First of all, I'd kindly ask PB Tories to not invent straw man arguments. I've never argued that Labour 'won' the GE, so I don't know why some of you are bringing that line up. Actually try and engage with what I've actually said as opposed to investing a straw man and then arguing with that.
Second of all, no one is denying the Tories won most seats etc. Forming the government, however is not the same as winning the GE. In order to do that the Conservatives needed to wins majority - as did Labour. Neither did, and thus neither party won the GE.
First of all, I'd kindly ask PB Tories to not invent straw man arguments. I've never argued that Labour 'won' the GE, so I don't know why some of you are bringing that line up. Actually try and engage with what I've actually said as opposed to investing a straw man and then arguing with that.
Second of all, no one is denying the Tories won most seats etc. Forming the government, however is not the same as winning the GE. In order to do that the Conservatives needed to wins majority - as did Labour. Neither did, and thus neither party won the GE.
First of all, I'd kindly ask PB Tories to not invent straw man arguments. I've never argued that Labour 'won' the GE, so I don't know why some of you are bringing that line up. Actually try and engage with what I've actually said as opposed to investing a straw man and then arguing with that.
Second of all, no one is denying the Tories won most seats etc. Forming the government, however is not the same as winning the GE. In order to do that the Conservatives needed to wins majority - as did Labour. Neither did, and thus neither party won the GE.
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.
It is just not going to happen - it is a signed memorandum of agreement for five years
The Government is only 7 by election defeats from losing its majority even after having made this deal. In practice, if the Tories were to lose - say - 3 by elections and effectively see their majority cut to just 7 seats , would the DUP really wish to be seen to be propping up a political corpse?
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.
It is just not going to happen - it is a signed memorandum of agreement for five years
The Government is only 7 by election defeats from losing its majority even after having made this deal. In practice, if the Tories were to lose - say - 3 by elections and effectively see their majority cut to just 7 seats , would the DUP really wish to be seen to be propping up a political corpse?
Because the alternative would be propping up a rag tag band of losers, yes.
First of all, I'd kindly ask PB Tories to not invent straw man arguments. I've never argued that Labour 'won' the GE, so I don't know why some of you are bringing that line up. Actually try and engage with what I've actually said as opposed to investing a straw man and then arguing with that.
Second of all, no one is denying the Tories won most seats etc. Forming the government, however is not the same as winning the GE. In order to do that the Conservatives needed to wins majority - as did Labour. Neither did, and thus neither party won the GE.
You didn't read the key word, did you.
Now is the time to pivot....
You didn't read any of what I've said judging by your post.
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.
First of all, I'd kindly ask PB Tories to not invent straw man arguments. I've never argued that Labour 'won' the GE, so I don't know why some of you are bringing that line up. Actually try and engage with what I've actually said as opposed to investing a straw man and then arguing with that.
Second of all, no one is denying the Tories won most seats etc. Forming the government, however is not the same as winning the GE. In order to do that the Conservatives needed to wins majority - as did Labour. Neither did, and thus neither party won the GE.
You didn't read the key word, did you.
Now is the time to pivot....
You didn't read any of what I've said judging by your post.
It was a pretty dull exchange. I thought I'd liven it up with a bit of friendly advice.
First of all, I'd kindly ask PB Tories to not invent straw man arguments. I've never argued that Labour 'won' the GE, so I don't know why some of you are bringing that line up. Actually try and engage with what I've actually said as opposed to investing a straw man and then arguing with that.
Second of all, no one is denying the Tories won most seats etc. Forming the government, however is not the same as winning the GE. In order to do that the Conservatives needed to wins majority - as did Labour. Neither did, and thus neither party won the GE.
You didn't read the key word, did you.
Now is the time to pivot....
You didn't read any of what I've said judging by your post.
It was a pretty dull exchange. I thought I'd liven it up with a bit of friendly advice.
First of all, I'd kindly ask PB Tories to not invent straw man arguments. I've never argued that Labour 'won' the GE, so I don't know why some of you are bringing that line up. Actually try and engage with what I've actually said as opposed to investing a straw man and then arguing with that.
Second of all, no one is denying the Tories won most seats etc. Forming the government, however is not the same as winning the GE. In order to do that the Conservatives needed to wins majority - as did Labour. Neither did, and thus neither party won the GE.
You didn't read the key word, did you.
Now is the time to pivot....
You didn't read any of what I've said judging by your post.
It was a pretty dull exchange. I thought I'd liven it up with a bit of friendly advice.
First of all, I'd kindly ask PB Tories to not invent straw man arguments. I've never argued that Labour 'won' the GE, so I don't know why some of you are bringing that line up. Actually try and engage with what I've actually said as opposed to investing a straw man and then arguing with that.
Second of all, no one is denying the Tories won most seats etc. Forming the government, however is not the same as winning the GE. In order to do that the Conservatives needed to wins majority - as did Labour. Neither did, and thus neither party won the GE.
LOL, you complain about straw man arguments five minutes after writing that "Many Tories on here have aired their display [?dismay] and upset at the result, but that doesn't mean that they've learned the lessons of the GE. Many are blaming voters, particularly younger voters for a start." Substantiate that, please, bearing in mind that noting an increased turnout among the young and blaming themselves/their party/TMay/that twat with the beard for not having anything to offer the young is not quite the same thing as "blaming voters, particularly younger voters".
First of all, I'd kindly ask PB Tories to not invent straw man arguments. I've never argued that Labour 'won' the GE, so I don't know why some of you are bringing that line up. Actually try and engage with what I've actually said as opposed to investing a straw man and then arguing with that.
Second of all, no one is denying the Tories won most seats etc. Forming the government, however is not the same as winning the GE. In order to do that the Conservatives needed to wins majority - as did Labour. Neither did, and thus neither party won the GE.
If you come first in something, that is generally considered winning. The Conservatives won most seats, most votes and got to form the government. There is not any reasonable metric by which they did not come first. That means they won.
