33 Useful Websites For Students

33 Useful Websites For Students The nasty party.’ Now that she is prime minister, both these moves look like essential steps on her path to the top. Back then they served to reinforce rather than to overturn the doubts many Tories had about her. Her choice of footwear confirmed the view of the sceptics that she was, in Tory-speak, ‘a colour supplement politician’. Her blunt address, however unarguable the truth it contained, struck her colleagues as simply giving Labour another stick to beat them with. She pulled back before she could step out from behind the curtain. Howard still claims to be unaware that she had wanted to put her hat in the ring. Cameron saw off his main rivals â€" Kenneth Clarke and David Davis â€" and then offered May a job, as shadow leader of the House, which confirmed her place somewhere in the middle of the pecking order. May got an opportunity to escape this straitjacket when Iain Duncan Smith made her party chairman in 2002, a decision that was widely seen at the time as smacking of desperation. She took advantage of the profile the role gave her to do two things that have helped shape her image ever since. For her first party conference as chairman, she wore a pair of leopard-print kitten heels. And in her speech, she told the assembled Tories some essential home truths. She trailed the idea; she sounded out her colleagues; she prepared policy positions that went beyond her familiar briefs. Not only did Cameron beat her to it, he didn’t even notice she was putting herself forward. She found that her experience and unquestioned competence counted for little with her fellow MPs. It seems she was only able to secure the backing of a handful of them â€" Prince speculates it may have been as few as two â€" and in the end she didn’t even announce her candidacy formally. “If the threat was, ‘if you don’t sign, we won’t get married,’ well, that’s most people’s position in getting a prenup, right? ” said Samantha Bley DeJean, a family law attorney practicing out of San Francisco with no involvement in this case. Some of May’s recent behaviour has been far more cavalier than her reputation would suggest. That didn’t sound like principled politics so much as knee-jerk populism. May has difficulty containing her vitriol, which sometimes spills out in public. When Howard stepped down as leader following his general election defeat to Blair in 2005, May fully intended to stand to succeed him. She was good at it â€" it suited her organisational abilities â€" but she was done little good by it. Meanwhile, almost without noticing where they had come from, Cameron started to adopt positions for which May had diligently prepared the ground. What else was his modernising agenda other than an attempt to lay to rest the ‘nasty party’ tag? After her aborted leadership bid May started an organisation called Women2Win designed to redress the massive gender imbalance in the parliamentary party. Cameron folded it into his A-list strategy, which recommended priority candidates for parliamentary seats, thereby reducing it in some people’s eyes to a PR exercise. Cameron and his shadow education secretary, Michael Gove, soon claimed the idea as their own. The speech was drafted by Nick Timothy, the other special adviser on whom she has come to depend â€" he and Hill are now her joint chiefs of staff. Timothy, like May, is a devotee of grammar schools because he had a good experience at one himself. How is that way of deciding government policy any less a product of personal preference than Cameron’s, with his reliance on his coterie of Old Etonians? Cameron has always been pretty good at concealing his contempt for his opponents. In 2004 two members of the intake of 2001, Cameron and George Osborne, joined her in the shadow cabinet. Both quickly established themselves as part of the leader’s inner circle, from which she was excluded. In three years, and seemingly without having to do much more than show up, Cameron had got closer to the summit than May had in seven. In California both parties need at least seven days to review the contents of a prenup before signing. There’s no mention of those dates in the document, so it’s unclear how the timeline might work in Young’s favor. The pressure part of her argument probably won’t hold much water.