Discussion
jjlynn27 said:
Garvin said:
But the same can be levelled at Corbyn with his pre-election 'promises'. He could have left the cancellation of student debt well alone but he chose to dangle carrots in an attempt to bribe those affected for their votes - this was the only reason. Besides which here are material differences between the two:
- Corbyn's 'promises' have been admitted as being totally unaffordable. He would have to have 'broken' those 'promises' if elected. May's £1Bn for NI is easily afforded.
- May did it to ensure the Conservatives could govern rather than plunge the country into a damaging election whilst Brexit is underway. Let's be very clear, Labour would have done exactly the same if the roles were reversed so all the outrage is just fake.
- Corbyn's paying off student debts would, ironically, have been for the benefit of the few not the many and in a very personal way. May's 'bribe' is money for investment for the benefit of all in NI and on a general basis.
Did May want to do a deal with the DUP, of course not but it was a necessity if the government was to continue with any confidence. Left leaning critics are only upset because they failed to get Labour elected and wanted another bite at the cherry but have been thwarted - it's irrational, emotional upset, pure and simple.
Yes, same can be said of Corbyn too. Nice bit of 'oh mom look, they are doing it too'. If Corbyn was proposing to spend extra £1bn in NI, you wouldn't be looking to justify it as you are doing it with May, nor would you call it easily affordable. - Corbyn's 'promises' have been admitted as being totally unaffordable. He would have to have 'broken' those 'promises' if elected. May's £1Bn for NI is easily afforded.
- May did it to ensure the Conservatives could govern rather than plunge the country into a damaging election whilst Brexit is underway. Let's be very clear, Labour would have done exactly the same if the roles were reversed so all the outrage is just fake.
- Corbyn's paying off student debts would, ironically, have been for the benefit of the few not the many and in a very personal way. May's 'bribe' is money for investment for the benefit of all in NI and on a general basis.
Did May want to do a deal with the DUP, of course not but it was a necessity if the government was to continue with any confidence. Left leaning critics are only upset because they failed to get Labour elected and wanted another bite at the cherry but have been thwarted - it's irrational, emotional upset, pure and simple.
It's not left / right. It's about desperation of some to justify whatever May is doing.
She bribed DUP to stay in power, however you choose to dress that up.
It is inevitable that comparisons will be made with Corbyn and Labour as they are the only alternative but I accept it is difficult for left leaning posters to have his failings so easily exposed. Even the tone of the Guardian is against Corbyn on the cancellation of student debt issue - now that really is saying something!
Garvin said:
I would 'justify' a similar action by any party in a similar predicament as the Conservatives. Do I like it, no. Do I understand why any party would do it, yes I do. As for left v right it is left leaning posters who are upset and denigrate what May has done and just post childish memes and rants without showing any understanding of why it was done other than some notion that it is 'clinging' to power. Could it possibly be that May considered this the best thing to do for the sake of UK and keeping Brexit at least somewhere on track?
It is inevitable that comparisons will be made with Corbyn and Labour as they are the only alternative but I accept it is difficult for left leaning posters to have his failings so easily exposed. Even the tone of the Guardian is against Corbyn on the cancellation of student debt issue - now that really is saying something!
You say it's difficult for left leaning posters to accept criticism of Corbyns faults, but just read this thread to see many right leaning posters that back Teresa May, no matter what she does!It is inevitable that comparisons will be made with Corbyn and Labour as they are the only alternative but I accept it is difficult for left leaning posters to have his failings so easily exposed. Even the tone of the Guardian is against Corbyn on the cancellation of student debt issue - now that really is saying something!
Neither of them have covered themselves in glory in the last year or so, but one of them will directly affect day to day stuff by being in power, and as such should be open to scrutiny and comment far more than a politician in opposition.
eccles said:
Garvin said:
I would 'justify' a similar action by any party in a similar predicament as the Conservatives. Do I like it, no. Do I understand why any party would do it, yes I do. As for left v right it is left leaning posters who are upset and denigrate what May has done and just post childish memes and rants without showing any understanding of why it was done other than some notion that it is 'clinging' to power. Could it possibly be that May considered this the best thing to do for the sake of UK and keeping Brexit at least somewhere on track?
It is inevitable that comparisons will be made with Corbyn and Labour as they are the only alternative but I accept it is difficult for left leaning posters to have his failings so easily exposed. Even the tone of the Guardian is against Corbyn on the cancellation of student debt issue - now that really is saying something!
You say it's difficult for left leaning posters to accept criticism of Corbyns faults, but just read this thread to see many right leaning posters that back Teresa May, no matter what she does!It is inevitable that comparisons will be made with Corbyn and Labour as they are the only alternative but I accept it is difficult for left leaning posters to have his failings so easily exposed. Even the tone of the Guardian is against Corbyn on the cancellation of student debt issue - now that really is saying something!
Neither of them have covered themselves in glory in the last year or so, but one of them will directly affect day to day stuff by being in power, and as such should be open to scrutiny and comment far more than a politician in opposition.
Rabid righties - check.
May open to scrutiny and comment - I agree. However, I would prefer more in depth analysis and discussion on May rather than the shallow and juvenile assessments being performed by some posters. Apart from being an introvert and not good in front of a camera what is it that May is doing that is so wrong?
Has she lied? Yes, but I can only put my finger on one when she tried to make out that nothing had changed wrt the social care policy in the manifesto after hurriedly announcing a cap. I think we all know that no cap was the original position/intention.
Judgement flawed regarding the snap GE? Yes and no. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and let's not forget the rabid celebrations by Corbyn and Labour after an epic fail because even they all thought, until the votes were counted, that they were facing potential annihilation!
What is it that she is now intending to do that is a concern and why?
sidicks said:
gooner1 said:
Actually. Sidicks, if you care to look at this Topics title, it was originally about TM, but like
most debates/discussions it is an ever evolving thing.
Now as much as you may not like it, and however much it upsets you, you do not get to set the agenda of what is discussed, or not, here.
You yourself have responded to remarks about the DUP bribe and the abolition of student fees in the last few pages alone of this thread, , so please, now more dictating what this thread is or isn't about.
You fail to understand the difference between what was being discussed and what is allowed to be discussed. At no point have I sought to determine the lattermost debates/discussions it is an ever evolving thing.
Now as much as you may not like it, and however much it upsets you, you do not get to set the agenda of what is discussed, or not, here.
You yourself have responded to remarks about the DUP bribe and the abolition of student fees in the last few pages alone of this thread, , so please, now more dictating what this thread is or isn't about.
Really?
sidicks said:
We were discussing the 'hundreds of billions' of unfunded promises to the young people, referencing the promise to pay off student debts.
(Stop trying to score (personal) points (and failing) and actually respond on the topic under discussion).
Edited by sidicks on Sunday 23 July 20:23
So what part of, what you consider to be, the topic have I failed to respond to?
Btw, I'm still waiting for you to answer what it is I am supposedly claiming.
gooner1 said:
As for snide remarks, I'd have more respect with that comment if you wasn't so quick
to make disparaging remarks about other people yourself. Jlynns spelling for example, or your assumption that anyone that doesn't share your view must be stupid.
Practice what you preach mate, no pun intended.
I've said no such thing. But plenty of people appear to be ignorant about some of the topics they post on. That doesn't mean that they are stupid. You do understand the difference??to make disparaging remarks about other people yourself. Jlynns spelling for example, or your assumption that anyone that doesn't share your view must be stupid.
Practice what you preach mate, no pun intended.
Edited by sidicks on Monday 24th July 06:41
Garvin said:
jjlynn27 said:
Garvin said:
But the same can be levelled at Corbyn with his pre-election 'promises'. He could have left the cancellation of student debt well alone but he chose to dangle carrots in an attempt to bribe those affected for their votes - this was the only reason. Besides which here are material differences between the two:
- Corbyn's 'promises' have been admitted as being totally unaffordable. He would have to have 'broken' those 'promises' if elected. May's £1Bn for NI is easily afforded.
- May did it to ensure the Conservatives could govern rather than plunge the country into a damaging election whilst Brexit is underway. Let's be very clear, Labour would have done exactly the same if the roles were reversed so all the outrage is just fake.
- Corbyn's paying off student debts would, ironically, have been for the benefit of the few not the many and in a very personal way. May's 'bribe' is money for investment for the benefit of all in NI and on a general basis.
Did May want to do a deal with the DUP, of course not but it was a necessity if the government was to continue with any confidence. Left leaning critics are only upset because they failed to get Labour elected and wanted another bite at the cherry but have been thwarted - it's irrational, emotional upset, pure and simple.
Yes, same can be said of Corbyn too. Nice bit of 'oh mom look, they are doing it too'. If Corbyn was proposing to spend extra £1bn in NI, you wouldn't be looking to justify it as you are doing it with May, nor would you call it easily affordable. - Corbyn's 'promises' have been admitted as being totally unaffordable. He would have to have 'broken' those 'promises' if elected. May's £1Bn for NI is easily afforded.
- May did it to ensure the Conservatives could govern rather than plunge the country into a damaging election whilst Brexit is underway. Let's be very clear, Labour would have done exactly the same if the roles were reversed so all the outrage is just fake.
- Corbyn's paying off student debts would, ironically, have been for the benefit of the few not the many and in a very personal way. May's 'bribe' is money for investment for the benefit of all in NI and on a general basis.
Did May want to do a deal with the DUP, of course not but it was a necessity if the government was to continue with any confidence. Left leaning critics are only upset because they failed to get Labour elected and wanted another bite at the cherry but have been thwarted - it's irrational, emotional upset, pure and simple.
It's not left / right. It's about desperation of some to justify whatever May is doing.
She bribed DUP to stay in power, however you choose to dress that up.
'Course you would.
Garvin said:
Do I like it, no. Do I understand why any party would do it, yes I do. As for left v right it is left leaning posters who are upset and denigrate what May has done and just post childish memes and rants without showing any understanding of why it was done other than some notion that it is 'clinging' to power. Could it possibly be that May considered this the best thing to do for the sake of UK and keeping Brexit at least somewhere on track?
You seem to need things repeated to you few times in order to get them. It was a bribe in order to cling onto the power. Repeat after me; bribe. dict said:
bribe
br??b
verb
1.
dishonestly persuade (someone) to act in one's favour by a gift of money or other inducement.
Are we there yet?br??b
verb
1.
dishonestly persuade (someone) to act in one's favour by a gift of money or other inducement.
Garvin said:
It is inevitable that comparisons will be made with Corbyn and Labour as they are the only alternative but I accept it is difficult for left leaning posters to have his failings so easily exposed. Even the tone of the Guardian is against Corbyn on the cancellation of student debt issue - now that really is saying something!
Who are those left leaning posters? Corbyn, as previously said, would be an unmitigated disaster for the country. That doesn't mean what May did was not, wait for it, a bribe. She should be in some dead end department where she can harmlessly repeat whatever meaningless tautology comes to her at any given moment. As a pm, she's a joke. She's hopelessly out of her debt. The only people who can't see that are the ones who just repeat; "but what about Corbyn".
Thorodin said:
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.
jjlynn27 said:
Who are those left leaning posters? Corbyn, as previously said, would be an unmitigated disaster for the country. That doesn't mean what May did was not, wait for it, a bribe. She should be in some dead end department where she can harmlessly repeat whatever meaningless tautology comes to her at any given moment. As a pm, she's a joke.
She's hopelessly out of her debt. The only people who can't see that are the ones who just repeat; "but what about Corbyn".
What is dishonest about the arrangement with the DUP?She's hopelessly out of her debt. The only people who can't see that are the ones who just repeat; "but what about Corbyn".
sidicks said:
jjlynn27 said:
Who are those left leaning posters? Corbyn, as previously said, would be an unmitigated disaster for the country. That doesn't mean what May did was not, wait for it, a bribe. She should be in some dead end department where she can harmlessly repeat whatever meaningless tautology comes to her at any given moment. As a pm, she's a joke.
She's hopelessly out of her debt. The only people who can't see that are the ones who just repeat; "but what about Corbyn".
What is dishonest about the arrangement with the DUP?She's hopelessly out of her debt. The only people who can't see that are the ones who just repeat; "but what about Corbyn".
sidicks said:
jjlynn27 said:
Who are those left leaning posters? Corbyn, as previously said, would be an unmitigated disaster for the country. That doesn't mean what May did was not, wait for it, a bribe. She should be in some dead end department where she can harmlessly repeat whatever meaningless tautology comes to her at any given moment. As a pm, she's a joke.
She's hopelessly out of her debt. The only people who can't see that are the ones who just repeat; "but what about Corbyn".
What is dishonest about the arrangement with the DUP?She's hopelessly out of her debt. The only people who can't see that are the ones who just repeat; "but what about Corbyn".
ATG said:
Are we about to spin off on yet another semantic distraction?
That's up to you. The fundamental part of the definition of a 'bribe' is that it is dishonest.Feel free to answer the question (or are you going to try and redefine something to suit your own purposes, like last time)?!
sidicks said:
jjlynn27 said:
Who are those left leaning posters? Corbyn, as previously said, would be an unmitigated disaster for the country. That doesn't mean what May did was not, wait for it, a bribe. She should be in some dead end department where she can harmlessly repeat whatever meaningless tautology comes to her at any given moment. As a pm, she's a joke.
She's hopelessly out of her debt. The only people who can't see that are the ones who just repeat; "but what about Corbyn".
What is dishonest about the arrangement with the DUP?She's hopelessly out of her debt. The only people who can't see that are the ones who just repeat; "but what about Corbyn".
sidicks said:
jjlynn27 said:
What is dishonest about paying for votes? Are you seriously asking that?
Was the Tory / Lib Dem Coalition 'dishonest'?I asked you a question. I'll rephrase it, if the first one was not clear. Do you think that paying for votes is dishonest? You can answer, or you can do the sidick-dodge.
jjlynn27 said:
Ah, yet another 101 questions by sidicks?
I asked you a question. I'll rephrase it, if the first one was not clear. Do you think that paying for votes is dishonest? You can answer, or you can do the sidick-dodge.
In government, when you enter into an agreenent with another political party there are inevitable compromises on numerous items, including spending etc.I asked you a question. I'll rephrase it, if the first one was not clear. Do you think that paying for votes is dishonest? You can answer, or you can do the sidick-dodge.
You might see that as "dishonest bribery". I don't.
Likewise, if you are consistent, you must believe that the Tory / Lib Dem Coalition was a 'dishonest bribe' as the Tories were forced to change their spending plans to satisfy the requirements of the Lib Dems.
Edited by sidicks on Monday 24th July 11:54
sidicks said:
jjlynn27 said:
Ah, yet another 101 questions by sidicks?
I asked you a question. I'll rephrase it, if the first one was not clear. Do you think that paying for votes is dishonest? You can answer, or you can do the sidick-dodge.
In government, when you enter into an agreenent with another political party there are inevitable compromises on numerous items, including spending etc.I asked you a question. I'll rephrase it, if the first one was not clear. Do you think that paying for votes is dishonest? You can answer, or you can do the sidick-dodge.
You might see that as "dishonest bribery". I don't.
Likewise, if you are consistent, you must believe that the Tory / Lib Dem Coalition was a 'dishonest bribe' as the Tories were forced to change their spending plans to satisfy the requirements of the Lib Dems.
Edited by sidicks on Monday 24th July 11:54
ATG said:
There is nothing inconsistent about judging one comprise as reasonable and another as unreasonable.
Of course not. But both would be 'dishonest bribes' by virtue of the definition that you / he want to ascribe to 'buying votes'.And I suspect that the increased cost of public spending etc imposed by the
Lib Dems was much more than £1bn...
t idea IMO, but that's no small frygooner1 said:
This supposed £1 Billion "investment " in N.I
Why can I not find it in the tories manifesto, surely a party so
keen on keeping a lid on expenditure, would at least have mentioned it never mind costing it.
Prior to the GE, was it part of the Tory plans to enter into a 'confidence and supply' deal with the DUP post election?Why can I not find it in the tories manifesto, surely a party so
keen on keeping a lid on expenditure, would at least have mentioned it never mind costing it.
It sounds as though you're still confused as to why there weren't any details of the Tory - Lib Dem Coalition agreeement in the Tory manifesto in the run up to the 2010 GE?!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff