I suspect that the Tories are trying to hang on for a few months, and then when the next GE comes, they'll have a manifesto that suits the Old Gits again. Once they avoid kicking them in the unmentionables, they'll probably come out to vote just to stop Jezza.
The kids may be Jezzarites (Ah, bless), but even if they turn out in the same number, the Oldies won't sit on their hands again. They'll be scared into believing their pensions will either be cut or inflated away to nothing.
One consolation if Jezza makes it - inflation will mean the Debt becomes manageable. And £1,000 = four Euros means we won't be able to afford holidays in Europe. Venezuela maybe.
Its the 35-50 year olds that May managed to lose in rapid time, which ultimately screwed her getting a big majority.
"Its the 35-50 year olds that May managed to lose in rapid time, which ultimately screwed her getting a big majority."
You're probably right. That's probably the generation paying for their kids to go to university. I'm sure the Tories can dole out the sweeties just as well - just give them a few months, so it doesn't seem so hypocritical.
And the generation hoping to inherit some of the value of Mum and Dads house in the future. The sheer stupidity of that manifesto is astonishing.
@stodge I don't think the 1992 comparison really works. In order for it to Kinnock would have had to have continued on, with it being him conveying hubrism after Black Wednesday instead of John Smith. As it happens, 1992 perhaps offers lessons on a leader of the opposition who had previously lost an GE being mistakenly hubristic and confident that he had the GE in the bag.
In 1992, Kinnock was trying to overturn a 100 seat majority. Corbyn has an easier job.
Corbyn will the 73 years old if the government (not necessarily the current PM) lasts the full 5 years and that has to be a strong possibility. We've seen what calling a snap election can lead to.
There will be an election next year.
No there won't. May will be PM until we leave the EU and the transitional 2-year period begins.
What will be the DUP's demands next year ? What will Soubry, Clarke, Allen et al be doing now ?
This is already a two year + deal - you do not seem to take in facts
It's only a bung for C&S on the matters agreed. Every other issue is on the table at any time.
Sky news reporting the buildings now failing safety passed a year ago by same regulators and safety regulators and government aware the cladding was flammable but decided regulations were enough. Hmmmmmmmmmmm
Sky source
That is Tories for you Big_G , anything on the cheap for the peasants, bet they don't have any dodgy cladding or dodgy doors on their own luxury pads.
Hi Malc. Looks like Camden Labour contolled Council have big questions to face not least 1,000 missing fire doors in their blocks. This story is way beyond just the cladding, complete failure by council inspectors and the fire officers to identify neglect, not only outside but within the buildings
Typical of the UK, on the cheap and fake the safety stuff, they are all at it National and Local government just filling their boots and squandering Billions. One thing is sure , we will hear plenty of "Lessons will be learned", bullshit and they will go back to filling their boots.
The one time a lesson was learned was in the fatal fire in Woolworths, Manchester in 1979 when fire safety regulation was adopted over fire resistant materials in furniture, but even that took until 1988
Yes I read up on that after you mention it as I did not remember it.For some reason I do remember the terrible fire in Douglas Isle of man in the leisure centre in the seventies.
Sky news reporting the buildings now failing safety passed a year ago by same regulators and safety regulators and government aware the cladding was flammable but decided regulations were enough. Hmmmmmmmmmmm
Sky source
That is Tories for you Big_G , anything on the cheap for the peasants, bet they don't have any dodgy cladding or dodgy doors on their own luxury pads.
Hi Malc. Looks like Camden Labour contolled Council have big questions to face not least 1,000 missing fire doors in their blocks. This story is way beyond just the cladding, complete failure by council inspectors and the fire officers to identify neglect, not only outside but within the buildings
Typical of the UK, on the cheap and fake the safety stuff, they are all at it National and Local government just filling their boots and squandering Billions. One thing is sure , we will hear plenty of "Lessons will be learned", bullshit and they will go back to filling their boots.
The one time a lesson was learned was in the fatal fire in Woolworths, Manchester in 1979 when fire safety regulation was adopted over fire resistant materials in furniture, but even that took until 1988
Anecdote alert:
Back in 1984 my dad built our family house. Being a cheapskate, he fitted cheap interior doors until he could source good quality doors from a demo job. When he found a suitable door, he would take the old one out and burn it in the garden.
They would always go up like a rocket. It turned out the front and back of the doors were thin panels of wood separated by a honeycomb arrangement of card. Once the flames got past the panels, the interior would just go into a massive conflagration as the card and glue ignited.
After seeing this one day, my mum forced him to fit 'proper' doors, whatever the cost.
The missing fire doors are as a result of a blind eye being turned towards the "modification" of properties by residents etc. Disabling smoke alarms is another. Personally I quite like the Swiss approach to such behaviour.
@stodge I don't think the 1992 comparison really works. In order for it to Kinnock would have had to have continued on, with it being him conveying hubrism after Black Wednesday instead of John Smith. As it happens, 1992 perhaps offers lessons on a leader of the opposition who had previously lost an GE being mistakenly hubristic and confident that he had the GE in the bag.
In 1992, Kinnock was trying to overturn a 100 seat majority. Corbyn has an easier job.
Corbyn will the 73 years old if the government (not necessarily the current PM) lasts the full 5 years and that has to be a strong possibility. We've seen what calling a snap election can lead to.
There will be an election next year.
No there won't. May will be PM until we leave the EU and the transitional 2-year period begins.
What will be the DUP's demands next year ? What will Soubry, Clarke, Allen et al be doing now ?
This is already a two year + deal - you do not seem to take in facts
It's only a bung for C&S on the matters agreed. Every other issue is on the table at any time.
Good point. Can the government then be defeated left right and centre on Brexit details and much else but not put out of its misery because they then win a confidence vote?
Partly. BREXIT is officially off the table in broad terms .... that is neither the Tories or the DUP have the faintest idea but they are clueless together. QS, Confidence and money supply agreed.
I thought that comment by Nigel Dodds to publish the from Labour, SNP and DUP was a real killer. I do think Labour are suffering from an extreme case of arrogance at the moment.
Sky news reporting the buildings now failing safety passed a year ago by same regulators and safety regulators and government aware the cladding was flammable but decided regulations were enough. Hmmmmmmmmmmm
Sky source
That is Tories for you Big_G , anything on the cheap for the peasants, bet they don't have any dodgy cladding or dodgy doors on their own luxury pads.
Hi Malc. Looks like Camden Labour contolled Council have big questions to face not least 1,000 missing fire doors in their blocks. This story is way beyond just the cladding, complete failure by council inspectors and the fire officers to identify neglect, not only outside but within the buildings
Typical of the UK, on the cheap and fake the safety stuff, they are all at it National and Local government just filling their boots and squandering Billions. One thing is sure , we will hear plenty of "Lessons will be learned", bullshit and they will go back to filling their boots.
The one time a lesson was learned was in the fatal fire in Woolworths, Manchester in 1979 when fire safety regulation was adopted over fire resistant materials in furniture, but even that took until 1988
Anecdote alert:
Back in 1984 my dad built our family house. Being a cheapskate, he fitted cheap interior doors until he could source good quality doors from a demo job. When he found a suitable door, he would take the old one out and burn it in the garden.
They would always go up like a rocket. It turned out the front and back of the doors were thin panels of wood separated by a honeycomb arrangement of card. Once the flames got past the panels, the interior would just go into a massive conflagration as the card and glue ignited.
After seeing this one day, my mum forced him to fit 'proper' doors, whatever the cost.
The missing fire doors are as a result of a blind eye being turned towards the "modification" of properties by residents etc. Disabling smoke alarms is another. Personally I quite like the Swiss approach to such behaviour.
we had those egg box doors in our first house. the issue of fire risk never entered my head at the time.
@stodge I don't think the 1992 comparison really works. In order for it to Kinnock would have had to have continued on, with it being him conveying hubrism after Black Wednesday instead of John Smith. As it happens, 1992 perhaps offers lessons on a leader of the opposition who had previously lost an GE being mistakenly hubristic and confident that he had the GE in the bag.
In 1992, Kinnock was trying to overturn a 100 seat majority. Corbyn has an easier job.
Corbyn will the 73 years old if the government (not necessarily the current PM) lasts the full 5 years and that has to be a strong possibility. We've seen what calling a snap election can lead to.
There will be an election next year.
No there won't. May will be PM until we leave the EU and the transitional 2-year period begins.
What will be the DUP's demands next year ? What will Soubry, Clarke, Allen et al be doing now ?
This is already a two year + deal - you do not seem to take in facts
It's only a bung for C&S on the matters agreed. Every other issue is on the table at any time.
Sky news reporting the buildings now failing safety passed a year ago by same regulators and safety regulators and government aware the cladding was flammable but decided regulations were enough. Hmmmmmmmmmmm
Sky source
That is Tories for you Big_G , anything on the cheap for the peasants, bet they don't have any dodgy cladding or dodgy doors on their own luxury pads.
Hi Malc. Looks like Camden Labour contolled Council have big questions to face not least 1,000 missing fire doors in their blocks. This story is way beyond just the cladding, complete failure by council inspectors and the fire officers to identify neglect, not only outside but within the buildings
Typical of the UK, on the cheap and fake the safety stuff, they are all at it National and Local government just filling their boots and squandering Billions. One thing is sure , we will hear plenty of "Lessons will be learned", bullshit and they will go back to filling their boots.
The one time a lesson was learned was in the fatal fire in Woolworths, Manchester in 1979 when fire safety regulation was adopted over fire resistant materials in furniture, but even that took until 1988
Yes I read up on that after you mention it as I did not remember it.For some reason I do remember the terrible fire in Douglas Isle of man in the leisure centre in the seventies.
It was a defining moment as the sale of non complaint furniture post the act became illegal, even auction or car boot sales, resulting in time in the complete destruction of the furniture that caused the 10 deaths in Woolworths, Manchester
@stodge I don't think the 1992 comparison really works. In order for it to Kinnock would have had to have continued on, with it being him conveying hubrism after Black Wednesday instead of John Smith. As it happens, 1992 perhaps offers lessons on a leader of the opposition who had previously lost an GE being mistakenly hubristic and confident that he had the GE in the bag.
In 1992, Kinnock was trying to overturn a 100 seat majority. Corbyn has an easier job.
Corbyn will the 73 years old if the government (not necessarily the current PM) lasts the full 5 years and that has to be a strong possibility. We've seen what calling a snap election can lead to.
There will be an election next year.
This year's queens speech is for two years so no queens speech next year and anyway the DUP will back the government in any confidence vote even if that could be engineered. I am looking forward to the DUP's release of the paperwork in their discussions with labour in 2010 and labour and the SNP in 2015.
No election before April 2019 no matter how much you think it will happen
To be fair you also said there would be no snap election this year. I don't blame you as I believed the PM to.
Sky news reporting the buildings now failing safety passed a year ago by same regulators and safety regulators and government aware the cladding was flammable but decided regulations were enough. Hmmmmmmmmmmm
Sky source
That is Tories for you Big_G , anything on the cheap for the peasants, bet they don't have any dodgy cladding or dodgy doors on their own luxury pads.
Hi Malc. Looks like Camden Labour contolled Council have big questions to face not least 1,000 missing fire doors in their blocks. This story is way beyond just the cladding, complete failure by council inspectors and the fire officers to identify neglect, not only outside but within the buildings
Typical of the UK, on the cheap and fake the safety stuff, they are all at it National and Local government just filling their boots and squandering Billions. One thing is sure , we will hear plenty of "Lessons will be learned", bullshit and they will go back to filling their boots.
The one time a lesson was learned was in the fatal fire in Woolworths, Manchester in 1979 when fire safety regulation was adopted over fire resistant materials in furniture, but even that took until 1988
Yes I read up on that after you mention it as I did not remember it.For some reason I do remember the terrible fire in Douglas Isle of man in the leisure centre in the seventies.
It was a defining moment as the sale of non complaint furniture post the act became illegal, even auction or car boot sales, resulting in time in the complete destruction of the furniture that caused the 10 deaths in Woolworths, Manchester
Should also say that all furniture now needs the fire label sewn into it. Some people found the labels got in their way and cut them off the furniture and unwittingly consigning the furniture to being unsaleable
Possibly the finest thread header written on here; lucid and full of common sense.
I might add one other element into the mix; the propensity of young voters to turn out. At the moment there is a glow of self-satisfaction amongst the young - they voted and it made a difference. The only problem is that the glow will wear off as days of Tory rule turn to months and then to years (putting to one side the question of leadership). Corbyn says he will be prime minister in six months; he won't. The reflection of the new voters in the long run might be that 'we didn't vote in 2015 and we lost, we didn't vote in 2016 and we lost, we did vote in 2017 but we still lost - so we might as well go back to not voting'. We won't see this yet, but come 2018 I think the patience of youth will be tested beyond the limit of its current enthusiastic participation.
I thought that comment by Nigel Dodds to publish the from Labour, SNP and DUP was a real killer. I do think Labour are suffering from an extreme case of arrogance at the moment.
One could argue you are complacent in your undying love for your party.
Possibly the finest thread header written on here; lucid and full of common sense.
I might add one other element into the mix; the propensity of young voters to turn out. At the moment there is a glow of self-satisfaction amongst the young - they voted and it made a difference. The only problem is that the glow will wear off as days of Tory rule turn to months and then to years (putting to one side the question of leadership). Corbyn says he will be prime minister in six months; he won't. The reflection of the new voters in the long run might be that 'we didn't vote in 2015 and we lost, we didn't vote in 2016 and we lost, we did vote in 2017 but we still lost - so we might as well go back to not voting'. We won't see this yet, but come 2018 I think the patience of youth will be tested beyond the limit of its current enthusiastic participation.
It's a bit sad that Tories see their best chance in the possibility that young people may despair of voting. It's not a long-term formula for either healthy democracy or IMO party success. How about thinking of ways to appeal to them?
Possibly the finest thread header written on here; lucid and full of common sense.
I might add one other element into the mix; the propensity of young voters to turn out. At the moment there is a glow of self-satisfaction amongst the young - they voted and it made a difference. The only problem is that the glow will wear off as days of Tory rule turn to months and then to years (putting to one side the question of leadership). Corbyn says he will be prime minister in six months; he won't. The reflection of the new voters in the long run might be that 'we didn't vote in 2015 and we lost, we didn't vote in 2016 and we lost, we did vote in 2017 but we still lost - so we might as well go back to not voting'. We won't see this yet, but come 2018 I think the patience of youth will be tested beyond the limit of its current enthusiastic participation.
I think the opposite. When people get voting it becomes a habit.
Kicking the powers that be in the goolies is quite an addiction.
This is the first time since TMay called the election that the Tories seem like they have had a good day. I expect the backlash will be severe from those who thought Corbyn 'won' or those who wanted to replace May with a Brexit doesn't mean Brexit replacement.
Possibly the finest thread header written on here; lucid and full of common sense.
I might add one other element into the mix; the propensity of young voters to turn out. At the moment there is a glow of self-satisfaction amongst the young - they voted and it made a difference. The only problem is that the glow will wear off as days of Tory rule turn to months and then to years (putting to one side the question of leadership). Corbyn says he will be prime minister in six months; he won't. The reflection of the new voters in the long run might be that 'we didn't vote in 2015 and we lost, we didn't vote in 2016 and we lost, we did vote in 2017 but we still lost - so we might as well go back to not voting'. We won't see this yet, but come 2018 I think the patience of youth will be tested beyond the limit of its current enthusiastic participation.
It's a bit sad that Tories see their best chance in the possibility that young people may despair of voting. It's not a long-term formula for either healthy democracy or IMO party success. How about thinking of ways to appeal to them?
Is that why we won the last three elections and you didn't?
Possibly the finest thread header written on here; lucid and full of common sense.
I might add one other element into the mix; the propensity of young voters to turn out. At the moment there is a glow of self-satisfaction amongst the young - they voted and it made a difference. The only problem is that the glow will wear off as days of Tory rule turn to months and then to years (putting to one side the question of leadership). Corbyn says he will be prime minister in six months; he won't. The reflection of the new voters in the long run might be that 'we didn't vote in 2015 and we lost, we didn't vote in 2016 and we lost, we did vote in 2017 but we still lost - so we might as well go back to not voting'. We won't see this yet, but come 2018 I think the patience of youth will be tested beyond the limit of its current enthusiastic participation.
It's a bit sad that Tories see their best chance in the possibility that young people may despair of voting. It's not a long-term formula for either healthy democracy or IMO party success. How about thinking of ways to appeal to them?
Is that why we won the last three elections and you didn't?
This is the first time since TMay called the election that the Tories seem like they have had a good day. I expect the backlash will be severe from those who thought Corbyn 'won' or those who wanted to replace May with a Brexit doesn't mean Brexit replacement.
Possibly the finest thread header written on here; lucid and full of common sense.
I might add one other element into the mix; the propensity of young voters to turn out. At the moment there is a glow of self-satisfaction amongst the young - they voted and it made a difference. The only problem is that the glow will wear off as days of Tory rule turn to months and then to years (putting to one side the question of leadership). Corbyn says he will be prime minister in six months; he won't. The reflection of the new voters in the long run might be that 'we didn't vote in 2015 and we lost, we didn't vote in 2016 and we lost, we did vote in 2017 but we still lost - so we might as well go back to not voting'. We won't see this yet, but come 2018 I think the patience of youth will be tested beyond the limit of its current enthusiastic participation.
It's a bit sad that Tories see their best chance in the possibility that young people may despair of voting. It's not a long-term formula for either healthy democracy or IMO party success. How about thinking of ways to appeal to them?
Possibly the finest thread header written on here; lucid and full of common sense.
I might add one other element into the mix; the propensity of young voters to turn out. At the moment there is a glow of self-satisfaction amongst the young - they voted and it made a difference. The only problem is that the glow will wear off as days of Tory rule turn to months and then to years (putting to one side the question of leadership). Corbyn says he will be prime minister in six months; he won't. The reflection of the new voters in the long run might be that 'we didn't vote in 2015 and we lost, we didn't vote in 2016 and we lost, we did vote in 2017 but we still lost - so we might as well go back to not voting'. We won't see this yet, but come 2018 I think the patience of youth will be tested beyond the limit of its current enthusiastic participation.
It's a bit sad that Tories see their best chance in the possibility that young people may despair of voting. It's not a long-term formula for either healthy democracy or IMO party success. How about thinking of ways to appeal to them?
Is that why we won the last three elections and you didn't?
Well, you didn't win the last three GEs. You won only one of them.
Possibly the finest thread header written on here; lucid and full of common sense.
I might add one other element into the mix; the propensity of young voters to turn out. At the moment there is a glow of self-satisfaction amongst the young - they voted and it made a difference. The only problem is that the glow will wear off as days of Tory rule turn to months and then to years (putting to one side the question of leadership). Corbyn says he will be prime minister in six months; he won't. The reflection of the new voters in the long run might be that 'we didn't vote in 2015 and we lost, we didn't vote in 2016 and we lost, we did vote in 2017 but we still lost - so we might as well go back to not voting'. We won't see this yet, but come 2018 I think the patience of youth will be tested beyond the limit of its current enthusiastic participation.
It's a bit sad that Tories see their best chance in the possibility that young people may despair of voting. It's not a long-term formula for either healthy democracy or IMO party success. How about thinking of ways to appeal to them?
Possibly the finest thread header written on here; lucid and full of common sense.
I might add one other element into the mix; the propensity of young voters to turn out. At the moment there is a glow of self-satisfaction amongst the young - they voted and it made a difference. The only problem is that the glow will wear off as days of Tory rule turn to months and then to years (putting to one side the question of leadership). Corbyn says he will be prime minister in six months; he won't. The reflection of the new voters in the long run might be that 'we didn't vote in 2015 and we lost, we didn't vote in 2016 and we lost, we did vote in 2017 but we still lost - so we might as well go back to not voting'. We won't see this yet, but come 2018 I think the patience of youth will be tested beyond the limit of its current enthusiastic participation.
It's a bit sad that Tories see their best chance in the possibility that young people may despair of voting. It's not a long-term formula for either healthy democracy or IMO party success. How about thinking of ways to appeal to them?
Is that why we won the last three elections and you didn't?
Possibly the finest thread header written on here; lucid and full of common sense.
I might add one other element into the mix; the propensity of young voters to turn out. At the moment there is a glow of self-satisfaction amongst the young - they voted and it made a difference. The only problem is that the glow will wear off as days of Tory rule turn to months and then to years (putting to one side the question of leadership). Corbyn says he will be prime minister in six months; he won't. The reflection of the new voters in the long run might be that 'we didn't vote in 2015 and we lost, we didn't vote in 2016 and we lost, we did vote in 2017 but we still lost - so we might as well go back to not voting'. We won't see this yet, but come 2018 I think the patience of youth will be tested beyond the limit of its current enthusiastic participation.
It's a bit sad that Tories see their best chance in the possibility that young people may despair of voting. It's not a long-term formula for either healthy democracy or IMO party success. How about thinking of ways to appeal to them?
I didn't say I thought it was a good thing - that was your chosen interpretation (which I find rather sad); neither did I mention despair. I simply think that the longer-term outcome will cause young people to turn away from politics and back towards more traditional outlets for their energies, such as music and art.
Possibly the finest thread header written on here; lucid and full of common sense.
I might add one other element into the mix; the propensity of young voters to turn out. At the moment there is a glow of self-satisfaction amongst the young - they voted and it made a difference. The only problem is that the glow will wear off as days of Tory rule turn to months and then to years (putting to one side the question of leadership). Corbyn says he will be prime minister in six months; he won't. The reflection of the new voters in the long run might be that 'we didn't vote in 2015 and we lost, we didn't vote in 2016 and we lost, we did vote in 2017 but we still lost - so we might as well go back to not voting'. We won't see this yet, but come 2018 I think the patience of youth will be tested beyond the limit of its current enthusiastic participation.
It's a bit sad that Tories see their best chance in the possibility that young people may despair of voting. It's not a long-term formula for either healthy democracy or IMO party success. How about thinking of ways to appeal to them?
Is that why we won the last three elections and you didn't?
Well, you didn't win the last three GEs. You won only one of them.
Possibly the finest thread header written on here; lucid and full of common sense.
I might add one other element into the mix; the propensity of young voters to turn out. At the moment there is a glow of self-satisfaction amongst the young - they voted and it made a difference. The only problem is that the glow will wear off as days of Tory rule turn to months and then to years (putting to one side the question of leadership). Corbyn says he will be prime minister in six months; he won't. The reflection of the new voters in the long run might be that 'we didn't vote in 2015 and we lost, we didn't vote in 2016 and we lost, we did vote in 2017 but we still lost - so we might as well go back to not voting'. We won't see this yet, but come 2018 I think the patience of youth will be tested beyond the limit of its current enthusiastic participation.
It's a bit sad that Tories see their best chance in the possibility that young people may despair of voting. It's not a long-term formula for either healthy democracy or IMO party success. How about thinking of ways to appeal to them?
Yes but your man JMac doesn't believe in democracy, he wants insurrection.
Let's not have sanctimony regarding democracy when you defend that cretin.
Possibly the finest thread header written on here; lucid and full of common sense.
I might add one other element into the mix; the propensity of young voters to turn out. At the moment there is a glow of self-satisfaction amongst the young - they voted and it made a difference. The only problem is that the glow will wear off as days of Tory rule turn to months and then to years (putting to one side the question of leadership). Corbyn says he will be prime minister in six months; he won't. The reflection of the new voters in the long run might be that 'we didn't vote in 2015 and we lost, we didn't vote in 2016 and we lost, we did vote in 2017 but we still lost - so we might as well go back to not voting'. We won't see this yet, but come 2018 I think the patience of youth will be tested beyond the limit of its current enthusiastic participation.
It's a bit sad that Tories see their best chance in the possibility that young people may despair of voting. It's not a long-term formula for either healthy democracy or IMO party success. How about thinking of ways to appeal to them?
Is that why we won the last three elections and you didn't?
What kind of victory is it that you have to pay £1bn bribe to friends of terrorists ?
Possibly the finest thread header written on here; lucid and full of common sense.
I might add one other element into the mix; the propensity of young voters to turn out. At the moment there is a glow of self-satisfaction amongst the young - they voted and it made a difference. The only problem is that the glow will wear off as days of Tory rule turn to months and then to years (putting to one side the question of leadership). Corbyn says he will be prime minister in six months; he won't. The reflection of the new voters in the long run might be that 'we didn't vote in 2015 and we lost, we didn't vote in 2016 and we lost, we did vote in 2017 but we still lost - so we might as well go back to not voting'. We won't see this yet, but come 2018 I think the patience of youth will be tested beyond the limit of its current enthusiastic participation.
It's a bit sad that Tories see their best chance in the possibility that young people may despair of voting. It's not a long-term formula for either healthy democracy or IMO party success. How about thinking of ways to appeal to them?
Is that why we won the last three elections and you didn't?
What kind of victory is it that you have to pay £1bn bribe to friends of terrorists ?
Possibly the finest thread header written on here; lucid and full of common sense.
I might add one other element into the mix; the propensity of young voters to turn out. At the moment there is a glow of self-satisfaction amongst the young - they voted and it made a difference. The only problem is that the glow will wear off as days of Tory rule turn to months and then to years (putting to one side the question of leadership). Corbyn says he will be prime minister in six months; he won't. The reflection of the new voters in the long run might be that 'we didn't vote in 2015 and we lost, we didn't vote in 2016 and we lost, we did vote in 2017 but we still lost - so we might as well go back to not voting'. We won't see this yet, but come 2018 I think the patience of youth will be tested beyond the limit of its current enthusiastic participation.
It's a bit sad that Tories see their best chance in the possibility that young people may despair of voting. It's not a long-term formula for either healthy democracy or IMO party success. How about thinking of ways to appeal to them?
Is that why we won the last three elections and you didn't?
Well, you didn't win the last three GEs. You won only one of them.
The party that leads the Government after the election has by definition won the election. The Tories lead the Government formed after 2010, 2015, and 2017.
If being in executive control of Great Britain = not winning, then not winning is pretty damned awesome!
2010 Narrative: Tory victory - result: Hung Parliament 2015 Narrative: Hung Parliament probably with Lab as largest party - result: Tory majority 2016 Narrative: Remain win, Cameron to hand over in 2019 - result: Leave win, Cameron gone 2017 Narrative: Tory Landslide - result: Hung Parliament New Narrative: Labour nailed on victory - result: who knows? The narrative is consistently wrong.
Whilst the Tories have screwed up massively I think the author is right that nothing is decided. The one thing the last few years has proved (throw in Trump for another example) is that no one knows anything. Received wisdom and political precedents no longer apply.
That won't stop Corbyn's apologists here and elsewhere claiming the same rules don't apply to him. Emperor Palpatine could not have seduced the feeble mind better than Corbyn has.
Possibly the finest thread header written on here; lucid and full of common sense.
I might add one other element into the mix; the propensity of young voters to turn out. At the moment there is a glow of self-satisfaction amongst the young - they voted and it made a difference. The only problem is that the glow will wear off as days of Tory rule turn to months and then to years (putting to one side the question of leadership). Corbyn says he will be prime minister in six months; he won't. The reflection of the new voters in the long run might be that 'we didn't vote in 2015 and we lost, we didn't vote in 2016 and we lost, we did vote in 2017 but we still lost - so we might as well go back to not voting'. We won't see this yet, but come 2018 I think the patience of youth will be tested beyond the limit of its current enthusiastic participation.
It's a bit sad that Tories see their best chance in the possibility that young people may despair of voting. It's not a long-term formula for either healthy democracy or IMO party success. How about thinking of ways to appeal to them?
Is that why we won the last three elections and you didn't?
What kind of victory is it that you have to pay £1bn bribe to friends of terrorists ?
Here's an ironic thing -2, actually. 1. Leadsom would have been better than Theresa - we can deduce this from the fact that anyone would have been better than Theresa; 2. Leadsom's comment about TMay not being a parent was absolutely spot on - not in the sense in which it was taken at the time, that TMay wouldn't care about posterity generally, but in that she had less instinctive first-hand feel for the importance of issues like university fees, house prices, and the estates of the demented than a contemporary with young adult children would - and that lay behind the appalling blunder of the manifesto.
Here's an ironic thing -2, actually. 1. Leadsom would have been better than Theresa - we can deduce this from the fact that anyone would have been better than Theresa; 2. Leadsom's comment about TMay not being a parent was absolutely spot on - not in the sense in which it was taken at the time, that TMay wouldn't care about posterity generally, but in that she had less instinctive first-hand feel for the importance of issues like university fees, house prices, and the estates of the demented than a contemporary with young adult children would - and that lay behind the appalling blunder of the manifesto.
At the time when Leadsom gave that interview it appeared that she was using the Trump playbook ruthlessly against May. If she hadn't lost her nerve it would have worked and I think she could have won the members' vote. As we now know, May is hopeless in a campaign situation under pressure.
Sky news reporting the buildings now failing safety passed a year ago by same regulators and safety regulators and government aware the cladding was flammable but decided regulations were enough. Hmmmmmmmmmmm
Sky source
That is Tories for you Big_G , anything on the cheap for the peasants, bet they don't have any dodgy cladding or dodgy doors on their own luxury pads.
Hi Malc. Looks like Camden Labour contolled Council have big questions to face not least 1,000 missing fire doors in their blocks. This story is way beyond just the cladding, complete failure by council inspectors and the fire officers to identify neglect, not only outside but within the buildings
Typical of the UK, on the cheap and fake the safety stuff, they are all at it National and Local government just filling their boots and squandering Billions. One thing is sure , we will hear plenty of "Lessons will be learned", bullshit and they will go back to filling their boots.
The one time a lesson was learned was in the fatal fire in Woolworths, Manchester in 1979 when fire safety regulation was adopted over fire resistant materials in furniture, but even that took until 1988
Anecdote alert:
Back in 1984 my dad built our family house. Being a cheapskate, he fitted cheap interior doors until he could source good quality doors from a demo job. When he found a suitable door, he would take the old one out and burn it in the garden.
They would always go up like a rocket. It turned out the front and back of the doors were thin panels of wood separated by a honeycomb arrangement of card. Once the flames got past the panels, the interior would just go into a massive conflagration as the card and glue ignited.
After seeing this one day, my mum forced him to fit 'proper' doors, whatever the cost.
The missing fire doors are as a result of a blind eye being turned towards the "modification" of properties by residents etc. Disabling smoke alarms is another. Personally I quite like the Swiss approach to such behaviour.
we had those egg box doors in our first house. the issue of fire risk never entered my head at the time.
Thanks, that's a great description of them. Both the shape of the interior filling, and the door's strength ...
Some people think this deal means the govt's now secure till 2022 - that's either naivety or wishful thinking. It gives the govt an effective majority of 13 but the question isn't whether there'll be govt defeats but how soon the first one will be. The govt is already unpopular and unless it can turn its fortunes round there'll be a populist tendency among some of its own MPs to rebel. The NI situation is a big matzo ball. There's Grenfell. Terrorism. Austerity. And the big one... Will this deal built in Belfast come a cropper on the iceberg of Brexit?
I didn't say I thought it was a good thing - that was your chosen interpretation (which I find rather sad); neither did I mention despair. I simply think that the longer-term outcome will cause young people to turn away from politics and back towards more traditional outlets for their energies, such as music and art.
"Don't bother your little heads about politics, go and paint something nice?" It's one strategy, certainly. Try it.
I thought that comment by Nigel Dodds to publish the from Labour, SNP and DUP was a real killer. I do think Labour are suffering from an extreme case of arrogance at the moment.
Clearly paying a £1bn bribe does not bother you in the slightest.
Possibly the finest thread header written on here; lucid and full of common sense.
I might add one other element into the mix; the propensity of young voters to turn out. At the moment there is a glow of self-satisfaction amongst the young - they voted and it made a difference. The only problem is that the glow will wear off as days of Tory rule turn to months and then to years (putting to one side the question of leadership). Corbyn says he will be prime minister in six months; he won't. The reflection of the new voters in the long run might be that 'we didn't vote in 2015 and we lost, we didn't vote in 2016 and we lost, we did vote in 2017 but we still lost - so we might as well go back to not voting'. We won't see this yet, but come 2018 I think the patience of youth will be tested beyond the limit of its current enthusiastic participation.
It's a bit sad that Tories see their best chance in the possibility that young people may despair of voting. It's not a long-term formula for either healthy democracy or IMO party success. How about thinking of ways to appeal to them?
Is that why we won the last three elections and you didn't?
Well, you didn't win the last three GEs. You won only one of them.
No, Labour last beat the Tories in 2005...
That is irrelevant.
In order to win you need to get to 326 seats. Labour not beating the Conservatives doesn't change the fact that the Conservatives in two out of the last three elections did not get to 326 seats.
By Gerard Tubb, Sky News Correspondent and Nick Stylianou, Sky News Reporter
The Government was told last year by its own fire investigators that tower blocks were covered in flammable material - but were also told building regulations were "adequate".
The advice was given by the same fire risk experts who are currently testing the cladding on 600 tower blocks - and so far failing every one of them.
The reports were sent to the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) in April 2016 by BRE Global, formerly the Government's Building Research Establishment, which went on to reassure ministers that building controls, which BRE has influenced since 1948, were "adequate".
The documents seen by Sky News show that in last year's study of tower block fire safety it concluded: "With the exception of one or two unfortunate cases, there is currently no evidence from BRE Global's fire investigations for DCLG to suggest that current building regulation recommendations, to limit vertical fire spread up the exterior of high rise buildings, are failing in their purpose."
The documents go on to warn of "an increase in the volume of potential combustible materials being applied. A number of significant fires… have demonstrated the potential risks".
BRE is now being paid to test cladding being removed from high rise buildings across the country in response to the Grenfell Tower disaster, in which 79 people are thought to have died after fire spread rapidly up cladding containing combustible insulation and plastic panels.
Communities Secretary Sajid Javid confirmed cladding on 75 buildings have failed safety tests 75 buildings with cladding fail safety tests
BRE has been paid by DCLG since at least 2007 to "investigate issues that may have implications for building regulations".
Possibly the finest thread header written on here; lucid and full of common sense.
I might add one other element into the mix; the propensity of young voters to turn out. At the moment there is a glow of self-satisfaction amongst the young - they voted and it made a difference. The only problem is that the glow will wear off as days of Tory rule turn to months and then to years (putting to one side the question of leadership). Corbyn says he will be prime minister in six months; he won't. The reflection of the new voters in the long run might be that 'we didn't vote in 2015 and we lost, we didn't vote in 2016 and we lost, we did vote in 2017 but we still lost - so we might as well go back to not voting'. We won't see this yet, but come 2018 I think the patience of youth will be tested beyond the limit of its current enthusiastic participation.
It's a bit sad that Tories see their best chance in the possibility that young people may despair of voting. It's not a long-term formula for either healthy democracy or IMO party success. How about thinking of ways to appeal to them?
Is that why we won the last three elections and you didn't?
Well, you didn't win the last three GEs. You won only one of them.
No, Labour last beat the Tories in 2005...
That is irrelevant.
In order to win you need to get to 326 seats. Labour not beating the Conservatives doesn't change the fact that the Conservatives in two out of the last three elections did not get to 326 seats.
"In order to win you need to get to 326 seats."
Con 318 + DUP 10 = 328 = confidence of a majority of MPs in the House of Commons.
Possibly the finest thread header written on here; lucid and full of common sense.
I might add one other element into the mix; the propensity of young voters to turn out. At the moment there is a glow of self-satisfaction amongst the young - they voted and it made a difference. The only problem is that the glow will wear off as days of Tory rule turn to months and then to years (putting to one side the question of leadership). Corbyn says he will be prime minister in six months; he won't. The reflection of the new voters in the long run might be that 'we didn't vote in 2015 and we lost, we didn't vote in 2016 and we lost, we did vote in 2017 but we still lost - so we might as well go back to not voting'. We won't see this yet, but come 2018 I think the patience of youth will be tested beyond the limit of its current enthusiastic participation.
It's a bit sad that Tories see their best chance in the possibility that young people may despair of voting. It's not a long-term formula for either healthy democracy or IMO party success. How about thinking of ways to appeal to them?
Is that why we won the last three elections and you didn't?
Well, you didn't win the last three GEs. You won only one of them.
I didn't say I thought it was a good thing - that was your chosen interpretation (which I find rather sad); neither did I mention despair. I simply think that the longer-term outcome will cause young people to turn away from politics and back towards more traditional outlets for their energies, such as music and art.
"Don't bother your little heads about politics, go and paint something nice?" It's one strategy, certainly. Try it.
I take it you've never heard of Banksy or Tracey Emin....?
Some people think this deal means the govt's now secure till 2022 - that's either naivety or wishful thinking. It gives the govt an effective majority of 13 but the question isn't whether there'll be govt defeats but how soon the first one will be. The govt is already unpopular and unless it can turn its fortunes round there'll be a populist tendency among some of its own MPs to rebel. The NI situation is a big matzo ball. There's Grenfell. Terrorism. Austerity. And the big one... Will this deal built in Belfast come a cropper on the iceberg of Brexit?
Logically, Brexit will happen only for Great Britain. For all practical purposes, Northern Ireland will remain in the EU, if not officially.
I hope nobody is surprised at today's events, the tories believe in power and nothing else. Those expecting an election anytime soon are deluded, they'll cling to power for as long as they can.
Possibly the finest thread header written on here; lucid and full of common sense.
I might add one other element into the mix; the propensity of young voters to turn out. At the moment there is a glow of self-satisfaction amongst the young - they voted and it made a difference. The only problem is that the glow will wear off as days of Tory rule turn to months and then to years (putting to one side the question of leadership). Corbyn says he will be prime minister in six months; he won't. The reflection of the new voters in the long run might be that 'we didn't vote in 2015 and we lost, we didn't vote in 2016 and we lost, we did vote in 2017 but we still lost - so we might as well go back to not voting'. We won't see this yet, but come 2018 I think the patience of youth will be tested beyond the limit of its current enthusiastic participation.
It's a bit sad that Tories see their best chance in the possibility that young people may despair of voting. It's not a long-term formula for either healthy democracy or IMO party success. How about thinking of ways to appeal to them?
Is that why we won the last three elections and you didn't?
Well, you didn't win the last three GEs. You won only one of them.
Some people think this deal means the govt's now secure till 2022 - that's either naivety or wishful thinking. It gives the govt an effective majority of 13 but the question isn't whether there'll be govt defeats but how soon the first one will be. The govt is already unpopular and unless it can turn its fortunes round there'll be a populist tendency among some of its own MPs to rebel. The NI situation is a big matzo ball. There's Grenfell. Terrorism. Austerity. And the big one... Will this deal built in Belfast come a cropper on the iceberg of Brexit?
Defeats do not matter as the government would then have to lose a no confidence vote in which the DUP will support the government
By Gerard Tubb, Sky News Correspondent and Nick Stylianou, Sky News Reporter
The Government was told last year by its own fire investigators that tower blocks were covered in flammable material - but were also told building regulations were "adequate".
The advice was given by the same fire risk experts who are currently testing the cladding on 600 tower blocks - and so far failing every one of them.
The reports were sent to the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) in April 2016 by BRE Global, formerly the Government's Building Research Establishment, which went on to reassure ministers that building controls, which BRE has influenced since 1948, were "adequate".
The documents seen by Sky News show that in last year's study of tower block fire safety it concluded: "With the exception of one or two unfortunate cases, there is currently no evidence from BRE Global's fire investigations for DCLG to suggest that current building regulation recommendations, to limit vertical fire spread up the exterior of high rise buildings, are failing in their purpose."
The documents go on to warn of "an increase in the volume of potential combustible materials being applied. A number of significant fires… have demonstrated the potential risks".
BRE is now being paid to test cladding being removed from high rise buildings across the country in response to the Grenfell Tower disaster, in which 79 people are thought to have died after fire spread rapidly up cladding containing combustible insulation and plastic panels.
Communities Secretary Sajid Javid confirmed cladding on 75 buildings have failed safety tests 75 buildings with cladding fail safety tests
BRE has been paid by DCLG since at least 2007 to "investigate issues that may have implications for building regulations".
How many people will be charged with manslaughter ?
Possibly the finest thread header written on here; lucid and full of common sense.
I might add one other element into the mix; the propensity of young voters to turn out. At the moment there is a glow of self-satisfaction amongst the young - they voted and it made a difference. The only problem is that the glow will wear off as days of Tory rule turn to months and then to years (putting to one side the question of leadership). Corbyn says he will be prime minister in six months; he won't. The reflection of the new voters in the long run might be that 'we didn't vote in 2015 and we lost, we didn't vote in 2016 and we lost, we did vote in 2017 but we still lost - so we might as well go back to not voting'. We won't see this yet, but come 2018 I think the patience of youth will be tested beyond the limit of its current enthusiastic participation.
It's a bit sad that Tories see their best chance in the possibility that young people may despair of voting. It's not a long-term formula for either healthy democracy or IMO party success. How about thinking of ways to appeal to them?
Is that why we won the last three elections and you didn't?
Well, you didn't win the last three GEs. You won only one of them.
No, Labour last beat the Tories in 2005...
That is irrelevant.
In order to win you need to get to 326 seats. Labour not beating the Conservatives doesn't change the fact that the Conservatives in two out of the last three elections did not get to 326 seats.
Your Sinn Fein friends don't sit in Parliament, so de facto, HMG only need 322 seats for a majority.
Possibly the finest thread header written on here; lucid and full of common sense.
I might add one other element into the mix; the propensity of young voters to turn out. At the moment there is a glow of self-satisfaction amongst the young - they voted and it made a difference. The only problem is that the glow will wear off as days of Tory rule turn to months and then to years (putting to one side the question of leadership). Corbyn says he will be prime minister in six months; he won't. The reflection of the new voters in the long run might be that 'we didn't vote in 2015 and we lost, we didn't vote in 2016 and we lost, we did vote in 2017 but we still lost - so we might as well go back to not voting'. We won't see this yet, but come 2018 I think the patience of youth will be tested beyond the limit of its current enthusiastic participation.
It's a bit sad that Tories see their best chance in the possibility that young people may despair of voting. It's not a long-term formula for either healthy democracy or IMO party success. How about thinking of ways to appeal to them?
Wrong. I am passionate about creating a new generation of Tories, and I think the election result was healthy for democracy.
Homes, good jobs, entrepreneurs, individual freedom, passionate democrats.. that's how the Tories should win over the young.
By Gerard Tubb, Sky News Correspondent and Nick Stylianou, Sky News Reporter
The Government was told last year by its own fire investigators that tower blocks were covered in flammable material - but were also told building regulations were "adequate".
The advice was given by the same fire risk experts who are currently testing the cladding on 600 tower blocks - and so far failing every one of them.
The reports were sent to the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) in April 2016 by BRE Global, formerly the Government's Building Research Establishment, which went on to reassure ministers that building controls, which BRE has influenced since 1948, were "adequate".
The documents seen by Sky News show that in last year's study of tower block fire safety it concluded: "With the exception of one or two unfortunate cases, there is currently no evidence from BRE Global's fire investigations for DCLG to suggest that current building regulation recommendations, to limit vertical fire spread up the exterior of high rise buildings, are failing in their purpose."
The documents go on to warn of "an increase in the volume of potential combustible materials being applied. A number of significant fires… have demonstrated the potential risks".
BRE is now being paid to test cladding being removed from high rise buildings across the country in response to the Grenfell Tower disaster, in which 79 people are thought to have died after fire spread rapidly up cladding containing combustible insulation and plastic panels.
Communities Secretary Sajid Javid confirmed cladding on 75 buildings have failed safety tests 75 buildings with cladding fail safety tests
BRE has been paid by DCLG since at least 2007 to "investigate issues that may have implications for building regulations".
How many people will be charged with manslaughter ?
I think you need to be careful - this is a current Police investigation
I thought that comment by Nigel Dodds to publish the from Labour, SNP and DUP was a real killer. I do think Labour are suffering from an extreme case of arrogance at the moment.
Clearly paying a £1bn bribe does not bother you in the slightest.
How about the £8.5 bn protection money bribe we pay to the EU each year? Not bother you in the slightest?
Possibly the finest thread header written on here; lucid and full of common sense.
I might add one other element into the mix; the propensity of young voters to turn out. At the moment there is a glow of self-satisfaction amongst the young - they voted and it made a difference. The only problem is that the glow will wear off as days of Tory rule turn to months and then to years (putting to one side the question of leadership). Corbyn says he will be prime minister in six months; he won't. The reflection of the new voters in the long run might be that 'we didn't vote in 2015 and we lost, we didn't vote in 2016 and we lost, we did vote in 2017 but we still lost - so we might as well go back to not voting'. We won't see this yet, but come 2018 I think the patience of youth will be tested beyond the limit of its current enthusiastic participation.
It's a bit sad that Tories see their best chance in the possibility that young people may despair of voting. It's not a long-term formula for either healthy democracy or IMO party success. How about thinking of ways to appeal to them?
Is that why we won the last three elections and you didn't?
What kind of victory is it that you have to pay £1bn bribe to friends of terrorists ?
Are the people of NI all friends of terrorists? Because the money isn't actually going to DUP MPs, whether they're terrorists' friends or not. You know that, right?
Possibly the finest thread header written on here; lucid and full of common sense.
I might add one other element into the mix; the propensity of young voters to turn out. At the moment there is a glow of self-satisfaction amongst the young - they voted and it made a difference. The only problem is that the glow will wear off as days of Tory rule turn to months and then to years (putting to one side the question of leadership). Corbyn says he will be prime minister in six months; he won't. The reflection of the new voters in the long run might be that 'we didn't vote in 2015 and we lost, we didn't vote in 2016 and we lost, we did vote in 2017 but we still lost - so we might as well go back to not voting'. We won't see this yet, but come 2018 I think the patience of youth will be tested beyond the limit of its current enthusiastic participation.
It's a bit sad that Tories see their best chance in the possibility that young people may despair of voting. It's not a long-term formula for either healthy democracy or IMO party success. How about thinking of ways to appeal to them?
Is that why we won the last three elections and you didn't?
Well, you didn't win the last three GEs. You won only one of them.
No, Labour last beat the Tories in 2005...
That is irrelevant.
In order to win you need to get to 326 seats. Labour not beating the Conservatives doesn't change the fact that the Conservatives in two out of the last three elections did not get to 326 seats.
"In order to win you need to get to 326 seats."
Con 318 + DUP 10 = 328 = confidence of a majority of MPs in the House of Commons.
Oh dear.
At the last GE the Conservatives did not get to 326 seats. They won 318, as you admit in your post.
That is why they had to arrange a confidence and supply with the DUP - because they didn't win the GE. If they had, you wouldn't be here adding the DUP and Conservative numbers together.
A hung parliament means that in effect no one has won the GE. That's why it's a hung parliament.
So I think it is I that ought to be saying 'oh dear' to you.
Possibly the finest thread header written on here; lucid and full of common sense.
I might add one other element into the mix; the propensity of young voters to turn out. At the moment there is a glow of self-satisfaction amongst the young - they voted and it made a difference. The only problem is that the glow will wear off as days of Tory rule turn to months and then to years (putting to one side the question of leadership). Corbyn says he will be prime minister in six months; he won't. The reflection of the new voters in the long run might be that 'we didn't vote in 2015 and we lost, we didn't vote in 2016 and we lost, we did vote in 2017 but we still lost - so we might as well go back to not voting'. We won't see this yet, but come 2018 I think the patience of youth will be tested beyond the limit of its current enthusiastic participation.
It's a bit sad that Tories see their best chance in the possibility that young people may despair of voting. It's not a long-term formula for either healthy democracy or IMO party success. How about thinking of ways to appeal to them?
Is that why we won the last three elections and you didn't?
Well, you didn't win the last three GEs. You won only one of them.
Possibly the finest thread header written on here; lucid and full of common sense.
I might add one other element into the mix; the propensity of young voters to turn out. At the moment there is a glow of self-satisfaction amongst the young - they voted and it made a difference. The only problem is that the glow will wear off as days of Tory rule turn to months and then to years (putting to one side the question of leadership). Corbyn says he will be prime minister in six months; he won't. The reflection of the new voters in the long run might be that 'we didn't vote in 2015 and we lost, we didn't vote in 2016 and we lost, we did vote in 2017 but we still lost - so we might as well go back to not voting'. We won't see this yet, but come 2018 I think the patience of youth will be tested beyond the limit of its current enthusiastic participation.
It's a bit sad that Tories see their best chance in the possibility that young people may despair of voting. It's not a long-term formula for either healthy democracy or IMO party success. How about thinking of ways to appeal to them?
Is that why we won the last three elections and you didn't?
Well, you didn't win the last three GEs. You won only one of them.
The PBTories are celebrating that after going through a six weeks long election campaign costing the nation £millions and after paying a BRIBE of £1billion [ so far ], they have transformed themselves from having
Possibly the finest thread header written on here; lucid and full of common sense.
I might add one other element into the mix; the propensity of young voters to turn out. At the moment there is a glow of self-satisfaction amongst the young - they voted and it made a difference. The only problem is that the glow will wear off as days of Tory rule turn to months and then to years (putting to one side the question of leadership). Corbyn says he will be prime minister in six months; he won't. The reflection of the new voters in the long run might be that 'we didn't vote in 2015 and we lost, we didn't vote in 2016 and we lost, we did vote in 2017 but we still lost - so we might as well go back to not voting'. We won't see this yet, but come 2018 I think the patience of youth will be tested beyond the limit of its current enthusiastic participation.
It's a bit sad that Tories see their best chance in the possibility that young people may despair of voting. It's not a long-term formula for either healthy democracy or IMO party success. How about thinking of ways to appeal to them?
Is that why we won the last three elections and you didn't?
Well, you didn't win the last three GEs. You won only one of them.
No, Labour last beat the Tories in 2005...
That is irrelevant.
In order to win you need to get to 326 seats. Labour not beating the Conservatives doesn't change the fact that the Conservatives in two out of the last three elections did not get to 326 seats.
"In order to win you need to get to 326 seats."
Con 318 + DUP 10 = 328 = confidence of a majority of MPs in the House of Commons.
Oh dear.
At the last GE the Conservatives did not get to 326 seats. They won 318, as you admit in your post.
That is why they had to arrange a confidence and supply with the DUP - because they didn't win the GE. If they had, you wouldn't be here adding the DUP and Conservative numbers together.
A hung parliament means that in effect no one has won the GE. That's why it's a hung parliament.
So I think it is I that ought to be saying 'oh dear' to you.
Who will form the new Government after the election? The Tories, or the commies?
Possibly the finest thread header written on here; lucid and full of common sense.
I might add one other element into the mix; the propensity of young voters to turn out. At the moment there is a glow of self-satisfaction amongst the young - they voted and it made a difference. The only problem is that the glow will wear off as days of Tory rule turn to months and then to years (putting to one side the question of leadership). Corbyn says he will be prime minister in six months; he won't. The reflection of the new voters in the long run might be that 'we didn't vote in 2015 and we lost, we didn't vote in 2016 and we lost, we did vote in 2017 but we still lost - so we might as well go back to not voting'. We won't see this yet, but come 2018 I think the patience of youth will be tested beyond the limit of its current enthusiastic participation.
It's a bit sad that Tories see their best chance in the possibility that young people may despair of voting. It's not a long-term formula for either healthy democracy or IMO party success. How about thinking of ways to appeal to them?
Is that why we won the last three elections and you didn't?
What kind of victory is it that you have to pay £1bn bribe to friends of terrorists ?
Are the people of NI all friends of terrorists? Because the money isn't actually going to DUP MPs, whether they're terrorists' friends or not. You know that, right?
As far as I am aware the funding only goes to Northern Ireland if Stormont is reconvened
Possibly the finest thread header written on here; lucid and full of common sense.
I might add one other element into the mix; the propensity of young voters to turn out. At the moment there is a glow of self-satisfaction amongst the young - they voted and it made a difference. The only problem is that the glow will wear off as days of Tory rule turn to months and then to years (putting to one side the question of leadership). Corbyn says he will be prime minister in six months; he won't. The reflection of the new voters in the long run might be that 'we didn't vote in 2015 and we lost, we didn't vote in 2016 and we lost, we did vote in 2017 but we still lost - so we might as well go back to not voting'. We won't see this yet, but come 2018 I think the patience of youth will be tested beyond the limit of its current enthusiastic participation.
It's a bit sad that Tories see their best chance in the possibility that young people may despair of voting. It's not a long-term formula for either healthy democracy or IMO party success. How about thinking of ways to appeal to them?
Is that why we won the last three elections and you didn't?
Well, you didn't win the last three GEs. You won only one of them.
No, Labour last beat the Tories in 2005...
That is irrelevant.
In order to win you need to get to 326 seats. Labour not beating the Conservatives doesn't change the fact that the Conservatives in two out of the last three elections did not get to 326 seats.
"In order to win you need to get to 326 seats."
Con 318 + DUP 10 = 328 = confidence of a majority of MPs in the House of Commons.
Oh dear.
At the last GE the Conservatives did not get to 326 seats. They won 318, as you admit in your post.
That is why they had to arrange a confidence and supply with the DUP - because they didn't win the GE. If they had, you wouldn't be here adding the DUP and Conservative numbers together.
A hung parliament means that in effect no one has won the GE. That's why it's a hung parliament.
So I think it is I that ought to be saying 'oh dear' to you.
Surely the definition of 'winning' is having power? In which case it seems to me that the DUP won in 2017.
Possibly the finest thread header written on here; lucid and full of common sense.
I might add one other element into the mix; the propensity of young voters to turn out. At the moment there is a glow of self-satisfaction amongst the young - they voted and it made a difference. The only problem is that the glow will wear off as days of Tory rule turn to months and then to years (putting to one side the question of leadership). Corbyn says he will be prime minister in six months; he won't. The reflection of the new voters in the long run might be that 'we didn't vote in 2015 and we lost, we didn't vote in 2016 and we lost, we did vote in 2017 but we still lost - so we might as well go back to not voting'. We won't see this yet, but come 2018 I think the patience of youth will be tested beyond the limit of its current enthusiastic participation.
It's a bit sad that Tories see their best chance in the possibility that young people may despair of voting. It's not a long-term formula for either healthy democracy or IMO party success. How about thinking of ways to appeal to them?
Is that why we won the last three elections and you didn't?
Well, you didn't win the last three GEs. You won only one of them.
No, Labour last beat the Tories in 2005...
That is irrelevant.
In order to win you need to get to 326 seats. Labour not beating the Conservatives doesn't change the fact that the Conservatives in two out of the last three elections did not get to 326 seats.
Your Sinn Fein friends don't sit in Parliament, so de facto, HMG only need 322 seats for a majority.
My Sinn Fein friends?
I didn't vote Labour at the last GE and will likely be voting LD at the locals next year. Try again.
The official number is 326, although even if we take the de facto number, the Conservatives still didn't even get to that, winning 318 seats and all.
I haven't watched the news today, has there been any mention of John McDonnell's appallying comments re Grenfell being a case of murder?
If it was not murder, what was it then ?
Define murder
It's astonishing that people haven't woken up to what McDonnell is saying. He is saying that people who died in Grenfell were not just murdered, but murdered by British democracy. Just think about that for a moment and think about what he would like to do in response... He has ambitions far beyond winning an election. He possibly believes he will only need to win one...
Possibly the finest thread header written on here; lucid and full of common sense.
I might add one other element into the mix; the propensity of young voters to turn out. At the moment there is a glow of self-satisfaction amongst the young - they voted and it made a difference. The only problem is that the glow will wear off as days of Tory rule turn to months and then to years (putting to one side the question of leadership). Corbyn says he will be prime minister in six months; he won't. The reflection of the new voters in the long run might be that 'we didn't vote in 2015 and we lost, we didn't vote in 2016 and we lost, we did vote in 2017 but we still lost - so we might as well go back to not voting'. We won't see this yet, but come 2018 I think the patience of youth will be tested beyond the limit of its current enthusiastic participation.
It's a bit sad that Tories see their best chance in the possibility that young people may despair of voting. It's not a long-term formula for either healthy democracy or IMO party success. How about thinking of ways to appeal to them?
Is that why we won the last three elections and you didn't?
What kind of victory is it that you have to pay £1bn bribe to friends of terrorists ?
Are the people of NI all friends of terrorists? Because the money isn't actually going to DUP MPs, whether they're terrorists' friends or not. You know that, right?
Possibly the finest thread header written on here; lucid and full of common sense.
I might add one other element into the mix; the propensity of young voters to turn out. At the moment there is a glow of self-satisfaction amongst the young - they voted and it made a difference. The only problem is that the glow will wear off as days of Tory rule turn to months and then to years (putting to one side the question of leadership). Corbyn says he will be prime minister in six months; he won't. The reflection of the new voters in the long run might be that 'we didn't vote in 2015 and we lost, we didn't vote in 2016 and we lost, we did vote in 2017 but we still lost - so we might as well go back to not voting'. We won't see this yet, but come 2018 I think the patience of youth will be tested beyond the limit of its current enthusiastic participation.
It's a bit sad that Tories see their best chance in the possibility that young people may despair of voting. It's not a long-term formula for either healthy democracy or IMO party success. How about thinking of ways to appeal to them?
Is that why we won the last three elections and you didn't?
Well, you didn't win the last three GEs. You won only one of them.
No, Labour last beat the Tories in 2005...
That is irrelevant.
In order to win you need to get to 326 seats. Labour not beating the Conservatives doesn't change the fact that the Conservatives in two out of the last three elections did not get to 326 seats.
"In order to win you need to get to 326 seats."
Con 318 + DUP 10 = 328 = confidence of a majority of MPs in the House of Commons.
Oh dear.
At the last GE the Conservatives did not get to 326 seats. They won 318, as you admit in your post.
That is why they had to arrange a confidence and supply with the DUP - because they didn't win the GE. If they had, you wouldn't be here adding the DUP and Conservative numbers together.
A hung parliament means that in effect no one has won the GE. That's why it's a hung parliament.
So I think it is I that ought to be saying 'oh dear' to you.
Who will form the new Government after the election? The Tories, or the commies?
Oh dear.
Forming the government and winning the GE isn't the same thing.
Possibly the finest thread header written on here; lucid and full of common sense.
I might add one other element into the mix; the propensity of young voters to turn out. At the moment there is a glow of self-satisfaction amongst the young - they voted and it made a difference. The only problem is that the glow will wear off as days of Tory rule turn to months and then to years (putting to one side the question of leadership). Corbyn says he will be prime minister in six months; he won't. The reflection of the new voters in the long run might be that 'we didn't vote in 2015 and we lost, we didn't vote in 2016 and we lost, we did vote in 2017 but we still lost - so we might as well go back to not voting'. We won't see this yet, but come 2018 I think the patience of youth will be tested beyond the limit of its current enthusiastic participation.
It's a bit sad that Tories see their best chance in the possibility that young people may despair of voting. It's not a long-term formula for either healthy democracy or IMO party success. How about thinking of ways to appeal to them?
Is that why we won the last three elections and you didn't?
What kind of victory is it that you have to pay £1bn bribe to friends of terrorists ?
Are the people of NI all friends of terrorists? Because the money isn't actually going to DUP MPs, whether they're terrorists' friends or not. You know that, right?
As far as I am aware the funding only goes to Northern Ireland if Stormont is reconvened
I thought that comment by Nigel Dodds to publish the from Labour, SNP and DUP was a real killer. I do think Labour are suffering from an extreme case of arrogance at the moment.
Clearly paying a £1bn bribe does not bother you in the slightest.
How about the £8.5 bn protection money bribe we pay to the EU each year? Not bother you in the slightest?
Sky news reporting the buildings now failing safety passed a year ago by same regulators and safety regulators and government aware the cladding was flammable but decided regulations were enough. Hmmmmmmmmmmm
Sky source
That is Tories for you Big_G , anything on the cheap for the peasants, bet they don't have any dodgy cladding or dodgy doors on their own luxury pads.
Hi Malc. Looks like Camden Labour contolled Council have big questions to face not least 1,000 missing fire doors in their blocks. This story is way beyond just the cladding, complete failure by council inspectors and the fire officers to identify neglect, not only outside but within the buildings
Typical of the UK, on the cheap and fake the safety stuff, they are all at it National and Local government just filling their boots and squandering Billions. One thing is sure , we will hear plenty of "Lessons will be learned", bullshit and they will go back to filling their boots.
The one time a lesson was learned was in the fatal fire in Woolworths, Manchester in 1979 when fire safety regulation was adopted over fire resistant materials in furniture, but even that took until 1988
Anecdote alert:
Back in 1984 my dad built our family house. Being a cheapskate, he fitted cheap interior doors until he could source good quality doors from a demo job. When he found a suitable door, he would take the old one out and burn it in the garden.
They would always go up like a rocket. It turned out the front and back of the doors were thin panels of wood separated by a honeycomb arrangement of card. Once the flames got past the panels, the interior would just go into a massive conflagration as the card and glue ignited.
After seeing this one day, my mum forced him to fit 'proper' doors, whatever the cost.
The missing fire doors are as a result of a blind eye being turned towards the "modification" of properties by residents etc. Disabling smoke alarms is another. Personally I quite like the Swiss approach to such behaviour.
Sadly, there's no way we'll get corporal punishment re-instituted.
Possibly the finest thread header written on here; lucid and full of common sense.
I might add one other element into the mix; the propensity of young voters to turn out. At the moment there is a glow of self-satisfaction amongst the young - they voted and it made a difference. The only problem is that the glow will wear off as days of Tory rule turn to months and then to years (putting to one side the question of leadership). Corbyn says he will be prime minister in six months; he won't. The reflection of the new voters in the long run might be that 'we didn't vote in 2015 and we lost, we didn't vote in 2016 and we lost, we did vote in 2017 but we still lost - so we might as well go back to not voting'. We won't see this yet, but come 2018 I think the patience of youth will be tested beyond the limit of its current enthusiastic participation.
It's a bit sad that Tories see their best chance in the possibility that young people may despair of voting. It's not a long-term formula for either healthy democracy or IMO party success. How about thinking of ways to appeal to them?
Is that why we won the last three elections and you didn't?
Well, you didn't win the last three GEs. You won only one of them.
No, Labour last beat the Tories in 2005...
That is irrelevant.
In order to win you need to get to 326 seats. Labour not beating the Conservatives doesn't change the fact that the Conservatives in two out of the last three elections did not get to 326 seats.
"In order to win you need to get to 326 seats."
Con 318 + DUP 10 = 328 = confidence of a majority of MPs in the House of Commons.
Oh dear.
At the last GE the Conservatives did not get to 326 seats. They won 318, as you admit in your post.
That is why they had to arrange a confidence and supply with the DUP - because they didn't win the GE. If they had, you wouldn't be here adding the DUP and Conservative numbers together.
A hung parliament means that in effect no one has won the GE. That's why it's a hung parliament.
So I think it is I that ought to be saying 'oh dear' to you.
Who will form the new Government after the election? The Tories, or the commies?
Oh dear.
Forming the government and winning the GE isn't the same thing.
Oh dear.
Well as the point of elections is to determine who governs the country it is a reasonable equation.
Some people think this deal means the govt's now secure till 2022 - that's either naivety or wishful thinking. It gives the govt an effective majority of 13 but the question isn't whether there'll be govt defeats but how soon the first one will be. The govt is already unpopular and unless it can turn its fortunes round there'll be a populist tendency among some of its own MPs to rebel. The NI situation is a big matzo ball. There's Grenfell. Terrorism. Austerity. And the big one... Will this deal built in Belfast come a cropper on the iceberg of Brexit?
Defeats do not matter as the government would then have to lose a no confidence vote in which the DUP will support the government
They matter a lot. Just not precisely in the way that you think.
Why else would the government have instructed departments to avoid as much secondary legislation and regulations going through Parliament as possible, and that any such legislation should be cleared with the Labour front bench informally before being progressed.
By Gerard Tubb, Sky News Correspondent and Nick Stylianou, Sky News Reporter
The Government was told last year by its own fire investigators that tower blocks were covered in flammable material - but were also told building regulations were "adequate".
The advice was given by the same fire risk experts who are currently testing the cladding on 600 tower blocks - and so far failing every one of them.
The reports were sent to the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) in April 2016 by BRE Global, formerly the Government's Building Research Establishment, which went on to reassure ministers that building controls, which BRE has influenced since 1948, were "adequate".
The documents seen by Sky News show that in last year's study of tower block fire safety it concluded: "With the exception of one or two unfortunate cases, there is currently no evidence from BRE Global's fire investigations for DCLG to suggest that current building regulation recommendations, to limit vertical fire spread up the exterior of high rise buildings, are failing in their purpose."
The documents go on to warn of "an increase in the volume of potential combustible materials being applied. A number of significant fires… have demonstrated the potential risks".
BRE is now being paid to test cladding being removed from high rise buildings across the country in response to the Grenfell Tower disaster, in which 79 people are thought to have died after fire spread rapidly up cladding containing combustible insulation and plastic panels.
Communities Secretary Sajid Javid confirmed cladding on 75 buildings have failed safety tests 75 buildings with cladding fail safety tests
BRE has been paid by DCLG since at least 2007 to "investigate issues that may have implications for building regulations".
How many people will be charged with manslaughter ?
It's quite extraordinary. They knew the materials were flammable. They knew there had been fires around the world. Then went: yeah, it'll be ok.
Health & safety rules are in all the wrong places.
True story: I went to college craft fair a few years back. There were two students helping park cars on the field. The more junior girl was complaining that it was so hot and she wanted to take her hi-vis jacket off. The more senior guy said she couldn't because it was "health & safety". He then had no problem with letting her stand directly in front of each car to direct it as it parked, where just one driver slipping too far would have broken her legs...
Some people think this deal means the govt's now secure till 2022 - that's either naivety or wishful thinking. It gives the govt an effective majority of 13 but the question isn't whether there'll be govt defeats but how soon the first one will be. The govt is already unpopular and unless it can turn its fortunes round there'll be a populist tendency among some of its own MPs to rebel. The NI situation is a big matzo ball. There's Grenfell. Terrorism. Austerity. And the big one... Will this deal built in Belfast come a cropper on the iceberg of Brexit?
Defeats do not matter as the government would then have to lose a no confidence vote in which the DUP will support the government
Of course defeats matter. A minority govt without defeats will last longer than one with many. In the latter case the govt will call an election at the earliest possible moment, if it's not forced to sooner. It might for example be forced to if the DUP agreement ends up in the bin.
Possibly the finest thread header written on here; lucid and full of common sense.
I might add one other element into the mix; the propensity of young voters to turn out. At the moment there is a glow of self-satisfaction amongst the young - they voted and it made a difference. The only problem is that the glow will wear off as days of Tory rule turn to months and then to years (putting to one side the question of leadership). Corbyn says he will be prime minister in six months; he won't. The reflection of the new voters in the long run might be that 'we didn't vote in 2015 and we lost, we didn't vote in 2016 and we lost, we did vote in 2017 but we still lost - so we might as well go back to not voting'. We won't see this yet, but come 2018 I think the patience of youth will be tested beyond the limit of its current enthusiastic participation.
It's a bit sad that Tories see their best chance in the possibility that young people may despair of voting. It's not a long-term formula for either healthy democracy or IMO party success. How about thinking of ways to appeal to them?
Is that why we won the last three elections and you didn't?
What kind of victory is it that you have to pay £1bn bribe to friends of terrorists ?
Are the people of NI all friends of terrorists? Because the money isn't actually going to DUP MPs, whether they're terrorists' friends or not. You know that, right?
You are a lover of terrorists. We know that.
Which terrorists do I love? And who else knows it? I'm genuinely intrigued!
Comments
The sheer stupidity of that manifesto is astonishing.
I cant see the DUP/Tory bribe government being a vote winner anywhere. It nullifies completely any IRA/Corbyn attack lines and kills austerity dead
Also, when the economic realities come to roost, i cant see that helping the Tories.
Remember that ..
https://twitter.com/JamieRoss7/status/879399959661076481
An increased majority!!
A government from every land in Britain!!!
You've got five more years of HER!
#THERESA22
I might add one other element into the mix; the propensity of young voters to turn out. At the moment there is a glow of self-satisfaction amongst the young - they voted and it made a difference. The only problem is that the glow will wear off as days of Tory rule turn to months and then to years (putting to one side the question of leadership). Corbyn says he will be prime minister in six months; he won't. The reflection of the new voters in the long run might be that 'we didn't vote in 2015 and we lost, we didn't vote in 2016 and we lost, we did vote in 2017 but we still lost - so we might as well go back to not voting'. We won't see this yet, but come 2018 I think the patience of youth will be tested beyond the limit of its current enthusiastic participation.
Kicking the powers that be in the goolies is quite an addiction.
1. £1bn bribe.
2. WFA re-instated
3. Triple-lock re-instated
any more ?
2015 CON 330 LAB 232
2017 CON+DUP 328 LAB who cares?
That's 3-0 to the CON!!!!
Let's not have sanctimony regarding democracy when you defend that cretin.
I must have missed that!
If being in executive control of Great Britain = not winning, then not winning is pretty damned awesome!
The Liberal Democrats enters into a coalition and concedes Tuition fees which would have cost £1bn.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/876894066478329857
Or maybe 16 (under Mrs May!)
In order to win you need to get to 326 seats. Labour not beating the Conservatives doesn't change the fact that the Conservatives in two out of the last three elections did not get to 326 seats.
If true it absolves the Government
By Gerard Tubb, Sky News Correspondent and Nick Stylianou, Sky News Reporter
The Government was told last year by its own fire investigators that tower blocks were covered in flammable material - but were also told building regulations were "adequate".
The advice was given by the same fire risk experts who are currently testing the cladding on 600 tower blocks - and so far failing every one of them.
The reports were sent to the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) in April 2016 by BRE Global, formerly the Government's Building Research Establishment, which went on to reassure ministers that building controls, which BRE has influenced since 1948, were "adequate".
The documents seen by Sky News show that in last year's study of tower block fire safety it concluded: "With the exception of one or two unfortunate cases, there is currently no evidence from BRE Global's fire investigations for DCLG to suggest that current building regulation recommendations, to limit vertical fire spread up the exterior of high rise buildings, are failing in their purpose."
The documents go on to warn of "an increase in the volume of potential combustible materials being applied. A number of significant fires… have demonstrated the potential risks".
BRE is now being paid to test cladding being removed from high rise buildings across the country in response to the Grenfell Tower disaster, in which 79 people are thought to have died after fire spread rapidly up cladding containing combustible insulation and plastic panels.
Communities Secretary Sajid Javid confirmed cladding on 75 buildings have failed safety tests
75 buildings with cladding fail safety tests
BRE has been paid by DCLG since at least 2007 to "investigate issues that may have implications for building regulations".
Con 318 + DUP 10 = 328 = confidence of a majority of MPs in the House of Commons.
Oh dear.
Homes, good jobs, entrepreneurs, individual freedom, passionate democrats.. that's how the Tories should win over the young.
Not being able to conjure up any new nasty austerity cuts
protection moneybribe we pay to the EU each year? Not bother you in the slightest?That is why they had to arrange a confidence and supply with the DUP - because they didn't win the GE. If they had, you wouldn't be here adding the DUP and Conservative numbers together.
A hung parliament means that in effect no one has won the GE. That's why it's a hung parliament.
So I think it is I that ought to be saying 'oh dear' to you.
331 seats in the HoC to 328 seats.
Oh dear.
I didn't vote Labour at the last GE and will likely be voting LD at the locals next year. Try again.
The official number is 326, although even if we take the de facto number, the Conservatives still didn't even get to that, winning 318 seats and all.
Oh dear.
LAB lost!!
CORBYN =
Why else would the government have instructed departments to avoid as much secondary legislation and regulations going through Parliament as possible, and that any such legislation should be cleared with the Labour front bench informally before being progressed.
https://twitter.com/thatginamiller/status/879423189243355136
It's quite extraordinary. They knew the materials were flammable. They knew there had been fires around the world. Then went: yeah, it'll be ok.
Health & safety rules are in all the wrong places.
True story: I went to college craft fair a few years back. There were two students helping park cars on the field. The more junior girl was complaining that it was so hot and she wanted to take her hi-vis jacket off. The more senior guy said she couldn't because it was "health & safety". He then had no problem with letting her stand directly in front of each car to direct it as it parked, where just one driver slipping too far would have broken her legs...