politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Prime Minister Theresa May Episode II

TheScreamingEagles said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Unlike Gordon Brown, Jim Callaghan, and Theresa May John Major won a GE.

Theresa May won the 2017 general election, she just didn't win a majority.

Don't go all Corbynista on us and say Corbyn/Labour won the 2017 general election.

Theresa May didn't win the general election. If she had she wouldn't be clinging to the DUP for dear (political) life.

TGOHF said:

Chris_A said:

And so it begins https://twitter.com/jameswharton/status/874248105763516419

Attention seeking snowflake.

Hardly. May's plans are a direct attack on the LGBT community within the Tory party. We all used to laugh at Tim and his Latvian homophobe attacks. Suddenly the homophobes are a lot closer to home.

Richard_Nabavi said:

I've no idea how anyone could possibly come up with that conclusion. The chaotic result has dramatically increased the risk of the worst of all possible Brexits. Our EU friends don't now even know whether the UK government is in a position to make any deal stick.

My previous estimate was something like a 20% risk of a chaotic exit leading to substantial economic disruption. I'd say it's now 50%.

The blank cheque that May sought for Brexit was not a good thing. She now has to look beyond the narrow interests of one part of the Tory party.

TheScreamingEagles said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

I'm trying to work out what Ruth Davidson as PM would be like.

I'm thinking a Unionist Cleggite who is fairly hawkish on defence.

Portillo then....

Doesn't he want to abolish Trident?

Though he read history at Cambridge, which tells you everything about his awesomeness.

I have to admit, Portillo looks more like a 44 year old than a 64 year old.

He is my hero; handsome, intelligent and dapper.

But if I look as old as he does now in 18 months time, I want to have had a fucking good time in the next year and a half

The_Apocalypse said:

SouthamObserver said:

https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/874203202031415296

So they were never on course for a 100+ landslide.

The polling people on BBCDP more or less said that the adjustments most of the pollsters were making for their 2015 mess-up were over-compensating and never gave a true picture.

The conservatives have every right to try to govern the UK .However if doing a deal with the DUP puts into jeopardy the fragile peace in Northern Ireland then I think they should try to do their honourable duty govern as a minority administration and if the DUP vote against them do be it.Have some decency the peace is worth more than any single PM or temporary administration.

Richard_Tyndall said:

TGOHF said:

Chris_A said:

And so it begins https://twitter.com/jameswharton/status/874248105763516419

Attention seeking snowflake.

Hardly. May's plans are a direct attack on the LGBT community within the Tory party. We all used to laugh at Tim and his Latvian homophobe attacks. Suddenly the homophobes are a lot closer to home.

I see some Tories trying the "Labour hypocrites tried cutting a deal with the DUP too" spiel.

Completely accurate, yet deeply missing the point. It didn't matter what Labour would have done, it's what the Tories are doing that matters for the optics.

TSE's very strong anti-DUP deal was the kind of opinion piece I don't generally like as a PB header, but he very forcefully made the point about years of "detoxification" being reversed in days.

Problem for the Tories is what the alternative is. That is also a problem for the country as a whole, mind you.

May is like the MD who was doing very well, primarily because his main competitor has a junk product. She thought that she was doing well was because she was as a good salesmen. She wasn't and isn't. The important point here is that you cannot teach sales skills to 60-year-olds.

Good salesmen never forget the key issue: people like being sold to.

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

I'm trying to work out what Ruth Davidson as PM would be like.

I'm thinking a Unionist Cleggite who is fairly hawkish on defence.

Portillo then....

Doesn't he want to abolish Trident?

Though he read history at Cambridge, which tells you everything about his awesomeness.

I have to admit, Portillo looks more like a 44 year old than a 64 year old.

He is my hero; handsome, intelligent and dapper.

But if I look as old as he does now in 18 months time, I want to have had a fucking good time in the next year and a half

I think Portillo is a slightly more subtle Tim Montgomerie.

IanB2 said:

The_Apocalypse said:

SouthamObserver said:

https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/874203202031415296

So they were never on course for a 100+ landslide.

The polling people on BBCDP more or less said that the adjustments most of the pollsters were making for their 2015 mess-up were over-compensating and never gave a true picture.

The real polls.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2017-united-kingdom-general-election

OblitusSumMe said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

logical_song said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

At least now we have a chance of avoiding the worst of all possible Brexits - one dictated by the Daily Mail and Sun.

