Theresa May

[sidicks]

jjlynn27 said:

I would be wrong if the world was binary as you are, desperately trying to present it. Of course they had influence on the govt. The whole point of Coalition. What they didn't do is 'give us the money and we'll vote as you tell us'.

You do realise that the Tories didn't give the DUP £1bn in cash, they simply changed their spending priorities to support more spending on things the DUP wanted.

Which is exactly what happened with the Lib Dems as part of the Coalition.

jjlynn27 said:

In order to get some things, they abandoned some of their policies, for example, tuition fees. It's called a compromise. Completely different to a bribe. Yes?

Really? So Tory spending plans weren't changed due to requirements from the Lib Dems in order to secure their support in Parliament?

Evidence would suggest otherwise.

Link said:

Fair taxes: achieved. The income tax allowance as in fact increased by even more – and this was all achieved despite the Conservatives saying it wasn’t possible

Fair chances: achieved. The Pupil Premium has been introduced and even extended to early years education – with the evidence showing it making an impact on improving children’s education. Again, this was in the face of Conservative opposition, with the Tories trying to cut school expenditure.

In addition to securing Liberal Democrat priorities, the party has blocked a large number of right-wing Tory policies.

Edited by sidicks on Monday 24th July 21:09

[jjlynn27]

sidicks said:

jjlynn27 said:

I would be wrong if the world was binary as you are, desperately trying to present it. Of course they had influence on the govt. The whole point of Coalition. What they didn't do is 'give us the money and we'll vote as you tell us'.

You do realise that the Tories didn't give the DUP £1bn in cash, they simply changed their spending priorities to support more spending on things the DUP wanted.

Which is exactly what happened with the Lib Dems as part of the Coalition.

jjlynn27 said:

In order to get some things, they abandoned some of their policies, for example, tuition fees. It's called a compromise. Completely different to a bribe. Yes?

Really? So Tory spending plans weren't changed due to requirements from the Lib Dems in order to secure their support in Parliament?

Evidence would suggest otherwise.

Link said:

Fair taxes: achieved. The income tax allowance as in fact increased by even more – and this was all achieved despite the Conservatives saying it wasn’t possible

Fair chances: achieved. The Pupil Premium has been introduced and even extended to early years education – with the evidence showing it making an impact on improving children’s education. Again, this was in the face of Conservative opposition, with the Tories trying to cut school expenditure.

In addition to securing Liberal Democrat priorities, the party has blocked a large number of right-wing Tory policies.

Edited by sidicks on Monday 24th July 21:09

Evidence = LibDem blogger.


Why do you think LibDems abandoned pledge on tuition fees? Do you understand difference between compromise and bribe?
Changing policy and making compromises ON BOTH SIDES = coalition. Paying for votes = bribe. Not sure I can make it any simpler.


You can dress it up any way you like. The bottom line, TM shaked the money tree and paid for the votes. That's it. She bribed homophobic, creationist stes.

[sidicks]

jjlynn27 said:

Evidence = LibDem blogger.

To suggest that Tory spending plans were not changed as part of the Coalition agreement is pure nonsense. The evidence is there for all to see.

But you've made your position clear:

Tories compromise on spending plans to secure DUP votes equals "bribery".

Tories compromise on spending plans to secure Lib Dem votes does not equal "bribery".

Go figure...

[jjlynn27]

sidicks said:

jjlynn27 said:

Evidence = LibDem blogger.

To suggest that Tory spending plans were not changed as part of the Coalition agreement is pure nonsense. The evidence is there for all to see.

But you've made your position clear:

Tories compromise on spending plans to secure DUP votes equals "bribery".

Tories compromise on spending plans to secure Lib Dem votes does not equal "bribery".

Go figure...

This is how idiotic the above 'logic' is.

Tories chose to make an agreement with LibDems = coalition.
Tories chose to make an agreement with DUP = not coalition.


No need to 'go figure'. It was all there in the part of the post that you chose not to quote.

You are wrong. It's not that you can't see that, you just can't bring yourself to admit it. You can accept that, or you can rely on hand full or groupies, who are going to agree with all your posts even before they read them.

[sidicks]

jjlynn27 said:

This is how idiotic the above 'logic' is.

Tories chose to make an agreement with LibDems = coalition.
Tories chose to make an agreement with DUP = not coalition.

Except of course the nature of the agreements were quite different, hence they are not the same thing. I'm surprised you don't understand this.

jjlynn27 said:

No need to 'go figure'. It was all there in the part of the post that you chose not to quote.

Is that the bit where you pretend that compromises didn't happen?

jjlynn27 said:

You are wrong. It's not that you can't see that, you just can't bring yourself to admit it. You can accept that, or you can rely on hand full or groupies, who are going to agree with all your posts even before they read them.

Your position is exactly as I've posted above - the Lib Dems traded their votes for increased spending in areas that suited them.

No idea why you'd continue to deny this, but I'm sure you must have a reason!

Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 25th July 14:12

[jjlynn27]

sidicks said:

jjlynn27 said:

This is how idiotic the above 'logic' is.

Tories chose to make an agreement with LibDems = coalition.
Tories chose to make an agreement with DUP = not coalition.

Except of course the nature of the agreements were quite different, hence they are not the same thing. I'm surprised you don't understand this.

Finally. I never lost hope that you'll get there. Eventually.

One is pure unmitigated bribe, the other is compromises on both sides. While you are on the roll, I'll let you pick which one is which.

Hallelujah.

[Murph7355]

jjlynn27 said:

Finally. I never lost hope that you'll get there. Eventually.

One is pure unmitigated bribe, the other is compromises on both sides. While you are on the roll, I'll let you pick which one is which.

Hallelujah.

Semantics jj. All of it.

Technically both could be classed as "bribes" the way you're using the word. Or neither (the way Sidicks is). I think what he's getting at, and I would agree, is that if you only apply it to one side of the coin, all you are doing is demonstrating some sort of bias.

Politicians "bribe" all the time. It's how they get into power, how they get stuff done etc etc.

Anyway, with the amount of money dumped in Scotland, maybe it's about time NI got some more anyway

[768]

He knows it too. It's all part of the act.

[sidicks]

Murph7355 said:

Semantics jj. All of it.

Technically both could be classed as "bribes" the way you're using the word. Or neither (the way Sidicks is). I think what he's getting at, and I would agree, is that if you only apply it to one side of the coin, all you are doing is demonstrating some sort of bias.

Politicians "bribe" all the time. It's how they get into power, how they get stuff done etc etc.

Anyway, with the amount of money dumped in Scotland, maybe it's about time NI got some more anyway

Indeed.

[jjlynn27]

Murph7355 said:

Semantics jj. All of it.

Technically both could be classed as "bribes" the way you're using the word. Or neither (the way Sidicks is). I think what he's getting at, and I would agree, is that if you only apply it to one side of the coin, all you are doing is demonstrating some sort of bias.

Politicians "bribe" all the time. It's how they get into power, how they get stuff done etc etc.

Anyway, with the amount of money dumped in Scotland, maybe it's about time NI got some more anyway

Give me a sec to recover from shock that you'd agree with sidick.

Ok.

There is no equal sign between two arrangements which sidick finally managed to get. This is why;

Deal with DUP is straight votes for cash. We know the figure involved. £1b extra + more say in how to spend previously agreed £500m.

Deal with LD. Both sides gave up some of their policies, they compromised.

Completely different proposition.


The only surprise is, for me, that more people didn't jump to agree with sidicks. Not that that would made it less entertaining.

[sidicks]

jjlynn27 said:

Give me a sec to recover from shock that you'd agree with sidick.

Ok.

There is no equal sign between two arrangements which sidick finally managed to get.

So, finally, you now agree that a Coalition and a 'confidence and supply' deal are different?
That's progress.

jjlynn27 said:

This is why;

Deal with DUP is straight votes for cash. We know the figure involved. £1b extra + more say in how to spend previously agreed £500m.

Deal with LD. Both sides gave up some of their policies, they compromised.

Completely different proposition.


The only surprise is, for me, that more people didn't jump to agree with sidicks. Not that that would made it less entertaining.

The DUP have agreed to support the Tories on some key areas of policy - why do you think they have not made any compromise?

Regardless, both are still 'bribery' according to the definition you and others seek to use.

HTH

Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 26th July 16:08

[jjlynn27]

sidicks said:

jjlynn27 said:

Give me a sec to recover from shock that you'd agree with sidick.

Ok.

There is no equal sign between two arrangements which sidick finally managed to get.

So, finally, you now agree that a Coalition and a 'confidence and supply' deal are different?
That's progress.

You keep trying to misrepresent what I said.

I said the bit in bold. Once again, one is outright bribery, another is compromise. I'm still waiting to hear how much cash did LD ask for in return for votes before agreeing the join Cons. Figure, with link to the credible source, rounded to nearest £100m will do.

As to coalition and 'confidence and supply', that you've introduced into discussion, I consider 'confidence and supply' made up term designed to hide multitude of sins.

[sidicks]

jjlynn27 said:

You keep trying to misrepresent what I said.

I said the bit in bold. Once again, one is outright bribery, another is compromise.

No, that's just your prejudiced opinion.

Both are quite clearly arrangements exchanging votes for spending on their preferrred areas or 'bribery' as other people are seeking to call it.

Whether you think that one form of bribery is acceptable and the other form is not is somewhat irrelevant to the point being made.

jjlynn27 said:

I'm still waiting to hear how much cash did LD ask for in return for votes before agreeing the join Cons. Figure, with link to the credible source, rounded to nearest £100m will do.

As already explained, the Lib Dems were vocal about where they had reduced the impact of government expenditure cuts in numerous areas. Likewise the Tories explained how they'd been prevented from fully addressing the deficit due to constraints imposed as part of the Coalition agreement.

