Discussion
ATG said:
It is also entirely reasonable to point out that an arrangement of confidence and supply is in many ways the same as a coalition, and if anything is worse than a coalition for the larger party as they are even more beholden to the tiddler as the tiddler has made no binding commitment and can easily walk away bringing the whole government crashing down. The government is effectively open to continuous blackmail and will be trying to give the DUP the impression that they're being handed sweeties at regular intervals to keep them on side. Every vote of any substance is potentially a confidence vote. A coalition would have had a shared Queen's Speech making the objectives and commitments transparent. What we've got instead is a hobbled government with virtually no legislative programme who are having to indulge in backroom deals with the DUP to survive. Tremendous.
Derek never said any such thing. He repeatedly claimed that the deal was NOT a 'confidence and supply' deal, but instead WAS a formal Coalition.He was demonstrably wrong on each occasion and that is why he was picked up on it.
But feel free to pretend otherwise if it helps you get over it!
sidicks said:
Derek never said any such thing. He repeatedly claimed that the deal was NOT a 'confidence and supply' deal, but instead WAS a formal Coalition.
He was demonstrably wrong on each occasion and that is why he was picked up on it.
But feel free to pretend otherwise if it helps you get over it!
'Derek' never said such a thing. I've asked many times not to be criticised, and by you, for things I haven't written. Please don't add words to any post of mine. I am not happy with such blatant twisting.He was demonstrably wrong on each occasion and that is why he was picked up on it.
But feel free to pretend otherwise if it helps you get over it!
Confidence and supply is a nonsensical phrase. It means nothing. It reassures you, and you seem happy with it.
The only question is whether the agreement with the DUP means that it has an influence on the tory party. If it has, then it is working in a coalition.
It is Humpty Dumptyesque.
Derek Smith said:
'Derek' never said such a thing. I've asked many times not to be criticised, and by you, for things I haven't written. Please don't add words to any post of mine. I am not happy with such blatant twisting.
And yet:Derek Smith said:
I too think it is vital what we call it what it is. It's a coalition. Just because the tory government invented a phrase to replace 'coalition government' doesn't make it so.
One can rename a thing. How about calling a car a teddy bear. It sounds so much nicer and softer but if it hits anyone, they'll still suffer the same injuries. It's a coalition.
Anyone who thinks that the DUP will have no influence on policy doesn't understand politics. It's a coalition.
For someone who repeatedly posts merely to correct, you should really look to what May has done before trying to correct.
It's a coalition.
It seems pretty clear to me Derek (and presumably to many others) - perhaps your screen is showing you something entirely different?One can rename a thing. How about calling a car a teddy bear. It sounds so much nicer and softer but if it hits anyone, they'll still suffer the same injuries. It's a coalition.
Anyone who thinks that the DUP will have no influence on policy doesn't understand politics. It's a coalition.
For someone who repeatedly posts merely to correct, you should really look to what May has done before trying to correct.
It's a coalition.
Derek Smith said:
Confidence and supply is a nonsensical phrase. It means nothing. It reassures you, and you seem happy with it.
Nonsensical to you, maybe. But perfect sense to others. And most importantly different than a Coalition.Derek Smith said:
The only question is whether the agreement with the DUP means that it has an influence on the tory party. If it has, then it is working in a coalition.
It is Humpty Dumptyesque.
Feel free to pretend you've said something different than you've actually said and that the word means something different to what it actually means. It doesn't make you correct though.It is Humpty Dumptyesque.
It is obvious Derek was making the wider point that it is to all intents and purposes a coalition - and indeed the post above makes a good case as to why it might well be worse.
Certainly any argument to the contrary is either just for the sake of it, or is an attempt to suggest that the DUP deal is somehow 'better' than a coalition - surely rather misplaced given the huge bung that has already been extorted by the DUP on UK taxpayers.
Confidence and supply? If you swallow that, you've been DUPed!
Certainly any argument to the contrary is either just for the sake of it, or is an attempt to suggest that the DUP deal is somehow 'better' than a coalition - surely rather misplaced given the huge bung that has already been extorted by the DUP on UK taxpayers.
Confidence and supply? If you swallow that, you've been DUPed!
///ajd said:
It is obvious Derek was making the wider point that it is to all intents and purposes a coalition - and indeed the post above makes a good case as to why it might well be worse.
You might claim that - his words are quite specific and repeated. Although he does now appear to be denying everything! 
///adj said:
Certainly any argument to the contrary is either just for the sake of it, or is an attempt to suggest that the DUP deal is somehow 'better' than a coalition - surely rather misplaced given the huge bung that has already been extorted by the DUP on UK taxpayers.
Confidence and supply? If you swallow that, you've been DUPed!
