Theresa May's Conservatives
Jeremy Corbyn's Labour
Tim Farron's Liberal Democrats
Paul Nuttall's UKIP
2 people's Greens
Nicholas Durgeon's Scottish Nationalists
Satan's Sinn Fein
Dr Ian Paisley's DUP
Some other bunch of nonces
I'm foreign, but I wish I were an Englishman
If you agree to become hostage to the private sector then that happens, yes. There will always be a fight. If you pander to the interests of the private sector, then you always lose.
Again, not a big 'tax the rich' proponent, that's not the solution. Mostly symbolic, if anything.
I don't think anybody should pander, but ultimately private enterprise and private individuals pay for public services and treating them as evil is entirely counterproductive. It's something that many people aren't very comfortable recognising, I think.
People who have sought to understand that (decoupling) have significantly downplayed it.Originally Posted by Pepe
Not necessarily evil, but they have definitely exploited a lopsided system and have increasingly controlled it, tilting it even more in their favor.
A similar, but opposite, case is that of Unions. They sure have been treated as evil by the right wing and have been constantly attacked by the right wing.
Come to think of it, one could argue that the total erosion of labor laws in order to keep companies happy could be described as evil.
Care to expand?
You've got the internet mate. It's mostly explained by inequality (not as in THE ONE PER CENT, but different classes of workers emerging since when everyone was just a pleb with a hammer) and other forms of compensation eating into wages (increasing health premiums account for a lot of it in America).
Throw some links my way at least.
Sinn Fein saying DUP coalition contravenes the Good Friday Agreement apparently, May literally willing to let people die to stay in power.
It doesn't, but she's still an idiot for doing it (by the looks of things without thinking it through first).
There is some total horseshit being written, and this is a perfect example of it.
One of the big arguments about getting local institutions back up and running was that we needed a "Northern Irish voice" during Brexit negotiations. Well, the DUP are literally able to collapse the government if they don't get what they want for NI. It provides that effective voice during negotiations. The NI parties all want the same thing, basically - no hard border. The nationalists would probably accept a 'border' in the Irish sea for the purposes of immigration / trade and so forth, but the unionists won't. The issue with any special status is that it contravenes the GFA, which establishes consent. The UK is leaving in full, therefore we're leaving in full. Alliance support special status, but they're basically Lib Dems and have been in a state of deep mourning over the result since last year.
This confidence and supply deal leaves the Shinners on the sidelines - pissing and moaning about everything whilst they categorically refuse to take their seats and thus can't influence anything. The Blairist line that the UK government should represent a more distant fair arbitrator in Northern Ireland hasn't been the case for years now - probably not since the DUP leveraged the GDP of a small country out of the UK government to vote for increased detention periods. Either Northern Ireland is a part of the UK or it isn't - and if our MPs can't act as other MPs do, then there's no point in sending them to Westminster. To say that our MPs can't act as other MPs do is to go against the consent principle of the GFA, which is that we're a full part of the UK until the populace vote otherwise.
The Shinners could address it by not shafting their constituents on "principle, mate" - but when you've been willing to bomb and shoot people for decades, you're probably not in a sound place to argue about these things. I don't see a single reason how you could justify voting for a party which doesn't take its seats, but that's their problem - not the rest of us.
She has no choice, because the numbers don't add up anywhere else. There is literally only one government option available, which is Tory minority with DUP confidence and supply. None of the "progressive" parties are going to vote for her, and if she doesn't have the DUP then we're back to the country which nobody wants.
It's her own fault, of course, but needs must. It's basically just 2010 again, where for all the discussion about different options and rainbow coalitions, there was only one deal on the table which could work - Tory/Lib Dem. I don't see this one lasting for any length of time, frankly, but needs must for the short to medium term.
While GS continues with his wrong economics and his defense of Tory scum and their theocratic chums, have an old DUP leaflet to laugh at.
That leaflet doesn't mention the DUP anywhere, and appears to be old enough to be irrelevant. There was a Tory elected in the sixties running with 'If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Liberal or Labour' on his leaflets, who gives a fuck about that now?
I reckon if this coalition runs for any length of time, which it won't and mustn't, May will have made the Tories completely unelectable for the decade it'll take them to get the smell off. Some of the positions espoused by these people are fully insane.
Last night's Question Time was quite interesting, in that the universal thought among the panel was that May seems to be prepared to do almost anything to keep this shitshow on the road, irrespective of the wider damage it might bring.
I didn't remember this, but even John Major apparently wouldn't touch the DUP when it could have helped him.
We need to go back to the polls, have another election and usher in 5 years of Corbyn. The Tories have fucked everything up to the point where that's the only feasible option I can now see.
And why the fuck was article 50 triggered before this election? I mean, for fuck's sake.
I don't know - this sounds a bit conspiracy theory to me. There have been massive private companies for centuries (the East India company were basically running a country until the Mutiny). You're basically advocating interventionism on a large, institutionalised scale to try and control the labour market - the problem is that the government can't, in my view, do this whilst expecting the private sector to pay for everything as well. They'll just move their operations to countries which are less restrictive / less of a pain to operate in.
One of the reasons I favour low taxation is because it lets companies invest - you trust their self-interest, that they'll put the money back into the economy / labour market because they want to grow and earn higher revenues / profits. The more economic activity, the more transactions, and the more transactions the more tax generated. And it lets the government push a significant cost burden back onto the private sector.
In the context of the UK, there has been no erosion of labour laws - people were pretending in the EU referendum that our workers' rights came from Europe. They didn't - we have significantly better workers' rights enshrined in UK law. If anybody wanted to change them, they'd need to run on a manifesto to change them - which they'd get taken apart for in the press and hammered (you can see the consequence of a terrible manifesto with May). If they tried to do it without a manifesto commitment, the Salisbury Convention would see it blocked in the Lords and they'd be swept away at the next election.
Henry's hypocrisy is legitimately staggering.
The DUP were significantly less 'mainstream' prior to the St Andrews agreement. After that, they've been in government here. They're not very good, but at least they didn't personally go around planting bombs and shooting people on an industrial scale.
Again, the issue for May is that short of another election, there is no feasible alternative to this. Who else can provide confidence and supply?
People only waking up to politics in NI might want to ask themselves why significant numbers of people vote for the DUP. It's not because the DUP are any good - it's because they've been the only effective voice for the union for years now. That and the other side is led by Sinn Fein, who seek to turn every apparent dip in DUP support into evidence for another fucking border poll.
The idea that Corbyn can praise actual murderers and have it be okay whilst the Tories operating a loose confidence and supply arrangement with legitimately elected representatives from this part of the world and have it be EVIL is a genuine laugh.
People support the DUP for a variety of reasons. Often it's because of their 16th century social views or because of their extreme sectarianism.
It's not evil, it's just incredibly stupid for a party plenty of people already think is homophobic and racist to go in to coalition with a party which is explicitly both of those things. I don't think they're going to get the Tories to agree to creationism being taught in British schools or kettling all the gays into the ocean, but the longer this goes on the more of their headbanging, seventeenth century lunacy will come out and the next time there's an election it'll be the easiest and most effective attack ever to ping the Tories with those beliefs.
I think we've learned this week that it doesn't particularly matter who you associate with.
Or more, why even have an election?
Posturing against Europe is pointless. Just negotiate and get the best we can and keep negotiating beyond the two years.
Given that Labour did much better than expected at this election and is still some way off challenging for a majority, is there a point in another election?
I understand the Tories number of seats could well be reduced, but we'd just be looking at a hung parlaiment again, surely?
Only if the youth could be arsed to turn up again.
Or because they're by far the most effective voice in favour of the union, and a high vote for the DUP tends to discredit continued republican calls for a border poll and / or other insidious measures to try and subtly detach Northern Ireland from the mainland (e.g. special status). I know plenty of people who vote for them on the binary issue of the constitutional position.
It would depend if the new Tory leader was credible. I keep changing my mind on who's best. I'm not convinced on the Floyd line that it's Boris.
At least Boris wouldn't be a boring fuck. Every cloud and all that.
Why can Corbyn not praise murderers, but it's ok for May to form a government with murderers? Is there something I'm missing or is it just GS being ultra bigot yet again?
When the Quinn brothers were murdered in their beds by a petrol bomb throwing mob protesting a decision about a parade, the DUP said that it was understandable.
But that's okay, because the union.
Which of their current membership said that?
Ex-terrorists gone legitimate are different from active ones.
The Orange Order's Co Armagh Chaplain Rev William Bingham expressed his sorrow to his loyalist congregation: "No road is worth a life let alone three lives of three little boys." Local MP and leader of the DUP Ian Paisley has visited the scene and described the murders as "diabolical" and "repugnant".
So no, they didn't. This hypocrisy is enraging. Wor Jez routinely honoured the IRA. But that's okay, because austerity.
It's also about being able to deliver. Corbyn turning up to commemorate the IRA dead isn't the same as the Thatcher or Major governments opening secret back channels to work out what's needed to stop it happening. He wasn't interesting in stopping it unless it involved the unconditional surrender of Britain.
I fear there's a desperate lack of understanding about this amongst the UK-wide population.
'Nawbags' is a new one.
GS has blue-tinted glasses on at all times. He's the Alan Pardew criticising a refereeing decision of politics.
You are literally clueless.
So May needs none of her MPs to rebel over future divisive votes or they won't pass, but she can't do anything if they do rebel and they may rebel if it is unpopular in their constituency because more than a couple have seen their majorities evaporate. Delicious.
She can get away with six, as outlined. In the main, she'll get them on board for any major initiative by turning it into a confidence vote whereby they'd crash the government if they voted against it. It was how John Major managed to wedge Maastricht through despite the bastards.
Okay, let's correct that since I mixed two things up.
In the murder of the three Quinn boys by a loyalist mob, the DUP role was limited to merely inciting rioters and precipitating the attack - before we got the aforementioned crocodile tears, swiftly followed by the proviso that the IRA had done worse.
It was the case of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings - car bombs that killed 33 people - that the DUP described as "perfectly understandable".
And while we're on that, those are among a very large number of incidents where collusion between loyalist paramilitaries and the British state is suspected. So spare us the bullshit about such contacts being limited to those required for back-channel negotiations.
Christ, having Boris in the cabinet is enough but PM? No, I really don't want that. May has fucked up, we can all agree to that, but I can't see how Boris Johnson is the answer to this mess. He wouldn't even need a manifesto or policy fuck up in another election re-run like May, he'd just drop himself in it with some incredibly stupid comment and people will jump all over him. A mini-Trump, almost.
I don't even like May, but I don't want her to go. As if we haven't had enough political disturbance over the last two years the last thing we need is a coup now.
Can you provide evidence of who said the Dublin and Monaghan car bombings were 'perfectly understandable'?
I can find literally one example of that turn of phrase, which was an obscure city councillor referring to fire bombings by the UFF in 1991.
Having had time to think about it, the collapse of the current government has the potential to destroy the country. A Corbyn premiership could legitimately ruin the country through basket case economics and a disastrous defence, security, and foreign policy. Frankly, everything must be on the table to ensure the government lasts five years and there is sufficient opportunity to reestablish credibility before he has any chance of taking over.
The difference is whether they are currently doing it. Martin McGuinness in government was a legitimate figure. Martin McGuinness running around with a machine gun under his coat was not.
Destroy the country.
If Corbyn's economics are 'basket case' then why do a load of actual economists support his proposals?
Unless you can get 364 signatures those things are void.
You heard it here first, Pepe. "Austerity, cuts to defence, cuts to police, and selling weapons to Saudi Arabia is fine and dandy BUT disastrous defence, security, and foreign policy will destroy the country!"Destroy the country.
Don't forget the basket case economics.
Under normal circumstances you could probably ride them all out, but if we're CRASHING OUT of Europe then probably not so much.
You can answer this when you're ready, Henry, mate.
As a pre-empt, you can then explain how, assuming you can support your claim to begin with, it would differ from Wor Jez blaming the Poppy Day Massacre on the British 'occupation'.
The budget deficit is already, what, £52bn in FY17? Their massive increase in spending isn't properly costed, and you'd never generate the income needed to offset their spending increases - never mind the already significant deficit that exists.
We need to be slashing tax and regulation as we leave the EU to ensure continued competitiveness.
What cuts to defense? At least in NATO we're one of the highest spenders as a percentage of GDP.
I can only comment on this anecdotally but I have a couple of members of my family in the police and it's needed a clear out for a long while. Whether that clear out justified 20,000 odd officers going, I don't know. But there was a lot of evidence to suggest you had PCs with 25 years service running down their final five years doing civilian jobs and taking it easy.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote