[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by JTM45

No. It's more a case of it not being hard to see blatant bias and desperate agenda from a mile off and that kind of **** doesn't pass for good journalism (or even actual journalism) with me.
If you're gonna' link/quote something because you can't make the point yourself you've gotta' make sure that the content of what you're quoting/linking to is actually credible. That 'article' wasn't even slightly.

What's that ?
But....but Hillary.....

Oops thought you were talking about Corbynites again, silly me.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Thats just complete rubbish. These are democratically elected MP's that have been representing their constituencies for many years at Westminster. The only point that anyone has said anything against them is now, when they are supporting a party labour don't agree with.

As democratically elected MP's they are as entitled as anyone to vote for whatever they wish. That is democracy

Not so actually.
I have regularly on here even called the DUP poodles as to the Cons,they do normally vote with them.

Which makes this forming any deal with them worse, a deal taking a fair while to work out,so what are the DUP demanding for a more secured voting pattern.
More to the point,will we really get the whole details,small print too of whatever deal it is finally.

The Cons could have taken their chance,without DUP votes the opposition parties could not defeat the Cons in parliament anyway.
So they could govern for a time as a minority govt.

10 more votes from the DUP will not enhance that majority that much.
We should and must be told what exactly and all the DUP are demanding and what the Cons are giving them.

My objection to this 'joining up' more securely is that no government should be doing so with any clearly known sectarian parties which the DUP are.
That is the issue for me and I would not trust the DUP in any way at all.
Neither Sinn Féinn too,another sectarian party.

It speaks volumes that this Party,the Cons who were just in full coalition with the Lib Dems under 3 years ago,are now even more apart from agreements with a party like that.
They now have to crawl to a more extreme party,a sectarian party and one that although democratically elected to Westminster so can vote how it wishes, should not have any secured deal made with them for votes.

That is my and I am sure many others objections to any 'firm arrangement' between any UK government and the DUP.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Not so actually.
I have regularly on here even called the DUP poodles as to the Cons,they do normally vote with them.

Which makes this forming any deal with them worse, a deal taking a fair while to work out,so what are the DUP demanding for a more secured voting pattern.
More to the point,will we really get the whole details,small print too of whatever deal it is finally.

The Cons could have taken their chance,without DUP votes the opposition parties could not defeat the Cons in parliament anyway.
So they could govern for a time as a minority govt.

10 more votes from the DUP will not enhance that majority that much.
We should and must be told what exactly and all the DUP are demanding and what the Cons are giving them.

My objection to this 'joining up' more securely is that no government should be doing so with any clearly known sectarian parties which the DUP are.
That is the issue for me and I would not trust the DUP in any way at all.
Neither Sinn Féinn too,another sectarian party.

It speaks volumes that this Party,the Cons who were just in full coalition with the Lib Dems under 3 years ago,are now even more apart from agreements with a party like that.
They now have to crawl to a more extreme party,a sectarian party and one that although democratically elected to Westminster so can vote how it wishes, should not have any secured deal made with them for votes.

That is my and I am sure many others objections to any 'firm arrangement' between any UK government and the DUP.

The DUP will have no say in English legislation - they will not be part of government. Corbynites are totally transparent in their dishonesty and hysteria regarding the alliance as it stands in the way of them getting their mits on the power. No more complicated than that.

[user104658]

Starting to wonder if Tory supporters actually understand that others are celebrating the massive losses and the hilarious back-firing of the party's arrogance... it's not that anyone doesn't realise that the Tories are still in power

"People are liek ha ha Tories BUT dey will not be able to 4 long bcus luk Theresa May is still PM so ha ha ha we won we won!"


No. The Tories made a gamble - that calling an election would increase their majority and give them a more solid grip on power - and after that gamble, they had fewer MPs, lost their majority completely, and thus have less power.

Take other parties and who is still PM out of the equation; look at it as a standalone action.

- The Tories had a slim majority.
- They believed that their support was growing exponentially and they were essentially unchallenged.
- They believed that opposition was at an all time low
- So they called an election, gambling on what they thought was a sure thing; an increased majority.
- They lost seats
- They no longer have a majority
- They have less than what they had before the gamble

There's not really any two ways about it. Regardless of whether or not Labour "won" in any way - the Tories lost. They lost against themselves... they lost their own gamble. How can anyone possibly argue that this isn't true?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

The DUP will have no say in English legislation - they will not be part of government. Corbynites are totally transparent in their dishonesty and hysteria regarding the alliance as it stands in the way of them getting their mits on the power. No more complicated than that.

Let me ask Brillo... ... ... why do you think it's taking so long for the DUP and the Tories to reach a deal?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Thats just complete rubbish. These are democratically elected MP's that have been representing their constituencies for many years at Westminster. The only point that anyone has said anything against them is now, when they are supporting a party labour don't agree with.

As democratically elected MP's they are as entitled as anyone to vote for whatever they wish. That is democracy

They may be elected MPs but can you not see the hypocrisy of accusing Corbyn of being a terrorist sympathizer and the DUP being allowed in positions of power with their undeniable connections to violent extremists?

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Let me ask Brillo... ... ... why do you think it's taking so long for the DUP and the Tories to reach a deal?

As I am not privy to the talks that would be difficult for me to say, but I would imagine issues such as the Irish/English border and billions for the Irish economy and whatever other demands made but they will not be stripping away female equality or any other such hysterical nonsense in England.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

They may be elected MPs but can you not see the hypocrisy of accusing Corbyn of being a terrorist sympathizer and the DUP being allowed in positions of power with their undeniable connections to violent extremists?

Its not hypocrisy at all, the things are not comparable in any way shape or form, and its ludicrous to suggest that they are

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

As I am not privy to the talks that would be difficult for me to say, but I would imagine issues such as the Irish/English border and billions for the Irish economy and whatever other demands made but they will not be stripping away female equality or any other such hysterical nonsense in England.

So you agree that they know fine well that they have the Conservatives over a barrel and they have demonstrated that they are more than willing to exploit their position? For whatever reason.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Let me ask Brillo... ... ... why do you think it's taking so long for the DUP and the Tories to reach a deal?

Exactly.

It is stated often the DUP vote with the Cons anyway.
What is taking so long to 'negotitate' to ensure that will be done more regularly and securely.

Also the Cons still have to get things for England and Wales passed in the commons.
We don't yet have an English only assembly.

The English votes rule means that English MPs can veto legislation but in the end to become law,it must pass the Commons and Lords.
So with the Cons presently having more English MPs,the veto is irrelevant, it is the legislation through the commons in parliament that matters.
Also remember now too,the Cons have to rely on 13 Scottish MPs of their own to get parliamentary legislation through.

Making the English votes veto rule all but redundant anyway.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

They may be elected MPs but can you not see the hypocrisy of accusing Corbyn of being a terrorist sympathizer and the DUP being allowed in positions of power with their undeniable connections to violent extremists?

If you really believe what you say then shouldn't your concerns lie with how any and all organisations who have ever had any links to any kind of terrorism are ever allowed to form a political party. It has to be all or nothing.

We all know if Labour forming an alliance with Sinn Fein was the only option to win power both him and his Corbynites would have had no issues with that.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Let me ask Brillo... ... ... why do you think it's taking so long for the DUP and the Tories to reach a deal?

Here are the areas of legislation we intend to address over the coming 5 years.

What areas of this particular piece of legislation can you support, and which ones can you not. If you cant support it, it doesnt get added to the timetable.

Nothing controversial, but still time consuming.

People just want to take issue, its so negative, and goes against keeping positive as Corbyn was so busy championing during the campaign.

I guess i am not particularly surprised that people don't see the hypocrisy in that.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

So you agree that they know fine well that they have the Conservatives over a barrel and they have demonstrated that they are more than willing to exploit their position? For whatever reason.

Anyone in that position will TRY to use it to their advantage. But let's not forget the last thing the DUP want is a labour government. That alone is motive enough to support the tories at the end of the day.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Here are the areas of legislation we intend to address over the coming 5 years.

What areas of this particular piece of legislation can you support, and which ones can you not. If you cant support it, it doesnt get added to the timetable.

Nothing controversial, but still time consuming.

People just want to take issue, its so negative, and goes against keeping positive as Corbyn was so busy championing during the campaign.

I guess i am not particularly surprised that people don't see the hypocrisy in that.

People want to take issue with the Conservatives having to be supported by the DUP because... it is an issue. I'd say it's more a case of certain people wanting to put their fingers in their ears and pretend that it's "just fine" when it is quite clearly very very messy and there are going to be a LOT of issues in the upcoming parliament.

[MTVN]

I think the deal has largely been agreed now they're just going over the final points. Sounds like it might be delayed now though because they don't want to be carrying out talks while the fire is still going on

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Here are the areas of legislation we intend to address over the coming 5 years.

What areas of this particular piece of legislation can you support, and which ones can you not. If you cant support it, it doesnt get added to the timetable.

Nothing controversial, but still time consuming.

People just want to take issue, its so negative, and goes against keeping positive as Corbyn was so busy championing during the campaign.

I guess i am not particularly surprised that people don't see the hypocrisy in that.

...... except according to you and others the DUP usually vote with the Cons anyway, and have in the last 7 years,so would likely be doing so still.

Back again to what are the DUP demanding and what is this govt going to give them in return.
Can you actually guarantee the DUP are not asking for anything or will get anything.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

They may be elected MPs but can you not see the hypocrisy of accusing Corbyn of being a terrorist sympathizer and the DUP being allowed in positions of power with their undeniable connections to violent extremists?

Their connections to extremists are in no way comparable at all. If you were well educated on these issues you would know that. It's not that long ago that we were engaged in a discussion on Martin McGuiness and you were defending him all over the show.
If you are worried about the DUP having extremist connections, then why on earth do you idolise Corbyn? THAT is just undiluted hypocrisy.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by jet

Their connections to extremists are in no way comparable at all. If you were well educated on these issues you would know that. It's not that long ago that we were engaged in a discussion on Martin McGuiness and you were defending him all over the show.
If you are worried about the DUP having extremist connections, then why on earth do you idolise Corbyn? THAT is just undiluted hypocrisy.

I couldn't agree more Jet. I don't think it is about a terrorist - but what terrorist.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

...... except according to you and others the DUP usually vote with the Cons anyway, and have in the last 7 years,so would likely be doing so still.

Back again to what are the DUP demanding and what is this govt going to give them in return.
Can you actually guarantee the DUP are not asking for anything or will get anything.

Can you gurantee the Same of Corbyn if in an alliance with others? He can't rule on his own - he has no majority.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

He can't rule on his own - he has no majority.

I don't know how many times I have to point this out before you get it, but this isn't actually true.

If for whatever reason the Conservatives cannot get a Queen's Speech passed, or lose a vote of no confidence, then as the leader of the opposition Jeremy Corbyn is invited to attempt to form a government. In such a situation, all he would need is for the Tories to abstain on crucial votes to get legislation passed...and if they didn't, they'd be staring another election in the face which none of them want. In theory, one MP can govern alone so long as every other MP doesn't vote against them. Which is also why the Tories don't absolutely need to depend on a deal with the DUP, they already have more MPs than all the left-of-centre parties put together, and could govern as a minority so long as there weren't many rebels.

Is this likely? No. But is it impossible? No. All it would take is for a handful of rebel Tories to not vote through supply and confidence motions, and they fall.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Jack_

I don't know how many times I have to point this out before you get it, but this isn't actually true.

If for whatever reason the Conservatives cannot get a Queen's Speech passed, or lose a vote of no confidence, then as the leader of the opposition Jeremy Corbyn is invited to attempt to form a government. In such a situation, all he would need is for the Tories to abstain on crucial votes to get legislation passed...and if they didn't, they'd be staring another election in the face which none of them want. In theory, one MP can govern alone so long as every other MP doesn't vote against them. Which is also why the Tories don't absolutely need to depend on a deal with the DUP, they already have more MPs than all the left-of-centre parties put together, and could govern as a minority so long as there weren't many rebels.

Is this likely? No. But is it impossible? No. All it would take is for a handful of rebel Tories to not vote through supply and confidence motions, and they fall.

So can the tories. I see no valid reason why she would not get the queen speech passed or not get a vote of confidence. Corbynites are crossing everything, fingers, toes ... you name it, in that vague hope and over-estimating the chances. What is it they call that now ..... oh I know WISHFUL THINKING!

[Jack_]

In other news:

John Major: Tory-DUP deal risks jeopardising Northern Ireland peace

Former PM warns Theresa May against seeking alliance with unionist party as its leader says negotiations going well

Theresa May has been warned by Sir John Major that striking a deal with the Democratic Unionist party could put the “fragile peace” in Northern Ireland at risk.

The former Conservative prime minister said a deal with Arlene Foster’s party could risk alienating armed republicans and loyalists, and cause resentment in other parts of the UK if the government made promises to spend large amounts of public money.

The intervention by Major, who also called for a more collegiate approach to Brexit, came as May held talks with Foster. It will be seen as deeply unsettling for the prime minister.

On Tuesday afternoon, Foster indicated a deal to support the Conservative minority government was close to being finalised.

She also gave a glimpse into the issues upon the table, saying Brexit, counter-terrorism and “doing what’s right” for the Northern Ireland economy were among the key issues being thrashed out.

Discussions in Westminster continued without May after she left for Paris for a meeting with the French president, Emmanuel Macron.

Major told BBC Radio 4’s the World at One that he felt May should try to run a minority government rather than seek the planned loose alliance with the DUP.

“I am concerned about the deal, I am wary about it, I am dubious about it, both for peace process reasons but also for other reasons as well,” he said, warning that if peace unravelled, Northern Ireland’s “hard men” could return to violence.

Major, who as prime minister was central to the start of the peace process in the 1990s, said an alliance with the DUP would jeopardise the UK government’s crucial role as an “honest broker” in Northern Ireland where power-sharing talks remain unresolved.

“People shouldn’t regard it as a given,” he said of peace in Northern Ireland. “It isn’t certain, it is under stress. It is fragile. And although I don’t expect it suddenly to collapse – because there is a broad consensus that wishes it to continue – I think we have to take care with it, and take care that everything we do does not exaggerate the underlying differences that still are there in the Northern Ireland community.”

Saying he supported May and could understand why she sought the DUP deal, Major argued it was a mistake.

“A fundamental part of that peace process is that the UK government needs to be impartial between all the competing interests in Northern Ireland,” he said. “The danger is that however much any government tries, they will not be seen to be impartial if they are locked into a parliamentary deal, at Westminster, with one of the Northern Ireland parties.

“The last thing anybody wishes to see is one or other of the communities so aggrieved that the hard men, who are still there lurking in the corners of the community, decide that they wish to return to some form of violence.”

Major also warned against the “baggage” of a deal, not least the DUP seeking extra funding for Northern Ireland, and the potential resentment this could cause among voters in other parts of the UK.

“That is going to cause a great degree of grievance elsewhere,” he warned. “They would see it as the government paying cash for votes in parliament, and in doing so I think that could well cost votes in the country for the Conservative party, by the bucketload, at a subsequent election.”

Major said he was aware there was no appetite for another general election, and suggested May could seek to govern as a minority, noting that her opponents would only have “a tiny majority in the event that everybody lined up against her”.

The talks followed the first meeting of May’s slightly reshuffled cabinet since the election in which she lost her majority.

Foster, alongside MPs Jeffrey Donaldson and Nigel Dodds, has led negotiations for the DUP, while chief whip Gavin Williamson has led for the Tories.

A failure to gain support from the Northern Irish party would risk the Queen’s speech being voted down next week.

Sinn Féin has warned such moves undermine power-sharing talks in Northern Ireland.

Lord Trimble, the former Ulster Unionist first minister of Northern Ireland from 1998 to 2002, said the DUP were also putting their political future at risk by striking a deal because they could be blamed for unpopular Tory policies.

However, he denies Major’s claims that the Good Friday agreement was at risk, saying: “I think there is a fair amount of scaremongering going on.”

In the Commons, Jeremy Corbyn turned May’s election slogan against her, saying that any deal with the DUP would be a “coalition of chaos”.

A Downing Street spokeswoman said ministers “discussed the ongoing talks with the DUP to secure a confidence and supply arrangement”.

The Guardian

Incidentally Major also warned last year about the NHS being unsafe in Johnson, Gove and Duncan Smith's hands. Is he one of only a few Tories with a conscience?

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

So can the tories. I see no valid reason why she would not get the queen speech passed or not get a vote of confidence. Corbynites are crossing everything, fingers, toes ... you name it, in that vague hope and over-estimating the chances. What is it they call that now ..... oh I know WISHFUL THINKING!

Calm down love. 'So can the Tories' what? Govern as a minority? That's precisely what I said. And what wishful thinking? Did you not see the part of my post where I specifically said I don't think this is likely? I've been saying the same in several threads over the last few days. Honestly, does anyone on here read posts before they respond to them? All I'm pointing out is your inaccuracy in saying that Labour could not under the parliamentary arithmetic form a government, because it seems a lot of people don't actually understand how hung parliaments work.

The Queen's Speech will pass, but don't underestimate the number of moderate Tory backbenchers who are going to make this parliament as difficult as possible for the PM, particularly in attempting to water down her vision of Brexit (which the DUP also don't support, btw). If you think this is all going to be plain sailing, you're kidding yourself.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Jack_

In other news:



The Guardian

Incidentally Major also warned last year about the NHS being unsafe in Johnson, Gove and Duncan Smith's hands. Is he one of only a few Tories with a conscience?

Here we go!

Are the DUP and Sinn Fein political parties or not. If those in their wisdom decided that those involved or in support of previous terrorist acts could form a political party as part of the peace process then why would they be treated differently to any other political party in this situation and would such discrimination not be an abuse of that agreement. Were they just being placated then?

Should any issues of potential impartiality in a government alliance not have been thought about and addressed at that time. It seems pretty obvious really. People can't then turn around and scream that such an alliance would affect the peace process after the horse has bolted so to speak. May cannot and should not be penalised for the mistakes of others.

It isn't May's fault if those involved in the Good Friday Agreement were incompetent and didn't think ahead. This is an issue that should have come to light decades ago - pretty convenient that it is suddenly an issue now that a desperate and biligerent Labour and remainers are out to get May.

It all stinks and such blatant desperate hounding should not be pandered to.

[jet]

Tory-DUP deal announcement put on hold due to London blaze.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...o-london-blaze

Sources suggest it would be inappropriate to make formal announcement because of unfolding tragedy at Grenfell Tower


A deal between the government and the Democratic Unionist party will be delayed because of the calamitous fire that has engulfed a tower block in west London.

Westminster sources have suggested it would be inappropriate to make a formal announcement because of the unfolding tragedy at Grenfell Tower.

Theresa May needs the votes of the 10 DUP MPs to prop up her minority administration as she hopes to steer government business – including crucial measures on Brexit – through the Commons.

Reports suggested that the Queen’s speech and Brexit negotiations could be delayed as a result. However, sources close to the talks said that while the discussions were “stuttering”, 95% had been agreed between both sides, meaning the deal could still be announced in time to allow the Queens’s speech on Monday.

Both sides had hoped that a deal would be announced on Wednesday. The DUP’s leader, Arlene Foster, and MPs Nigel Dodds and Jeffrey Donaldson, have been locked in talks in Westminster for two days with senior Tories including the chief whip, Gavin Williamson.

Meanwhile, Downing Street has announced that representatives from all five of Northern Ireland’s main parties have been invited to meet the prime minister on Thursday. A source said: “The focus will be on restoring devolved government to Northern Ireland as soon as possible.”

The former prime minister Sir John Major has suggested it will be difficult for the government to act as an honest broker in talks to restore the power-sharing agreement in Belfast if it enters into a deal with the DUP to prop up a Conservative minority government in Westminster.

On Tuesday afternoon, Foster indicated that a deal was close to being finalised.

She also gave a glimpse into the issues on the table, saying Brexit, counter-terrorism, and “doing what’s right” for the Northern Ireland economy were among the key issues being thrashed out.

A senior Conservative source said: “We are making a lot of progress, it’s all being done in the spirit of cooperation, with a real focus on strengthening the union and providing stability at this time.”

A Conservative source said there was so far no deal to announce and that a decision on the timing of any announcement would have to wait until an agreement was finalised.

Ministers have indicated that the Queen’s speech may have to be set back from its scheduled date of next Monday 19 June because of the ongoing negotiations.

May is coming under intense pressure to change her approach to leaving the European Union, with predecessors David Cameron and Sir John Major among those suggesting a softer stance with a greater effort to seek a consensus.

The chancellor, Philip Hammond, is preparing to fight for the UK to remain within the EU’s customs union which could safeguard jobs and trade with EU members but would severely restrict the UK’s ability to strike its own trade deals around the world.

At a joint press conference with May in Paris on Tuesday night, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, suggested that the door was still open for the UK to remain in the EU.

“Until the negotiations come to an end, of course there is always the possibility to reopen the door,” said the French president. “But let us be clear and organised and once the negotiations have started we should be well aware that it’ll be more difficult to move backwards.”

The DUP was seeking to make the new government’s policies “more compassionate” across the UK, party sources said. They said the DUP was attempting to dilute austerity measures and defend things like the triple lock on pensions.

The DUP wanted to secure a deal that not only could benefit Northern Ireland but also people in England, Scotland and Wales, they said.

Among the Northern Ireland-specific issues raised by the DUP was a special corporation tax status for the region, possibly at a 12.5% rate.

This is similar to the Irish Republic’s tax regime, which has successfully attracted foreign direct investment to Ireland. The DUP has described the 12.5% rate as a “gamechanger” for Northern Ireland.

The last government insisted that if Northern Ireland was awarded a lower corporation tax the price would be reductions in the UK Treasury’s block grant of billions into the local economy. The sources said the DUP was asking that this Treasury condition be erased as part of the deal.

The message coming out of the DUP on Wednesday appeared to be addressing two audiences. The first was the wider UK population, with the prospect that the DUP could help soften the blows of austerity across the union.

The second appeared to address the other Northern Irish parties, but most importantly Sinn Féin, 24 hours before roundtable party talks resume in Belfast aimed at restoring a devolved government.

The DUP is arguing and will argue during the Belfast discussions that the national deal with May and the Tories will bring dividends to Northern Ireland, which a restored power-sharing executive can distribute and manage from Belfast.