the snap general election thread

kabayiri

I'm interested in this DUP development for future reasons as much as anything.

The cultural map of somewhere like London is set to change, as London grows by 20% in the next decade, with some ethnic groups dominating more than others.

We have 1 million ish Poles here now; we have a growing Muslim community.

I see no reason why we could not see political groups based on religious interests like Islam.

Somehow, the major parties would have to deal with these, just like they have to deal with the DUP.

You can dislike a party all you want, but their constituents chose those representatives.

Joe_Horner

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

So let me get it straight - if you try to do a deal but fail - that is somehow morally much better than succeeding.

Not at all, dealing with them is repugnant and irresponsible.

But, in case the past couple of years have passed you by, Labour under Corbyn is a different animal than it was under the last few leaders.

Which is exactly why there's been a certain degree of internal turmoil and why so many people wrote it off coming into this election.

Holding the current party responsible for talks about a deal by previous incumbents is like blaming May for the clusterfcuk that was Suez. She may be guilty of much, but that's stretching it even for her biggest critics!

CKhalvashi

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

So let me get it straight - if you try to do a deal but fail - that is somehow morally much better than succeeding.

Isn't the objection being voiced about to trying to do a deal with these kind of people at all?

Or if you do a deal - the question might surely be more about did you accept to work together on anything repugnant or to agree to agree on those aspects that are not an issue?

I have thought about doing many things and not following through with them for various reasons, some of which were moral.

In fairness though, on the moral aspect, most things take a bit more digging than a deal with the DUP.

Also, forgetting morals a minute, from a legal point of view it may be worth pointing out that at any time Labour have attempted to do a deal with them there wasn't a collapse in power sharing. IMO there could be legal issues for any vote that is propped up by the DUP as a result of this, therefore it would be very wise for the Cons to be extremely careful in how things are done.

Yes, I would have a problem with an agreement propped up by most NI parties, but especially at this time given a much wider range of circumstances, I'd be extremely worried about the legality of this too.

cogito

hallmark wrote: »

What have they posted that isn't true?

I think you missed my point which was that suing for libel isn't straightforward if UK courts have no jurisdiction.

As far as I know, they have never posted anything libellous.

Rinoa

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Labour never did do a deal with them though.

The Tories did.

Labour needed a deal with all the other parties to hold on to power. The conservatives only needed the Lib Dems.

When the tories struck a deal with the Lib Dems the numbers for Labour just didn't add up.

The point is labour were actively seeking support from the DUP to hang on to power.

http://www.irishnews.com/news/2015/09/02/news/hillary-clinton-emails-labour-sought-dup-election-pact-248668/

mystic_trev

Joe_Horner wrote: »

There's something worryingly pathological about being able to lie that blatantly.

That's Politicians for you.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Not at all, dealing with them is repugnant and irresponsible.
But, in case the past couple of years have passed you by, Labour under Corbyn is a different animal than it was under the last few leaders.

I am not sure I have been convinced of the difference per JC's face/responses when asked by Andrew Neil to explain ...

“You invited a convicted IRA terrorist to Tea in the Commons a few weeks after the Brighton bomb, which tried to destroy our elected government.
“You stood for a minute’s silence to ‘honour’ – your word Mr Corbyn – ‘honour’ IRA terrorists killed by the British army throughout the 80s and the 90s.

I am not sure you can claim JC is a mirror image of the others in the party who tried to vote him out. They are quite different hence the elephant in the room void between them.

They didn't do the deal because they could not get enough to see off the Tory/LIbDem coalition.

But, JC is different, I grant you.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

CKhalvashi wrote: »

.. any time Labour have attempted to do a deal with them there wasn't a collapse in power sharing.

...IMO there could be legal issues for any vote that is propped up by the DUP as a result of this, therefore it would be very wise for the Cons to be extremely careful in how things are done... I'd be extremely worried about the legality of this too.

So I didn't realise - you say Labour have attempted a deal multiple times?

What legal point do you believe may be broken by the supposed "'confidence and supply' deal"?

I assume you mean maybe illegal given the deals details are not yet final?

chucknorris

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I dont think you've seen enough of her to conclude she is the future for the Conservatives.
Yes she did well in this GE winning by focussing on a protest vote, but we have seen very little else from her.

She's known as well for doing a u-turn

But my opinion of her isn't based on this GE! It is based upon her performance during the initial Brexit and her continual ownership of both of the Krankies at Holyrood. What she did in this GE is just a bonus.

EDIT: Who would you propose?

IveSeenTheLight

chucknorris wrote: »

But my opinion of her isn't based on this GE! It is based upon her performance during the initial Brexit and her continual ownership of both of the Krankies at Holyrood. What she did in this GE is just a bonus.

EDIT: Who would you propose?

What has she stood for in Scotland apart from IndyRef2 (which she said she would not oppose last year)?

Like I said, she did well on a focussed protest vote principle, but not a lot else has come from her.

Her position on the rape clause was derided by all parties.

She has been a puppet and the message worked in this election, but how will she stand up when she is accountable.

As for alternatives, if you think RD is the best option, you better hope there are some great young politicians to come through.