Perhaps she should have stuck with majority government she already had then rather than going all power hungry and calling a snap election (when she said she wouldn't) to try to get a landslide.
There were good reasons for calling the election based on what was known at the time. Firstly, people don't have confidence the government actually has a mandate if the Prime Minister ascended through Dead Man's Shoes. Recall the endless stick Gordon Brown got for this. Secondly, there were a hard-line Brexit group within the Tory party and without increased majority, they were in a position to do genuine damage to the Brexit process. Given that every reputable poll was putting the Conservatives way ahead of Labour and the LibDems, and also that most mainstream media outlets and even a large fraction of the Labour Party itself were calling Corbyn unelectable, it was a very logical thing to do - secure a needed mandate for Brexit at minimal risk. Pretty much every political pundit was flat-footed when the exit polls were revealed. Only hindsight allows you to state what a terrible mistake it was.
Look up Dennis Nilsen.
My friend's parents were the first to own the house after him. Didn't bother them in the slightest.
Good for them. Wouldn't have bothered me, either. I wonder if they managed to get the house cheap.
Surely the fault for deaths was with whoever told the people to stay put in their apartments while it spread and the flats for not having clear enough fire procedure? I've never known a workplace where you're told in the health and safety introduction that in case of a fire just sit down and relax whilst the building around you burns.
I don't agree. If on a sinking ship the captain advised passengers to get into the lifeboats only to find out that the company supplying the lifeboats had put holes in the bottoms of the boats, I would not blame the captain. I feel the same principle probably applies here as the firemen are surely the relevant experts here and will know more than any of us on what should have been the right thing to do.
In your mind you think Jeremy was fishing for points...But your perceived agenda is not his concern....
His perceived agenda. And what does it matter whether Corbyn cares for our opinion or not - that doesn't make our opinion incorrect. Neither Corbyn nor May are experts in fire control, nor disaster relief (so far as I know), nor likely to alleviate people grief and trauma. The ONLY reason for either to appear there at that time is to be seen to appear there. There is no practical benefit in doing so and in fact, the appearance of a high-profile politician only adds pressure and coordination difficulties to an already chaotic situation.
So what you are actually doing is adding Value to your own argument terribly, while others and don't really care for it.
You're wasting your time.
If you will not listen to counter argument and are closed to any possibility that you yourself are wrong, then yes, we are all wasting our time in trying to correct you. In theory there's benefit in demonstrating to others flaws in your argument but as nearly everybody already disagrees with you, that's academic.
can we all stop pretending that May could have just rocked up and had a nice chat (or indeed any sort of meaningful interaction) with the locals and everyone would have said "wow actually May's such a nice personable individual whoose just so emphatic".
Even the labour mayor, Sadiq Khan didn't manage to visit the site without getting heckled and having a bottle thrown at him.
hell I am willing to bet that some people would have been straight on social media if she had tried an uncontrolled visit to see the people affected saying how insensitive May would have been to try and act caring by 'pretending' to care given that its *obviously* the fault of her personally and the Tories in general (we don't need an sort of enquiry to establish what actually happened - the 'people' demand rapid 'justice') and of course saying that the abuse and most likely violence inevitably directed towards her was fully justified and that she was totally irresponsible to divert the resources of the emergency services to rescue her whilst they were still dealing with the immediate consequences of the fire having probably been working such long hours......
May could not have had a 'quick chat' with anyone in the circumstances proposed
Very much all of the above, imo.
The reaction she would or wouldn't have got is immaterial to her role as Prime Minister. She is the figurehead for the government and it is her duty to have been there engaging with those victims of one of the worst single losses of life the country has seen, outside of war. It was not a time to be thinking of herself, her image or protecting or limiting this. She has, even if she cannot do the tasks very well, at least be seen to be carrying out the duties expected of her. It is the latest in a what is becoming a very long line of poor public relations exercises for which she is wholly responsible for overseeing. A head statesman who cannot at the most basic of levels engage with the general populace is not in the right job. Surely the whole Prime minister/politician role is one of an inherent sense of duty of towards ones country and people therefore empathy should come pretty natural to that. It is clear she lacks the personal skills to engage with all us plebs but not necessary her parties idealistic beneficiaries otherwise what else would explain her professional rise and engagement? She is the figurehead for a lot of anger permeating through our society and incidences like this show this divide up more than anything, whereby the growing wealth divide is growing and public resentment alongside it. She has made herself an easy target with her inability to show any form of leadership nor public engagement or any sense of relatability and it lead to the image of a person out for only a few otherwise how would this lack of apparent people skills have got her into the office she currently occupies?
Honestly, what I get from the above is that the appearance of action is more important than action itself. Theresa May cannot offer any practical benefit to me if I were a victim. Indeed, a politician who I've never met and who doesn't know me showing up immediately after I'd just lost family would likely result in me screaming apoplectically in their face.
For as long as the reasoning above holds - that as a society we seek leaders who rush about showing how much they are one of us, how much they care, rather than who get on with the jobs they are able to get on with - then we will continue to get vacillating, superficial, back-door dealing politicians. At best, they will be weak. At worst, they will like Blair manipulate those tendencies for terrible ends. If I were Prime Minister, I quite frankly would feel very uncomfortable rushing to be filmed next to grieving families, knowing that in every practical sense I was simply in the way and doing it purely so that I could be seen to be doing it.