I've no idea how anyone could possibly come up with that conclusion. The chaotic result has dramatically increased the risk of the worst of all possible Brexits. Our EU friends don't now even know whether the UK government is in a position to make any deal stick.

My previous estimate was something like a 20% risk of a chaotic exit leading to substantial economic disruption. I'd say it's now 50%.

The election has probably ruled out WTO crash out and that must surely be a good thing.

No, it's made it much more likely.

I agree with that.

Nightmare scenario is that May manages to keep the government going for the rest of the year, but Brexit negotiations are slow, with no agreement on the divorce bill. May (or whoever is PM) cannot get the Brexiteers to agree to pay enough to satisfy the EU, and Corbyn not willing to rescue Conservative PM.

New election in 2018, fails to produce a strong government. Paralysis in Westminster. Exasperation in Brussels. Time runs out.

Soundbite to the rescue "no deal is...."

GeoffM said:

GeoffM said:

TGOHF said:

Chris_A said:

And so it begins https://twitter.com/jameswharton/status/874248105763516419

Attention seeking snowflake.

Who is he?
I knew a Mark Wharton once.
Not the same person, although Mark was also vaguely pointless.

Oh right, I see now from a combination of his twitter feed and Richard Tyndall providing context.

TGOHF is right. Attention seeking snowflake.

It is an odd fact of modern life - that the views of someone no-one has heard of are instantaneously paraded around like some kind of missive from God (in whom we all don't believe)

Richard_Nabavi said:

Jonathan said:

The blank cheque that May sought for Brexit was not a good thing. She now has to look beyond the narrow interests of one part of the Tory party.

She now has no power to make concessions to get a deal. She can be brought down on multiple fronts, and is beholden to all sorts of vested interests. She can't ignore the narrow interests of one part of the Tory party, and she can't ignore the even narrower interests of the DUP. And there's no way out of this mess.

It's an unmitigated disaster for the country. There's no getting away from this. It's likely to turn out to be the most catastrophic election result of modern times.

Time will tell. On the basis of what followed, 2015 was possibly worse. Bet Dave wish Ed had done a bit better in 2015.

On the wider point, if May had got her way I appreciate that you would have been satisfied. But she offered nothing beyond her ranks. All the rhetoric was for hard Brexit or no deal at all. That was the offer if you take her at her word. There was certainly no role for anyone outside the Tory party to shape the outcome.

At least now there is a chance of something else and others will be involved. That is a potentially good thing.

But on the main point, if you say May and the Tories have proven to be an unmitigated disaster for the country, it's hard to disagree.

@TSE - should we ban trade in all products because some idiots misuse them?

The inland ivory trade ban was a stupid idea promoted by those who don't understand culture, history, or the antiques trade.

Why did tories fail to take Perth and North Perthshire? is Pete Wishart particularly popular?

GeoffM said:

TGOHF said:

Chris_A said:

And so it begins https://twitter.com/jameswharton/status/874248105763516419

Attention seeking snowflake.

Who is he?
I knew a Mark Wharton once.
Not the same person, although Mark was also vaguely pointless.

An ex-Tory member

Chris_A said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Chris_A said:

And so it begins https://twitter.com/jameswharton/status/874248105763516419

He has a very arresting pinned tweet.

That's because he's trying to flog his book. And no he's not the ex-MP for Stockton South.

I did, for a moment, think that he was.

TheScreamingEagles said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

I'm trying to work out what Ruth Davidson as PM would be like.

I'm thinking a Unionist Cleggite who is fairly hawkish on defence.

Portillo then....

Doesn't he want to abolish Trident?

Though he read history at Cambridge, which tells you everything about his awesomeness.

I have to admit, Portillo looks more like a 44 year old than a 64 year old.

Though he is the colour of badly French polished teak.

MyBurningEars said:

RobD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TGOHF said:

Chris_A said:

And so it begins twitter.com/jameswharton/status/874248105763516419

Attention seeking snowflake.

Hardly. May's plans are a direct attack on the LGBT community within the Tory party. We all used to laugh at Tim and his Latvian homophobe attacks. Suddenly the homophobes are a lot closer to home.

I would be very surprised if there were any changes to those pieces of legislation.

How could the LGBT rights legislation change, even if the DUP demanded it (which they won't)? There are Tory backbenchers aplenty who wouldn't let it pass. Heck, a good portion of the cabinet would resign first.

The point isn't whether the DUP will use the Tories as their vassals to impose fundamentalist Protestantism on British rights laws. It's contamination caused by who you publicly get into bed with.

If you have a hung Parliament, you have to be prepared to cut deals with parties that disagree with you on some issues, in order get your business through. Jim Callaghan, and John Major cut deals with Unionists, Gordon Brown would have done, had the numbers made sense.

Do the tories actually have 318 seats really? That figure includes the speaker bercow who doesn't vote with them.

Which means it's 327 with the DUP - already one down. One less by election defeat required.

Do the deputy speakers vote or not?

Yorkcity said:

Bobajob_PB said:

Yorkcity said:

Bobajob_PB said:

Yorkcity said:

Jonathan said:

2018 A-Level Politics Question

Which is the biggest fuck up?

a) The 2016 EU Referendum
b) The 2017 General Election

Discuss.

The GE 2017 hard to think of a bigger f up in history of a sitting PM with a majority calling a snap. Election and returning with a minority hung parliament.Has it ever happened before ?

Heath in 1974?

True I guess he only had a year to run anyways as he was elected in 70.

Yes, that was the difference. But it is the nearest analogue.

True in legacy terms and history if May goes this year she might go down as the worst Pm at least since Ww2 Even Eden won a big majority .

I think her, Brown, Eden and D-H can have a square dance in the poo at the bottom.

Yorkcity said:

Bobajob_PB said:

Yorkcity said:

Bobajob_PB said:

Yorkcity said:

Jonathan said:

2018 A-Level Politics Question

Which is the biggest fuck up?

a) The 2016 EU Referendum
b) The 2017 General Election

Discuss.

The GE 2017 hard to think of a bigger f up in history of a sitting PM with a majority calling a snap. Election and returning with a minority hung parliament.Has it ever happened before ?

Heath in 1974?

True I guess he only had a year to run anyways as he was elected in 70.

Yes, that was the difference. But it is the nearest analogue.

True in legacy terms and history if May goes this year she might go down as the worst Pm at least since Ww2 Even Eden won a big majority .

It's a toss-up between May, Cameron & Eden. May probably walks it for losing a completely unnecessary election. Although having your entire foreign policy collapse and having to go overnight is still a pretty horrible achievement.

Either way both outcomes make losing a normal election look like a mild and a dignified exit.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Jonathan said:

The blank cheque that May sought for Brexit was not a good thing. She now has to look beyond the narrow interests of one part of the Tory party.

She now has no power to make concessions to get a deal. She can be brought down on multiple fronts, and is beholden to all sorts of vested interests. She can't ignore the narrow interests of one part of the Tory party, and she can't ignore the even narrower interests of the DUP. The EU27 won't know if she'll be there to conclude any deal, or be able to get it through parliament. And there's no way out of this mess.

It's an unmitigated disaster for the country. There's no getting away from this. It's likely to turn out to be the most catastrophic election result of modern times.

Well there IS a way out of this mess. But it would require putting the interests of the country ahead of the interests of the Conservative Party. Something they seem adverse to in recent times.

If May were to go back to the Palace and tell Lizzie that the country needs a government that commands either a majority or a firm coalition and that the only way this might be achieved is to have another election, then there is a way out of the mess that May is responsible for.

Who knows, if they got their act together and put forward a half decent campaign and adjusted their manifesto, the Tories might even come out of it with a majority. Failing that, at least we could be left with a Labour government that is not fettered by a minor Party form Northern Ireland.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Cheer up, we might end up with PR, and then we'd regularly have governments held to ransom by extremist parties.

Makes little difference when you are relying on Peter Bone and Philip Davies.

BudG said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Jonathan said:

The blank cheque that May sought for Brexit was not a good thing. She now has to look beyond the narrow interests of one part of the Tory party.

She now has no power to make concessions to get a deal. She can be brought down on multiple fronts, and is beholden to all sorts of vested interests. She can't ignore the narrow interests of one part of the Tory party, and she can't ignore the even narrower interests of the DUP. The EU27 won't know if she'll be there to conclude any deal, or be able to get it through parliament. And there's no way out of this mess.

It's an unmitigated disaster for the country. There's no getting away from this. It's likely to turn out to be the most catastrophic election result of modern times.

Well there IS a way out of this mess. But it would require putting the interests of the country ahead of the interests of the Conservative Party. Something they seem adverse to in recent times.

If May were to go back to the Palace and tell Lizzie that the country needs a government that commands either a majority or a firm coalition and that the only way this might be achieved is to have another election, then there is a way out of the mess that May is responsible for.

Who knows, if they got their act together and put forward a half decent campaign and adjusted their manifesto, the Tories might even come out of it with a majority. Failing that, at least we could be left with a Labour government that is not fettered by a minor Party form Northern Ireland.

HM is no longer empowered to do that. She'd have to seek dissolution in the commons, or lose a vote of no confidence and perhaps have Corbyn have a shot at being PM.

llef said:

has this idea been mentioned at all today here?

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/12/nigel-farage-to-gain-brexit-role-under-dup-conservative-deal--reports.html

Wow! What a way to destroy the Tory party.

Sean_F said:

MyBurningEars said:

RobD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TGOHF said:

Chris_A said:

And so it begins twitter.com/jameswharton/status/874248105763516419

Attention seeking snowflake.

Hardly. May's plans are a direct attack on the LGBT community within the Tory party. We all used to laugh at Tim and his Latvian homophobe attacks. Suddenly the homophobes are a lot closer to home.

I would be very surprised if there were any changes to those pieces of legislation.

How could the LGBT rights legislation change, even if the DUP demanded it (which they won't)? There are Tory backbenchers aplenty who wouldn't let it pass. Heck, a good portion of the cabinet would resign first.

The point isn't whether the DUP will use the Tories as their vassals to impose fundamentalist Protestantism on British rights laws. It's contamination caused by who you publicly get into bed with.

If you have a hung Parliament, you have to be prepared to cut deals with parties that disagree with you on some issues, in order get your business through. Jim Callaghan, and John Major cut deals with Unionists, Gordon Brown would have done, had the numbers made sense.

I quite agree. May has landed herself in Catch 22. But the problem is saying "any politician would have done it" doesn't detoxify it (or even justify it) among the younger (30s/40s, not saying that there is much fruit to be had among the 20-somethings since historically the Tories have got by without them), socially liberal voters that the Tories absolutely desperately need to win over.

Paristonda said:

Do the tories actually have 318 seats really? That figure includes the speaker bercow who doesn't vote with them.

Which means it's 327 with the DUP - already one down. One less by election defeat required.

Do the deputy speakers vote or not?

Deputy speakers don't count.. so it has no impact.

Also you are forgetting that SF are abstentionists.

TGOHF said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TGOHF said:

Chris_A said:

And so it begins https://twitter.com/jameswharton/status/874248105763516419

Attention seeking snowflake.

Hardly. May's plans are a direct attack on the LGBT community within the Tory party. We all used to laugh at Tim and his Latvian homophobe attacks. Suddenly the homophobes are a lot closer to home.

Are they ? Evidence ?

The DUP are not going to dictate a single comma of legislation on this topic that impacts anyone either inside or outside Ulster.

In direct legislative terms you are correct.

However the signal of the Conservatives hugging the DUP close to its very vitals is important. The Tories made much of the Labour/Jezza links to SF. By your "friends and allies" shall you be known and so it is with The Conservatives and the DUP.

Mr. 83, was surprised by the lack of a Starfield announcement.

And they need to make a new Elder Scrolls.

Sean_F said:

MyBurningEars said:

RobD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TGOHF said:

Chris_A said:

And so it begins twitter.com/jameswharton/status/874248105763516419

Attention seeking snowflake.

Hardly. May's plans are a direct attack on the LGBT community within the Tory party. We all used to laugh at Tim and his Latvian homophobe attacks. Suddenly the homophobes are a lot closer to home.

I would be very surprised if there were any changes to those pieces of legislation.

How could the LGBT rights legislation change, even if the DUP demanded it (which they won't)? There are Tory backbenchers aplenty who wouldn't let it pass. Heck, a good portion of the cabinet would resign first.

The point isn't whether the DUP will use the Tories as their vassals to impose fundamentalist Protestantism on British rights laws. It's contamination caused by who you publicly get into bed with.

If you have a hung Parliament, you have to be prepared to cut deals with parties that disagree with you on some issues, in order get your business through. Jim Callaghan, and John Major cut deals with Unionists, Gordon Brown would have done, had the numbers made sense.

Exactly sometimes people seem to lose perspective about what's really important and that is business confidence already fragile will ebb away unless some modicum of stability returns. The last thing they want is the chance of a fresh GE brought about by a no confidence vote even if the likelihood that will actually happen is very low. Appearances do matter home and abroad.

Jonathan said:

llef said:

has this idea been mentioned at all today here?

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/12/nigel-farage-to-gain-brexit-role-under-dup-conservative-deal--reports.html

Wow! What a way to destroy the Tory party.

I'd be very surprised if that were true.

https://twitter.com/IsabelHardman/status/874276498403885057

The Farage thing was discussed yesterday, though some of us concluded that Tory MPs would be unlikely to accept that.

Jonathan said:

Yorkcity said:

Bobajob_PB said:

Yorkcity said:

Bobajob_PB said:

Yorkcity said:

Jonathan said:

2018 A-Level Politics Question

Which is the biggest fuck up?

a) The 2016 EU Referendum
b) The 2017 General Election

Discuss.

The GE 2017 hard to think of a bigger f up in history of a sitting PM with a majority calling a snap. Election and returning with a minority hung parliament.Has it ever happened before ?

Heath in 1974?

True I guess he only had a year to run anyways as he was elected in 70.

Yes, that was the difference. But it is the nearest analogue.

True in legacy terms and history if May goes this year she might go down as the worst Pm at least since Ww2 Even Eden won a big majority .

It's a toss-up between May, Cameron & Eden. May probably walks it for losing a completely unnecessary election. Although having your entire foreign policy collapse and having to go overnight is still a pretty horrible achievement.

Either way both outcomes make losing a normal election look like a mild and a dignified exit.

Eden led the UK to humiliation, to give up our role as an independent world power, and kicked the ball off for us joining the EEC/EC in the first place.

Eden.

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

Yorkcity said:

Bobajob_PB said:

Yorkcity said:

Bobajob_PB said:

Yorkcity said:

Jonathan said:

2018 A-Level Politics Question

Which is the biggest fuck up?

a) The 2016 EU Referendum
b) The 2017 General Election

Discuss.

The GE 2017 hard to think of a bigger f up in history of a sitting PM with a majority calling a snap. Election and returning with a minority hung parliament.Has it ever happened before ?

Heath in 1974?

True I guess he only had a year to run anyways as he was elected in 70.

Yes, that was the difference. But it is the nearest analogue.

True in legacy terms and history if May goes this year she might go down as the worst Pm at least since Ww2 Even Eden won a big majority .

It's a toss-up between May, Cameron & Eden. May probably walks it for losing a completely unnecessary election. Although having your entire foreign policy collapse and having to go overnight is still a pretty horrible achievement.

Either way both outcomes make losing a normal election look like a mild and a dignified exit.

Eden led the UK to humiliation, to give up our role as an independent world power, and kicked the ball off for us joining the EEC/EC in the first place.

Eden.

You could argue the similarity between May and Eden is neither noticed the world had changed.

Paristonda said:

The DUP may not want to put Corbyn in power, but they will have to answer to their supporters for whatever deal they make, and the LD experience will make them wary of doing without extracting significant symbolic gains beyond pork barrel bridges etc. the LDs actually implemented most of their manifesto, but they had few significant individual achievements that mattered most to many LDs (tuition, electoral reform etc). That is why we are hearing their supporters arguing for march unbanning etc - you can bet there will be pressure on the party to try and get something like that agreed. The DUP are not the UUP, they are not allies and friends of the tories like May claimed.

Pork barrels will not be enough

DUP manifesto:

DUP wants to see a working Assembly and Executive as the best form of government for all our people.
We will judge any deal against five core tests set out in the manifesto.
We support the continued increases in the National Living Wage.
We will support proposals to further increase the personal tax allowance.
We support the maintenance of the pensions triple lock.
The DUP will resist any assault on important universal benefits.
We want to build a globally competitive economy.
We support the delivery of an ambitious new Industrial Strategy
We are committed to improving public services.
We support the continuation of the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent.
The DUP will resist attempts to rewrite the past.
The DUP will work to get the best deal for Northern Ireland as the UK leaves the European Union.
We are committed to see the development of a real respect agenda

Paristonda said:

Do the tories actually have 318 seats really? That figure includes the speaker bercow who doesn't vote with them.

Which means it's 327 with the DUP - already one down. One less by election defeat required.

Do the deputy speakers vote or not?

Effectively 318. In a tie The Speaker follows certain accepted rules.

He will vote against amending a bill.
He will vote against a final passing of a bill
He will vote against a motion of No Confidence.

Pulpstar said:

Paristonda said:

The DUP may not want to put Corbyn in power, but they will have to answer to their supporters for whatever deal they make, and the LD experience will make them wary of doing without extracting significant symbolic gains beyond pork barrel bridges etc. the LDs actually implemented most of their manifesto, but they had few significant individual achievements that mattered most to many LDs (tuition, electoral reform etc). That is why we are hearing their supporters arguing for march unbanning etc - you can bet there will be pressure on the party to try and get something like that agreed. The DUP are not the UUP, they are not allies and friends of the tories like May claimed.

Pork barrels will not be enough

DUP manifesto:

DUP wants to see a working Assembly and Executive as the best form of government for all our people.
We will judge any deal against five core tests set out in the manifesto.
We support the continued increases in the National Living Wage.
We will support proposals to further increase the personal tax allowance.
We support the maintenance of the pensions triple lock.
The DUP will resist any assault on important universal benefits.
We want to build a globally competitive economy.
We support the delivery of an ambitious new Industrial Strategy
We are committed to improving public services.
We support the continuation of the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent.
The DUP will resist attempts to rewrite the past.
The DUP will work to get the best deal for Northern Ireland as the UK leaves the European Union.
We are committed to see the development of a real respect agenda

I bet they are wishing they had been more bold.

RobD said:

Pulpstar said:

Paristonda said:

The DUP may not want to put Corbyn in power, but they will have to answer to their supporters for whatever deal they make, and the LD experience will make them wary of doing without extracting significant symbolic gains beyond pork barrel bridges etc. the LDs actually implemented most of their manifesto, but they had few significant individual achievements that mattered most to many LDs (tuition, electoral reform etc). That is why we are hearing their supporters arguing for march unbanning etc - you can bet there will be pressure on the party to try and get something like that agreed. The DUP are not the UUP, they are not allies and friends of the tories like May claimed.

Pork barrels will not be enough

DUP manifesto:

DUP wants to see a working Assembly and Executive as the best form of government for all our people.
We will judge any deal against five core tests set out in the manifesto.
We support the continued increases in the National Living Wage.
We will support proposals to further increase the personal tax allowance.
We support the maintenance of the pensions triple lock.
The DUP will resist any assault on important universal benefits.
We want to build a globally competitive economy.
We support the delivery of an ambitious new Industrial Strategy
We are committed to improving public services.
We support the continuation of the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent.
The DUP will resist attempts to rewrite the past.
The DUP will work to get the best deal for Northern Ireland as the UK leaves the European Union.
We are committed to see the development of a real respect agenda

I bet they are wishing they had been more bold.

Noone votes DUP for the manifesto

MyBurningEars said:

Sean_F said:

MyBurningEars said:

RobD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TGOHF said:

Chris_A said:

And so it begins twitter.com/jameswharton/status/874248105763516419

Attention seeking snowflake.

Hardly. May's plans are a direct attack on the LGBT community within the Tory party. We all used to laugh at Tim and his Latvian homophobe attacks. Suddenly the homophobes are a lot closer to home.

I would be very surprised if there were any changes to those pieces of legislation.

How could the LGBT rights legislation change, even if the DUP demanded it (which they won't)? There are Tory backbenchers aplenty who wouldn't let it pass. Heck, a good portion of the cabinet would resign first.

The point isn't whether the DUP will use the Tories as their vassals to impose fundamentalist Protestantism on British rights laws. It's contamination caused by who you publicly get into bed with.

If you have a hung Parliament, you have to be prepared to cut deals with parties that disagree with you on some issues, in order get your business through. Jim Callaghan, and John Major cut deals with Unionists, Gordon Brown would have done, had the numbers made sense.

I quite agree. May has landed herself in Catch 22. But the problem is saying "any politician would have done it" doesn't detoxify it (or even justify it) among the younger (30s/40s, not saying that there is much fruit to be had among the 20-somethings since historically the Tories have got by without them), socially liberal voters that the Tories absolutely desperately need to win over.

Yes I think since NI switched over from SDLP-UUP to SF-DUP, deals with NI parties should've been taken right off the table. It's naive to think that because these parties are able to function as apparently normal parties in the NI setting, they are just like GB parties. Oh no.

The_Apocalypse said:

The Farage thing was discussed yesterday, though some of us concluded that Tory MPs would be unlikely to accept that.

The electorate wouldn't accept it. It would all of a sudden make Corbyn look much better.

Mortimer said:

@TSE - should we ban trade in all products because some idiots misuse them?

The inland ivory trade ban was a stupid idea promoted by those who don't understand culture, history, or the antiques trade.

This is a very reasonable point. But the problem is few people see into this world, and so the idea of anything made of ivory - even a hundred years ago - has passed beyond the realm of social acceptability for large parts of the population.

Similar for fox-hunting - I think there's a perfectly reasonable case to be made for fox-hunting, particularly on liberal grounds. I'm a vegetarian with animal welfare views similar to Nick Palmer, so on balance probably wouldn't buy the argument, but I can see it is there. If you're from somewhere rural or have a history with hunting, don't think of foxes as cute and fluffy, are aware that death stalks the countryside... it is all much more palatable, somehow. But it has always been a minority pursuit, and people whose worldview has never encompassed it, it looks increasingly out of date and ethically unacceptable. Public perceptions like that are very hard to shift. A party that goes anywhere near reopening the fox-hunting issue is making an electoral clanger. Not a fair hearing for the issue, perhaps, but that's the way it is.

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

llef said:

has this idea been mentioned at all today here?

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/12/nigel-farage-to-gain-brexit-role-under-dup-conservative-deal--reports.html

Wow! What a way to destroy the Tory party.

I'd be very surprised if that were true.

Hey CR. Just a quick note to say 'hello' and that i hope that you're recovering from what must have been the most almighty shock / kick in the unmentionables. It's like 92 and 15 with knobs on.

As ever you worked your arse off for May. Hard working members like you, Richard and JohnO (amongst others) often bear the brunt of forces beyond their control.

I appreciated your reports from Southampton and hope you get to influence the shape of the Tory party that emerges from the ashes of this defeat.

There is one silver lining... 43% is a pretty solid base to build upon.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Paristonda said:

Do the tories actually have 318 seats really? That figure includes the speaker bercow who doesn't vote with them.

Which means it's 327 with the DUP - already one down. One less by election defeat required.

Do the deputy speakers vote or not?

Effectively 318. In a tie The Speaker follows certain accepted rules.

He will vote against amending a bill.
He will vote against a final passing of a bill
He will vote against a motion of No Confidence.

Basically he always votes for the status quo as there is no majority for change

Dadge said:

MyBurningEars said:

Sean_F said:

MyBurningEars said:

RobD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TGOHF said:

Chris_A said:

And so it begins twitter.com/jameswharton/status/874248105763516419

Attention seeking snowflake.

Hardly. May's plans are a direct attack on the LGBT community within the Tory party. We all used to laugh at Tim and his Latvian homophobe attacks. Suddenly the homophobes are a lot closer to home.

I would be very surprised if there were any changes to those pieces of legislation.

How could the LGBT rights legislation change, even if the DUP demanded it (which they won't)? There are Tory backbenchers aplenty who wouldn't let it pass. Heck, a good portion of the cabinet would resign first.

The point isn't whether the DUP will use the Tories as their vassals to impose fundamentalist Protestantism on British rights laws. It's contamination caused by who you publicly get into bed with.

If you have a hung Parliament, you have to be prepared to cut deals with parties that disagree with you on some issues, in order get your business through. Jim Callaghan, and John Major cut deals with Unionists, Gordon Brown would have done, had the numbers made sense.

I quite agree. May has landed herself in Catch 22. But the problem is saying "any politician would have done it" doesn't detoxify it (or even justify it) among the younger (30s/40s, not saying that there is much fruit to be had among the 20-somethings since historically the Tories have got by without them), socially liberal voters that the Tories absolutely desperately need to win over.

Yes I think since NI switched over from SDLP-UUP to SF-DUP, deals with NI parties should've been taken right off the table. It's naive to think that because these parties are able to function as apparently normal parties in the NI setting, they are just like GB parties. Oh no.

So long as Northern Ireland sends MPs to Westminster, it's MPs are entitled to play their part in the government of the UK.