• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

Gilzeantoscore said:
So let me get this right. The sensible and learned commentators of the right poo pooed the idea of a Labour SNP coalition, as being beyond the pale and a coalition of chaos, yet they approve of the Tories governing with the support of a bunch of right wing extremist cranks. Cranks with known associations with terrorists. Hypocrites or what? What concessions will the Tories have to make to these nut jobs for the sake of holding onto power? They are selling Britain out.
Click to expand...

I think that there are a lot of commentators on the right who are not ok with it and have said so. I also think that the knives are out for May in the right wing press. They will tolerate her in the short term but if she is still around at Christmas, they will start to get very nasty.
 
milo said:
I think that there are a lot of commentators on the right who are not ok with it and have said so. I also think that the knives are out for May in the right wing press. They will tolerate her in the short term but if she is still around at Christmas, they will start to get very nasty.
Click to expand...

They're not making the noise that was made at the prospect of a Labour SNP coalition in 15.
 
I can see the difference between an agreement with a party who wants to be part of the United Kingdom and one who doesn't.

Doesn't of course mean it's desirable or sensible, both from a dodgy ideas and more importantly a peace process POV, but being in coalition with a party who ideally (to them) wouldn't be there at all seems a rather strange idea.
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
They're not making the noise that was made at the prospect of a Labour SNP coalition in 15.
Click to expand...

That was during the campaign when everything is amplified and the Tory press stick rigourously to the party lines.

I've seen lots online. I would expect that we will see more in the press tomorrow.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
Someone like Macron could come along and walk it.
Click to expand...

Kier Stamer in 1.5-2 years time is my prediction.

Lots of pressure on Con from Corbyn, Stamer and maybe even Ruth Davidson (and some of the Labour backbenchers - Umuna, Clive Lewis) will push govt into agreeing the Brexit framework with the EU in the next 6-9 months. That will be the Norway option as a transition period at least when the Tories have to admit there is not enough time to do the full thing under A50.
This upheaval might just force another GE.
Then Corbyn steps aside for Stamer to take over.
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
So let me get this right. The sensible and learned commentators of the right poo pooed the idea of a Labour SNP coalition, as being beyond the pale and a coalition of chaos, yet they approve of the Tories governing with the support of a bunch of right wing extremist cranks. Cranks with known associations with terrorists. Hypocrites or what? What concessions will the Tories have to make to these nut jobs for the sake of holding onto power? They are selling Britain out.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen anyone so this ok, in fact all I can see is may getting players for it. And rightly so.
 
A question.

If the Tories promised the Lib Dems:
  • a new Prime Minister
  • cross-party Brexit negotiation team
  • 2nd referendum on Brexit deal
Should they go into a coalition?
 
milo said:
A question.

If the Tories promised the Lib Dems:
  • a new Prime Minister
  • cross-party Brexit negotiation team
  • 2nd referendum on Brexit deal
Should they go into a coalition?
Click to expand...
They should but they won't.

The economically sensible have all deserted the Lib Dems as far as I can tell.
 
r-u-s-x01 said:
Find it opportunistic to do this on the grounds of democracy but fight to keep fptp and house of Lords.
Click to expand...
Were they doing it on the basis of democracy?

I thought they were just removing a massive thumb on the scales that had been against them for about 30 years.
 
The Libs were unequivocal about no deals and no coalitions, even as the result became clear, so I'd say she'd have been wasting her time.
 
r-u-s-x01 said:
That's how they are positioning it yes Fairness and democracy. A vote should be equal
Click to expand...
A vote should be equal (unless we're doing something even better like weighting them by intelligence or position in society).

At the moment they're clearly not.

The other issues I'm not so fussed about. Our system requires each MP to respond to their constituents and represent them as best they can. Most other models don't do that. As for an elected HoL, how would that work? It would have to be out of sync with general elections - then you just end up with voters always punishing the incumbent government and having a locked political system where nothing gets done.
 
scaramanga said:
A vote should be equal (unless we're doing something even better like weighting them by intelligence or position in society).

At the moment they're clearly not.

The other issues I'm not so fussed about. Our system requires each MP to respond to their constituents and represent them as best they can. Most other models don't do that. As for an elected HoL, how would that work? It would have to be out of sync with general elections - then you just end up with voters always punishing the incumbent government and having a locked political system where nothing gets done.
Click to expand...

Is weighing by people on the electoral roll that much fairer than weighing by population?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back