Of course that does not mean we should not learn our lesson. The first lesson is that we should not seek to punish our core vote again, unless done with cross-party cover. The second lesson is that we must reach out aggressively to young people, to wean them off the drug that is utopian socialism.
Right now they do not see themselves being able to settle down with a family until they are in their 40s or later, which might as well be an eternity to them. Our top priority must be making the realistic ambition to have a good job, a stable marriage, children, and a decent house with a garden in a nice neighbourhood available to all. Not all will want it, but as long as there's the option most people come to want that in time, and with that comes a conservative majority in society and in parliament.
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.
It is just not going to happen - it is a signed memorandum of agreement for five years
The Government is only 7 by election defeats from losing its majority even after having made this deal. In practice, if the Tories were to lose - say - 3 by elections and effectively see their majority cut to just 7 seats , would the DUP really wish to be seen to be propping up a political corpse?
So much speculation Justine but if it keeps you happy I have no problem
First of all, I'd kindly ask PB Tories to not invent straw man arguments. I've never argued that Labour 'won' the GE, so I don't know why some of you are bringing that line up. Actually try and engage with what I've actually said as opposed to investing a straw man and then arguing with that.
Second of all, no one is denying the Tories won most seats etc. Forming the government, however is not the same as winning the GE. In order to do that the Conservatives needed to wins majority - as did Labour. Neither did, and thus neither party won the GE.
If you come first in something, that is generally considered winning. The Conservatives won most seats, most votes and got to form the government. There is not any reasonable metric by which they did not come first. That means they won.
Of course that does not mean we should not learn our lesson. The first lesson is that we should not seek to punish our core vote again, unless done with cross-party cover. The second lesson is that we must reach out aggressively to young people, to wean them off the drug that is utopian socialism.
Right now they do not see themselves being able to settle down with a family until they are in their 40s or later, which might as well be an eternity to them. Our top priority must be making the realistic ambition to have a good job, a stable marriage, children, and a decent house with a garden in a nice neighbourhood available to all. Not all will want it, but as long as there's the option most people come to want that in time, and with that comes a conservative majority in society and in parliament.
Well quite. Exactly the point I made to my MP last week.
First of all, I'd kindly ask PB Tories to not invent straw man arguments. I've never argued that Labour 'won' the GE, so I don't know why some of you are bringing that line up. Actually try and engage with what I've actually said as opposed to investing a straw man and then arguing with that.
Second of all, no one is denying the Tories won most seats etc. Forming the government, however is not the same as winning the GE. In order to do that the Conservatives needed to wins majority - as did Labour. Neither did, and thus neither party won the GE.
You didn't read the key word, did you.
Now is the time to pivot....
You didn't read any of what I've said judging by your post.
It was a pretty dull exchange. I thought I'd liven it up with a bit of friendly advice.
First of all, I'd kindly ask PB Tories to not invent straw man arguments. I've never argued that Labour 'won' the GE, so I don't know why some of you are bringing that line up. Actually try and engage with what I've actually said as opposed to investing a straw man and then arguing with that.
Second of all, no one is denying the Tories won most seats etc. Forming the government, however is not the same as winning the GE. In order to do that the Conservatives needed to wins majority - as did Labour. Neither did, and thus neither party won the GE.
LOL, you complain about straw man arguments five minutes after writing that "Many Tories on here have aired their display [?dismay] and upset at the result, but that doesn't mean that they've learned the lessons of the GE. Many are blaming voters, particularly younger voters for a start." Substantiate that, please, bearing in mind that noting an increased turnout among the young and blaming themselves/their party/TMay/that twat with the beard for not having anything to offer the young is not quite the same thing as "blaming voters, particularly younger voters".
One example. I'm not borthering to go through every thread over the last couple of weeks just for you. If your precious every time an observation about PB Tories is made that's your problem.
Any word on whether Lady Hermon is supporting the deal?
Re the previous thread it's actually a majority of 13 without Lady Hermon or 15 if Lady Hermon backs it.
I reckon the Government is reasonably stable down to and including a majority of 7 - if it goes down to 5 then they're really on a knife-edge but 7 or more they shouldn't lose a vote by accident.
So Lady Hermon is quite important - if 7 is regarded as the "cut-off" they can lose 3 by-elections without her or 4 by-elections with her.
She has a majority of 1,200 and gets about 2,500 tactical votes from the Green Party alone to keep the DUP out, never mind the Alliance or nationalists.
North Down's outlook is overwhelmingly Unionist. The juxtaposition of the Assembly and general elections shows there are people who vote for non-aligned parties locally, but will vote Unionist at Westminster level, especially if they think the Union is in danger.
Sylvia Hermon would be finished, if she helped put Corbyn into power.
My initial surprise is that Gerry Adams seems infinitely more positive over the bung than I had expected!
The reason the Good Friday Agreement worked is that ultimately, despite obvious evidence to the contrary, both unionist and republican politicians are first and foremost Northern Irish and at heart quite rational. If somone offers the province a billion quid it's hard to reject it. If the Government offered Bolsover a billion, I daresay they'd consider voting Tory for a little while, until they'd spent it.
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.
It is just not going to happen - it is a signed memorandum of agreement for five years
The Government is only 7 by election defeats from losing its majority even after having made this deal. In practice, if the Tories were to lose - say - 3 by elections and effectively see their majority cut to just 7 seats , would the DUP really wish to be seen to be propping up a political corpse?
Because the alternative would be propping up a rag tag band of losers, yes.
But if the Opposition parties were getting big swings at by elections and the Tories were well adrift in the polls the DUP might contemplate the possibility of gaing some credit with the wider UK electorate for helping to put the minority Government out of its misery.
There is great potential for ructions and splits in both Labour and the Tories. Fear of Corbyn plus need to try and get a sensible Brexit deal may constrain Tory rebels. I think the bigger internal battles will be within Labour. Why? McDonell agitation, battle over Momentum's grip on party structures including re-selection, Brexit, any carefully crafted parliamentary votes by the Government over security.