I'm claiming no such thingConfidence and supply? If you swallow that, you've been DUPed!
sidicks said:
ATG said:
It is also entirely reasonable to point out that an arrangement of confidence and supply is in many ways the same as a coalition, and if anything is worse than a coalition for the larger party as they are even more beholden to the tiddler as the tiddler has made no binding commitment and can easily walk away bringing the whole government crashing down. The government is effectively open to continuous blackmail and will be trying to give the DUP the impression that they're being handed sweeties at regular intervals to keep them on side. Every vote of any substance is potentially a confidence vote. A coalition would have had a shared Queen's Speech making the objectives and commitments transparent. What we've got instead is a hobbled government with virtually no legislative programme who are having to indulge in backroom deals with the DUP to survive. Tremendous.
Derek never said any such thing. He repeatedly claimed that the deal was NOT a 'confidence and supply' deal, but instead WAS a formal Coalition.He was demonstrably wrong on each occasion and that is why he was picked up on it.
But feel free to pretend otherwise if it helps you get over it!
ATG said:
I'm not pretending anything. His meaning was entirely obvious. You're either being deliberately obtuse, or you genuinely misunderstood what he meant.
You mean that he meant something quite different than what he actually said? Well if he admitted that - that what he wrote was clearly wrong and he meant something entirely different - then that might explain things and we can move on.But for now he still appears to be claiming something that's demonstrably wrong!
Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 18th July 21:55
sidicks said:
ATG said:
I'm not pretending anything. His meaning was entirely obvious. You're either being deliberately obtuse, or you genuinely misunderstood what he meant.
You mean that he meant something quite different than what he actually said?ATG said:
His meaning was entirely clear. Do you really need him to litter his post with "de facto" for you to understand it? Because clearly others don't.
No. He's been corrected by others and still claims it is a Coalition. Repeatedly and implicitly. And no point has he suggested any meaning other than this.He also claimed the the Tories made up the phrase 'confidence and supply' deal and that the phrase is nonsensical.
sidicks said:
///ajd said:
It is obvious Derek was making the wider point that it is to all intents and purposes a coalition - and indeed the post above makes a good case as to why it might well be worse.
You might claim that - his words are quite specific and repeated. Although he does now appear to be denying everything! ///adj said:
Certainly any argument to the contrary is either just for the sake of it, or is an attempt to suggest that the DUP deal is somehow 'better' than a coalition - surely rather misplaced given the huge bung that has already been extorted by the DUP on UK taxpayers.
Confidence and supply? If you swallow that, you've been DUPed!
I'm claiming no such thingConfidence and supply? If you swallow that, you've been DUPed!
I wonder if you can spin this to 20+ pages like the train one. That was you on your own too.
Derek - keep up the valid posts, don't be deterred!
///ajd said:
So you're just being obtuse then, or can't admit you have failed to comprehend it in its obvious context that many others seem to have no problem grasping.
I wonder if you can spin this to 20+ pages like the train one. That was you on your own too.
Derek - keep up the valid posts, don't be deterred!
There's been at least 4 people who have made the same interpretation as me, and rather than clarify that he meant something quite different to what he actually said, he's done the opposite (or denied saying anything!).I wonder if you can spin this to 20+ pages like the train one. That was you on your own too.
Derek - keep up the valid posts, don't be deterred!
Derek Smith said:
Einion Yrth said:
Derek Smith said:
she has managed to reduce a majority government to a coalition
It's not a coalition, "it's a confidence and supply" deal; I fully expect you to be a bit of a richard, but at least get your facts straight.One can rename a thing. How about calling a car a teddy bear. It sounds so much nicer and softer but if it hits anyone, they'll still suffer the same injuries. It's a coalition.
Anyone who thinks that the DUP will have no influence on policy doesn't understand politics. It's a coalition.
For someone who repeatedly posts merely to correct, you should really look to what May has done before trying to correct.
It's a coalition.
Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 18th July 22:47
ATG said:
His meaning was entirely clear. Do you really need him to litter his post with "de facto" for you to understand it? Because clearly others don't.
You're right, his meaning was clear. He was clear that in his view this is not a confidence and supply arrangement (a term it appears he believes, wrongly, was made up by the Tories for this DUP arrangement) but coalition. This also being incorrect. He was clear that we shouldn't interpret what he's said or add words to it too.
A confidence and supply arrangement does not involve ministerial/cabinet positions. It does not involve signing up to a full term programme of policies etc.
Google it if you cannot see a difference. Even the Guardian (which I suspect you guys will respect more than I do) notes it's nowhere near a coalition and barely more than a minority government.
There's nowt wrong with being wrong. Until you keep digging. And digging. And digging.
Is May inept? Yep, he's not wrong there. Is the DUP arrangement likely to be problematic? Quite possibly, though open for some debate.
On TM I think he's correct on much. On confidence and supply/coalition he isn't.
The Conservative's did not invent a new term Derek to suit heir purposes, it is a long standing constitutional concept.
It is NOT a coalition, just an agreement to ensure critical votes are not lost by the government.
