Guest MattP Posted 11 June 2017 Posted 11 June 2017 31 minutes ago, The Doctor said: Not seeing why miliband would be trying to do deals in 2015 when we had a Tory majority tbh. Still, these labour - DUP deals were never realistic possibilities, this one is. It wasn't impossible at all, you know what the DUP are about - cash, throw enough of that at them and they'll take it. The wording was quite clear on Friday with their statement, they will work to keep Labour out while Jeremy Corbyn is seeking to be Prime Minister.
The Doctor Posted 11 June 2017 Posted 11 June 2017 16 minutes ago, MattP said: It wasn't impossible at all, you know what the DUP are about - cash, throw enough of that at them and they'll take it. The wording was quite clear on Friday with their statement, they will work to keep Labour out while Jeremy Corbyn is seeking to be Prime Minister. Those deals wouldn't have been pure labour - DUP in a two party coalition though. The SNP would have needed to come into it - bitter unionists in the DUP, crazy nationalists in the SNP: maybe I've got too much faith in people to have integrity and stand by their beliefs, but I cannot see how a coalition with hardcore nationalists and unionists would even reach a queens speech.
Guest MattP Posted 11 June 2017 Posted 11 June 2017 3 minutes ago, The Doctor said: Those deals wouldn't have been pure labour - DUP in a two party coalition though. The SNP would have needed to come into it - bitter unionists in the DUP, crazy nationalists in the SNP: maybe I've got too much faith in people to have integrity and stand by their beliefs, but I cannot see how a coalition with hardcore nationalists and unionists would even reach a queens speech. Me neither, but there are no shortage of people who would still put it together to try and keep out the Tories.
Vacamion Posted 11 June 2017 Posted 11 June 2017 24 minutes ago, MattP said: Me neither, but there are no shortage of people who would still put it together to try and keep out the Tories. Absolutely, there are parts of the UK where "Tor-eees" is used as an insult. Labour used to call SNP tartan Tories. The SNP call Labour red Tories.
Alf Bentley Posted 11 June 2017 Posted 11 June 2017 If some Tories want to ditch Theresa for Boris yet to avoid another election.....I wonder what the DUP will make of Boris' colourful personal history? On the one hand, we have an ultra-religious party that believes in the sanctity of marriage and in abortion being illegal as well as the height of immorality. On the other, we have a renowned shagger who is known to have fathered a child outside marriage and to have been sacked for lying about having caused another woman to have a couple of abortions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson I'm sure most people won't be bothered about his personal life. But I rather think that DUP politicians, members and voters will be. It would be such a shame if a bunch of religious zealots prevented Boris from becoming PM and being able to explain about the £350m per week for the NHS, wouldn't it?
The Guvnor Posted 11 June 2017 Posted 11 June 2017 8 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: If some Tories want to ditch Theresa for Boris yet to avoid another election.....I wonder what the DUP will make of Boris' colourful personal history? On the one hand, we have an ultra-religious party that believes in the sanctity of marriage and in abortion being illegal as well as the height of immorality. On the other, we have a renowned shagger who is known to have fathered a child outside marriage and to have been sacked for lying about having caused another woman to have a couple of abortions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson I'm sure most people won't be bothered about his personal life. But I rather think that DUP politicians, members and voters will be. It would be such a shame if a bunch of religious zealots prevented Boris from becoming PM and being able to explain about the £350m per day for the NHS, wouldn't it?
Alf Bentley Posted 11 June 2017 Posted 11 June 2017 Good article by Larry Elliott (Guardian Economics Editor) about economics and politics in the wake of the election: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/11/theresa-mays-election-victory-will-prove-pyrrhic-indeed
Rincewind Posted 11 June 2017 Posted 11 June 2017 Theres some talk of this on Facebook. There are rumours that the deal between the Tory's could be illegal. In 2015 a law was passed saying that onlt English parties could vote in Parliament. Someone received a letter from a lawyer and a couple of bloggers picked up on it. Not seen anything in major media. could be rubbish so have no view on it. https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/10/mays-coalition-cant-work-because-of-a-tory-law-badfridayagreement/ My only thought was that because the partnership is casual mainly for Brexit and that would not be a ffected Other things the Tories will stumble through without the DUB
Guest Kopfkino Posted 11 June 2017 Posted 11 June 2017 6 minutes ago, Rincewind said: Theres some talk of this on Facebook. There are rumours that the deal between the Tory's could be illegal. In 2015 a law was passed saying that onlt English parties could vote in Parliament. Someone received a letter from a lawyer and a couple of bloggers picked up on it. Not seen anything in major media. could be rubbish so have no view on it. https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/10/mays-coalition-cant-work-because-of-a-tory-law-badfridayagreement/ My only thought was that because the partnership is casual mainly for Brexit and that would not be a ffected Other things the Tories will stumble through without the DUB It's not particularly relevant. The DUP will be there to get through major things and some other UK wide things. The Conservatives wouldn't need them for 'England only' or 'England and Wales' votes because they have a healthy enough majority on that anyway.
Rincewind Posted 11 June 2017 Posted 11 June 2017 Thought it was something like that. Pity would have been nice to see her fail because of Tory own laws.
Webbo Posted 11 June 2017 Posted 11 June 2017 Just now, ramboacdc said: define a "loss" Having 56 less seats.
Strokes Posted 11 June 2017 Posted 11 June 2017 1 minute ago, ramboacdc said: define a "loss" Not winning as many seats as your opponent, not being in a position to form a government. Would probably define it, in normal circumstances. However it's clear from the gains made and the fresh wave of optimism, they shouldn't need too.
The Doctor Posted 11 June 2017 Posted 11 June 2017 So, is this the point where we claim that bringing genuine left wing politics back into the discussion and wiping out a sitting governments majority is a failure? In a strict definition, labour didn't win - no-one did, but they are probably the major winners from the result.
Guest Posted 11 June 2017 Posted 11 June 2017 27 minutes ago, Webbo said: Jesus you're clutching at straws now. There's only one leader who should go and she will.
Guest MattP Posted 11 June 2017 Posted 11 June 2017 40 minutes ago, Webbo said: I think I've said this before, people like him don't resign, they have to be forced out. Will the moderates now give up the fight for Labour? I suspect that they might. Corbyn is going to deeply enjoy watching people like Umanna squirming from the backbenches now. 31 minutes ago, ramboacdc said: define a "loss" Not winning the election. 13 minutes ago, toddybad said: Jesus you're clutching at straws now. There's only one leader who should go and she will. They both should go really, Michael Howard gained more seats than Corbyn in 2005 but it was fantasy to suggest he should carry on, the Conservative or Labour party should never tolerate failure. Parties of government shouldn't. Labour can win a majority in the next election, they won't do it with the current front bench though.
Webbo Posted 11 June 2017 Posted 11 June 2017 23 minutes ago, toddybad said: Jesus you're clutching at straws now. There's only one leader who should go and she will. You're happy with leaders who don't keep their promises ?
Buce Posted 11 June 2017 Posted 11 June 2017 3 minutes ago, Webbo said: You're happy with leaders who don't keep their promises ? Jesus, Webbo, you never learn.
Webbo Posted 11 June 2017 Posted 11 June 2017 Just now, Buce said: Jesus, Webbo, you never learn. Some of us expect higher standards.
Realist Guy In The Room Posted 11 June 2017 Posted 11 June 2017 20 minutes ago, MattP said: I think I've said this before, people like him don't resign, they have to be forced out. Will the moderates now give up the fight for Labour? I suspect that they might. Corbyn is going to deeply enjoy watching people like Umanna squirming from the backbenches now. Not winning the election. They both should go really, Michael Howard gained more seats than Corbyn in 2005 but it was fantasy to suggest he should carry on, the Conservative or Labour party should never tolerate failure. Parties of government shouldn't. Labour can win a majority in the next election, they won't do it with the current front bench though. I think people like Umanna, Hunt and a resurrected Ed M will end up in the shadow cabinet.
Guest MattP Posted 11 June 2017 Posted 11 June 2017 7 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said: I think people like Umanna, Hunt and a resurrected Ed M will end up in the shadow cabinet. Hunt has left parliament. I don't think they will, Corbyn and especially McDonnell don't come across as people who tolerate what they have referred to as plotters. If anything I think they'll attack the moderates even more. We'll soon see though.
Jimothy Posted 11 June 2017 Posted 11 June 2017 23 minutes ago, MattP said: Hunt has left parliament. I don't think they will, Corbyn and especially McDonnell don't come across as people who tolerate what they have referred to as plotters. If anything I think they'll attack the moderates even more. We'll soon see though. Corbyn said this morning the doors open and he's always prepared to reach out to them. As you say though we'll soon see, but he's said it now.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.