It was funny to see the labour and SNP benches squirm when Nigel Dodds made his offer of publication of labour and the SNP's correspondence to them in 2010 and 2015
Yes I can imagine Corbyn's team will be terrified the perfidy of New Labour will be exposed.
There be herein hypocrisy-related hypocrisy. Would Labour have done a deal with the DUP in 2010, 2015, 2017 had the circumstances demanded it? Clearly yes. Yea, even the ever-righteous national treasure Ed M. Yea, verily the sainted beardie JC too. This is hardly a "New Labour" issue*. It's a politics thing. Politicians do politics because politics is what politicians do, sadly. So it is indeed a bit rich for Labour figures to snipe so opportunistically at the Tories doing what they themselves would have done, had the circumstances so compelled them.
Yet it is also a bit rich for Tory figures to grouch about the Labour sniping - they, after all, are politicians too. Had Labour got over the line in 2010 or 2015, albeit with the most precarious parliamentary arithmetic and the unlikeliest of bedfellows for a "progressive" (a word strained here to the point of abuse) alliance, would Tory figures not be salving their wounds by launching little balls of spite in Labour's direction? "Oh ye who claimed to be the face of modern Britain, think on your hypocrisy as you settle into bed with your homophobic sectarian creationist allies! Go ask your voters among the young and the Catholics and the free-thinkers and the LGBT community, what think they of ye now? How hollow a victory was yours, if this is how low ye were brought!"
It's quite easy to imagine the Cameroon Wing decrying this with righteous, and rightful, anger - and no little enjoyment. Just as they sit in awkward discomfort while the current deal is done. Just as the Labour benches - filled as they are with people whose whole adult lives have been dedicated to anti-sectarianism, women's rights, LGBT rights - decry so staunchly now, while they too would sit in palpable disgust if their own side had made such a deal.
I get that it's irritating when your opponents snipe over something they'd have done too, if they felt it necessary. But had they done so, the sniping rights would have belonged with you, and we all know you'd have exercised them to the full. So please, less hypocrisy about the hypocrisy-calling.
* Wait a moment, reading into JohnL's comment, is Miliband counted as a pariah "New Labour" figure by the Left these days? Poor sod - tried to break course with a politics whose time, he saw, had been and gone, ended up letting a bunch of people he regarded as nutty fanatics take over his party, and now after taking a public dump on the Blairites - his own kith and kin included - he too is being reviled as one? Well he really did have his chance and he's missed it good and proper. He's a poor, poor lad.
First of all, I'd kindly ask PB Tories to not invent straw man arguments. I've never argued that Labour 'won' the GE, so I don't know why some of you are bringing that line up. Actually try and engage with what I've actually said as opposed to investing a straw man and then arguing with that.
Second of all, no one is denying the Tories won most seats etc. Forming the government, however is not the same as winning the GE. In order to do that the Conservatives needed to wins majority - as did Labour. Neither did, and thus neither party won the GE.
You didn't read the key word, did you.
Now is the time to pivot....
You didn't read any of what I've said judging by your post.
It was a pretty dull exchange. I thought I'd liven it up with a bit of friendly advice.
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.
It is just not going to happen - it is a signed memorandum of agreement for five years
The Government is only 7 by election defeats from losing its majority even after having made this deal. In practice, if the Tories were to lose - say - 3 by elections and effectively see their majority cut to just 7 seats , would the DUP really wish to be seen to be propping up a political corpse?
Because the alternative would be propping up a rag tag band of losers, yes.
But if the Opposition parties were getting big swings at by elections and the Tories were well adrift in the polls the DUP might contemplate the possibility of gaing some credit with the wider UK electorate for helping to put the minority Government out of its misery.
This makes no sense. Why would the DUP care about its standing with the wider UK electorate when it only stands in Ulster?
First of all, I'd kindly ask PB Tories to not invent straw man arguments. I've never argued that Labour 'won' the GE, so I don't know why some of you are bringing that line up. Actually try and engage with what I've actually said as opposed to investing a straw man and then arguing with that.
Second of all, no one is denying the Tories won most seats etc. Forming the government, however is not the same as winning the GE. In order to do that the Conservatives needed to wins majority - as did Labour. Neither did, and thus neither party won the GE.
If you come first in something, that is generally considered winning. The Conservatives won most seats, most votes and got to form the government. There is not any reasonable metric by which they did not come first. That means they won.
No, it's generally considered that winning a GE means securing an overall majority. An overall majority means that one party can pass their legislation and govern. Even if you come first that does not necessarily mean you can actually govern - in TMay's case she had to go to the DUP because she could not govern on her own despite coming first.
Are you suggesting that if the DUP had decided to join forces with the other minor parties to give a minority Labour Government a tiny majority that Labour would have won the election?
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.
It is just not going to happen - it is a signed memorandum of agreement for five years
The Government is only 7 by election defeats from losing its majority even after having made this deal. In practice, if the Tories were to lose - say - 3 by elections and effectively see their majority cut to just 7 seats , would the DUP really wish to be seen to be propping up a political corpse?
Because the alternative would be propping up a rag tag band of losers, yes.
But if the Opposition parties were getting big swings at by elections and the Tories were well adrift in the polls the DUP might contemplate the possibility of gaing some credit with the wider UK electorate for helping to put the minority Government out of its misery.
Sorry, but what would they gain electorally by doing that?
They're at the peak of their electoral expectations whilst Lady Hermon stands in NI, and as far as I can see they couldn't give a hoot what the people of GB think of them - given they don't stand there.....
First of all, I'd kindly ask PB Tories to not invent straw man arguments. I've never argued that Labour 'won' the GE, so I don't know why some of you are bringing that line up. Actually try and engage with what I've actually said as opposed to investing a straw man and then arguing with that.
Second of all, no one is denying the Tories won most seats etc. Forming the government, however is not the same as winning the GE. In order to do that the Conservatives needed to wins majority - as did Labour. Neither did, and thus neither party won the GE.
You didn't read the key word, did you.
Now is the time to pivot....
You didn't read any of what I've said judging by your post.
It was a pretty dull exchange. I thought I'd liven it up with a bit of friendly advice.
I'll give some of my own: stop backing TMay.
I think you mean the Rt Hon Mrs Theresa May.
I can't stand this bloody TMay business.
Quite right , it is Mrs Weak and Wobbly to you .
Farron resigned almost as quickly as Nuttall
Yes and Mrs W and W staggers on in her zimmer frame .
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.
It is just not going to happen - it is a signed memorandum of agreement for five years
The Government is only 7 by election defeats from losing its majority even after having made this deal. In practice, if the Tories were to lose - say - 3 by elections and effectively see their majority cut to just 7 seats , would the DUP really wish to be seen to be propping up a political corpse?
Because the alternative would be propping up a rag tag band of losers, yes.
But if the Opposition parties were getting big swings at by elections and the Tories were well adrift in the polls the DUP might contemplate the possibility of gaing some credit with the wider UK electorate for helping to put the minority Government out of its misery.
This makes no sense. Why would the DUP care about its standing with the wider UK electorate when it only stands in Ulster?
First of all, I'd kindly ask PB Tories to not invent straw man arguments. I've never argued that Labour 'won' the GE, so I don't know why some of you are bringing that line up. Actually try and engage with what I've actually said as opposed to investing a straw man and then arguing with that.
Second of all, no one is denying the Tories won most seats etc. Forming the government, however is not the same as winning the GE. In order to do that the Conservatives needed to wins majority - as did Labour. Neither did, and thus neither party won the GE.
LOL, you complain about straw man arguments five minutes after writing that "Many Tories on here have aired their display [?dismay] and upset at the result, but that doesn't mean that they've learned the lessons of the GE. Many are blaming voters, particularly younger voters for a start." Substantiate that, please, bearing in mind that noting an increased turnout among the young and blaming themselves/their party/TMay/that twat with the beard for not having anything to offer the young is not quite the same thing as "blaming voters, particularly younger voters".
One example. I'm not borthering to go through every thread over the last couple of weeks just for you. If your precious every time an observation about PB Tories is made that's your problem.
It is just that you never seem to win an argument in real time against a named PB tory, your victories are all against unspecified opponents who have all been saying something recently. I don't think it is precious of me to ask you to stop straw manning in a thread in which you have just accused unnamed "PB tories" (do you see a pattern emerging here?) of that very thing.
I cannot see what the thread you link to has to do with anything.
First of all, I'd kindly ask PB Tories to not invent straw man arguments. I've never argued that Labour 'won' the GE, so I don't know why some of you are bringing that line up. Actually try and engage with what I've actually said as opposed to investing a straw man and then arguing with that.
Second of all, no one is denying the Tories won most seats etc. Forming the government, however is not the same as winning the GE. In order to do that the Conservatives needed to wins majority - as did Labour. Neither did, and thus neither party won the GE.
If you come first in something, that is generally considered winning. The Conservatives won most seats, most votes and got to form the government. There is not any reasonable metric by which they did not come first. That means they won.
No, it's generally considered that winning a GE means securing an overall majority. An overall majority means that one party can pass their legislation and govern. Even if you come first that does not necessarily mean you can actually govern - in TMay's case she had to go to the DUP because she could not govern on her own despite coming first.
Indeed so, and it is also perfectly possible to win the most seats and be in opposition. Not sure what that outcome is known as in PB Tory fantasy world.
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.
It is just not going to happen - it is a signed memorandum of agreement for five years
The Government is only 7 by election defeats from losing its majority even after having made this deal. In practice, if the Tories were to lose - say - 3 by elections and effectively see their majority cut to just 7 seats , would the DUP really wish to be seen to be propping up a political corpse?
Because the alternative would be propping up a rag tag band of losers, yes.
But if the Opposition parties were getting big swings at by elections and the Tories were well adrift in the polls the DUP might contemplate the possibility of gaing some credit with the wider UK electorate for helping to put the minority Government out of its misery.
This makes no sense. Why would the DUP care about its standing with the wider UK electorate when it only stands in Ulster?
Yet more wishful thinking.
I am not predicting anything - but it is a possible scenario if the Tories appear to be heading for heavy defeat on a scale similar to what appeared likely under Major back in 1994/1995.
Winning = winning a majority. Plenty of parties haven't won and yet formed the next government. Like the Cons and the LDs in 2010.
Again provide a citation for how that is the definition. It is not.
You can define a word however you choose. The problem then is getting everybody else to agree that that is what is means. Otherwise you end up with a dialogue of the deaf. As in this case.
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.
It is just not going to happen - it is a signed memorandum of agreement for five years
The Government is only 7 by election defeats from losing its majority even after having made this deal. In practice, if the Tories were to lose - say - 3 by elections and effectively see their majority cut to just 7 seats , would the DUP really wish to be seen to be propping up a political corpse?
Because the alternative would be propping up a rag tag band of losers, yes.
But if the Opposition parties were getting big swings at by elections and the Tories were well adrift in the polls the DUP might contemplate the possibility of gaing some credit with the wider UK electorate for helping to put the minority Government out of its misery.
This makes no sense. Why would the DUP care about its standing with the wider UK electorate when it only stands in Ulster?
Yet more wishful thinking.
I am not predicting anything - but it is a possible scenario if the Tories appear to be heading for heavy defeat on a scale similar to what appeared likely under Major back in 1994/1995.
First of all, I'd kindly ask PB Tories to not invent straw man arguments. I've never argued that Labour 'won' the GE, so I don't know why some of you are bringing that line up. Actually try and engage with what I've actually said as opposed to investing a straw man and then arguing with that.
Second of all, no one is denying the Tories won most seats etc. Forming the government, however is not the same as winning the GE. In order to do that the Conservatives needed to wins majority - as did Labour. Neither did, and thus neither party won the GE.
You didn't read the key word, did you.
Now is the time to pivot....
You didn't read any of what I've said judging by your post.
It was a pretty dull exchange. I thought I'd liven it up with a bit of friendly advice.
It was funny to see the labour and SNP benches squirm when Nigel Dodds made his offer of publication of labour and the SNP's correspondence to them in 2010 and 2015
Yes I can imagine Corbyn's team will be terrified the perfidy of New Labour will be exposed.
There be herein hypocrisy-related hypocrisy. Would Labour have done a deal with the DUP in 2010, 2015, 2017 had the circumstances demanded it? Clearly yes. Yea, even the ever-righteous national treasure Ed M. Yea, verily the sainted beardie JC too. This is
Yet it is also a bit rich for Tory figures to grouch about the Labour sniping - they, after all, are politicians too. Had Labour got over the line in 2010 or 2015, albeit with the most precarious parliamentary arithmetic and the unlikeliest of bedfellows for a "progressive" (a word strained here to the point of abuse) alliance, would Tory figures not be salving their wounds by launching little balls of spite in Labour's direction? "Oh ye who claimed to be the face of modern Britain, think on your
It's quite easy to imagine the Cameroon Wing decrying this with righteous, and rightful, anger - and no little enjoyment. Just as they sit in awkward discomfort while the current deal is done. Just as the Labour benches - filled as they are with people whose whole adult lives have been dedicated to anti-sectarianism, women's rights, LGBT rights - decry so staunchly now, while they too would sit in palpable disgust if their own side had made such a deal.
I get that it's irritating when your opponents snipe over something they'd have done too, if they felt it necessary. But had they done so, the sniping rights would have belonged with you, and we all know you'd have exercised them to the full. So please, less hypocrisy about the hypocrisy-calling.
* Wait a moment, reading into JohnL's comment, is Miliband counted as a pariah "New Labour" figure by the Left these days? Poor sod - tried to break course with a politics whose time, he saw, had been and gone, ended up letting a bunch of people he regarded as nutty fanatics take over his party, and now after taking a public dump on the Blairites - his own kith and kin included - he too is being reviled as one? Well he really did have his chance and he's missed it good and proper. He's a poor, poor lad.
Yeh. Look at the final years of the Roman Republic. It was an iron law of Roman politics that Pompey and Crassus hated each other. The Senate could play one off against the other - up till the point that Caesar persuaded them to strike a deal, and then the Senate was powerless.
Politicians can be amazingly pragmatic, if the situation warrants it.
If there had to be a winner it was Australia, using the county 4 day scoring system. It was also a moral victory, not that that either helped them.
Funnily enough, I'd compare the result of the election to that of a league cricket match which ends in a draw (i.e. the side batting second not being bowled out but not reaching the target). The Tories would get two points for "a winning draw".
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.
It is just not going to happen - it is a signed memorandum of agreement for five years
The Government is only 7 by election defeats from losing its majority even after having made this deal. In practice, if the Tories were to lose - say - 3 by elections and effectively see their majority cut to just 7 seats , would the DUP really wish to be seen to be propping up a political corpse?
Because the alternative would be propping up a rag tag band of losers, yes.
But if the Opposition parties were getting big swings at by elections and the Tories were well adrift in the polls the DUP might contemplate the possibility of gaing some credit with the wider UK electorate for helping to put the minority Government out of its misery.
This makes no sense. Why would the DUP care about its standing with the wider UK electorate when it only stands in Ulster?
Yet more wishful thinking.
I am not predicting anything - but it is a possible scenario if the Tories appear to be heading for heavy defeat on a scale similar to what appeared likely under Major back in 1994/1995.
It would be interesting to see how public opinion in England perceived that kind of scenario. The question of whether Ireland should be reunified is much less divisive than the question of whether Scotland should be independent so the only remaining strong unionist party should be wary of alienating the mainland too much.
This argument would have a point if and only if one or more bookies had had a "tories to win GE" market and there was a debate over the settlement of bets. Spookily enough, no bookie offers a market for a bet framed in those words, presumably because they think the concept of "winning" a GE to be nebulous, meaningless and the likely source of hours of unprofitable wrangling. I think we should follow their lead.
If there had to be a winner it was Australia, using the county 4 day scoring system. It was also a moral victory, not that that either helped them.
Funnily enough, I'd compare the result of the election to that of a league cricket match which ends in a draw (i.e. the side batting second not being bowled out but not reaching the target). The Tories would get two points for "a winning draw".
That's probably a decent way of interpreting the GE result.
First of all, I'd kindly ask PB Tories to not invent straw man arguments. I've never argued that Labour 'won' the GE, so I don't know why some of you are bringing that line up. Actually try and engage with what I've actually said as opposed to investing a straw man and then arguing with that.
Second of all, no one is denying the Tories won most seats etc. Forming the government, however is not the same as winning the GE. In order to do that the Conservatives needed to wins majority - as did Labour. Neither did, and thus neither party won the GE.
If you come first in something, that is generally considered winning. The Conservatives won most seats, most votes and got to form the government. There is not any reasonable metric by which they did not come first. That means they won.
Of course that does not mean we should not learn our lesson. The first lesson is that we should not seek to punish our core vote again, unless done with cross-party cover. The second lesson is that we must reach out aggressively to young people, to wean them off the drug that is utopian socialism.
Right now they do not see themselves being able to settle down with a family until they are in their 40s or later, which might as well be an eternity to them. Our top priority must be making the realistic ambition to have a good job, a stable marriage, children, and a decent house with a garden in a nice neighbourhood available to all. Not all will want it, but as long as there's the option most people come to want that in time, and with that comes a conservative majority in society and in parliament.
Well quite. Exactly the point I made to my MP last week.
Yes, I read this a lot on here. What on earth makes PB Tories think that is a distinctly Tory ambition? Lots of Labour supporters also want that. I have that, happily. Yet I've not felt the pencil hover as yet!
This election was unique. It was unique because the govt had not come to the end of its term.
It was not a case of five more years. It was two more years. May traded three years of majority govt for five years (max) of minority govt. And paid a very heavy price in reputation to get it.
You can argue the toss on the semantics of whether she won or lost, but no Tory in their right mind would have accepted this at the start.
First of all, I'd kindly ask PB Tories to not invent straw man arguments. I've never argued that Labour 'won' the GE, so I don't know why some of you are bringing that line up. Actually try and engage with what I've actually said as opposed to investing a straw man and then arguing with that.
Second of all, no one is denying the Tories won most seats etc. Forming the government, however is not the same as winning the GE. In order to do that the Conservatives needed to wins majority - as did Labour. Neither did, and thus neither party won the GE.
You didn't read the key word, did you.
Now is the time to pivot....
You didn't read any of what I've said judging by your post.
It was a pretty dull exchange. I thought I'd liven it up with a bit of friendly advice.
I'll give some of my own: stop backing TMay.
I think you mean the Rt Hon Mrs Theresa May.
I can't stand this bloody TMay business.
Quite right , it is Mrs Weak and Wobbly to you .
Guffaw.
Mark's hero Farron resigned almost as quickly as Nuttall
First of all, I'd kindly ask PB Tories to not invent straw man arguments. I've never argued that Labour 'won' the GE, so I don't know why some of you are bringing that line up. Actually try and engage with what I've actually said as opposed to investing a straw man and then arguing with that.
Second of all, no one is denying the Tories won most seats etc. Forming the government, however is not the same as winning the GE. In order to do that the Conservatives needed to wins majority - as did Labour. Neither did, and thus neither party won the GE.
LOL, you complain about straw man arguments five minutes after writing that "Many Tories on here have aired their display [?dismay] and upset at the result, but that doesn't mean that they've learned the lessons of the GE. Many are blaming voters, particularly younger voters for a start." Substantiate that, please, bearing in mind that noting an increased turnout among the young and blaming themselves/their party/TMay/that twat with the beard for not having anything to offer the young is not quite the same thing as "blaming voters, particularly younger voters".
One example. I'm not borthering to go through every thread over the last couple of weeks just for you. If your precious every time an observation about PB Tories is made that's your problem.
It is just that you never seem to win an argument in real time against a named PB tory, your victories are all against unspecified opponents who have all been saying something recently. I don't think it is precious of me to ask you to stop straw manning in a thread in which you have just accused unnamed "PB tories" (do you see a pattern emerging here?) of that very thing.
I cannot see what the thread you link to has to do with anything.
Victories? This is a discussion site. I'm simply exchanging views with others. I didn't know you were so interested in tracking my supposed victories against unnamed PB Tories though....
If I'm strawmanning, then nearly every centre left poster on this site has given that they have made comments and observations on the views of PB Tories without providing specific links. If you don't like that....that your issue.
Re that link: if you don't see what it has to do anything, you haven't read it. I'll supply the link as you requested: I won't do much more.
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
It is just not going to happen - it is a signed memorandum of agreement for five years
The Government is only 7 by election defeats from losing its majority even after having made this deal. In practice, if the Tories were to lose - say - 3 by elections and effectively see their majority cut to just 7 seats , would the DUP really wish to be seen to be propping up a political corpse?
Because the alternative would be propping up a rag tag band of losers, yes.
But if the Opposition parties were getting big swings at by elections and the Tories were well adrift in the polls the DUP might contemplate the possibility of gaing some credit with the wider UK electorate for helping to put the minority Government out of its misery.
This makes no sense. Why would the DUP care about its standing with the wider UK electorate when it only stands in Ulster?
Yet more wishful thinking.
I am not predicting anything - but it is a possible scenario if the Tories appear to be heading for heavy defeat on a scale similar to what appeared likely under Major back in 1994/1995.
Rubbish - the UUP propped Major up until the end.
That is not really true - and Major did not head a minority Government until the beginning of 1997 and even then he was barely short of a majority. On some key votes the Ulster Unionists and DUP voted with Labour to help defeat the Government - eg the imposition of VAT on heating. The only Unionist that Major could regularly count on was Kilfedder - until his death in 1995.
First of all, I'd kindly ask PB Tories to not invent straw man arguments. I've never argued that Labour 'won' the GE, so I don't know why some of you are bringing that line up. Actually try and engage with what I've actually said as opposed to investing a straw man and then arguing with that.
Second of all, no one is denying the Tories won most seats etc. Forming the government, however is not the same as winning the GE. In order to do that the Conservatives needed to wins majority - as did Labour. Neither did, and thus neither party won the GE.
If you come first in something, that is generally considered winning. The Conservatives won most seats, most votes and got to form the government. There is not any reasonable metric by which they did not come first. That means they won.
Of course that does not mean we should not learn our lesson. The first lesson is that we should not seek to punish our core vote again, unless done with cross-party cover. The second lesson is that we must reach out aggressively to young people, to wean them off the drug that is utopian socialism.
Right now they do not see themselves being able to settle down with a family until they are in their 40s or later, which might as well be an eternity to them. Our top priority must be making the realistic ambition to have a good job, a stable marriage, children, and a decent house with a garden in a nice neighbourhood available to all. Not all will want it, but as long as there's the option most people come to want that in time, and with that comes a conservative majority in society and in parliament.
Well quite. Exactly the point I made to my MP last week.
Yes, I read this a lot on here. What on earth makes PB Tories think that is a distinctly Tory ambition? Lots of Labour supporters also want that. I have that, happily. Yet I've not felt the pencil hover as yet!
Well, exactly. I'm not exactly Labour at the moment, but I'd say lots of people on the left want that too.
Are you suggesting that if the DUP had decided to join forces with the other minor parties to give a minority Labour Government a tiny majority that Labour would have won the election?
I am not sure that the Tory party have a lot to smile about today. This grubby deal will soon be seen through by the public, who, in my opinion will punish the Tories severely at the next election, whenever that might be and they may not sniff power again for a generation (or put it thus way till after I'm dead)
Winning = winning a majority. Plenty of parties haven't won and yet formed the next government. Like the Cons and the LDs in 2010.
Again provide a citation for how that is the definition. It is not.
You can define a word however you choose. The problem then is getting everybody else to agree that that is what is means. Otherwise you end up with a dialogue of the deaf. As in this case.
Actually under our system the only people who win are the individual MPs who get elected. As we do not legally vote for a party they cannot win or lose except by expectation and common assent.
Indeed if you do want to push the definition of winning beyond its legal position then the party that 'wins' under our system is the one that can command a majority in Parliament to form a Government whether that majority comes from its own MPs or from those of other parties.
Are you suggesting that if the DUP had decided to join forces with the other minor parties to give a minority Labour Government a tiny majority that Labour would have won the election?
Labour 317 seats Tories 262 seats
Labour won
She lost her majority. She lost her authority. She lost £1bn.
This argument would have a point if and only if one or more bookies had had a "tories to win GE" market and there was a debate over the settlement of bets. Spookily enough, no bookie offers a market for a bet framed in those words, presumably because they think the concept of "winning" a GE to be nebulous, meaningless and the likely source of hours of unprofitable wrangling. I think we should follow their lead.
Indeed. I couldn't agree more. This was, I believe, Miss Apocalypse's original point! Yet it is not her, or me, who is claiming victory!
First of all, I'd kindly ask PB Tories to not invent straw man arguments. I've never argued that Labour 'won' the GE, so I don't know why some of you are bringing that line up. Actually try and engage with what I've actually said as opposed to investing a straw man and then arguing with that.
Second of all, no one is denying the Tories won most seats etc. Forming the government, however is not the same as winning the GE. In order to do that the Conservatives needed to wins majority - as did Labour. Neither did, and thus neither party won the GE.
You didn't read the key word, did you.
Now is the time to pivot....
You didn't read any of what I've said judging by your post.
It was a pretty dull exchange. I thought I'd liven it up with a bit of friendly advice.
I'll give some of my own: stop backing TMay.
I think you mean the Rt Hon Mrs Theresa May.
I can't stand this bloody TMay business.
Quite right , it is Mrs Weak and Wobbly to you .
Guffaw.
Mark's hero Farron resigned almost as quickly as Nuttall
Yet half of pb tories have become the Moody Blues singing to Mrs W and W
We've already said Goodbye Since you gotta go , oh you'd better go Go now go now go now ( Go now ) Before you see my cry ?
Wow - BBC accussed Georgia Gould's Council of cost cutting by removing the fire doors from the specification - Sajid Javid said there were 1,000 missing fire doors from the blocks
I am not sure that the Tory party have a lot to smile about today. This grubby deal will soon be seen through by the public, who, in my opinion will punish the Tories severely at the next election, whenever that might be and they may not sniff power again for a generation (or put it thus way till after I'm dead)
May I ask whether you were surprised that Crabb came so close to being defeated? I understand that Labour won the vote on the day and that the Tories survived due to the postal votes.
I wish you would comment sometimes .It would be interesting to understand your thoughts on politics and betting .Rather than smiley figures trains and numbers.
Are you suggesting that if the DUP had decided to join forces with the other minor parties to give a minority Labour Government a tiny majority that Labour would have won the election?
Labour 317 seats Tories 262 seats
Labour won
She lost her majority. She lost her authority. She lost £1bn.
She won two years of minority govt.
It's not a great trade, but I'll gladly settle for another 5 years with a Tory PM than have your party anywhere near the levers of power.
I wish you would comment sometimes .It would be interesting to understand your thoughts on politics and betting .Rather than smiley figures trains and numbers.
I don't think those links say what you think they say.
I think they do.
They don't. They only talk about no party winning a majority, not no party winning an election.
They do. The headlines address/ask what constitutes winning an GE, and the articles outline that as winning an overall majority. The second link states in response to 'what is a hung parliament' - ' what happens when no one party wins a general election.'
Wow - BBC accussed Georgia Gould's Council of cost cutting by removing the fire doors from the specification - Sajid Javid said there were 1,000 missing fire doors from the blocks
Again I hate to blow cold water on the conspiracy theories, but you can't cost cut fire doors, they are needed to comply with the regs.
Are you suggesting that if the DUP had decided to join forces with the other minor parties to give a minority Labour Government a tiny majority that Labour would have won the election?
Labour 317 seats Tories 262 seats
Labour won
She lost her majority. She lost her authority. She lost £1bn.
She won two years of minority govt.
It's not a great trade, but I'll gladly settle for another 5 years with a Tory PM than have your party anywhere near the levers of power.
She made Corbyn significantly stronger and gave Labour an election winning position conjured out of nowhere.
Wow - BBC accussed Georgia Gould's Council of cost cutting by removing the fire doors from the specification - Sajid Javid said there were 1,000 missing fire doors from the blocks
Again I hate to blow cold water on the conspiracy theories, but you can't cost cut fire doors, they are needed to comply with the regs.
Quite. They'd never get it past the Council's building inspectors and fire officers.
I wish you would comment sometimes .It would be interesting to understand your thoughts on politics and betting .Rather than smiley figures trains and numbers.
As he holds a PhD there must be several years of wisdom and insight in there. He mustn't like PBers as he chooses not to share it with us!
Are you suggesting that if the DUP had decided to join forces with the other minor parties to give a minority Labour Government a tiny majority that Labour would have won the election?
Labour 317 seats Tories 262 seats
Labour won
She lost her majority. She lost her authority. She lost £1bn.
She won two years of minority govt.
Labour won, admit it! That's why Comrade Corbyn is in power!
Wow - BBC accussed Georgia Gould's Council of cost cutting by removing the fire doors from the specification - Sajid Javid said there were 1,000 missing fire doors from the blocks
Again I hate to blow cold water on the conspiracy theories, but you can't cost cut fire doors, they are needed to comply with the regs.
Comments
That's ludicrous. I wouldn't rule out a Green or Lib Dem majority government in my lifetime never mind one of Britain's two major parties!
The point about hubris is well made.
I'd like to see Corbyn bring in others - but he has brought in Owen Smith which shouldn't be overlooked.
Second of all, no one is denying the Tories won most seats etc. Forming the government, however is not the same as winning the GE. In order to do that the Conservatives needed to wins majority - as did Labour. Neither did, and thus neither party won the GE.
Now is the time to pivot....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snILjFUkk_A
Ah 2017 brings back memories of 1987!
3 CON wins in a row!
Oh, wait...
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/how-many-seats-party-need-13158919.amp
http://www.lbc.co.uk/politics/elections/general-election-2017/what-is-a-hung-parliament-what-happens/
I can't stand this bloody TMay business.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/26/absence-theresa-mays-signature-dup-deal-means-new-agreement/
Anybody know anything about him?
Looking forward to seeing your links.
Labour 40.0%
Tories 317 seats
Labour 262 seats.
Of course that does not mean we should not learn our lesson. The first lesson is that we should not seek to punish our core vote again, unless done with cross-party cover. The second lesson is that we must reach out aggressively to young people, to wean them off the drug that is utopian socialism.
Right now they do not see themselves being able to settle down with a family until they are in their 40s or later, which might as well be an eternity to them. Our top priority must be making the realistic ambition to have a good job, a stable marriage, children, and a decent house with a garden in a nice neighbourhood available to all. Not all will want it, but as long as there's the option most people come to want that in time, and with that comes a conservative majority in society and in parliament.
He was Dave's PPS for three years.
Are you Diane Abbott in disguise or summink?
She'd have been paying into the exchequer by now....
One example. I'm not borthering to go through every thread over the last couple of weeks just for you. If your precious every time an observation about PB Tories is made that's your problem.
Sylvia Hermon would be finished, if she helped put Corbyn into power.
Yet it is also a bit rich for Tory figures to grouch about the Labour sniping - they, after all, are politicians too. Had Labour got over the line in 2010 or 2015, albeit with the most precarious parliamentary arithmetic and the unlikeliest of bedfellows for a "progressive" (a word strained here to the point of abuse) alliance, would Tory figures not be salving their wounds by launching little balls of spite in Labour's direction? "Oh ye who claimed to be the face of modern Britain, think on your hypocrisy as you settle into bed with your homophobic sectarian creationist allies! Go ask your voters among the young and the Catholics and the free-thinkers and the LGBT community, what think they of ye now? How hollow a victory was yours, if this is how low ye were brought!"
It's quite easy to imagine the Cameroon Wing decrying this with righteous, and rightful, anger - and no little enjoyment. Just as they sit in awkward discomfort while the current deal is done. Just as the Labour benches - filled as they are with people whose whole adult lives have been dedicated to anti-sectarianism, women's rights, LGBT rights - decry so staunchly now, while they too would sit in palpable disgust if their own side had made such a deal.
I get that it's irritating when your opponents snipe over something they'd have done too, if they felt it necessary. But had they done so, the sniping rights would have belonged with you, and we all know you'd have exercised them to the full. So please, less hypocrisy about the hypocrisy-calling.
* Wait a moment, reading into JohnL's comment, is Miliband counted as a pariah "New Labour" figure by the Left these days? Poor sod - tried to break course with a politics whose time, he saw, had been and gone, ended up letting a bunch of people he regarded as nutty fanatics take over his party, and now after taking a public dump on the Blairites - his own kith and kin included - he too is being reviled as one? Well he really did have his chance and he's missed it good and proper. He's a poor, poor lad.
Yet more wishful thinking.
Who won in February 1974?
They're at the peak of their electoral expectations whilst Lady Hermon stands in NI, and as far as I can see they couldn't give a hoot what the people of GB think of them - given they don't stand there.....
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2013/may/02/20-great-ashes-moments-cardiff
I cannot see what the thread you link to has to do with anything.
Being Chief Whip of a minority Government isn't going to be fun, especially with Brexit/T'repeal Bill to navigate.
That won't help his leadership credentials especially as Mrs May will enrage the hardcore Leavers.
Politicians can be amazingly pragmatic, if the situation warrants it.
It was not a case of five more years. It was two more years. May traded three years of majority govt for five years (max) of minority govt. And paid a very heavy price in reputation to get it.
You can argue the toss on the semantics of whether she won or lost, but no Tory in their right mind would have accepted this at the start.
If I'm strawmanning, then nearly every centre left poster on this site has given that they have made comments and observations on the views of PB Tories without providing specific links. If you don't like that....that your issue.
Re that link: if you don't see what it has to do anything, you haven't read it. I'll supply the link as you requested: I won't do much more.
Your heart-throb Corbyn is back in the Pavilion
Your fourth point is right - indeed it had the opposite effect.
Tories 262 seats
Labour won
https://twitter.com/mailonline/status/879446681846198273
Actually under our system the only people who win are the individual MPs who get elected. As we do not legally vote for a party they cannot win or lose except by expectation and common assent.
Indeed if you do want to push the definition of winning beyond its legal position then the party that 'wins' under our system is the one that can command a majority in Parliament to form a Government whether that majority comes from its own MPs or from those of other parties.
She lost her authority.
She lost £1bn.
She won two years of minority govt.
We've already said Goodbye
Since you gotta go , oh you'd better go
Go now go now go now ( Go now )
Before you see my cry ?
The second link states in response to 'what is a hung parliament' - ' what happens when no one party wins a general election.'
Tick, tock.