In a coalition the DUP would have cabinet positions, ministerial roles, and be expected to be bound by the government whip - there is none of that.
It is NOT a coalition, just an agreement to ensure critical votes are not lost by the government.
In a coalition the DUP would have cabinet positions, ministerial roles, and be expected to be bound by the government whip - there is none of that.
///ajd said:
It is obvious Derek was making the wider point that it is to all intents and purposes a coalition - and indeed the post above makes a good case as to why it might well be worse.
Certainly any argument to the contrary is either just for the sake of it, or is an attempt to suggest that the DUP deal is somehow 'better' than a coalition - surely rather misplaced given the huge bung that has already been extorted by the DUP on UK taxpayers.
Confidence and supply? If you swallow that, you've been DUPed!
Don't know what you're rambling on about. The DUP are loyal to this country unlike Corbyn and Sinn Fein so it was the only answer after the outcome of the election, the money given to the DUP is small change compared to what might of happened without a deal, lots of turmoil ending with an election with Jezza Corbyn in charge propped up by some undesirables in a hung parliament.Certainly any argument to the contrary is either just for the sake of it, or is an attempt to suggest that the DUP deal is somehow 'better' than a coalition - surely rather misplaced given the huge bung that has already been extorted by the DUP on UK taxpayers.
Confidence and supply? If you swallow that, you've been DUPed!
What might happen without a deal? A election perhaps. I'm sure one will be coming along soon enough anyway.
As for the difference between what the arrangement is and a coalition. I think the line would be crossed if we saw a DUP bigot as a member of the cabinet. As it stands it's a bribe. Hopefully one that is nothing more than financial rather than policy based.
As for the difference between what the arrangement is and a coalition. I think the line would be crossed if we saw a DUP bigot as a member of the cabinet. As it stands it's a bribe. Hopefully one that is nothing more than financial rather than policy based.
ATG said:
I wouldn't have gone on some fantasy psychological dissection of why people think May was a pretty poor Home Secretary. If someone says "I think she was crap because of X, Y and Z", why not explain why they are wrong, rather than make a bunch of assumptions about their prejudices and then move on to a full scale ad hom?.
As has been ably demonstrated on this thread, you don't have to be centre-left or a former police officer to think that May was a pretty unimpressive Home Sec. Half the coalition cabinet clearly thought that too. Similarly it is a challenge to spin her time in Number 10 as a great triumph.
It is also entirely reasonable to point out that an arrangement of confidence and supply is in many ways the same as a coalition, and if anything is worse than a coalition for the larger party as they are even more beholden to the tiddler as the tiddler has made no binding commitment and can easily walk away bringing the whole government crashing down. The government is effectively open to continuous blackmail and will be trying to give the DUP the impression that they're being handed sweeties at regular intervals to keep them on side. Every vote of any substance is potentially a confidence vote. A coalition would have had a shared Queen's Speech making the objectives and commitments transparent. What we've got instead is a hobbled government with virtually no legislative programme who are having to indulge in backroom deals with the DUP to survive. Tremendous.
Fantasy? Psychological? In my opening paragraphs (titled ‘The Individual’) I gave reasoned argument concerning the circumstances for my opinion. Those circumstances are largely accepted as factual (there were several hundred concerned individuals present at the relevant conference and much comment since) and no other rebuttals have been forthcoming. DS has a lengthy record on here of personal criticisms of the thread subject and these can be seen to be directly related to his character assessment of the OP subject. Of course, you are perfectly entitled to your own opinion which may be different to mine but, as said by others, yours does not necessarily take precedence! As has been ably demonstrated on this thread, you don't have to be centre-left or a former police officer to think that May was a pretty unimpressive Home Sec. Half the coalition cabinet clearly thought that too. Similarly it is a challenge to spin her time in Number 10 as a great triumph.
It is also entirely reasonable to point out that an arrangement of confidence and supply is in many ways the same as a coalition, and if anything is worse than a coalition for the larger party as they are even more beholden to the tiddler as the tiddler has made no binding commitment and can easily walk away bringing the whole government crashing down. The government is effectively open to continuous blackmail and will be trying to give the DUP the impression that they're being handed sweeties at regular intervals to keep them on side. Every vote of any substance is potentially a confidence vote. A coalition would have had a shared Queen's Speech making the objectives and commitments transparent. What we've got instead is a hobbled government with virtually no legislative programme who are having to indulge in backroom deals with the DUP to survive. Tremendous.
The remainder of your post has received sufficient castigation by others more eloquent than me so no point in me commenting.
Please, try not to attack messengers – they sometimes have more cogent reasons for their message.
Oh, the irony.
Corbyn now more popular than May.
www.pressreader.com/uk/london-evening-standard-wes...
Corbyn now more popular than May.
www.pressreader.com/uk/london-evening-standard-wes...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff