Peter Reynolds

The life and times of Peter Reynolds

Theresa May Isn’t Strong, She’s Cowardly, Evasive And Weak – And I’m A Tory!

with 183 comments

As a member of the Conservative Party, I am horrified with the dishonest and manipulative way in which Theresa May is running her election campaign.

She was a terrible Home Secretary with an appalling record of failure in every policy area.  However, I accept that she was the inevitable choice for leader when both Boris and Michael Gove bottled out.  Also, as I’ve written before, we needed someone stubborn, obstinate, pig-headed, intransigent and incapable of listening to get Article 50 triggered in the face of the anti-democratic Remaniacs.  She did a good job of that but now we need a real leader, someone who can actually implement her empty words about a “country that works for everyone” – which Ms May neither really means nor is she even capable of achieving.

Her refusal to engage in any proper debate is pathetic and brings shame on the Conservative Party.  Her bluster, barking and abusive style at PMQs is nothing to do with debate and not only is she refusing to take part in any TV debates but she’s avoiding any contact at all with real voters. It’s quite clear why – she’s an intolerant, abrasive and charmless person who really can’t deal with any dissent or disagreement. Her conduct in the Home Office where she ruled with an iron fist and micro-managed everything demonstrates this.  It’s not ‘strong’ to evade debate, to silence your opponents and to use government authority, power and facilities to undermine them.  In fact, on this last point, it’s probably unlawful as a misuse of government resources.

It’s ironic but also prescient that it was Ms May who named the Tories “the nasty party”, for that is exactly what she has achieved.  I’m also reminded of Ann Widdecombe’s remark about Michael Howard, “there is something of the night about him”.  This catches the spirit of Ms May very well.  I find her sinister, threatening and spiteful.

She’s clearly had intensive media training as Margaret Thatcher did but it hasn’t made her more appealing. True she seems to have controlled that dreadful sideways movement of her jaw and some of her worst gurning but her recent pitches to camera are nauseating: patently insincere, contrived and awkward.

The entire basis for this election is dishonest.  As PM, Ms May already has an indisputable mandate based on the EU referendum, endorsed by several votes in Parliament and by the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017.  It is utter nonsense to suggest that the result of this election will strengthen her hand. The only reason she has called it is political opportunism and why you can’t really blame her for that, as a Tory I object to her seeking to create a what is effectively a dictatorship.  I even have concerns that the real reason she wants this personal mandate is so that she can start to reverse the UK towards her personal position as a Remainer.  She may choose to accept a far softer Brexit than we voted for and with a big majority there is nothing we will be able to do about it.

Never forget, the political class, the Westminster ‘elite’ are in despair at losing their long-term retirement/second career/super pension plan arrangements.  The EU offered them all a permanent role with a lavish, protected lifestyle funded by taxpayers.  They desperately want it back.

I cannot vote to support Theresa May.  I will remain a member of the Conservative Party because its fundamental principles of individual liberty, responsibility and small government are what I believe in.  I may well be on the liberal, even libertarian wing of the party but it is Theresa May who is out of step, not me.  Her leadership is cowardly, evasive and weak.  I shall either be abstaining or voting tactically and that could even mean that I vote Labour for the first time in my life.

Written by Peter Reynolds

May 7, 2017 at 2:01 pm

183 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. You mention the elites’ pensions which is one of the many reasons for leaving. It is really worth a bit of financial inconvenience to get out from under the EUs undemocratic and corrupt control. Economists saw the single currency problems well before it happened but were ignored by the politicians..


    May 11, 2017 at 4:11 pm

  2. Peter I agree with you. She is setting up for a dictatership in my opinion. Scary as hell. Does she seriously believe that fox hunting, grammer schools & breaking the triple lock on pensioners is going to help her? The damage she has done as Home Secretary is second to none & now as acting PM her policies on kids, poverty, schooling, disabled, care are anything but Christian. The NHS is to be sold off at the expense of everyone but the 1%. A service that i had paid into for 50yrs. Pensioners are expensive & costing far to much. Sorry JC4PM this time


    May 11, 2017 at 4:14 pm

  3. Snap. Same here. I’ll vote Lib Dem, my first ever non Conservate vote 😦

    D Manthorpe

    May 11, 2017 at 5:35 pm

    • Unless you’re in one of the top 20-30 marginal constituencies you may as well vote Monster Raving Loony for all the effect it will have.


      May 16, 2017 at 8:51 am

  4. “I even have concerns that the real reason she wants this personal mandate is so that she can start to reverse the UK towards her personal position as a Remainer. She may choose to accept a far softer Brexit than we voted for and with a big majority there is nothing we will be able to do about it.”

    This would be the best thing for the UK as a whole and would actually warm me to May. Finally taking back control from the UKIP brigade desperate to implement Trump-esque policies in the UK. Brexit is a road to that.

    Desmond Peters

    May 12, 2017 at 4:55 am

    • Wake up Desmond! You may choose to write off 52% of the referendum voters as “the UKIP brigade desperate to implement Trump-esque policies in the UK”, the rest of us call it democracy. And your suggestion that we are all UKIP or in favour of Trumpesque police is absurd. These are your fantasies, nothing to do with reality.

      Peter Reynolds

      May 12, 2017 at 8:38 am

      • 52%, many of whom would reverse their decision now, being aware of the lies that were told during the referendum campaign. In addition, for it to be truly democratic, we should have been told what we were voting for. What did a vote to leave mean? The last year has shown that nobody knew, and we still don’t know. How is that democratic?


        May 13, 2017 at 2:29 pm

      • He didn’t say that though, did he? The result is the result, and that was by narrow margin to leave. That result has been hijacked by fascists…plain and simple…who will settle for nothing but hard Brexit. Who voted for that? There is no way of knowing. PS Hitler seized power via democracy.

        Gary Fearon

        May 13, 2017 at 3:13 pm

      • How does the Gentleman conceive democracy? Just let me explain it to him, or explain some of the more rudimentary elements of it to him. Democracy is not a caucus, obtaining a majority by promises, and then doing what it likes with the people. We hold that there ought to be a constant relationship between the rulers and the people. “Government of the people, by the people, for the people,” still remains the sovereign definition of democracy. There is no correspondence between this broad conception and the outlook of His Majesty’s Government. Democracy, I must explain, does not mean, “We have got our majority, never mind how, so what are you going to do about it?”
        That is not democracy…


        May 15, 2017 at 1:05 pm

      • The US constitution has nothing to do with the UK’s version of democracy. Our version is very poor and it does mean that we elect an MP who is then entirely unaccountable to us until the next election. They don’t have any obligation to sit in Parliament, to meet constituents or to do any work at all. If your MP refuses to represent you or even listen to you, there is nothing you can do about it.

        It is exactly the case that in the UK we give all our democratic power to our MP who can then do as he/she wishes.

        Peter Reynolds

        May 15, 2017 at 1:22 pm

      • Where & why did the US constitution enter this conversation?


        May 15, 2017 at 9:32 pm

      • You wrote ““Government of the people, by the people, for the people,” still remains the sovereign definition of democracy.”

        That’s a quote from the Gettysburg Address, so not exactly the US constitution but definitely American and nothing to do with any “sovereign definition”.

        Peter Reynolds

        May 16, 2017 at 7:41 am

  5. What appalls me about Theresa May is that she calls herself a Christian and then promptly does all the things that go totally against anything Christ ever taught us. What she and her government are doing to the poor, the sick and the disabled is nothing short of criminal in my opinion. And, if he was still IN one, Christ would be spinning in his grave.

    I just cannot fathom how it is we can afford Trident, a train that would knock a mere 20 minutes off a journey, wars etc but can’t look after our own people properly. We’re the fifth richest country in the world, but that applies to the top 2% of people, who sit on their backsides pontificating about this that and the other but not actually doing the sort of work that keeps society going.

    When police officers who live in London are ending up at food banks, doesn’t that sort of tell us that things are badly awry. I’m horribly afraid for my children and grandchildren if May gets in with a large majority. I keep thinking of ‘power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’. Can’t remember now who said it (memory isn’t what it used to be) but it’s certainly a truth and it’s about to happen if we’re not terribly careful.

    If I read you right, Peter, there are many Conservatives who are also very worried about where May is taking their Party. It’s not the same party as it was in the 50s and 60s when they really were a ‘one nation’ party. It’s got steadily nastier ever since Thatcher, who taught us greed was good. It’s coming home to roost in spades now.

    Sorry to rabbit on!!

    Mary Heywood

    May 13, 2017 at 1:39 pm

    • Well put. Morals are forgotten in that party. Vote for another…vote Labour.

      Gary Fearon

      May 13, 2017 at 3:15 pm

      • Yeah..let’s all head off on a rollercoaster back to the 1970’s….the last time we had a Labour Government (New Labour were Tories)
        What could possibly go wrong?

        Simon Falla

        May 13, 2017 at 11:21 pm

    • Agree. I won’t vote conservative for first time in 46 years.


      May 13, 2017 at 8:58 pm

    • Totally with you BUT who else to vote for? Each time Labour have got in they have made a huge mess which the Tories were voted back in each time to clear the mess up. UKIP, as good as they might be for standing firm for our country and it’s rights, are hugely personally racist and it feels totally wrong to vote for them.

      For the first time ever I didn’t vote Conservative at the local elections recently. I didnt vote Labour, Liberal or UKIP either. Felt like a totally useless vote but I didnt vote for what I thought was wrong.

      I also still want to leave the EU. My great grandfathers would be turning in their graves now to see this country being corralled by Germany. We used to be such a great country that others looked up to. No longer. Even our own are moving away.

      Theresa Kemp

      May 15, 2017 at 1:15 pm

      • “Each time Labour got in”?!
        You cannot reasonably compare anything much happening now to 40 years ago, so really you mean last time Labour got in… and you’ll have to remind me what it was that they messed up because whatever it was was so massively overshadowed by the international financial disaster caused entirely by the bankers.

        Granted the current party is a complete shambles, so by all means don’t vote for them on that count, but FFS don’t not vote on the grounds of ancient history.

        And while we are on the subject of history, you should study it more. It was not Germany our grandfathers had a quarrel with, but fascism.
        You are right that they’ll be spinning in their graves, because we have become what they were fighting. 😦


        May 15, 2017 at 9:52 pm

  6. Couldn’t agree more. Although my politics are of the left of centre, my family was both Conservative and very Christian. I couldn’t see my parents even dreaming of supporting someone who professes Christianity while practising the opposite, and moving as far as possible from the Conservative history of one-nation Toryism.
    Theresa May seems to be far to the right of decent Tories, with far less honesty or decency than is proper in a Prime Minister.

  7. Doesn’t matter she is the prime minister now and all must respect her if u think u are better than take the position rather than judging her

    Mel rod

    May 14, 2017 at 3:09 am

    • There speaks the good old ‘British’ attitude. Obey the law, do what you are told because the Government knows best and is always honest truthful and acting in the peoples best interest. Thank god it’s diminishing and finally the people are starting to question the truth of this a bit more. I fear though too many remain with this archaic attitude and May will win and be free to run rampant with her ‘real’ agenda. I voted Leave and accepted the result philosophically, ‘what will be will be. But reading some mails here I hear bigotry and hostility to any others views, with insults being bandied about. People are entitled to their views and beliefs and maybe their spelling and vocabulary isn’t perfect, but tolerance of this is the only way to go.

      Tony Bevington

      May 14, 2017 at 8:08 am

    • Are you serious?
      How evil does she get to be just because of her title? Can she just get away with ANYTHING and you’ll still respect her?!


      May 15, 2017 at 7:17 am

    • Mel, respect is something that must be earned, it cannot be demanded. May shows the traits of a despot and dictator. It has been apparent for many years that the suggestion that Britain remains a democracy is risible. We are now a dictatorship, it’s just that the politicians allow us to vote for which dictator we prefer every 5 years or so (and they’d abolish the right to vote if they thought they’d get away with it!!)

      Jules Burton

      May 15, 2017 at 11:21 am

    • What utter rubbish, Mel rod! You talk about her as some people would a god, to be worshiped! No politician is that important; they’re really public servants who are supposedly serving the electorate. May appears to have forgotten that: the power has gone to her head!


      May 15, 2017 at 4:45 pm

      • Agreed. This lady was not elected, she fell into position by default. She is even more shifty than her predecessor.

        Theresa Kemp

        May 15, 2017 at 5:26 pm

      • Watch your typing there Ms Kemp: you’ve got an “f” there, where you want a “t”.


        May 15, 2017 at 9:55 pm

    • No. we do not have to “respect her” at all. Respect is earned and she certainly has not earnt my respect whereas Jeremy Corbyn has. He is certainly not for changing.

      Carrie Powell

      May 28, 2017 at 10:02 pm

  8. I agree with much of what you say but it’s not accurate to state that the vote was for a particular shade of Brexit – the question was too simple, not nuanced and it’s not actually possible to tell precisely what people thought they were voting for,

    Guy Clapperton

    May 14, 2017 at 7:31 am

    • Spot on.

      The result of the referendum was not decisive, but divisive and it has since been interpreted to mean an extreme version of what was portrayed at the time as possible.

      William Buist

      May 14, 2017 at 8:55 am

    • I thought the vote was simple. To leave the control of the EU and return to running the UK as we used to and the way we want to.

      Theresa Kemp

      May 15, 2017 at 5:28 pm

      • Exactly. All this equivocation is just sour grapes from sore losers who won’t accept the democratic result, nothing else.

        Peter Reynolds

        May 15, 2017 at 7:46 pm

      • Except that was only one of the many messages being given out in the run up to the vote. The other major messages were: stop free movement of people and use the money we put into the EU for other things.
        The NHS, for example.
        Of the three messages put forward it seemed like the last two were shouted about more than the first and it is likely that people voted base on those messages as much as the first.
        This is backed up by the move to hard Brexit, as soft allows free movement, and people being upset that this money saving will not actually go to the NHS (oh, and we seem to have a large bill to pay.)
        I assert that more people voted based on closing borders and stopping the cash going to the EU than on regaining control over the UK.

        Regaining control seems odd to me anyway. The EU isn’t an entity ‘over there’ that dictated what we do, we were part of that organisation, dictating what everyone does. We seemed to like those laws as well, as we got to vote for them and voted ‘yes’ to most of them. There is (I think) only around 70 occasions were the vote didn’t go our way.

        Most of the rules are around standardising trade, the same rules we will need to continue to be governed by if we want to trade with the EU.

        So, we left control of the EU. The EU was us, so we left control of… ourselves. We will now run the country the way we used to and want to… exactly like we did before leaving the EU. That is, basically, how it feels to me.

        On the other hand, the vote was actually simple.

        The vote was to determine if triggering article 50 should be voted on in parliament, no more, no less.
        I have not been given a voice on the nature of the Brexit position, free movement, future trade or where the money ‘saved’ will now be spent.

        That does not feel like ‘return to running the UK as we used to and the way we want to’, to me.

        Sam Maughan

        May 16, 2017 at 10:40 am

      • I am sorry Sam, but I DO think we are controlled by the EU on a grand scale and GB shouldn’t be dictated to by anyone other than those in GB. Do you own your own home or rent? Similar situation. The GB used to be a damn good home owner but now its renting and totally losing grip.

        Theresa Kemp

        May 18, 2017 at 3:22 pm

      • Except that we never lost control – until the referendum.

        Since then the agenda has been all about taking back control, not for us, but from us.

        William Buist

        May 18, 2017 at 3:53 pm

  9. I posted a link to this on my Facebook wall, and there’s quite a debate going on there too,

    William Buist

    May 14, 2017 at 8:53 am

  10. How many people voted for anything other than leaving the EU ? There was no question on my ballot paper. Boris told us nothing would change apart from £350 million a week extra for NHS. Where does your assertion come from that a majority of voters voted for a hard brexit ? No one asked if we wanted to leave EFTA, and they didn’t because they knew there wouldn’t be a majoritry of voters (obviously a majority of the country didn’t vote to leave anyway)

    Neil Anderson

    May 14, 2017 at 3:42 pm

    • Thousands, if not millions.
      To many, it did not matter what question was written on the ballot paper. It was likely to be the only vote in most people’s lifetimes that was actually likely to make any real difference.
      To others it was a clear case of giving David Cameron another resounding endorsement, or not doing.

      It was a debacle entirely without merit and it leaves parliament constitutionally, democratically and orally bankrupt.


      May 15, 2017 at 1:14 pm

      • That last should be morally, but it is probably fair to say there is no value in what comes out of their mouths either.


        May 15, 2017 at 1:16 pm

  11. Good one, Dan!


    May 15, 2017 at 4:48 pm

  12. Virtually none of the “Westminster elite” get anything out of the EU. Apart from the single politician who gets to be a Commissioner and the occasional Civil Servants posted sideways, who gets these pensions, etc? This is a Brexit myth. If I’m wrong, show me your evidence!
    I agree with much of the article. However, those who believe Mrs May chose to call the election because she wants to weaken the UK’s Brexit stance are mistaken, I believe. I reckon Mrs May knows well that she’s going to get a Brexit deal close to “hard Brexit” and with the UK having to stump up £billions which we are legally obliged to pay. I suspect she feared that she couldn’t get a deal like that through the House of Commons, which might well have preferred to remain (looking at the numbers of remain and leave MPs).
    And calling 16 million people who voted to remain “remainiacs” is cheap. It’s only now becoming clearer what the costs of leaving will be. Who isn’t to say that some of those voting to leave would have voted differently if they knew what leaving would really look like, as opposed to what Johnson, Gove & Farage told them? In our democracy, whatever the result of a vote, people are entitled to continue to oppose the verdict of the electorate. The alternative is a version of totalitarianism, of the sort which appears to be favoured by the Mail among others.

    Marcel LeSinge

    May 15, 2017 at 5:21 pm

    • Sure you can continue to oppose it but in a democracy the decision has been taken and that’s where we’re going.

      Peter Reynolds

      May 15, 2017 at 7:47 pm

      • As we live in a democracy (however imperfect), we are free to continue opposing this ultimate betrayal of our national interests. We are free to do so as long as we like – beyond this election and beyond April 2019 – there is no statute of limitations on “I told you so”. Dissent is the lifeblood of democracy – those who try to crush dissent are the true anti-democrats, the proto dictators.

        We are free to use every legal and peaceful means to persuade people to change their minds and to overturn this foolish and dangerous decision. We are free to vote for MPs opposed to Brext or opposed to hard Brexit (no parliament can bind its successor). We are free to choose MPs who will do their best to minimise the damage that Brexit will cause to our economy, our security and the lives of millions of people.

        Democracy doesn’t mean we stop campaigning just because we lost a vote or even a referendum. As Farage pointed out, a 52/48 split is unfinished business. You call us remainiacs but we call you brexalots because you act like religious zealots demanding Brexit at any price and complete obedience. Yet you won’t deter us from doing what we believe is best for our country and the future of those yet too young to vote.

        That said – your analysis of Mayhem is spot on. She is a clear and present danger to the country, whatever side of the Brexit fence you stand on. A large majority will only feed those dictatorial tendencies. Any true liberal, who believes in a small state and individual responsibility would oppose her at every turn.


  13. If you don’t like it, leave the Tories and join the party you really favour, the BNP… oops, sorry, UKIP.

    Gilgamesh Jones

    May 15, 2017 at 6:53 pm

    • Nothing is more ridiculous than someone trying to tell me what I think! You’re not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?

      You’re clearly trying to be offensive in suggesting the BNP but all you’re doing is revealing your own nature.

      If it’s alright with you, I’ll decide which party I belong to and who I’ll vote for.

      Peter Reynolds

      May 15, 2017 at 7:44 pm

  14. “She may accept a softer Brexit than we voted for.” My ballot paper only had a question about leave or remain. It didn’t ask about soft, hard or even red, white and blue Brexit. It didn’t even ask about leaving the single market or the customs union.

    notes to the milkman

    May 15, 2017 at 7:09 pm

    • I’ve already responded to exactly the same point, so I’ll repeat myself.

      We voted to leave the EU, not, perhaps, maybe, to stay in parts of it or some of its institutions. We voted OUT. It was said explicitly before the referendum and it’s patently obvious to anyone with even half a brain that means leaving the single market which is founded on free movement and is the essence of the EU. It’s also completely obvious that we’d leave the customs union. We’re regaining our independence, becoming a sovereign nation again.

      I was wrong to even to mention ‘degrees of Brexit’. There no ‘degrees’, it’s black and white. We’re out.

      Peter Reynolds

      May 15, 2017 at 7:41 pm

      • Sorry, Peter, I have to disagree with this re-writing of history. Before the referendum the detail on what out meat was opaque, there was regular chatter, on both sides of the argument, of staying in the single market and in the customs union as well as talk of leaving both. The Norway option was often cited, as was the Iceland option, and others.

        There are lots of ‘degrees of Brexit’. That is why there have to be negotiations.

        If it was In or Out there would be no need to negotiate what that means.

        The very fact that (a year on) we know absolutely nothing more about the trade deal, nothing new about immigration will be controlled, nothing certain about the costs of leaving, nothing resolved about the European Court, nothing clear about how we will leave Euratom, nothing comforting about the borders in Ireland, nothing decisive about where the customs border will be, nothing realistic about Tariffs, nothing sympathetic to EU Citizen status in the UK and vice versa, etc,… It all shows how complex this is.

        If, during the negotiations, it became clear to our representatives that all options on offer were damaging t the UK and walking away would make it worse, what would you want them to do?

        William Buist

        May 15, 2017 at 8:04 pm

      • Actually, more people did not vote out, only a relatively small majority of those eligible to vote who cast their vote voted Brexit. The rest (the majority) either

        a) acknowledged they weren’t qualified to make a decision on an issue so complex as this,
        b) weren’t sufficiently concerned about the present state of affairs to vote for a change to the default position (remain),
        c) voted directly to remain.

        “We” didn’t vote to leave the EU


        May 16, 2017 at 6:59 am

      • That is a terrible, quite pathetic argument and shows exactly how thin and weak your position is. Duh, that’s the way every ballot ever held in the UK has ever worked but now you want to change the rules because you lost?

        Honestly, you actually make yourself look more out of touch than I’m sure you really are! If you’re going to get involved in the debate, have some respect for yourself and at least put forward a decent point!!

        Peter Reynolds

        May 16, 2017 at 7:36 am

      • The way ‘Every Ballot’ has been held. Well, that’s true, but only to a point.

        Most ballots are general or local elections conducted every few years. Democracy is delivered by electing a representative and having the option to change your mind every few years.

        Only three national ballots have been referendums. The immediate previous referendum on the Alternative Vote and the legislation made clear the consequences of either outcome. (Status Quo or an already defined change to the voting system) – The only other referendum was the one that took us into the EU in 1975, and that defined a different electorate (as the latest one did) enfranchising some people and disenfranchising others, who either have or do not have the vote in a general election

        So, there’s not a track record for referenda, and the argument you describe as ‘pathetic’ does at least have the advantage of being factual.

        The country is not now, and was not at the time, decisively in favour of either outcome. It’s not ‘democracy’ to impose the will of some people on others without proper scrutiny and with decent checks and balances. Tha’s why parliamentary sovereignty is so important. Any outcome is still a possibility, including choosing to remain, in the interests of the British people and their future, and that’s a matter for parliament to decide in the fullness of the negotiations, but only if democracy is respected by meaningful scrutiny and a willingness to consider the option to change our mind. Those democratic principles are the ones we fought for, and should, in my opinion, continue to fight for. It is those principles, I believe, which prompted the opening post.

        William Buist

        May 16, 2017 at 8:10 am

      • A good try William but it’s merely equivocation. Everyone knew the rules before the referendum, it’s just futile to argue about them afterwards – and rather pathetic.

        Peter Reynolds

        May 16, 2017 at 8:13 am

      • Here’s some interesting facts for you:

        Forget 52%. The rise of the “Re-Leavers” mean the pro-Brexit electorate is 68%

        “While the EU referendum result may have ended up 52/48, post-referendum politics have settled into something far less evenly balanced. The rise of the “Re-Leavers” – those who voted to Remain in the EU but think that the government has a duty to leave – mean that the Conservatives are fishing in a massive lake, while the other parties are casting their rods into a pond.”

        Peter Reynolds

        May 16, 2017 at 8:19 am

    • Indeed they did know the rules Peter, and I’m not disputing the result. However, it is important to be clear about the context and extent of the mandate provided by a balloted result; and the manner in which that result was arrived at; in order to understand it’s legitimacy.

      When a vote has, in the opinion of many, as little legitimacy as this one does there’s a challenge to overcome – acceptance. Of course, the result still needs to be taken into account but the scrutiny of the proposals that flow from it should be robust and we should aim to gain the support of all of the people.

      One of the reasons we are still having these discussions a year after the referendum is that that has not happened. It’s not about moving on or accepting the result, we are way-way-way past that. It’s about finding consensus on a common mutually acceptable way forward.

      That can’t be achieved by exclusive language and intolerance of other views, only by building trust, creating dialogue, listening to everyone, and presenting evidence for the approaches that everyone can get behind.

      Personally, I think our future was best served by being in Europe, but I accept that we will leave because of the decisions already taken. What I want next is the best alternative and the ones I see being offered I judge to be economic suicide, so please accept that I will continue to argue for a different future. Don’t assume that when I do, I’m ignoring the referendum, because that assumption would be misplaced. If I am wrong, make the case, evidence it, engage with the alternative view, listen too and I promise to do the same. OK?

      William Buist

      May 16, 2017 at 8:37 am

      • One of the rules that seems to have been forgotten is the fact that it was an advisory referendum.
        When parliament discussed it in the first place, amendments were proposed regarding the devolved nations, super-majorities, etc and they were all dismissed *because the referendum was only advisory*.

        The only ground as to why it should not be is that David Cameron promised that the result would be obeyed, and we wouldn’t want to make a liar out of him now would we.

        At the same time parliament has rejected calls for a second referendum, calls made because of all the lies told in the campaign, and their conclusion was that it is the nature of politicians to lie to win votes.

        In short, we must accept the result because we know that politicians are not to be trusted and we must hold it as binding because we must trust our politicians.

        That statement is incontrovertibly false. There is no way to make it true, yet that is what we are building the future of this country on.


        May 16, 2017 at 12:25 pm

      • Lies? If there were lies told they were on both sides. Its just a facile, even puerile argument. The result under the rules that the referendum was held is clear.

        Peter Reynolds

        May 16, 2017 at 3:05 pm

      • Well yes, I’m sure a chain of ad-hominems does, on the surface at least, look totally winning, and I’m sure to you it provides a slam-dunk for your single point of substance – namely that the manner in which people voted brexit is consistent with the way we have always voted.

        I remain to be convinced that the current system where a motion to change the default position on such a crucial and far-reaching issue can be decided by such a small majority, ill-equipped to understand the details of what they are voting for, is something to be respected. A vote for something of this importance is not in the same league as a vote for who’s going to feather their own nests for the next 5 years (at the expense of ours) under some thin veneer of running our country.

        As far as I can tell, you and your kind with lies and crowd-pleasing soundbites have convinced the mob that they should chop off all of our heads in order that *they* will avoid a migraine.


        May 16, 2017 at 1:03 pm

      • You can be as unconvinced as you want but those are the rules under which the referendum was held.

        An ad hominem attack is a personal attack. I didn’t attack you, I attacked your arguments and I stand by every word. You’re still wittering on, wanting to change the rules after the event. Obviously that’s not going to happen.

        Peter Reynolds

        May 16, 2017 at 3:03 pm

      • William. I so agree ! The people that are irate with those of us who voted ‘Remain’ demonstrate an intolerance and a totally undemocratic attitude. Like you, I accept the result and wait to see whether it is worthwhile.

        Tony Bevington

        May 16, 2017 at 3:13 pm

      • “Ad hominem” is not a personal ‘attack’ it’s something that cites characteristics of a person so as to undermine the principle of their argument and for which the characteristics are unrelated. It’s a logical fallacy, flawed because it’s not evidence of the veracity or otherwise of the argument being made.

        Phrases such as “…you and your kind with lies and crowd-pleasing soundbites…” is Ad Hominem, it’s about the person and not the principle.

        William Buist

        May 16, 2017 at 3:15 pm

      • Your last phrase contradicts the rest of your comment. Yes, an ad hominem attack is a personal attack.

        Peter Reynolds

        May 16, 2017 at 5:02 pm

      • Dan, Thanks and I agree.

        William Buist

        May 16, 2017 at 3:19 pm

      • Explain again how lies from both sides makes this more acceptable as a democratic process?
        If both teams in a cup final cheated like merry hell, does that make it fair?


        May 16, 2017 at 3:55 pm

  15. Whether or not your post could be taken to be personally insulting is not terribly important; we both disagree on that one.

    Far more important is that you seem to have offered nothing which explains how brexit is fair and / or serves the greater good other than (in so many words) “them’s the rules, we won, so nerrr”.

    Why don’t you at least point, in detail, out how it was right that the mob should even have been allowed to vote on this in the first place! (no … platitudes like the people deserve a say won’t cut it)


    May 16, 2017 at 6:36 pm

    • I’m sorry but I have no interest in re-hashing all the arguments for and against Brexit. They all became irrelevant last June when the decision was made. If you’re that interested in my opinion, I wrote a lot about it back then. Just go back through my old articles.

      I’m disgusted by your attitude to the electorate which explains why you have no respect for the result.

      Peter Reynolds

      May 16, 2017 at 7:05 pm

      • Or put more succinctly: “We won, you lost. Suck it up buttercup”.
        Alas, it is all that they’ve got by way of constructive argument on the subject.


        May 16, 2017 at 7:43 pm

      • I have no respect for the result because not only was the result ill-gotten, there should never have even been a contest, and moreover the slim “majority” by which you “won” would quickly be undone were the masses to act on the information available to them now (hmm … perhaps the world isn’t going to give us a high-five for our exploits back in the day after all, perhaps they’re not all lining up to give us the great deals as befits our title – “Great Britain”, perhaps we’re not going to get £350 million a week for the NHS, perhaps we’re not going to “get rid of all the immigrants”, …)

        As for my attitude to the electorate, I have some good friends who like to vote – indeed you could say I like them, but god-dammit I cringe at what they think they’re voting for.

