Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2017 22:20:49 GMT
I really hope we don't have another election within the next year. Estimates are that this one will cost the taxpayer approx. £143m. Just think what that money could have been used for! Cheers Tony This mess just seems to get messier doesn't it? I actually admire Theresa for trying to present a 'strong an stable' front (because we need to maintain one for the upcoming Brexit business), but it is obviously nothing more than a shallow front. If you listen closely you can hear the Conservatives sharpening their knives! And as you point out, acousticwolf, the expence of these campaigns is obscene, absolutely obscene. It might not be a solution for everyone, but for me, if there is another election, it's time to lock the doors and windows and listen to a bit of Big Finish
|
|
|
Post by lidar on Jun 11, 2017 22:23:44 GMT
I doubt an election will happen unless the situation gets a lot worse. A vote of no confidence is the only way to end this situation and trigger an election, and that requires a Tory rebellion. I don't think any Tory would be willing to take the risk of an election and might just stomach the current situation. Things ARE going to get worse. Theresa May's just asked for help from a political party of homophobic terrorist sympathisers. There is no way that can't end badly. The DUP are many things, but they are not terrorist sympathisers. Which is more than can be said for Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott and most of the Labour left.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jun 11, 2017 22:27:27 GMT
Things ARE going to get worse. Theresa May's just asked for help from a political party of homophobic terrorist sympathisers. There is no way that can't end badly. The DUP are many things, but they are not terrorist sympathisers. Which is more than can be said for Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott and most of the Labour left. Labour aren't terrorist sympathisers, that's just tabloid rubbish. If you look into what DUP stand for as a party they are totally homophobic terrorist sympathisers.
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Jun 11, 2017 22:58:01 GMT
Things ARE going to get worse. Theresa May's just asked for help from a political party of homophobic terrorist sympathisers. There is no way that can't end badly. The DUP are many things, but they are not terrorist sympathisers. Which is more than can be said for Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott and most of the Labour left. Yes. They. Are. But they're actually worse than that. Have a google of their previous leader in his combats and waving a weapon. Or the fact that he and others literally invaded Ireland in 1986. Or the fact that a terror organisation endorsed Emma Little-Pengelly as a candidate in the election.
|
|
|
Post by lidar on Jun 12, 2017 0:05:16 GMT
The DUP are many things, but they are not terrorist sympathisers. Which is more than can be said for Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott and most of the Labour left. Yes. They. Are. But they're actually worse than that. Have a google of their previous leader in his combats and waving a weapon. Or the fact that he and others literally invaded Ireland in 1986. Or the fact that a terror organisation endorsed Emma Little-Pengelly as a candidate in the election. As I said in a previous post, the DUP are not what they were, they became more pragmatic in the early 2000s.
The incidents in the 1980s were silly stunts (something the DUP was very prone to at the time), the DUP was never involved in actual terrorist acts. Paisley's followers got dressed up and marched up mountains and instead of waving guns they waved legal firearms certificates. It was vigilante-ism taken too way far, not terrorism of the sort that others were engaging in. The 1986 invasion was a silly stunt to make a point in response to the Anglo-Irish agreement, it was not a serious attempt at territorial annexation. Back then they were very much the minority party within unionism because of tendencies like this, with the UUP the more mainstream and much larger unionist party. There is a world of difference between the DUP's silly/irresponsible stunts and an actual terrorist campaign like IRA/UVF/UDA were engaging in back then.
Paisley for most of his career was a rabble-rouser who wound people up and then washed his hands of the consequences and in that sense he does bear his share of responsibility for some of what went on during the troubles. He started things off like Ulster Resistance, but they got out of his control and he then washed his hands of the consequences. Without doubt, he was irresponsible.
Re Emma Little-Pengelly, the DUP explicitly rejected the endorsement of the Loyalist Communities Council for their candidates (see Jeffrey Donaldson's comments in the BBC NI debate last week)
But, as I said before, there was a sea-change in the DUP in the early 2000s. Paisley was ill and came close to death and that seems to have changed his outlook. Peter Robinson was ambitious and like all politicians wanted power. I haven't seen it myself yet, but catch the new film "The Journey" to see how Paisley had changed. It was only as they moved to the centre ground that they became the largest unionist party. I personally only started voting for them around this time.
What is not out of date is the criticism of their social conservatism. But, the point has already been made, that these issues will not form part of any agreement because (a) the Tories wouldn't go for it (b) these issues tend to get a free / non-party vote in Parliament and (c) they are devolved to the NI assembly as far as NI is concerned. Again, to take the most obvious example, if you check out the facts, more Labour MPs than DUP MPs voted against the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill on both its second and third readings, as did a lot more Conservatives. Yet to read/listen to all that is being said now on the subject, this is conveniently forgotten by those intent on attacking the DUP and one could be forgiven for thinking that they had been the sole opposition to the bill. 10 DUP MPs in a chamber of 650 are a drop in the ocean when it comes to those kinds of issues, so whether you agree or disagree with their social conservatism the reality is that it will have little or no practical impact on anything at Westminster. It will have an impact at Stormont, but then it always would have had regardless of whatever happens or doesn't happen at Westminster.
Keep in mind also that Labour would quite happily have done a deal with the DUP in 2010 (this came up in some of the leaked Hillary Clinton emails) and they also held discussions with the DUP before the 2015 election. Those who are objecting to the DUP now would not have been objecting to anything like the same degree had Labour done a deal with them back then. The DUP are a right wing party and are not to everyone's taste - that's fair enough. But right now they are being demonised based on an out of date caricature and used as a stick to beat the Tories with by those on the left who don't want to see a Tory government.
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Jun 12, 2017 0:36:42 GMT
Yes. They. Are. But they're actually worse than that. Have a google of their previous leader in his combats and waving a weapon. Or the fact that he and others literally invaded Ireland in 1986. Or the fact that a terror organisation endorsed Emma Little-Pengelly as a candidate in the election. As I said in a previous post, the DUP are not what they were, they became more pragmatic in the early 2000s.
The incidents in the 1980s were silly stunts (something the DUP was very prone to at the time), the DUP was never involved in actual terrorist acts. Paisley's followers got dressed up and marched up mountains and instead of waving guns they waved legal firearms certificates. It was vigilante-ism taken too way far, not terrorism of the sort that others were engaging in. The 1986 invasion was a silly stunt to make a point in response to the Anglo-Irish agreement, it was not a serious attempt at territorial annexation. Back then they were very much the minority party within unionism because of tendencies like this, with the UUP the more mainstream and much larger unionist party. There is a world of difference between the DUP's silly/irresponsible stunts and an actual terrorist campaign like IRA/UVF/UDA were engaging in back then.
Paisley for most of his career was a rabble-rouser who wound people up and then washed his hands of the consequences and in that sense he does bear his share of responsibility for some of what went on during the troubles. He started things off like Ulster Resistance, but they got out of his control and he then washed his hands of the consequences. Without doubt, he was irresponsible.
Re Emma Little-Pengelly, the DUP explicitly rejected the endorsement of the Loyalist Communities Council for their candidates (see Jeffrey Donaldson's comments in the BBC NI debate last week)
But, as I said before, there was a sea-change in the DUP in the early 2000s. Paisley was ill and came close to death and that seems to have changed his outlook. Peter Robinson was ambitious and like all politicians wanted power. I haven't seen it myself yet, but catch the new film "The Journey" to see how Paisley had changed. It was only as they moved to the centre ground that they became the largest unionist party. I personally only started voting for them around this time.
What is not out of date is the criticism of their social conservatism. But, the point has already been made, that these issues will not form part of any agreement because (a) the Tories wouldn't go for it (b) these issues tend to get a free / non-party vote in Parliament and (c) they are devolved to the NI assembly as far as NI is concerned. Again, to take the most obvious example, if you check out the facts, more Labour MPs than DUP MPs voted against the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill on both its second and third readings, as did a lot more Conservatives. Yet to read/listen to all that is being said now on the subject, this is conveniently forgotten by those intent on attacking the DUP and one could be forgiven for thinking that they had been the sole opposition to the bill. 10 DUP MPs in a chamber of 650 are a drop in the ocean when it comes to those kinds of issues, so whether you agree or disagree with their social conservatism the reality is that it will have little or no practical impact on anything at Westminster. It will have an impact at Stormont, but then it always would have had regardless of whatever happens or doesn't happen at Westminster.
Keep in mind also that Labour would quite happily have done a deal with the DUP in 2010 (this came up in some of the leaked Hillary Clinton emails) and they also held discussions with the DUP before the 2015 election. Those who are objecting to the DUP now would not have been objecting to anything like the same degree had Labour done a deal with them back then. The DUP are a right wing party and are not to everyone's taste - that's fair enough. But right now they are being demonised based on an out of date caricature and used as a stick to beat the Tories with by those on the left who don't want to see a Tory government.
You make some well reasoned points and have laid things out in a very clear manner, and thanks for that. And since you're a resident of NI you obviously live the life and know the ground and grass roots and that has to be respected. You haven't convinced me 100 per cent that they haven't connections to terror, though they may be technically mothballed. As for the endorsement? Good that it was rejected. It shouldn't have happened in the first place. Whatever the DUP think of it, it seems that those who endorsed her see her and her party as their clients. Not a good thing to be. Paisley Snr did have a sea change and his working relationship with Martin McGuinness was both astonishing, and for me anyway, a breath of fresh air. I agree that he was a demagogue and irresponsible but it seemed he recognised this and attempted to right things at the end of his life, pity he didn't live to do more. As to their social policy? I honestly don't see how they could influence laws already passed in the rest of the UK retroactively. They do need to get their head out of the 19th century though and stop their nonsense regarding equal marriage and abortion rights. It's a frankly ridiculous position to have a redline on going in to government in Stormont on, denying civil rights to their constituents that are already available to the rest of the UK. It's weird when SF can paint themselves as the socially liberal party thanks to this! I wouldn't support Labour doing a deal with them either for the record. Or their opposition, not that SF would take their seats anyway. Thanks for the response again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2017 5:36:24 GMT
I doubt an election will happen unless the situation gets a lot worse. A vote of no confidence is the only way to end this situation and trigger an election, and that requires a Tory rebellion. I don't think any Tory would be willing to take the risk of an election and might just stomach the current situation. It only requires a DUP revolt, not a Tory one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2017 5:38:09 GMT
Incidentally, the government's numerical position is a bit stronger than the media are saying, because the DUP would actively have to vote AGAINST the Conservatives for them to lose any vote. There are 318 Tories out of 643 and 10 DUP. Even if EVERY other MP (315) voted against them, if the DUP abstain, the Tories united would win a vote. There may also be votes where the Lib Dems choose to abstain or even vote with the Conservatives, even a handful of Labour rebels on some issues (on Brexit or defence, for example.) Unless the opposition is fully united, a united Tory party outnumbers their opponents. Conversely, a few Tory rebels can help defeat their own side. Don't forget there are two "non-voting" jobs so the Tory DUP alliance is likely to have 326 against 313 for all others combined.
|
|
|
Post by acousticwolf on Jun 12, 2017 8:01:01 GMT
If Sinn Fein decided to take up their seats that would make things even more interesting. I highly doubt they would, but if the Tory/DUP arrangement comes off they might just decide to.
Cheers
Tony
|
|
|
Post by acousticwolf on Jun 12, 2017 8:05:08 GMT
I really hope we don't have another election within the next year. Estimates are that this one will cost the taxpayer approx. £143m. Just think what that money could have been used for! Cheers Tony This mess just seems to get messier doesn't it? I actually admire Theresa for trying to present a 'strong an stable' front (because we need to maintain one for the upcoming Brexit business), but it is obviously nothing more than a shallow front. If you listen closely you can hear the Conservatives sharpening their knives! And as you point out, acousticwolf , the expence of these campaigns is obscene, absolutely obscene. It might not be a solution for everyone, but for me, if there is another election, it's time to lock the doors and windows and listen to a bit of Big Finish Very much my thoughts @paz. Cheers Tony
|
|
|
Post by lidar on Jun 12, 2017 8:17:15 GMT
If Sinn Fein decided to take up their seats that would make things even more interesting. I highly doubt they would, but if the Tory/DUP arrangement comes off they might just decide to. Cheers Tony They are normally very tactically astute, but in this instance they have got bogged down in symbolism at the expense of the practical politics and have left the DUP an open goal.
|
|
|
Post by lidar on Jun 12, 2017 8:39:26 GMT
The DUP are not all as straight-laced and narrow minded as you might imagine. Google Sammy Wilson (MP for East Antrim) and the Sunday World pictures. His DUP career has still prospered well enough.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Jun 12, 2017 10:23:52 GMT
I doubt an election will happen unless the situation gets a lot worse. A vote of no confidence is the only way to end this situation and trigger an election, and that requires a Tory rebellion. I don't think any Tory would be willing to take the risk of an election and might just stomach the current situation. It only requires a DUP revolt, not a Tory one. Given that this is the DUP's big chance to be relevant in Westminster I don't see them revolting unless something changes.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Jun 12, 2017 10:55:44 GMT
I doubt an election will happen unless the situation gets a lot worse. A vote of no confidence is the only way to end this situation and trigger an election, and that requires a Tory rebellion. I don't think any Tory would be willing to take the risk of an election and might just stomach the current situation. It only requires a DUP revolt, not a Tory one. I suspect the DUP are both more disciplined than the Tories and that if they do choose to "revolt" they will abstain, which still means no huge problems.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2017 10:58:27 GMT
If Sinn Fein decided to take up their seats that would make things even more interesting. I highly doubt they would, but if the Tory/DUP arrangement comes off they might just decide to. They should, but they won't. Not swearng allegiance to The Queen is one of their core principles. So whatever happens they won't go back on that.
|
|
|
Post by lidar on Jun 12, 2017 11:14:40 GMT
It only requires a DUP revolt, not a Tory one. I suspect the DUP are both more disciplined than the Tories and that if they do choose to "revolt" they will abstain, which still means no huge problems. The current situation is all their Christmases come early. They want it to last for the full 5 years, they won't be the ones to pull the plug.
|
|
|
Post by lidar on Jun 12, 2017 11:28:43 GMT
Mark Mardell's analysis of May's position on BBC website very insightful. Almost makes one feel sorry for her.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jun 12, 2017 11:39:24 GMT
Mark Mardell's analysis of May's position on BBC website very insightful. Almost makes one feel sorry for her. It's impossible to feel sorry for Theresa May, especially if we lose the BBC and the NHS because of her.
|
|
|
Post by acousticwolf on Jun 12, 2017 11:47:11 GMT
Mark Mardell's analysis of May's position on BBC website very insightful. Almost makes one feel sorry for her. Can you post a link for that? Thanks Cheers Tony
|
|
|
Post by acousticwolf on Jun 12, 2017 11:48:03 GMT
Mark Mardell's analysis of May's position on BBC website very insightful. Almost makes one feel sorry for her. It's impossible to feel sorry for Theresa May, especially if we lose the BBC and the NHS because of her. I highly doubt we will lose either the BBC or the NHS because of one person. Cheers Tony
|
|