General Election, June 8th

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Swan Lesta said:

 

 

On an aside I think Caroline Lucas is way and by far the truest Leader of people (policies aside) she is a truly inspiring individual - If I were her I'd defect to the liberals and lead them and I genuinely believe people would follow...

 

Sounds like somebody has a crush..

 

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

Yeah me too, as it stands right now I would vote Labour. Although if it does go back to the polls, presumably the tories would have a new leader and a new manifesto so.........

 

[Buce]

 

Apparently, one of the reasons for the delay in the Queen's speech is because it has to be written on calfskin parchment paper and it takes a few days to dry.

 

So they kill a calf for this? Are we living in the Dark Ages or something?

[Strokes]

13 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

 i have been saying for a while now, I'm not enamoured with the conservatives. The more TM does, the further away I feel. 

Like Matt I feel Austerity is a waste now, as the young won't appreciate it. Fùck it let's get the card out and spend spend spend. I think we will need too, to take the edge off a hard brexit.

[EnderbyFox]

 

[Kopfkino]

9 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Apparently, one of the reasons for the delay in the Queen's speech is because it has to be written on calfskin parchment paper and it takes a few days to dry.

 

So they kill a calf for this? Are we living in the Dark Ages or something?

 

At least it means it can't be changed so easily. Given May's U-turn record we'd use up the Amazon if it was done on paper.

[Strokes]

4 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

At least it means it can't be changed so easily. Given May's U-turn record we'd use up the Amazon if it was done on paper.

Goats to now go on the endangered list then?  

[Alf Bentley]

3 hours ago, MattP said:

Apologies, I was posting straight from the 2015 Paisley tweet, 2010 makes more sense as Brown was trying anything to cling on.

 

I'd say to you and @Steven that there is nothing wrong with this, our electoral rules mean a coalition can be formed with anyone who is elected in the British Isles, I don't think it's ideal and I think some of the potential coalitions that have been touted are farcical but the fact is, whoever governs now, Labour or the Conservatives, would need votes from the DUP to govern, that's just what it is with the way the numbers have fell after the election.

 

How Northern Ireland deals with this I don't know, but you can't just leave the British government effectively in political purgatory because of what the reaction might be.

 

Very harsh on the last point, May used "Conservative and Unionist Party" in her first speech as the Prime Minister last year, she hasn't just pulled it out the bag now as you implied because of this deal. That said, I'm glad she's using it, the Union is more important than ever now and the Conservative is a party that isstanding up for that,  It's not even in the same ballpark as potentially Labour announcing themselves in partnership of a nationlist movement from a foreign country.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-36789572

 

 

There's nothing unconstitutional about the proposed Con/DUP agreement, I agree. The numbers resulting from elections can lead to peculiar partnerships. Do you remember John Redwood supporting Ken Clarke for the Tory leadership? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_1997#Final_Round  (Corbyn & Watson is an odd combo, too, trying to be even-handed)

 

But surely everyone has to draw the line somewhere and turn down a route to power because it requires an alliance that is not in the national interest? Imagine if the Tories were 1 short of a majority. Where would you draw the line? George Galloway? Gerry Adams? Nick Griffin? Jimmy Saville? Hitler?....May clearly feels that it is worth taking some risk with the Irish Peace Process....ultimately, it's worth gambling on civil war and terrorism in order to stay in No. 10. Of course, there's no excuse whatsoever for any return to terrorism and I sincerely hope that it would take an awful lot more than this to trigger it.....but loss of trust and hostility can easily spiral out of control. Again, a lot will depend on how any such alliance/coalition is run - what sort of concessions the DUP obtains, whether London still acts even-handedly over power-sharing in N. Ireland etc. But it's certainly not a risk-free option.

 

There are other options: (1) Call another election; (2) Compromise with one of the other parties (Lab, LD, SNP) by introducing certain acceptable policies they want in return for them abstaining on other stuff. It would require more compromise - and would require some policies to be dropped or delayed until after another election, but it is an option; (3) Invite Corbyn to form a govt instead - Lab 262 + SNP 35 + LD 12 + Plaid 4 + Green 1 + ScotCon 13 = 327 

 

I'm sure May referred to "Conservative and Unionist" in 2016 as a dig against the SNP and their desire for another independence referendum after the Brexit vote. It's not the name normally used for the party. Even if May used that name innocently in 2016 (which I doubt), it was either incredibly dense or utterly reckless to use it in the context of a proposed DUP alliance.

 

I'm surprised to hear that you think "the Union is more important than ever". I'm sure it was you, at the time of the Scottish independence referendum, who was relishing the prospect of the Scots leaving, as it meant we'd have a Tory England forever.

[Rincewind]

• Politics is a dirty game played by dirty players on all sides. The spectators are like women who do not understand the offside rule.

[Buce]

17 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Goats to now go on the endangered list then?  

 

There seems to be some confusion in the BBC article - first it says goats, then later contradicts itself by saying calves.

 

It is Vellum, though, which my dictionary says is calf skin.

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

There seems to be some confusion in the BBC article - first it says goats, then later contradicts itself by saying calves.

 

It is Vellum, though, which my dictionary says is calf skin.

 

As a one-off, this Queen's Speech should be written on Theresa May's skin..........think of it as sacrificial lamb's skin. 

[Buce]

3 hours ago, Buce said:

 

I really can't be bothered to search for the posts to prove it, but I don't recall that being your attitude when the Scots were voting on independence.

 

3 hours ago, Buce said:

 

I was speaking of your assertion that the Union is more important than ever.

 

You seemed to think it little or no importance at that time.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

There's nothing unconstitutional about the proposed Con/DUP agreement, I agree. The numbers resulting from elections can lead to peculiar partnerships. Do you remember John Redwood supporting Ken Clarke for the Tory leadership? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_1997#Final_Round  (Corbyn & Watson is an odd combo, too, trying to be even-handed)

 

But surely everyone has to draw the line somewhere and turn down a route to power because it requires an alliance that is not in the national interest? Imagine if the Tories were 1 short of a majority. Where would you draw the line? George Galloway? Gerry Adams? Nick Griffin? Jimmy Saville? Hitler?....May clearly feels that it is worth taking some risk with the Irish Peace Process....ultimately, it's worth gambling on civil war and terrorism in order to stay in No. 10. Of course, there's no excuse whatsoever for any return to terrorism and I sincerely hope that it would take an awful lot more than this to trigger it.....but loss of trust and hostility can easily spiral out of control. Again, a lot will depend on how any such alliance/coalition is run - what sort of concessions the DUP obtains, whether London still acts even-handedly over power-sharing in N. Ireland etc. But it's certainly not a risk-free option.

 

There are other options: (1) Call another election; (2) Compromise with one of the other parties (Lab, LD, SNP) by introducing certain acceptable policies they want in return for them abstaining on other stuff. It would require more compromise - and would require some policies to be dropped or delayed until after another election, but it is an option; (3) Invite Corbyn to form a govt instead - Lab 262 + SNP 35 + LD 12 + Plaid 4 + Green 1 + ScotCon 13 = 327 

 

I'm sure May referred to "Conservative and Unionist" in 2016 as a dig against the SNP and their desire for another independence referendum after the Brexit vote. It's not the name normally used for the party. Even if May used that name innocently in 2016 (which I doubt), it was either incredibly dense or utterly reckless to use it in the context of a proposed DUP alliance.

 

I'm surprised to hear that you think "the Union is more important than ever". I'm sure it was you, at the time of the Scottish independence referendum, who was relishing the prospect of the Scots leaving, as it meant we'd have a Tory England forever.

 

Busted @MattP!

[Kopfkino]

25 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Goats to now go on the endangered list then?  

 

Apparently it's vegan goat skin....

[Nick]

2 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

Apparently it's vegan goat skin....

I heard it was LGBT skin.

[Nick]

[Guest MattP]

10 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

There's nothing unconstitutional about the proposed Con/DUP agreement, I agree. The numbers resulting from elections can lead to peculiar partnerships. Do you remember John Redwood supporting Ken Clarke for the Tory leadership? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_1997#Final_Round  (Corbyn & Watson is an odd combo, too, trying to be even-handed)

 

But surely everyone has to draw the line somewhere and turn down a route to power because it requires an alliance that is not in the national interest? Imagine if the Tories were 1 short of a majority. Where would you draw the line? George Galloway? Gerry Adams? Nick Griffin? Jimmy Saville? Hitler?....May clearly feels that it is worth taking some risk with the Irish Peace Process....ultimately, it's worth gambling on civil war and terrorism in order to stay in No. 10. Of course, there's no excuse whatsoever for any return to terrorism and I sincerely hope that it would take an awful lot more than this to trigger it.....but loss of trust and hostility can easily spiral out of control. Again, a lot will depend on how any such alliance/coalition is run - what sort of concessions the DUP obtains, whether London still acts even-handedly over power-sharing in N. Ireland etc. But it's certainly not a risk-free option.

 

There are other options: (1) Call another election; (2) Compromise with one of the other parties (Lab, LD, SNP) by introducing certain acceptable policies they want in return for them abstaining on other stuff. It would require more compromise - and would require some policies to be dropped or delayed until after another election, but it is an option; (3) Invite Corbyn to form a govt instead - Lab 262 + SNP 35 + LD 12 + Plaid 4 + Green 1 + ScotCon 13 = 327 

 

I'm sure May referred to "Conservative and Unionist" in 2016 as a dig against the SNP and their desire for another independence referendum after the Brexit vote. It's not the name normally used for the party. Even if May used that name innocently in 2016 (which I doubt), it was either incredibly dense or utterly reckless to use it in the context of a proposed DUP alliance.

 

I'm surprised to hear that you think "the Union is more important than ever". I'm sure it was you, at the time of the Scottish independence referendum, who was relishing the prospect of the Scots leaving, as it meant we'd have a Tory England forever.

I'm sure me talking about Scotland leaving was in jest but even if it wasn't, it's nothing to do with how Theresa May felt.

 

Being realistic, none of those options are possible.

 

You can't just call another general election because you didn't like the result the public gave, you could even just get a similar result again, as for introducing certain acceptable policies, the SNP and the Liberals have declared they would never work with the Tories on anything and the idea the Conservatives (or Labour) could seriously try and garner votes from each other and it could form any sort of stable government for any period of time isn't serious.

 

The DUP are the most popular political party in Northern Ireland, they aren't Jimmy Savile, Nick Griffin or Hitler, that country is just very different though, even the SDLP - the natural ally of the Labour party have pretty much the exact same policy on abortion, as long as they don't interfere with social issues, which they won't as it's always about money to them, it shouldn't be a problem.

[Buce]

8 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

As a one-off, this Queen's Speech should be written on Theresa May's skin..........think of it as sacrificial lamb's skin. 

 

2 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

I heard it was LGBT skin.

 

5 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

Apparently it's vegan goat skin....

 

And calf skin makes four. Four skins... now there's a thought - all that untapped potential in the Synagogues and Mosques.

[Nick]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

I'm sure me talking about Scotland leaving was in jest but even if it wasn't, it's nothing to do with how Theresa May felt.

 

Being realistic, none of those options are possible.

 

You can't just call another general election because you didn't like the result the public gave, you could even just get a similar result again, as for introducing certain acceptable policies, the SNP and the Liberals have declared they would never work with the Tories on anything and the idea the Conservatives (or Labour) could seriously try and garner votes from each other and it could form any sort of stable government for any period of time isn't serious.

 

The DUP are the most popular political party in Northern Ireland, they aren't Jimmy Savile, Nick Griffin or Hitler, that country is just very different though, even the SDLP - the natural ally of the Labour party have pretty much the exact same policy on abortion, as long as they don't interfere with social issues, which they won't as it's always about money to them, it shouldn't be a problem.

You're going for the no problem 'nothing to see here, just move along' argument.. really?

[Guest MattP]

6 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

You're going for the no problem 'nothing to see here, just move along' argument.. really?

I'm going for the "this is the election result and unfortunately the only option" argument.

 

As I say, give me a realistic alternative and I'm all ears.

[Nick]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

I'm going for the "this is the election result and unfortunately the only option" argument.

 

As I say, give me a realistic alternative and I'm all ears.

May to resign, acknowledge there is not enough support for her personally and ethically she can't do a deal with the DUP because she feels it would give rise to questions of integrity in relation to party  values.

 

 

[ramboacdc]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

I'm going for the "this is the election result and unfortunately the only option" argument.

 

As I say, give me a realistic alternative and I'm all ears.

well this election to "strengthen her hand" cost the country £140m and with how unstable it all is we could have another. Also is it correct that this DUP has to be a confidence and supply deal because a coalition would go against the good friday agreement?

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

May to resign, acknowledge there is not enough support for her personally and ethically she can't do a deal with the DUP because she feels it would give rise to questions of integrity in relation to party  values.

After she has done that what then happens?

 

Also, what do you think the reaction would be from Northern Ireland that Westminster feels the parties they overwhelmingly vote for have so little integrity we don't believe they should even be allowed to support someone on the basis of confidence and supply? Do you not think they will be pretty insulted?

 

Unfortunately, you can't just stick two fingers up to anyone you don't like in politics when a government can be formed.

 

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

6 minutes ago, MattP said:

The DUP are the most popular political party in Northern Ireland, they aren't Jimmy Savile, Nick Griffin or Hitler, that country is just very different though, even the SDLP - the natural ally of the Labour party have pretty much the exact same policy on abortion, as long as they don't interfere with social issues, which they won't as it's always about money to them, it shouldn't be a problem.

 

I'm more bothered about the potential destabilisation of the Peace Process than about DUP influence on British social policy.

 

I don't agree with their attitudes to abortion or gay rights, but can't imagine that the Tories are stupid enough to allow them to influence such policy in Great Britain - and the DUP have things as they (and some other parties) want them in Northern Ireland.

Given its deeply Catholic history, it's amazing that the Irish Republic is now ahead of the North on gay marriage (though still pretty backward on abortion rights).

 

If the concessions are limited to, say, action to ensure a soft border post-Brexit plus some cash for projects benefiting ALL communities in N. Ireland (not just Unionist areas), the damage done might be limited. But it is still bound to make it more difficult to get Stormont up and running again, which will create extra tension. It's the risk to the Peace Process that bothers me - even if the risk taken is relatively small.

 

I obviously wasn't directly comparing Arlene Foster to Hitler & co. I was just pointing out that you have to draw the line somewhere, even if you lose power as a result. I'd draw the line at running even the slightest risk of restarting a civil war that caused thousands of deaths in this country over 25+ years. Theresa obviously feels that is a risk worth taking to maintain Tory power - and you seem to agree.

[Izzy]

1 hour ago, Rincewind said:

Live now

 

Who is this kid?

 

I saw him on Sky News yesterday morning 'giving it the big un'

 

I find him extremely annoying in a David Brent kind of way. 

 

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, MattP said:

I'm going for the "this is the election result and unfortunately the only option" argument.

 

As I say, give me a realistic alternative and I'm all ears.

I guess the alternative would be to run with a minority government. It may not help the tories but would potentially be good if the parties decided to recognise that during brexit negotiations the public would expect them to work together and find policies that require all to find a middle ground for the sake of the country. That's what grown ups would do. Admittedly i have no idea if any such agreement could be formed between the parties.perhaps an agreement to work together on brexit for 2 years then hold a new election?