        As for rooting out your old arguments … I take it they’ll have more substance than:

        “Whining remainers never have and never will get it. It’s about something much bigger and more profound than immigration or the economy. Britain is a great nation. Through history we have led the world and we continue to do so, punching far above our weight, achieving results that no other country on our planet is capable of.”

        (Ooh – the appeal to awesomeness – that’ll stir up the patriots amongst us)


        May 16, 2017 at 8:09 pm

      • I voted ‘Out’ and if it were to come up for a vote again, I would vote exactly the same and for the same reasons you chide Peter Reynolds for:

        “Whining remainers never have and never will get it. It’s about something much bigger and more profound than immigration or the economy. Britain is a great nation. Through history we have led the world and we continue to do so, punching far above our weight, achieving results that no other country on our planet is capable of.”.

        You may have to start accepting that what you think is right is not agreed by the majority. I do believe that the Conservatives will lose this election but not on the grounds of Brexit.

        Theresa Kemp

        May 18, 2017 at 12:52 pm

  16. Attitudes to wildlife and animal welfare in general, are to my mind excellent indicators of a person’s moral makeup. Those that support or condone cruelty and hunting for “sport” demonstrate a callousness that underpins their makeup, which poses serious questions about their suitability to hold any public or political office that influences policies over a country’s citizenry. I say this because such personality traits are incongruent with compassion and sound judgement and open the door to decision making that can be unjust and contrary to societal well being.

    Frank Payne

    May 17, 2017 at 3:55 am

  17. David Cameron’s government advocated Remain. Remainers failed by 1.3 million votes. May took it into her head, despite supposedly pro-Remain support, to ignore Remainers and try to trigger Article 50 illegally, against the Bill of Rights. Her government didn’t try to heal the divide between Leavers and Remainers, she and Liz Truss just stood back and let the mail, Express and Telegraph get on with it. Calling judges Enemies of the People is truly appalling.

    Thankfully, I was just a voter not a party member, but her actions spurred me to set up RemainerAction, join ALDE and then the Liberal Democrats.

    A Conservative party more right wing than UKIP with a feeble but stubborn leader just isn’t acceptable. She and her idiot cabinet won’t get a good deal. Barnier and Verhoftstadt will run rings round the Tories and they have only themselves to blame.


    May 17, 2017 at 3:43 pm

    • The worrying thing is that though they should “have only themselves to blame”, I expect they won’t be exposed to the fall out in the way that is true for the rest of us.

      If they “lose the game” well they’ll just sit back in their high-gated houses and live off the treasures they plundered whilst in office. As for the rest of us, those of us lucky enough to still have jobs over here after the dust has all settled will be spending our weekly wages on a loaf of bread once sterling has been kicked into oblivion, the other half on taxes to make up for the shortfall, and then taking out ever increasing loans just to pay our landlord.

      The future is not looking bright at all 😦


      May 17, 2017 at 7:38 pm

      • You could always join the revolution…


        May 17, 2017 at 10:26 pm

  18. […] 07-05-17 – Theresa May Isn’t Strong, She’s Cowardly, Evasive And Weak – And I’m A Tory! […]

  19. To throw a spanner in the works of all the pontification about Brexit. Did any of you actually take the time to read the rules within Article 50?

    I ask, as legally we know the referendum was only advisory, (that is why I notified specific persons to take legal action in the first place)

    At any point in time during the duration of the Article 50 divorce period, a bill can be place before Parliament to terminate brexit.

    Most importantly, no matter who is in charge after June 8th and no matter how well they negotiate, it still has to go to another vote in parliament and more importantly the other 27 member states of the E.U have vote and agree on Brexit. If they consider it is not in their best interests, then brexit is dead in the water.

    Gen William Taggart

    May 29, 2017 at 1:57 am

    • No Gen, sorry you have it wrong: if the other 27 states do not agree to a deal, that does not stop Brexit, it means we leave without a deal.
      And there is nothing that commits us to asking parliament again. We have set the ball rolling: if we want it stopped we have to actively apply the brakes.


      May 29, 2017 at 12:11 pm

  20. Mr. Reynolds, Whilst I applaud your assessment of Theresa May, I nevertheless, find your assumptions insufferable and arrogant. Do not think that the desire for individual liberty and responsibility are only attributes of Conservatives. You are insulting people, like me, who support a truly caring middle ground, and that includes Mr Corbyn, who simply has a decent respect for, and care about all people, which your Party, in its control of the Media, slam, as lefty, dangerous and incompetent, when it is nothing of the sort. By small government, I read it, that it now means that Tories prefer power to stay in just a few hands, so they can do what they like with the Country (and for whose gain, I could ask). The Conservatives are the party of Global greed. They care more about money than anything, and intend the privatisation of our National Health which will cause unnecessary death and misery to thousands of people, and certainly will do so if our local hospital is closed. If you are going to run down your leader, then include yourself, because you both belong to the same set-up which justifies itself and it actions by legalities, rather than by truly ethical actions. I certainly see no compassion. Perhaps you should listen to what your inner voice is really telling you. If you cannot stand your leader, or have some loyalty towards her, as that, then maybe it is time to make a more humane and wise, choice of party that would serve this country better.

    Joanna Huckvale

    May 29, 2017 at 10:22 pm

    • “insufferable and arrogant” is an excellent description of your comment. Perhaps I should add patronising and condescending as well?

      Peter Reynolds

      May 30, 2017 at 7:45 am

      • I hope it might indeed be seen as that. I am obviously reflecting back what characteristics I see in the rigidity of Conservatism. You will one day understand that ordinary people had had enough of smug politics and its knee-jerk policies and mindless cuts. Some of your elder statesmen, haven’t turned out too bad when they take a step back and reconnect with a natural wisdom less tainted by dogma. I am sure many of you mean well, but your contriving together has created a monstrous, money oriented Party Machine and you all need to be told that. I will continue to tell this to whoever I can before I leave this endangered planet and its suffering humans and fauna. It is all a matter of deciding what will really make a better world. May you get the leaders you deserve.

        Joanna Huckvale

        May 30, 2017 at 11:09 am

      • Generalised prejudice about Conservatives is exactly the same as generalised prejudice about black or gay people. May I suggest you concentrate on the issues rather than abusing the people? I deplore the Conservative Party’s leadership (though I see no better in any other party) but I am firmly committed to principles of individual liberty, individual responsibility and small government.

        Peter Reynolds

        May 30, 2017 at 11:26 am

      • No Peter, it is fundamentally different: people have a choice about being conservative or not, they do not have a choice about being black or gay.
        Neither is it prejudice to assume that members of a group share the characteristics that the leader of the group has put forward as the defining characteristics of the group.


        June 1, 2017 at 2:11 am

      • I have friends and relatives of all political persuasions whom I like and love very much. I have felt abused and offended for a very long time by the attitudes of Tory ministers and their policies towards people who have so very little. My votes go to those who will enable these and allow them the financial freedom/enablement (that I have), of making their own real choices. I don’t like to see their liberties infringed by the use of Cambridge driven big data. I understand as much as I can, about their real fears of increasing poverty and unemployment and how these fears have been deliberately manipulated by the propaganda machine. We all deserve better, especially representation for differing views. – So if you were to start your own Party, how would you change things? What kind of party would you create and what people would you want to connect with? With what elements of other parties policies do you have some empathy, and would you admit to that? What would you change in your own party if you became leader? How would you bring out the genuine goodness that used to exist with the Conservative blue rinse brigade in the old village halls? The thing is, your party seems to be a collection of factions with vested interests rather than a community of like minds. Who do Conservatives represent beyond the floating voter? Who are the real people and are they getting the kind of representation that will release their best intent and creative enterprise for the Nation? No-one really knows anymore. Do you like ‘any’ of your leaders? Is there anyone you really respect in your party? Would things have been different with Ken Clarke as PM? I would like to understand the Conservative mind, but I am firming the opinion that the word Tory should have been dropped a century and a half ago when they stopped using the name Whig. I expect people like it because it is the second half of the word ‘Victory’, like a good luck charm! But we need more than good luck in the UK. We need a consensus of empathy and good minds, whatever the party. This has not been happening and we have a very unhappy and depressed people who have so much more to give.

        Joanna Huckvale

        June 2, 2017 at 1:08 pm

      • “a collection of factions with vested interests rather than a community of like minds.” well describes every political party. A problem with the Tory Party is that it tends to crush and silence dissent, even from well meaning members such as me. Tory Party meets are more like the Nuremberg Rallies or a Kim Jong-Un parade rather than a place where discussion is encouraged. I respect David Davies, Michael Gove, Peter Lilley, Crispin Blunt, Dr Dan Poulter and others, definitely not Ken Clarke who is a dinosaur and definitely not Theresa May who isn’t a true Tory at all.

        I repeat, again, the reason I am a member is because of fundamental principles of individual liberty, individual responsibility and small government. No other party has these principles.

        Peter Reynolds

        June 2, 2017 at 1:32 pm

      • I thought that as I wrote it, but have you really looked closely at the Greens to see how factions applies to them? I cannot see it as particularly significant where they are concerned. I would think the right wing of the Labour party also tries to crush and silence dissent because both parties have always been driven by dogma. Lib/ Dem meets have always been positive experiences when I was a minor Liberal activist, but that was only at a local level and it was a while ago.
        I will google your chosen ones, but I certainly do not feel at all positive about Mr. Gove and his desolation of our education system. I may have used the term ‘class traitor’. I am not sure.
        Your ‘fundamental principles’ all seem rather empty phrases open to different interpretations without being specific. What do they all mean? Small government could mean regional devolution. Individual liberty seems to be something every party/every citizen wants.
        What do you think of More United? They include at least one Conservative who is ready to work for the same/similar principles in the people they are supporting. Do you want an inclusive society? Is not that a fundamental principle – to be fair to everybody, or as many people as you can?

        Joanna Huckvale

        June 2, 2017 at 7:30 pm

  21. If Theresa May was a church mouse she’d give a sermon.


    June 9, 2017 at 3:59 pm

  22. Whoa! Тһis blog looks just ⅼike my oldd one! It’s on a totally ԁifferеnt topic but іt hаs pretty much the sɑme
    page layout and deѕign. Grеat choice of colors!

    May 6, 2018 at 12:19 pm

  23. Appreciation to my father who informed me regarding this webpage,
    this weblog is actually remarkable.

    November 15, 2018 at 9:47 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: