JoeLeg

Arlene Foster will do what is in the best interests of 1. Arlene Foster 2. The DUP's bigoted,ignorant and divisive agenda 3. Their view of how Northern Itelnd should be 4. Maybe, just maybe, the rest of the U.K. In that order. Don't be fooled. In the current climate she's just as much of a chancer of Corbyn. I'm amazed a cynic like yourself doesn't see that UG.

Jenny1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeLeg Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > I'm still none the wiser where it will leave > > Brexit negotiations though. > > From the perspective of people who want a proper > debate about what on earth we might try to > achieve, the fluidity of the situation has to be > helpful. Indeed, but that only happens if May's successor doesn't default to a particular vision of Brexit, be it hard or soft. The Tories know that they cannot afford to be fractured, or even appear to be fractured. Divisions over Europe have plagued them for decades, and now that we come to the resolution of that the fault line within the party runs between those who will leave at whatever cost, and those who believe in more compromise. I can see the Leave point of view in that respect; anything that retains free movement of people is totally against what they voted for. I'm not sure there's any way that any PM can lead negotiations which result in that being kept. Surely all that leads to is a rebellion by the hardline euro sceptics resulting in 'no deal'. ETA - at the same time I guess the same can be said of Ruth Davidson etc. But if they use the opportunity to try and water down Brexit they risk being alienated by their own party. How much of a stand they want to take will probably be defined by what they can extract for themselves out of it all.

To be fair I think Theresa managed this one all on her own.

Jenny1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes. Sure that's right. I'm thinking about the > cash. Of which no doubt they will be demanding a lot. I'm hoping the DUP don't enjoy the increased media coverage they're about to get, as word spreads about their intolerant and outdated attitude. It may force them to tone it down over here, lest they overplay their hand, force an election and lose their kingmaker position. I'm still none the wiser where it will leave Brexit negotiations though. For every person saying it forces a soft Brexit, there's another one reckoning it'll mean the next PM doubles down and pushes even harder. So many variables...

I'm pretty sure they'll keep clear air between the DUP and anything involving LGBT rights or abortion. To do otherwise would bring the whole thing crashing down around them; large swathes of their own party won't tolerate that, let alone the public.

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeLeg Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Green Goose Wrote: > > Do nogt forget the Labour government survived a > motion of no confidence in December 1978 by ten > votes after negotiating the support of the Ulster > Unionists. > This is of course true, but it also happened before Corbyn and McDonnell talked with Sinn Fein/supported the IRA, depending on what version you believe (for the record I believe he was trying to get some dialogue going, handled it clumsily and has handled it clumsily ever since. McDonnell I'm less convinced about). The DUP, like all hardliners over there, hold a grudge like a Tolkein dwarf. > Party leaders, in my view, will do anything to get > back in to power. Similarly MP's will compromise > their views to get elected so I would not rule > anything out. A supply and confidence arrangement > can be made to appear palatable to most. I agree with the principle of what you say, but I think Labour/DUP is a bridge too far. Nothing's impossible in politics, but in this day and age I just can't see it happening.

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeLeg Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Well then GG, ain't it lucky it's just the > > bigoted, racist, reactionary, religiously > driven > > idiots with links to terrorists that we have to > > deal with? > > > > As you yourself pointed out, there's a lot of > of > > overlap at the fringes. > > If the election result was switched between Con & > Labour, most of Labour would be sorely tempted to > do a deal with the DUP after 7 years out of power. > Even JC might compromise a few of his principles > to become PM. If he didn't then there might be a > coup. They might be tempted but I doubt it would happen. The DUP is anathema to Labour, and loathe Corbyn and McDonnell personally. A Labour minority would be doing confidence and supply with the LibDems I reckon.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Facts are facts JoeLeg. > > The success of the Labour vote resulted in the > Conservatives not having a majority (the other > parties all fared badly). In order to govern they > now need to seek the support of the DUP. > > Ergo, Labour voters can hardly complain the Tories > are now supping with the devil Why do you only blame Labour? Why not any other party? Your logic is...just terrible. It's like your opinion that young people shouldn't vote because they don't contribute enough to society in financial terms.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you look at this objectively, anyone who voted > Labour, however good his or her intentions, is > indirectly responsible for the DUP being the power > brokers. > > The old adage, careful what you wish for comes to > mind. Seriously? That's really how you feel? So why only Labour? Why not those who voted LibDem? Or SNP? Plaid Cymru? Even Green? Nope? None of them? Just those who support Labour? Ok. Good logic there. Vote for the Tories or take responsibility for any resulting crap. I think I'd argue that May fucked up the election campaign, alienated enough of her core vote and now has to rely on the support of some people that ordinarily she wouldn't be seen sharing a sandwich with. I think she's way more to blame than people who voted for Labour.

Well then GG, ain't it lucky it's just the bigoted, racist, reactionary, religiously driven idiots with links to terrorists that we have to deal with? As you yourself pointed out, there's a lot of of overlap at the fringes.

Yes. So if Ruth Davidson decides to mess with Theresa, the govt has no majority, providing the issue covers the whole of the Union.

Ah yes, I forgot about the no-confidence route. I still am not sure the Tories would want to play that level of brinkmanship with the public. But then if we've learnt anything from the past couple of years it's that nothing can be taken for granted.

Fair points, but they assume Corbyn will let them - they need the agreement of Labour to get to 66%. Why would Corbyn - A) Let the Tories 'off the hook', so to speak, when he can spend five years watching them flounder, B) Risk an election where they get a majority. Labour took Kensington by 20 or so votes, it's not hard to imagine it going back. That said, my wife was today talking to a friend whose mum is a voter in that very constituency, has always voted Tory, but this time voted Labour. She's apparently incensed at the involvement of the DUP, who she loathes, so maybe there's just as much risk for the Conservative party. At this point, if I was Corbyn, I wouldn't agree to another election. But a week is a long time in politics, and if Brexit negotiations start to go badly or governance is otherwise derailed, it's not impossible that a quiet word comes down from the Palace telling them to settle matters.

It's fair to say Abbott has never made it easy for herself, and I don't have a lot of sympathy for the political situation she finds herself in. But if there is actuall illness, one possibility is that she doesn't have a full diagnosis yet, she may be waiting on test results etc before making an announcement.

"Politician denies claim made by newspaper" shocker! There's no way Ruth Davidson isn't calculating how she can use recent events to advance her career and a Scotland's agenda. Theresa May will be gone by the next Tory conference, they're all positioning themselves.

Err, no. Lewis got barred because he was much worse. And you know that, because if he had been saying the same things then you would also be barred. You aren't the only person living in Southwark Blanche. Other people live here too, and they want different things from the cemetery to you. You don't get to have your way just because you want to, and had you been less, well, offensive in your approach to other locals people from the start then maybe it would have been different. You got national press on this, it didn't change anything. The CWGC disagreed with you. The CoE doesn't seem to be helping you out. You got, what, 700 signatures on a petition that is useless. And still nothing has changed. You're fighting for something that you aren't going to get, because there's other residents who want the cemetery to be different to you, and Southwark has chosen to go with them. The sheer arrogance of your position is breathtaking.

You're starting of loss the plot now Blanche, or is that really Lewis posting under your name?

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The urban left can afford a Labour government. If > you can afford to live in a big city it doesn't > matter what party is in Absolute rubbish. Define "afford". Define "big city".

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Which local schools are advising their pupils to > break the law? Starting to think KK was wrong about you. If you've got something to say then why not just say it?

Well, the Tories can't govern without them, so I imagine they'll bring a shopping list. They've got influence and they know it. They're a pretty nasty bunch. I find their attitude towards Corbyn/Sinn Fein pretty distasteful given that the DUP isn't exactly whiter than white when it comes to Loyalist terrorist groups. But that's Northern Ireland for you. (That's not to excuse Corbyn, btw)

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > The Tories' hard Brexit is dead (maybe even > Brexit > > itself) > > > > I heard on the radio that the Article 50 timetable > makes a "hard" Brexit more likely. Well I suppose it becomes even more of a game of chicken. Right now, today, we are perceived as weak and disorganised. We have limited time and if the EU try to squeeze us it's plausible the govt may respond by going hard Brexit. Yes, I suppose it's possible.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In a couple of hours time, Teresa May will go to > Buckingham Palace to seek permission > from The Queen to form a Government. Can The > Queen refuse her. Has that ever happened ? > > DulwichFox In theory, yes. But Brenda tends not to interfere like that. Far more likely she will have some choice words for May.

Couldn't give a monkeys GG. Your vote, your business. Though I will say if you think social media fake tweets etc are solely the preserve of the young left wingers that you do look down on (great way to bring them round to your view), then you're just as naive as them.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If no second election is called, which would be > for the good of the country in these Brexit > negotiations to try and sort out a working stable > majority government, the only other option would > be for the Tories to have a brutal and bloodied > leadership election, and try to build some sort of > 'electable' situation to take to the people in > five years time. Seems highly unlikely. Country is > in chaos. Again. > > Louisa. But they need 66% of MP's to agree to an early election. Can you really see that many non-Tory MP's giving up the chance to kick the Tories? I can't. Unless they can be persuaded 'for the good of the country', but then will the Tories want to take the chance?

miga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > She made the right call based on the information > she had - I saw it as a classic display of power, > like when Germany are up 4:0 against Brazil and > still going for it. It was meant to give Tories > power for decades. I agree, admit that I thought they were going to give Labour a kicking. But it turned out different.