Why theresa may is dangerous, she reacts too quickly

This is not about the elections but simply a look at a general mistake we see returning time and time again with the present PM.

What is the issue? She doesn't think or look into a situation and reacts immediately without looking into the dangers and consequences such a reaction could have. She shoots first and only then looks into what she has been shooting at or what might happen due to her thoughtless reaction.

Examples (not in chronological order):

##She sees some poll results and immediately calls a snap election, she didn't even think about what possibly could happen if the polls were wrong.

##She releases a manifesto without even properly looking into it. Within 24 hours she realises she didn't think it over properly and tried to pull back.

##She gets into some stress in brussels and her immediate reaction is to scream loudly, NO DEAL COLD BREXIT. It is very reactionary a typical reaction from someone who cannot negotiate.

##She gets a hung parliament. Within hours she has a deal with DUP and is on her way to see queen. These negotiations after hung parliament are supposed to take days, you cannot react in a couple hours over something this important,!

##She sees trump after he is only one week president. Immediately she is hand in hand all over him and invites him for state visit. Another reaction.

What would happen if some dangerous situation arises? Now she is reacting to terrorism with the wish to rip up human rights, is she a full shilling? Could have at least looked into it before announcing it loudly allover.

Theresa may is not the right person to negotiate, she is not strong and stable, her strength comes from an immediate reaction that lacks any insight. If someone were to tell her to jump of the cliff to become rich she will jump and only question the advisor after seeing the cliff is too high, but she has jumped already.

Her deal with DUP is again such a reaction, it will only take a little time to say, why didn't I look into that before the deal?

Just wait and see. Theresa may is the worst negotiator for England, she will screw it up by making irresponsible decisions cause she is to lazy to think about the reality.

Most people out there cannot even decide what car to buy in the time she makes decisions over coalitions or brexit, she is dangerous!

She was at it straight away in her speech after the Queen,trying to lump in the terror attacks as an excuse to form a new Govt. on the grounds of safety in the country,as though police and security services stop because of political uncertainty.

She was at it straight away in her speech after the Queen,trying to lump in the terror attacks as an excuse to form a new Govt. on the grounds of safety in the country,as though police and security services stop because of political uncertainty.

It's called spin. All politicians are adept at it not just Theresa May.

Dutch,

I have a friend who was very impulsive. It took 10 years of psychotherapy for him to get it under control.

Maybe May could benefit from psychotherapy.

##She gets a hung parliament. Within hours she has a deal with DUP and is on her way to see queen. These negotiations after hung parliament are supposed to take days, you cannot react in a couple hours over something this important,!

no they aren't, or at least not necessarily. Rubbish election though it was for the Tories and May, they were only a very few seats short of the 322 they need to consistently win votes - Sinn Fein won't be taking up their seven seats so parliament basically consists of 643 seats, not 650 and May only needs 322 to win votes.

I wasn't surprised at all it was all over and done with and she was off to see the Queen so quickly. The reason why it took so long in 2010's hung parliament was because Cameron had a lot less seats then than May has now - 306 vs 318 - and it was more conceivable in 2010, although still very unlikely, that Brown's Labour might have been able to cobble together enough numbers to carry on with the mythical but totally impractical 'rainbow coalition'. It was very unlikely that Brown could have possibly have got enough numbers to carry on in 2010. But now in 2017, it is more than that, it is totally impossible for Corbyn's Labour to govern, they are far too short on numbers even though they have 2 more Labour MP's now in 2017 than they had in 2010, there is far too many Tories now in 2017 and the Tories only need 5 MP's to bump up their numbers over the line, not the 20 that they needed in 2010.

also in 2010, the Tories and the Libs had to negotiate a coalition which they won't be doing now with the DUP. That, together with Brown not wanting to immeadiately let go, is why it took several days for Cameron to go to the Palace last time, but only a few hours, for May to go to the Palace this time.

May will be the type of person to drive around without checking the rearview mirror then hit the breaks when she sees a dog running on the road without realising there is a bus full of schoolchildren or ambulance right behind her.

She puts schools and NHS at risk then uses as excuse she had to save the dog. That is who she is.

It's called spin. All politicians are adept at it not just Theresa May.

Spinning fear and safety to people for her own political gain,classy,you can almost hear the wheels turning in her head,or her 'minders'............yeah,tell them that,it's a good one.

no they aren't, or at least not necessarily. Rubbish election though it was for the Tories and May, they were only a very few seats short of the 322 they need to consistently win votes - Sinn Fein won't be taking up their seven seats so parliament basically consists of 643 seats, not 650 and May only needs 322 to win votes.

 

I wasn't surprised at all it was all over and done with and she was off to see the Queen so quickly. The reason why it took so long in 2010's hung parliament was because Cameron had a lot less seats then than May has now - 306 vs 318 - and it was more conceivable in 2010, although still very unlikely, that Brown's Labour might have been able to cobble together enough numbers to carry on with the mythical but totally impractical 'rainbow coalition'. It was very unlikely that Brown could have possibly have got enough numbers to carry on in 2010. But now in 2017, it is more than that, it is totally impossible for Corbyn's Labour to govern, they are far too short on numbers even though they have 2 more Labour MP's now in 2017 than they had in 2010, there is far too many Tories now in 2017 and the Tories only need 5 MP's to bump up their numbers over the line, not the 20 that they needed in 2010.

 

also in 2010, the Tories and the Libs had to negotiate a coalition which they won't be doing now with the DUP. That, together with Brown not wanting to immeadiately let go, is why it took several days for Cameron to go to the Palace last time, but only a few hours, for May to go to the Palace this time.

Whilst much of that applies, May hadn't agreed with, or even had substantiate talks with, the DUP before she went of to the Palace to tell the Queen she'd be forming a government with them. What happens if the DUP insist on something that the Tory party can't countenance? How would that impact her attempt to form a government then? It's put her in a weak position when comes to negotiating terms with the DUP. She didn't need to go to the Palace so quickly. May has yet again rushed into something without considering the consequences.

I think she feels compelled to act quickly because the Brexit negotiations are nearly upon her. I don't think she's the right person to negotiate, I hope she takes a back seat and allows the others to get on with it.

Personally I think the negotiations should be cross party, and involve only the best people for the job, including Nigel Farage.

---------- Post added 10-06-2017 at 12:48 ----------

God knows what the DUP will be demanding as the price of coalition.

I think she feels compelled to act quickly because the Brexit negotiations are nearly upon her. I don't think she's the right person to negotiate, I hope she takes a back seat and allows the others to get on with it.

Personally I think the negotiations should be cross party, and involve only the best people for the job, including Nigel Farage.

Nigel Farage can't even negotiate successfully with other members of UKIP let alone with the EU. Nigel's idea of compromise is agreeing to go to one pub instead of another.

I think she feels compelled to act quickly because the Brexit negotiations are nearly upon her. I don't think she's the right person to negotiate, I hope she takes a back seat and allows the others to get on with it.

Personally I think the negotiations should be cross party, and involve only the best people for the job, including Nigel Farage.

 

---------- Post added 10-06-2017 at 12:48 ----------

 

God knows what the DUP will be demanding as the price of coalition.

I look at Nigel farage with utter contempt. Large portions of the eu parliament look at him with utter contempt. He's friends with Donald trump. I wouldn't share a pool table with him, let alone let him get 100 yards near something as serious and as life changing as the EU negotiations. They'd laugh us out the room.

no they aren't, or at least not necessarily. Rubbish election though it was for the Tories and May, they were only a very few seats short of the 322 they need to consistently win votes - Sinn Fein won't be taking up their seven seats so parliament basically consists of 643 seats, not 650 and May only needs 322 to win votes.

 

I wasn't surprised at all it was all over and done with and she was off to see the Queen so quickly. The reason why it took so long in 2010's hung parliament was because Cameron had a lot less seats then than May has now - 306 vs 318 - and it was more conceivable in 2010, although still very unlikely, that Brown's Labour might have been able to cobble together enough numbers to carry on with the mythical but totally impractical 'rainbow coalition'. It was very unlikely that Brown could have possibly have got enough numbers to carry on in 2010. But now in 2017, it is more than that, it is totally impossible for Corbyn's Labour to govern, they are far too short on numbers even though they have 2 more Labour MP's now in 2017 than they had in 2010, there is far too many Tories now in 2017 and the Tories only need 5 MP's to bump up their numbers over the line, not the 20 that they needed in 2010.

 

also in 2010, the Tories and the Libs had to negotiate a coalition which they won't be doing now with the DUP. That, together with Brown not wanting to immeadiately let go, is why it took several days for Cameron to go to the Palace last time, but only a few hours, for May to go to the Palace this time.

May committed to joining forces with the DUP. Arlene Foster still has to decide the terms of the DUP's support. The DUP have May over a barrel.

---------- Post added 10-06-2017 at 13:08 ----------

Whilst much of that applies, May hadn't agreed with, or even had substantiate talks with, the DUP before she went of to the Palace to tell the Queen she'd be forming a government with them. What happens if the DUP insist on something that the Tory party can't countenance? How would that impact her attempt to form a government then? It's put her in a weak position when comes to negotiating terms with the DUP. She didn't need to go to the Palace so quickly. May has yet again rushed into something without considering the consequences.

This^^^^^^^^