General Election, June 8th

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Finnaldo said:

 

Campaigning for a fair trial and against unjust rulings can extend to guilty parties as well. The Brighton bomber was rightly jailed. 

 

Terrorism is only one face of the DUP when you count the Christian Fundamentalism, and it wasn't the left you made it an integral part of the campaign.

He shared a platform with wanted murderers, he was a member of troops out. He appointed McDonnell as shadow chancellor and he said “It’s about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table."

 

If you're happy with that what are you complaining about with the DUP?

[Steven]

6 minutes ago, MattP said:

Let's be honest we are all hypocrites.

 

A week ago people like me were ignoring the peace process and equating the IRA to Sinn Fein then saying it was unacceptable to deal with them. No I'm moving on and saying it's OK to talk and get things done with them.

 

The other side just a week ago were saying it's all in the past and we need to move on, now they are the ones ignoring the peace process, going back to the troubles and equating the DUP with the UVF etc and now saying that's unacceptable.

 

The only people who have the moral high ground are people like Tim Farron who were firm in calling both argument's unacceptable. 

I voted Liberal; nice to know my hands are clean.

[Guest MattP]

10 minutes ago, Webbo said:

He shared a platform with wanted murderers, he was a member of troops out. He appointed McDonnell as shadow chancellor and he said “It’s about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table."

 

If you're happy with that what are you complaining about with the DUP?

The first thing Philip Hammond should do is stand to honour the brave men of the UDA and UVF.

[Guest MattP]

Told you they wouldn't get 40% @Mark_w 

 

Labour: 39.99%

[Strokes]

28 minutes ago, Steven said:

I have no recollection of Corbyn directly trying to do a deal to sustain power with a group of murderers in the style of Theresa May.

I will grant you that Corbyn is bad but May is worse. Failure to acknowledge that fact undermines your credibility on this topic.

I think it's all much of a muchness, they are both tainted by this and anyone who voted for Labour should really be quiet on the subject since it reeks of hypocrisy. You voted for someone who is an ally of Sinn Fein and a lot of them have spent weeks defending it. 

I don't like the deal, it stinks to high heaven but show me a workable alternative? I'd rather go back to polls but we have a round of negotiations to go through before that can happen.

[m4DD0gg]

4 hours ago, AndWhat? said:

 

Wonder if the Daily Mail told olduns to eat dog shit and soup would they do it. 

Don't read the daily mail pal.

 

Just not a social media sheep.

 

Pointless saying anything on this website though 

[Buce]

It looks like a formal coalition:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2017/jun/10/general-election-2017-theresa-may-team-dup-live

[Mark_w]

12 minutes ago, MattP said:

Told you they wouldn't get 40% @Mark_w 

 

Labour: 39.99%

Jezza out.

[AKCJ]

May's advisors are jumping ship.

 

Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy have resigned this morning.

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

May's advisors are jumping ship.

 

Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy have resigned this morning.

Boris or Davis in by Christmas at the latest. 

[Great Boos Up]

5 hours ago, AndWhat? said:

 

Wonder if the Daily Mail told olduns to eat dog shit and soup would they do it. 

What flavour soup?

[leicsmac]

Did a little bit of number crunching this morning. If the UK had a system based on direct proportion of total votes rather than FPTP, the seat count would have been as follows:

 

CON 275 (-42 based on actual result)
LAB 260 (-2)
SNP 20 (-15)
LD 48 (+36)
DUP 6 (-4)
SF 5 (-2)
PC 3 (-1)
GRN 10 (+9)
UKIP 12 (+12)
OTH 11 (+11)

 

LibDems win big, Tories lose big, both the Kippers and the Greens get a decent-sized presence.

 

That might have led to some interesting coalition discussions as either Labour or the Tories looked to get a group together to form a majority.

[Guesty]

12 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

May's advisors are jumping ship.

 

Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy have resigned this morning.

 

Makes you wonder how she'll cope without them. Apparently even cabinet ministers had to go through one of these two if they just wanted to talk to May.

 

Now she's got to go back to all these ministers she's ignored or briefed against, looking as weak as - and she doesn't have any help anymore from the people she's been so dependant on.

 

With Blair you had Campbell and with May these two. They really need to appoint better people as advisers, or, have better checks and balances in place when these people start getting ideas above their station. There's no-way unelected officials should wield this much power and be paid twice the salary of senior MP's who have been voted to office to make these decisions on our behalf. 

[Carl the Llama]

16 hours ago, Facecloth said:

Final result in. 

 

Labour take Kensington from the Tories by 20 votes.

And people say their vote doesn't make any difference.

[Strokes]

17 minutes ago, Steven said:

I voted Liberal; nice to know my hands are clean.

I abstained, me too.  

[Nalis]

19 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Did a little bit of number crunching this morning. If the UK had a system based on direct proportion of total votes rather than FPTP, the seat count would have been as follows:

 

CON 275 (-42 based on actual result)
LAB 260 (-2)
SNP 20 (-15)
LD 48 (+36)
DUP 6 (-4)
SF 5 (-2)
PC 3 (-1)
GRN 10 (+9)
UKIP 12 (+12)
OTH 11 (+11)

 

LibDems win big, Tories lose big, both the Kippers and the Greens get a decent-sized presence.

 

That might have led to some interesting coalition discussions as either Labour or the Tories looked to get a group together to form a majority.

 

Thanks for that and honestly think we should adopt such a system. Of course it doesnt take into account tactical voting which, if people didnt go, would give the minority parties even more seats.

[Alf Bentley]

19 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Did a little bit of number crunching this morning. If the UK had a system based on direct proportion of total votes rather than FPTP, the seat count would have been as follows:

 

CON 275 (-42 based on actual result)
LAB 260 (-2)
SNP 20 (-15)
LD 48 (+36)
DUP 6 (-4)
SF 5 (-2)
PC 3 (-1)
GRN 10 (+9)
UKIP 12 (+12)
OTH 11 (+11)

 

LibDems win big, Tories lose big, both the Kippers and the Greens get a decent-sized presence.

 

That might have led to some interesting coalition discussions as either Labour or the Tories looked to get a group together to form a majority.

 

So, on that basis, we'd have probably had a leftist "coalition of chaos" (Lab + LD + SNP + Green = 338), as opposed to the rightist coalition of chaos that we're about to get....

 

Then again, we'd probably have had a Tory/UKIP coalition in 2015.....so no different to what we got, really. 

[Alf Bentley]

13 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

And people say their vote doesn't make any difference.

 

The SNP won NE Fife by 2 votes.

 

Back in the 80s, I knew a bloke who shared a house with 3 others, and they were all committed Labour voters.

On election day (council elections), they got caught up watching a film on TV and all forgot to go and vote.

Labour lost the council seat by 4 votes.

[Beliall]

Im seeing a lot of sensationalist memes and posts about peace in northern Ireland being threatened, how accurate is this?

 

Should I believe that TM would make a deal knowing that trouble could start, has she breached the good Friday agreement

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Nalis said:

 

Thanks for that and honestly think we should adopt such a system. Of course it doesnt take into account tactical voting which, if people didnt go, would give the minority parties even more seats.

 

No problem!

 

I think we should be going for that too, or at least something like it.

 

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

So, on that basis, we'd have probably had a leftist "coalition of chaos" (Lab + LD + SNP + Green = 338), as opposed to the rightist coalition of chaos that we're about to get....

 

Then again, we'd probably have had a Tory/UKIP coalition in 2015.....so no different to what we got, really. 

 

LAB + LD + SNP would be enough with light support from the Greens where needed, by the looks of it. That would have been...interesting.

 

And yes, I'm betting it would have been a Tory/UKIP coalition in 2015 too.

 

I'm honestly in favour of such a system, with more compromise having to happen.

[Alf Bentley]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

No problem!

 

I think we should be going for that too, or at least something like it.

 

LAB + LD + SNP would be enough with light support from the Greens where needed, by the looks of it. That would have been...interesting.

 

And yes, I'm betting it would have been a Tory/UKIP coalition in 2015 too.

 

I'm honestly in favour of such a system, with more compromise having to happen.

 

I've been a longstanding supporter of PR, though I'd prefer STV in multi-member constituencies, not a national list system.

 

I suppose a national list system with a minimum percentage (e,g. 3-5%) would be OK if you also had more powers/money devolved to local/regional government. 

The minimum % would prevent tiny minorities exerting undue influence - and a heavily devolved set-up would reduce the need for constituency-based MPs.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I've been a longstanding supporter of PR, though I'd prefer STV in multi-member constituencies, not a national list system.

 

I suppose a national list system with a minimum percentage (e,g. 3-5%) would be OK if you also had more powers/money devolved to local/regional government. 

The minimum % would prevent tiny minorities exerting undue influence - and a heavily devolved set-up would reduce the need for constituency-based MPs.

 

I'd be with the second paragraph here - the perceived lack of local representation is the biggest gripe with direct PR as I laid out and your idea for more local powers/money being devolved might solve that.

 

I'd put the minimum percentage at lower than you state, though - going for 3-5% shuts out Plaid, SF and the DUP and I'm really not sure the local devolved governments in Wales and NI would go for that.

[Finnaldo]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

Let's be honest we are all hypocrites.

 

A week ago people like me were ignoring the peace process and equating the IRA to Sinn Fein then saying it was unacceptable to deal with them. No I'm moving on and saying it's OK to talk and get things done with them.

 

The other side just a week ago were saying it's all in the past and we need to move on, now they are the ones ignoring the peace process, going back to the troubles and equating the DUP with the UVF etc and now saying that's unacceptable.

 

The only people who have the moral high ground are people like Tim Farron who were firm in calling both argument's unacceptable. 

 

You're right Matt. The terrorist links are in the past really and the reason I brought it up was just to prove a point more than anything on recent smears about the Troubles. It is mostly in the past and I'd never had mentioned it otherwise.

 

But there are still profound issues with the DUP as I mentioned with Webbo. It's a radical far right party with a base in Christian Fundamentalism, on its own it's relatively harmless but giving a party with <1% of the vote a serious platform for their ideals (like this abortion vote) is going to be seriously damaging to the Tories credibility, especially when it concerns ideals most the country do not care about or oppose.

 

 

On top of that, getting away from historic Troubles links collaborating with a Loyalist party either directly or indirectly is a recipe for trouble in the region, I'd be saying the same of Corbyn if he joined with Sinn Fein in this election because governments should simply stay far away. Even without a majority the Tories would have a minority bigger than anything Labour could muster up. It reeks of desperation from May.

[LiberalFox]

32 minutes ago, Beliall said:

Im seeing a lot of sensationalist memes and posts about peace in northern Ireland being threatened, how accurate is this?

 

Should I believe that TM would make a deal knowing that trouble could start, has she breached the good Friday agreement

 

The only threat to peace in Northern Ireland is people willing to use violence for perceived political gain. I think some of the sensationalism is unwarranted. Ultimately there's always a risk because one side believes Ireland should be united and the other believes the North should remain part of the UK. The only way you'll get a lasting solution is for either side to back down and they won't. It makes for permanent ineffective government.   

 

 

[Charl91]

15 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'd be with the second paragraph here - the perceived lack of local representation is the biggest gripe with direct PR as I laid out and your idea for more local powers/money being devolved might solve that.

 

 

Don't think many people care about local representation anyway. My local MP (Andrew Bridgen, nasty piece of work) certainly doesn't. 70% of his leaflet was about Theresa May, and how scary Jeremy Corbyn is.