Theresa May calls General Election for June 8

[eugenonegin]

6 hours ago, Setton said:

Ah, that favourite phrase of politicians. 'Mistakes were made' notice the complete lack of taking responsibility. It's never 'I made mistakes', never 'X made mistakes' always just 'mistakes were made'.

.......

Another great phrase: "Lessons will be learnt".

[Space Commander Travis]

 

18 hours ago, stevewinn said:

The Media outlets, the ones which are anti-Brexit think if they can rid of May Brexit wont happen, 

You don't think perhaps she might be the biggest liability in the way of a satisfactory exit from the European Union, with her apparent lack of any kind of an idea what she does want exactly - one day it's a Churchillian "Very well, alone then" Hard Brext , then it's "EU Citizens might be able to stay and have rights to benefits and stuff just as long as they offer the same to my subjects", or perhaps, like Donald Trump, this apparent having no idea what she does want might perhaps be a clever tactic to wrongfoot her foes and make it difficult for them to oppose her?

[Space Commander Travis]

6 hours ago, Setton said:

Probably because they can. The opposition can call a vote of no confidence either in the government or in the Queen's speech.

Of course Ms. May would easily win a vote of confidence! The DUP would make sure of that by giving her their holehearted support , just as soon as she's given in to this list of demands, principal among which would be to give them a bribe of several billion pounds and to outlaw Sinn Féin. 

Edited June 23, 2017 by Manfred von Dreidecker

[Space Commander Travis]

6 hours ago, hetrodoxly said:

How would that work as the conservatives with the DUP have more seats than all the other parties put together?

Um, I know dogma can be terribly blinding, but the reason she needs to give in to whatever the DUPs may want to blackmail her with is because she didn't get more seats than all the other parties, and so in fact she failed utterly and miserably.

[hetrodoxly]

Dogma can be terrible when you can't face the truth like thinking you've won when you've lost, pass the message on to Jeremy.

[Setton]

9 hours ago, hetrodoxly said:

You need to get up to speed she took full responsibility.

I wasn't talking about May, I was talking to bee. She still won't accept it was her candidate got it wrong and tries to blame it on 'bad advice'.

Quote

How would that work as the conservatives with the DUP have more seats than all the other parties put together? Labour didn't even come close they lost by over 50 seats forget it you didn't win, could you pass the message on to Jeremy.

1. The DUP and Tories still don't have an agreement. They have 6 days before the first key vote.

2. Even with that agreement, their majority is 3. That means only 3 Tory/ DUP MPs need to rebel or not show up for them to risk losing a vote.

3. You seem obsessed with the fact that Labour didn't get a majority. Everyone is aware. But more political parties align more closely with labour than with the Tories. If the Tories can't form a government with the DUP support, they have no other allies to help. Labour could get support from pretty much every party except Tories and DUP making them, in my view, a better possibility for a minority government as they would have to temper more extreme policies, arriving at a good middle ground. Because the tories are without allies, they either plough on regardless or just drop policies rather than discussing.

 

To be honest, I think parliament should be structured in such a way that no single party can have an overall majority. That way, they have to work together rather than being able to force through whatever they want. At the moment, if a government has a strong majority, anyone who didn't vote for that party effectively goes unrepresented.

[stevewinn]

4 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

 

You don't think perhaps she might be the biggest liability in the way of a satisfactory exit from the European Union, with her apparent lack of any kind of an idea what she does want exactly - one day it's a Churchillian "Very well, alone then" Hard Brext , then it's "EU Citizens might be able to stay and have rights to benefits and stuff just as long as they offer the same to my subjects", or perhaps, like Donald Trump, this apparent having no idea what she does want might perhaps be a clever tactic to wrongfoot her foes and make it difficult for them to oppose her?

You seem to be influenced by the media's narrative, The media are conflating both Brexit and the General election. Why would May be a liability over Brexit? Its a different kettle of fish - internal politics compared to foreign policy. You may have noticed the country is on a sound footing and everyday life as continued after the General election. But somehow the United Kingdom stature as become weak.

Theresa May as done the right thing proposing that EU citizens have 'settle status'  - settled status will be available to all EU nationals who have been in the UK for five years, giving them the same rights as British citizens to healthcare, education, welfare benefits and pensions.

Those who have been in the UK for a shorter time would be able to stay until they hit the five-year threshold for settled status, while others who arrive after a cut-off date will be given a "grace period", expected to be two years, to regularise their immigration status.

The EU's response as been disappointing, with European Commission boss Jean-Claude Juncker saying more was needed. its a "first step but this step is not sufficient". and the EU wants the ECJ to rule on that aspect of the deal.

I cannot see how the EU can arrive at that conclusion.

There are 3Million EU citizens in the UK, 4.9% of our population. So we are granting that status to 5% of our population - compared to the 1Million UK citizens living in the EU. that means the EU will be only granting that status to just 0.1% of their population, therefore the UK is securing the future and rights of far more people than the EU.

Its clear as day and no surprise this whole "negotiations" period will end as we expect with no deal. Its now time for the UK government to put aside the postponement on recruiting staff we'll need after Brexit, in case it predetermined or influenced the negotiations. Its now time to start recruiting extra Border force, customs and excise staff, senior civil servants need to draw up a list of tariff and tax duties on goods and services, expected money earned and taxes raised.

We need to remember what we are dealing with, when talking about the EU, just 11% of British businesses trade World wide of that figure just 4.6% of UK businesses trade with the EU. The UK runs a trade deficit of £80Billion with the EU. can the EU lose out on that? And then we have the UK's contributions to the EU. £10Billion, are the EU members who are net contributors, are they going to agree to pay more? or are the net beneficiaries going to agree to accept less?

 

 

 

[LV-426]

2 hours ago, Setton said:

You seem obsessed with the fact that Labour didn't get a majority. Everyone is aware. But more political parties align more closely with labour than with the Tories. If the Tories can't form a government with the DUP support, they have no other allies to help. Labour could get support from pretty much every party except Tories and DUP making them, in my view, a better possibility for a minority government as they would have to temper more extreme policies, arriving at a good middle ground. Because the tories are without allies, they either plough on regardless or just drop policies rather than discussing.

It doesn't matter how many parties align more closely with Labour, if they are non-entities.

Of those that won seats, who has the interests of Britain as a whole as their priority? In fact, which ones actually do align more closely with Labour?

The SNP, who's driving credo has been independence from the UK, regardless of the referendum?

The Liberals, who aren't even hiding their intention to reverse the democratic process?

Sinn Féin, who won't even attend parliament? The political wing of a former terrorist organization - how many here even remember the days where Gerry Adams voice was banned from being broadcast on televsion? Well, maybe Sinn Féin actually do align more with Corbyn's visions for Labour...

 

2 hours ago, Setton said:

To be honest, I think parliament should be structured in such a way that no single party can have an overall majority. That way, they have to work together rather than being able to force through whatever they want. At the moment, if a government has a strong majority, anyone who didn't vote for that party effectively goes unrepresented.

It sounds better in principal, but to be honest I don't see it making a great deal of difference. Policies would still need to be made, and their will always be winners and losers in the grand scheme of things. We'd have the same kind of instability we have right now, but on every single issue that comes before parliament. Could you imagine if we're a nation at war some time in the future, trying to get consensus between a Corbyn and a May?

As I say, in principal, the idea of everyone having a voice is good. In practice, I think it would be chaos.

[Setton]

30 minutes ago, LV-426 said:

It doesn't matter how many parties align more closely with Labour, if they are non-entities.

Of those that won seats, who has the interests of Britain as a whole as their priority? In fact, which ones actually do align more closely with Labour?

The SNP, who's driving credo has been independence from the UK, regardless of the referendum?

The Liberals, who aren't even hiding their intention to reverse the democratic process?

Sinn Féin, who won't even attend parliament? The political wing of a former terrorist organization - how many here even remember the days where Gerry Adams voice was banned from being broadcast on televsion? Well, maybe Sinn Féin actually do align more with Corbyn's visions for Labour...

You do realise that's kind of the point? Just as Labour's more extreme policies would be tempered by working with other parties, so would theirs. E.g. Labour might have to limit nationalisation plans while lib dems need to accept the referendum result.

And the irony of you dismissing Sinn Fein as the political wing of a former terrorist organisation, while our Prime Minister is in talks with the DUP, is staggering.

Quote

It sounds better in principal, but to be honest I don't see it making a great deal of difference. Policies would still need to be made, and their will always be winners and losers in the grand scheme of things. We'd have the same kind of instability we have right now, but on every single issue that comes before parliament. Could you imagine if we're a nation at war some time in the future, trying to get consensus between a Corbyn and a May?

As I say, in principal, the idea of everyone having a voice is good. In practice, I think it would be chaos.

It would need a lot of rethinking in the way parliament's run and I don't actually expect it to ever happen (it would mean a government agreeing to limit their own power after all). It's just an ideal.

 

As for war, that's another case entirely and should require parties to work together anyway, as in WWII.

[LV-426]

12 hours ago, Setton said:

And the irony of you dismissing Sinn Fein as the political wing of a former terrorist organisation, while our Prime Minister is in talks with the DUP, is staggering.

Who says I'm happy with the Tories having to strike a deal with the DUP? It's needs must, with Corbyn still insisting he should lead the country - despite the maths - and at least they support the Union.

I don't mean to insult you Setton - well, maybe a tiny bit - but you are 25 years old according to your profile?

Whilst nobody is excusing loyalist violence during the Troubles, have you any notion what it was actually like living through that era? Have you any idea of the terror the IRA spread throughout mainland Britain; not just targetting our royalty, our soldiers and our politicians on the mainland, but civilians in pubs, on transport, in shopping centres, etc.?

As I said in another thread recently, I was actually shopping in Manchester just one week before the largest bomb since World War II was detonated outside the Arndale Centre, doing this:

I have relatives that served in the army in Northern Ireland during the Troubles.

Whilst I'm extremely happy that a peaceful solution was found, anyone like myself who was targetted for simply being British during that period will find it hard not to spit when hearing the name Sinn Féin.

Edited June 24, 2017 by LV-426

[Setton]

14 hours ago, LV-426 said:

Who says I'm happy with the Tories having to strike a deal with the DUP? It's needs must, with Corbyn still insisting he should lead the country - despite the maths - and at least they support the Union.

It's not needs must. They have the option of governing as a minority government, without endangering the peace in NI.

Quote

 

I don't mean to insult you Setton - well, maybe a tiny bit - but you are 25 years old according to your profile?

Whilst nobody is excusing loyalist violence during the Troubles, have you any notion what it was actually like living through that era? Have you any idea of the terror the IRA spread throughout mainland Britain; not just targetting our royalty, our soldiers and our politicians on the mainland, but civilians in pubs, on transport, in shopping centres, etc.?

As I said in another thread recently, I was actually shopping in Manchester just one week before the largest bomb since World War II was detonated outside the Arndale Centre, doing this:

I have relatives that served in the army in Northern Ireland during the Troubles.

Whilst I'm extremely happy that a peaceful solution was found, anyone like myself who was targetted for simply being British during that period will find it hard not to spit when hearing the name Sinn Féin.

 

It's ok, I'm not going to be insulted by my age. I leave that to old people (like you)

Of course I can never really understand what it was like during that time but that is the way of history; the atrocious fades and becomes irrelevant. That said, it is a subject I've studied (albeit from a different angle to most) and with my mum being a detective during that time, I've heard plenty about what it was like. I also have family who served in the army during the Troubles so you'll never find me in any way supporting the IRA or what they did. You won't even find me supporting Sinn Fein today, partly because of their past but also because I support the union.

But the fact that I don't support Sinn Fein doesn't mean I have to be OK with the Tories making an agreement with the DUP. To my mind, the British government shouldn't be forming any agreements with remnants of paramilitary organisations, unionist or separatist. Even more so when they are supposed to be an impartial mediator.

Honestly, she might actually recover some respect from me if Theresa May came out and said she won't seek any agreement with the DUP and will attempt to govern as a minority.

Please don't have it in your head that I'm some left wing extremist who could only ever vote labour. One of the most entertaining posts I've had directed at me was a systematic breakdown of my voting history based on what I post here. Can't remember if it was stevewinn or keithisco but whoever it was they were wildly wrong. This election is the first time I've voted Labour. As I said before, if the Tories had a better leader and moved back towards the centre, they'd probably get my vote again.

 

 

[eugenonegin]

Arlene Foster must be very eloquent if, in just two weeks, she has talked May into giving her £1billion,and drop plans to shelve the Triple Lock and Winter Fuel Allowances.

Perhaps she should be the Brexit Secretary?

[stevewinn]

3 hours ago, eugeneonegin said:

Arlene Foster must be very eloquent if, in just two weeks, she has talked May into giving her £1billion,and drop plans to shelve the Triple Lock and Winter Fuel Allowances.

Perhaps she should be the Brexit Secretary?

That's £1 billion over two years on infrastructure, health and education in Northern Ireland, spent here within the United Kingdom. -

- Hell, when we had a Tory - Lib Dem coalition Government we ended up spending £11.7Billion on foreign aid, an increase of £2 Billion thanks to the LIb Dems who demanded that in return for them backing the Tories in a vote. the killer is, in that deal the Lib Dems wanted it written into law and so it was, so now we by Law have to spend 0.7% of GDP on foreign aid. that's £13Billion this year, and the civil servant in charge of spending gets a £10,000 Bonus if the department achieves spending every single penny of it. - you couldn't make it up.

Plus £1Billion is a bargain when you think its keeping Corbyn out.

[eugenonegin]

So the years of austerity were for nothing now the tories realise the regions need money? £1.5 billion over 2 years,to be spent on roads, hospitals, broadband and other infrastructure. I hope she will be pumping several billions to Wales,Scotland,the North and SW as they could do with it too. Or will she only be giving money to people who will prop up her government? 

[hetrodoxly]

36 minutes ago, eugeneonegin said:

So the years of austerity were for nothing now the tories realise the regions need money? £1.5 billion over 2 years,to be spent on roads, hospitals, broadband and other infrastructure. I hope she will be pumping several billions to Wales,Scotland,the North and SW as they could do with it too. Or will she only be giving money to people who will prop up her government? 

And? labour would have given Scotland away if they'd been given the chance, Sinn Féin were on the radio tonight saying they're coming back to the joint executive and possibly put MP's in westminster they want to help spend the money.

[eugenonegin]

32 minutes ago, hetrodoxly said:

And? labour would have given Scotland away if they'd been given the chance, Sinn Féin were on the radio tonight saying they're coming back to the joint executive and possibly put MP's in westminster they want to help spend the money.

Well,the Tories spending, it is all to the good, austerity went on far too long.

Before the election she was planning a "dementia" tax, means-testing winter fuel allowance and doing away with the triple lock on pensions.

Now it is spend, spend, spend!

Was Arlene Foster that persuasive (May has been warned they will be back for more money when the £1.5 billion runs our), or is May thinking of all the billions saved when we leave the EU?

 

[hetrodoxly]

1 hour ago, eugeneonegin said:

Well,the Tories spending, it is all to the good, austerity went on far too long.

Before the election she was planning a "dementia" tax, means-testing winter fuel allowance and doing away with the triple lock on pensions.

Now it is spend, spend, spend!

Was Arlene Foster that persuasive (May has been warned they will be back for more money when the £1.5 billion runs our), or is May thinking of all the billions saved when we leave the EU?

 

She knows what she can and can't get through the house, you keep going over old ground.

[eugenonegin]

1 hour ago, eugeneonegin said:

Well,the Tories spending, it is all to the good, austerity went on far too long.

Before the election she was planning a "dementia" tax, means-testing winter fuel allowance and doing away with the triple lock on pensions.

Now it is spend, spend, spend!

Was Arlene Foster that persuasive (May has been warned they will be back for more money when the £1.5 billion runs out), or is May thinking of all the billions saved when we leave the EU?

 

 

[eugenonegin]

2 minutes ago, hetrodoxly said:

She knows what she can and can't get through the house, you keep going over old ground.

Oh, it is purely pragmatism then?

So she doesn't really want to spend, spend, spend, she is only doing so to stay in power?

Why?

She is already starting to abandon Brexit (the EU workers currently here can apply for permanent residency, she said yesterday).

David Davis has already said he is not assured of a good deal from negotiations.

Let's get Arlene Foster centre stage quick!

[Space Commander Travis]

 

13 hours ago, stevewinn said:

That's £1 billion over two years on infrastructure, health and education in Northern Ireland, spent here within the United Kingdom. -

- Hell, when we had a Tory - Lib Dem coalition Government we ended up spending £11.7Billion on foreign aid, an increase of £2 Billion thanks to the LIb Dems who demanded that in return for them backing the Tories in a vote. the killer is, in that deal the Lib Dems wanted it written into law and so it was, so now we by Law have to spend 0.7% of GDP on foreign aid. that's £13Billion this year, and the civil servant in charge of spending gets a £10,000 Bonus if the department achieves spending every single penny of it. - you couldn't make it up.

Plus £1Billion is a bargain when you think its keeping Corbyn out.

Blackmail pays, then. I bet Ms. Sturgeon is wishing that she'd had the nous to offer her, what is it, "support and confidence"? 

[Space Commander Travis]

Quote from Youtube:

Tories before the election - 'Fed up of my taxes going to scroungers'. Tories after the election - 'Delighted that my taxes are being used to buy votes'.

[RAyMO]

9 hours ago, hetrodoxly said:

Sinn Féin were on the radio tonight saying they're coming back to the joint executive and possibly put MP's in westminster they want to help spend the money.

I can't find any other source suggesting this. Have you a link, it would be an interesting change of direction from SF. SF would need to take the oath to the queen to sit in westminister, that would require approval from their members. I can't see how a Republican party can take such an oath.

In my opiion (which is not worth much) parts of the agreement will make it harder for the assembly to reform without concessions from the DUP.

But good on the DUP, their agreement will be good for NI in the short term. But it does throw up alarm bells - or it should. If the DUP could get this deal for 10 votes  which the tories would have got anyway (for key votes) I am left wondering how good the Tory players will be in negotiating European and other deals. It seems the deal is more important than its value.

And what about the Scottish Conseervative leader, fresh from election gains she has already had to defend this deal which ignores Barnet and in relative terms disadvantages Scotland.

[hetrodoxly]

2 hours ago, RAyMO said:

I can't find any other source suggesting this. Have you a link, it would be an interesting change of direction from SF. SF would need to take the oath to the queen to sit in westminister, that would require approval from their members. I can't see how a Republican party can take such an oath.

In my opiion (which is not worth much) parts of the agreement will make it harder for the assembly to reform without concessions from the DUP.

But good on the DUP, their agreement will be good for NI in the short term. But it does throw up alarm bells - or it should. If the DUP could get this deal for 10 votes  which the tories would have got anyway (for key votes) I am left wondering how good the Tory players will be in negotiating European and other deals. It seems the deal is more important than its value.

And what about the Scottish Conseervative leader, fresh from election gains she has already had to defend this deal which ignores Barnet and in relative terms disadvantages Scotland.

BBC radio between 22:15 and 22:45 last night, a quick search looks as if it's related to this....

Sinn Féin said the deal was a "blank cheque for a Tory Brexit" but any money coming to NI was a "good thing".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-40414646

[hetrodoxly]

10 hours ago, eugeneonegin said:

So she doesn't really want to spend, spend, spend, she is only doing so to stay in power?

Why?

All parties do what they have to do to stay in power.

10 hours ago, eugeneonegin said:

 

She is already starting to abandon Brexit (the EU workers currently here can apply for permanent residency, she said yesterday).

When as she ever said this wouldn't happen, i've always thought that's what would happen maybe if you'd have understood Brexit you'd have voted for it.

10 hours ago, eugeneonegin said:

David Davis has already said he is not assured of a good deal from negotiations

If he knew there'd be no need for negotiations, 'is it me' we keep going over and over the same thing alibongo. 

[eugenonegin]

39 minutes ago, hetrodoxly said:

All parties do what they have to do to stay in power.

When as she ever said this wouldn't happen, i've always thought that's what would happen maybe if you'd have understood Brexit you'd have voted for it.

If he knew there'd be no need for negotiations, 'is it me' we keep going over and over the same thing alibongo. 

I don't completely understand your last sentence, I think you are addressing someone else.

But, with regard to all parties doing what they have to  stay in power: they don't completely go into reverse .

The Tories have always wanted to roll back the State, they have always wanted to means-test, cap or stop benefits and public spending. It is what differentiates them from Labour, and usually gets great public approval.

It would be like Corbyn saying he will reduce corporation tax, privatise what remains of our state-owned institutions and increase spending of defence,just to get support.

But he won't say those things because he has principles.