Don't vote Tory

[GMF]

27 minutes ago, Tuna said:

Ah... I was enjoying not seeing Gove on my telly box.

To use an appropriate analogy for this forum, the reinstatement of Gove ad retention of Johnson and Hammond is a bit of having people you do not like inside the tent pissing out rather than outside the tent pissing in.

Edited June 12, 2017 by GMF

[FuzzyDunlop]

3 hours ago, Mardy said:

 

Thing is, @russycarps is right I reckon. I don't understand where this "Glastonbury =Peace and Love" got twisted into "It's alright to be a c**t" thing.

If anything I believe, if anything, the ethos of Glastonbury is more about fighting for a fairer world, rejecting injustice and inequality, not 'Oh, you're a racist/sexist/homophobe/climate change denier? ah well, that's your choice and I respect your decision. Peace and love, eh'.

Absolutely spot on.

If someone is a c**t - they are a c**t. Whether it's at Glastonbury or not. If anything I think the festival is perfect place to call them out. You can't do it at work - you get sacked.

[Mardy]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

and yet everything Corbyn is promising is dependent on productivity. Everything we have or might have is 100% dependent on that productivity.

Without that productivity there's no time for arts, because we'd be scrambling in the dirt trying to survive.

without the arts, we'd still be scrabbling around in the dirt. It's what lifts us out.

[eFestivals]

Just now, Mardy said:

without the arts, we'd still be scrabbling around in the dirt. It's what lifts us out.

nah. we only had time for art after we didn't need to spend all the time scrambling in the dirt to survive.

I don't disagree that it's what sets us apart, but we first had to create the space in our survival for that to be able to happen.

[waterfalls212434]

People are also forgetting the The EVEL legislation (enacted under Cameron) which prevents MPs from Scotland and Northern Ireland from voting on legislation that affects England.This Act would have to be removed if the DUP were to be needed to vote on legislation.

[arcade fireman]

1 minute ago, waterfalls212434 said:

People are also forgetting the The EVEL legislation (enacted under Cameron) which prevents MPs from Scotland and Northern Ireland from voting on legislation that affects England.This Act would have to be removed if the DUP were to be needed to vote on legislation.

Tories have a majority in England though, so they wouldn't need DUP to vote on English only legislation, as far as I'm aware.

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

People are also forgetting the The EVEL legislation (enacted under Cameron) which prevents MPs from Scotland and Northern Ireland from voting on legislation that affects England.This Act would have to be removed if the DUP were to be needed to vote on legislation.

Nope.

That's for legislation which *only* affects England, of which there's almost nothing. (fox hunting would be one).

Cos (say) a tory education for plan for england that involves changed education spending for England has a financial consequence for those places which handle devolved education - and so it remains an issue of meaning for NI.

If that argument is good enough for the SNP to say EVEL ain't really worth shit, then it works for NI too.

But i do have to laugh at the idea that a coalition is wrong, from people who only have a less stable coalition to offer as the alternative.

Edited June 12, 2017 by eFestivals

[waterfalls212434]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

Nope.

That's for legislation which *only* affects England, of which there's almost nothing. (fox hunting would be one).

Cos (say) a tory education for plan for england that involves changed education spending for England has a financial consequence for those places which handle devolved education - and so it remains an issue of meaning for NI.

If that argument is good enough for the SNP to say EVEL ain't really worth shit, then it works for NI too.

But i do have to laugh at the idea that a coalition is wrong, from people who only have a less stable coalition to offer as the alternative.

Think peoples objections are based on who the coalition is with mate and the tory/dup one would be more unstable because even many tories dont seem keen on going along with it, looking at their personal public perception as well they should, any tory who chooses to work with these bigots and dinosaurs will be sullied by that support. I just cant see how it would work, it would be political suicide for many tory mps to be seen to be working with the dup given their stance on a lot of issues. 

[Scott129]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Everything is dependent on what is agreed being able to be got thru the HoC.

 

 

 

I could be confused or just plain wrong, as I'm not as politically knowledgable as many on this thread. But I thought that the HoC didn't get a final say on any Brexit deal? Because I seem to remember the Lords trying to introduce an amendment on it when triggering Art 50, but it getting rejected in the Commons. Either way, would it not actually be an advantage to May's negotiating position if she has less strength in the HoC? Since there is more of a risk that a deal won't get through, and therefore the EU will have to give a better deal if they want a deal with us. Or am I wide of the mark?

[babyblade41]

3 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

Think peoples objections are based on who the coalition is with mate and the tory/dup one would be more unstable because even many tories dont seem keen on going along with it, looking at their personal public perception as well they should, any tory who chooses to work with these bigots and dinosaurs will be sullied by that support. I just cant see how it would work, it would be political suicide for many tory mps to be seen to be working with the dup given their stance on a lot of issues. 

but wouldn't Corbyn have to get into bed with them if he wanted to form a govt ?

[waterfalls212434]

But hey the longer mrs may decides to cling to power and this carries on before it eventually collapses (a question of when not if)  the more damage is being done to the tory party, reputation and trust wise and the more support their opponents gain so shes welcome to try, itll just make it so much easier for corbyn when another election is called. Who would vote tory now? when you know what kind of people theyd befriend just to cling to power?

[HalfAnIdiot]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Ahhh, so they are the bunch of c**ts Farage said? Good job we're leaving then.

They want an advantageous deal, but that's merely what the other side does as well. That doesn't mean an unfair one.

What might be agreed face to face is still meaningless without the UK's negotiator able to get what's agreed thru the HoC - and as things look right now, it looks like nothing would be (even if Corbyn were the one negotiating).

They need a meaningful negotiation more than they need a weak one. For them, same as us, no deal at all is a dreadful outcome that will cause as much chaos across the EU as it will cause within the UK (tho the chaos would be more dispersed within the EU).

 

 

Nope, it makes fuck all difference. A new face would only have the same HoC numbers. Everything is dependent on what is agreed being able to be got thru the HoC.

 

I reckon you're likely to be wrong about 'a few weeks'.

Care to tell me what you think will change in a few weeks, and how that would advantage the tory party who are very unlikely to put themselves out of power?

It's not impossible they might change the leader, but any new leader is unlikely to call a new election (cos they'd lose), and would be just as hamstrung by the limited HoC support they'd have for any and all options they might pursue.

 

 

 

Your putting words in my mouth. Please don't. They are highly capable negotiators who will rightly sniff out all advantages open to them

There will be no 'chaos' in Europe or the UK as a result of the negotiations. A stupidly much overused and emotive word.

You put you best man/woman forward to lead a negotiation. May falls short now by a long way. We need a change and I expect a change to come.

Yes, of course the Tories are fighting a self preservation battle here but the are also fighting a longer term war. Do they want to be the party that got a poor deal for generations to come because of a weak failing PM? Of course not. There will be a change.

 

[babyblade41]

Just now, waterfalls212434 said:

But hey the longer mrs may decides to cling to power and this carries on before it eventually collapses (a question of when not if)  the more damage is being done to the tory party, reputation and trust wise and the more support their opponents gain so shes welcome to try, itll just make it so much easier for corbyn when another election is called. Who would vote tory now? when you know what kind of people theyd befriend just to cling to power?

The same could be said for Corbyn as he would have to form a govt with them too ?

 

[waterfalls212434]

1 minute ago, babyblade41 said:

but wouldn't Corbyn have to get into bed with them if he wanted to form a govt ?

Not a minority government no, but why would corbyn ever consider getting into bed with the dup? thatd be a dumber move then even anything may has done. Personally I think the tory/dup plans will be voted down during the queens speech debate because I think even a fair few tory mps will oppose it worried about their own backsides if they were seen to support such a thing and then its all up in the air, either corbyn will present an alternative plan for a progressive alliance with the support of people like the snp/greens/plaid and have it voted for or another election will be called and the tories will get utterly destroyed and we end with a labour majority government. 

They basically dont have a pot to piss in right now, every option looks bad for them. The only thing that could save them is if every tory mp decided to overlook what the dup stands for, all work with them, all unite and vote with the party and that isnt going to happen because the dup are far to divisive 

[waterfalls212434]

My biggest concern and that shared by many is how this will affect Northern Ireland as far as the peace process goes, any form of political union between the dup and the uk government breaks the terms of the good Friday agreement as under those terms the uk government has to adapt a neutral stance towards all sides.....and they are taking a huge gamble in that that doesn't blow up in their faces and end with lives being lost with  troubles resumed. I cant see sinn fein taking that sitting down for example either. 

They have no right to basically fuck a deal which has brought peace to that region and ignore the terms of it just to try and cling onto power, its morally wrong.

http://occupier.org.uk/2017/06/11/northern-ireland-in-crisis/

Edited June 12, 2017 by waterfalls212434

[eFestivals]

17 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

Think peoples objections are based on who the coalition is with mate and the tory/dup one would be more unstable because even many tories dont seem keen on going along with it, looking at their personal public perception as well they should, any tory who chooses to work with these bigots and dinosaurs will be sullied by that support. I just cant see how it would work, it would be political suicide for many tory mps to be seen to be working with the dup given their stance on a lot of issues. 

it might work badly, but an alternative Labour-led coalition that couldn't get a majority at all and depends on even more parties with bigger conflicting ideas would work much worse.

Simple fact is: the tories won and labour didn't. The tories have the numbers and Labour don't.

Corbyn trying to pretend differently by dismissing the result is a dangerous game, because there's plenty in this country would vote tory rather than support a party which refused to accept the democratic result.

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

The conservatives got more seats than Labour, I wouldn't say they won, as they need to do a deal with another party so they have a majority. That's not winning in my book, they are the best placed loser.

[waterfalls212434]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

it might work badly, but an alternative Labour-led coalition that couldn't get a majority at all and depends on even more parties with bigger conflicting ideas would work much worse.

Simple fact is: the tories won and labour didn't. The tories have the numbers and Labour don't.

Corbyn trying to pretend differently by dismissing the result is a dangerous game, because there's plenty in this country would vote tory rather than support a party which refused to accept the democratic result.

democratic result? yeah because a tory/dup alliance is exactly what people voted for.......lol Theres even more people who would never vote tory again for choosing to enable the bigoted policies of the dup.

[waterfalls212434]

2 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

The conservatives got more seats than Labour, I wouldn't say they won, as they need to do a deal with another party so they have a majority. That's not winning in my book, they are the best placed loser.

I look at winning as which party is on the rise and has the momentum and which party is looking worse and worse every day and has had to resort to a dangerous and unstable alliance just to cling to power? may is the one sweating, corbyn isnt believe me. 

Edited June 12, 2017 by waterfalls212434

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, HalfAnIdiot said:

Your putting words in my mouth. Please don't. They are highly capable negotiators who will rightly sniff out all advantages open to them

They may or may not.

A unsustainable deal that UK signs up to but doesn't reslly accept isn't something they'd regard as advantageous.

A deal that works for both side is of most importance to both sides. Everything else is secondary to that.

 

14 minutes ago, HalfAnIdiot said:

There will be no 'chaos' in Europe or the UK as a result of the negotiations. A stupidly much overused and emotive word.

PMSL

No deal would be queues of lorries from London to Dover, and from Calais to Paris. It would be chaos.

No deal would be the biggest people-movement in Europe since WW2.  It would be chaos.

Etc, etc, etc.

 

14 minutes ago, HalfAnIdiot said:

You put you best man/woman forward to lead a negotiation. May falls short now by a long way. We need a change and I expect a change to come.

There is no better person than the person leading the largest UK party and who can command a majority in the HoC. Everyone else is democratically weaker.

The tories might decide to swap leader, but they won't be able to command a bigger majority in the HoC and therefore would be no stronger.

And the tories won't be giving up power, unless they want Labour to be holding the very very shitty stick - for tory party advantage, not for labour party adbvntage.

 

14 minutes ago, HalfAnIdiot said:

Yes, of course the Tories are fighting a self preservation battle here but the are also fighting a longer term war. Do they want to be the party that got a poor deal for generations to come because of a weak failing PM? Of course not. There will be a change.

In which case they want to stitch-up Labour even worse than they think they'll be stitched up - so if there's a change, it's to advantage the tories and not Labour.

My take is that even with the shittiest of sticks, they'd rather be in control of the shit than not be.

 

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

1 minute ago, waterfalls212434 said:

I look at winning as which party is on the rise and has the momentum and which party is looking worse and worse every day and has had to resort to a dangerous and unstable alliance just to cling to power? may is the one sweating, corbyn isnt believe me. 

I don't look it like that necessarily, winning is winning however you do it. But the conservatives fell short of an overall majority and have to form an alliance to form a government. That's not winning, that's best loser joining up with another loser.

[eFestivals]

27 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

Not a minority government no, but why would corbyn ever consider getting into bed with the dup? thatd be a dumber move then even anything may has done. Personally I think the tory/dup plans will be voted down during the queens speech debate because I think even a fair few tory mps will oppose it worried about their own backsides if they were seen to support such a thing and then its all up in the air, either corbyn will present an alternative plan for a progressive alliance with the support of people like the snp/greens/plaid and have it voted for or another election will be called and the tories will get utterly destroyed and we end with a labour majority government. 

They basically dont have a pot to piss in right now, every option looks bad for them. The only thing that could save them is if every tory mp decided to overlook what the dup stands for, all work with them, all unite and vote with the party and that isnt going to happen because the dup are far to divisive 

the tories don't save their own ars4es by causing another election where they get their arses booted from Westminster,.

They might be in a shitty place, but the alternatives are more shitty still.

They'll be going nowhere, unless they think that Labour handling brexit will damage Labour even more than it might damage them.

[eFestivals]

27 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

My biggest concern and that shared by many is how this will affect Northern Ireland as far as the peace process goes, any form of political union between the dup and the uk government breaks the terms of the good Friday agreement as under those terms the uk government has to adapt a neutral stance towards all sides.....and they are taking a huge gamble in that that doesn't blow up in their faces and end with lives being lost with  troubles resumed. I cant see sinn fein taking that sitting down for example either. 

They have no right to basically fuck a deal which has brought peace to that region and ignore the terms of it just to try and cling onto power, its morally wrong.

http://occupier.org.uk/2017/06/11/northern-ireland-in-crisis/

it's OK, if the peace process breaks down, we can send Jezza over there to bring about peace like he did last time.

With Jezza being Jezza and with his history of bringing peace to NI it'll be a breeze, right?

 

Edited June 12, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

The conservatives got more seats than Labour, I wouldn't say they won, as they need to do a deal with another party so they have a majority. That's not winning in my book, they are the best placed loser.

I'm quite happy to see them as "the best placed loser" if that's how you want to say it.

It's the same thing. They're the ones with control and the power, and they'll only be giving that up if it's to their own political advantage to do that.

[p.pete]

35 minutes ago, babyblade41 said:

The same could be said for Corbyn as he would have to form a govt with them too ?

 

May would (and will), Corbyn wouldn't.