You still had a psycho in situ happy to use chemical warfare against his own people, and another psycho in the USA determined to get his name down in history and to complete his daddy's work. Let's not forget the neo cons behind Bush being cheered on by Halliburton too. We helped to give Bush a figleaf of respectability with the always ridiculous WMD argument but it was not a deciding factor.

It's been so much better, hasn't it, since Hussein was butchered? He was a piece of work, but at the time all the evidence said he had no WMD; it's just that Bliar/W were on a mission from God. What should we have done? Well, how about await, and analyse, evidence from Blix/Kelly et al? How about consult the UN? Take your pick, but what actually happened was disgraceful.

I'm not sure about your point re. Halliburton etc. That only supports the idea that Bliar/W went to war on a series of lies.

The problem with Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria etc etc etc etc etc, is we have a political crowd who have no idea what war actually means and/or did their damndest to avoid being involved in one when they were called to fight themselves. They don't have a clue, but are happy to sound tough and bathe in reflected glory.

Completely agree with your last paragraph. However my view on Iraq is that with Bush and the hawks he had around him war was inevitable - and the more time spent waiting for it to start meant the more time with cuddly Saddam in charge.

The real faults lay in thinking that Iraq would welcome the US with open arms and especially in dismantling the internal Iraqi security forces with not enough planning and not enough troops on the ground to fill the vacuum. That is a post war issue.

War is a terrible thing, and the truth is that when it happens you'll be damned if you get involved and damned if you stay on the sidelines. Europe has, officially, more or less stayed out of the Syria conflict (not Russia though). The civil war has lead to a major humanitarian crisis that has destabilised its neighbours and caused so many Syrians to risk their lives to reach Europe. What is the price of giving the refugees a safe place in their own country? At what point do you say that the price of getting involved is worth paying, given that the price of not doing so is also so high (just conveniently, mostly, being paid by someone else). Please understand I am not saying we should get involved, just trying to illustrate that these things are messy and not just black and white.

Don't think war should have been inevitable. POTUS is C-in-C of US armed forces, but a bit much to hope for, I suppose, that he'd have stood up to Cheney, Rumsfeld et al and suggested doing things differently. Bliar should be impaled for providing the necessary fig leaf of cover.
As for the lack of re-building etc, did they not learn anything from Marshall and MacArthur after WWII? No; Iraq was a crime - trash a nation under the excuse of 'regime change' and pillage it for re-building contracts, oil revenue and arms sales. This doesn't even touch on ISIS/IS/Deash either...

A pity the UN is a waste of space on more important geopolitical issues.

Bush wasn't elected to 'stand up' to his deeply dug-in military/intelligence/industrial puppet masters.  He was elected to walk, skip and jump to their prompts.  Bush was an approved candidate and an approved President. He was always going to take direction willingly.  His own father had more real power than he ever had.  His Presidency was choreographed.

Maybe for the first time in over 50 years we finally see again what it's like when a non-approved candidate sneaks in and gains the Presidency.  Maybe.

Kennedy overplayed his hand and paid the high price.  Meanwhile Trump still lives with the ever so slightly veiled threat of Chucky Schumer still resonating : "Let me tell you, you take on the Intelligence community, they have six ways to Sunday of getting back at you".

Oh we know Chucky.  We know.  Trump interrupted approved History creation.  Bush didn't.  He sat there in the schoolroom as 911 was unfolding and as the teacher beside him was doing her demonstration reading lesson to the children:  "Hit, Steel, Plane, Must".

First para fine. The rest - pity Trump's a childish, narcissistic A-hole.

Trump interrupted Approved History creation.  

Hillary was never meant to lose - the controllers of American history thought they had it in the bag.  Bernie got dumped, Hillary was cleared by Comey, Hillary was the Approved Candidate - the victory speech was written months if not years in advance.

Hit Steel Plane Must.

Then Trump.......

Anyway, do people think British Establishment dug-in controllers run the same game?

Do you all take it for granted that Conservative party members will get the leader they actually want or wonder do they get the Leader that's approved for this particular moment in history.  

Maybe May was all along meant to be dropped off at this point as she was guided to keep Brexit in flux with no agreements and no solution.  Maybe the next Leader is a forgone conclusion - picked by the establishment overlords many months ago? Chess.

Oh dear....... conspiracy theory!!!! Run for your lives!