I'm amazed you aren't aware of this.

jjlynn27 said:

As to coalition and 'confidence and supply', that you've introduced into discussion, I consider 'confidence and supply' made up term designed to hide multitude of sins.

What matters is not what you consider it to be, what matters (for the previous discussion) is whether it's demonstrably exactly the same as a formal Coalition. And it clearly is not.

[jjlynn27]

sidicks said:

No, that's just your prejudiced opinion.

Both are quite clearly arrangements exchanging votes for spending on their preferrred areas or 'bribery' as other people are seeking to call it.

Whether you think that one form of bribery is acceptable and the other form is not is somewhat irrelevant to the point being made.

You love to use words like 'quite clearly' and 'evidence' when they are nothing of the kind. Opinion of very biased blogger, for example, is not an evidence.

And now we are starting with the 'form of bribery'. LOL. Afraid, no.

It's bribery vs compromising on the range of issues.

It would be rather easy to prove me wrong and equate the two on bribery; give me the figure, that LD asked before entering coalition to be spent on their pet causes.

As to is the deal with DUP a coalition;

dictionary said:

coalition
ˌkəʊəˈlɪʃ(ə)
noun

a temporary alliance for combined action.

[sidicks]

jjlynn27 said:

You love to use words like 'quite clearly' and 'evidence' when they are nothing of the kind. Opinion of very biased blogger, for example, is not an evidence.

And now we are starting with the 'form of bribery'. LOL. Afraid, no.

It's bribery vs compromising on the range of issues.

According to the definition it is still bribery.

jjlynn27 said:

It would be rather easy to prove me wrong and equate the two on bribery; give me the figure, that LD asked before entering coalition to be spent on their pet causes.

You bother to do the research you'll find out for yourself...

But try this for starters...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_20...

dictionary said:

coalition
?k????l??(?)
noun

a temporary alliance for combined action.

It's not a formal Coalition government, that's the point. But you knew that already

[catso]

don4l said:

I'm surprised that we don't already have a thread about this great woman.

Margaret Thatcher took a couple of years to demonstrate her greatness. Theresa May only took a couple of hours.

Today, she is going to announce her intention to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act.

She has severly clipped the wings of the civil service.

Sir What'sHisName, the civil servant who used to chair many government commitees, is no longer even able to attend the meetings.

By God, this woman is impressive.

So, 10 months on, are you still impressed...?

[jjlynn27]

sidicks said:

According to the definition it is still bribery.

Is that 'quite clearly' or 'evidence'?

sidick said:

You bother to do the research you'll find out for yourself...

But try this for starters...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_20...

From the article;
What have we gleaned about Lib Dem compromises on policies?
then list of compromises
What have we gleaned about Tory compromises on policies?
then another list of compromises.
You see that word, the 'compromise' one?
I'm still waiting for you to show me how much money LD asked in order to sell their votes. Rounded to nearest £100m will do. Anything on that?

sidick said:

It's not a formal Coalition government, that's the point. But you knew that already

Just so we are on the same page; it's a coalition, now that you've seen the actual, non-made up definition, but not the 'formal coalition'? Is that your current position?

[sidicks]

jjlynn27 said:

Just so we are on the same page; it's a coalition, now that you've seen the actual, non-made up definition, but not the 'formal coalition'? Is that your current position?

It's different than a 'confidence and supply' deal, that is (and always was) the point).

Are you still pretending that votes for spending is bribery when it suits you and not when it doesn't?

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 27th July 00:17

[sidicks]

jjlynn27 said:

From the article;
What have we gleaned about Lib Dem compromises on policies?
then list of compromises
What have we gleaned about Tory compromises on policies?
then another list of compromises.
You see that word, the 'compromise' one?

Please can you show me the definition where exchanging money for votes is not bribery, providing some compromises were made (or at least a certain degree of compromise, as yet undefined by you)?

jhlynn27 said:

I'm still waiting for you to show me how much money LD asked in order to sell their votes. Rounded to nearest £100m will do. Anything on that?

I'm still struggling to understand why you don't realise that Tory spending plans were changed as part of the Coalition.

I'm also struggling to understand why you think the Lib Dems went into Coalition if it wasn't to get additional spending on their pet projects?

What compromises did the Tories make in order to secure Lib Dem support for key policies?

sidick said:

Just so we are on the same page; it's a coalition, now that you've seen the actual, non-made up definition, but not the 'formal coalition'? Is that your current position?

The definition of 'coalition' is a broad term covering a vast range of scenarios.

A Coalition government is a specific scenario. A confidence and supply deal is a different scenario from a Coalition government.

And has already been explained,

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 27th July 05:27

[crankedup]

T.M. inspired and impressed me with her general presentation and promises of policy. Being so was surely her kiss of death, never before voted for Tory coming from a Lib Dem background.