Tory-DUP Confidence And Supply deal
Discussion
gooner1 said:
Siddicks will not answer a straight question.
Well he might answer, but it won't be to the question asked.
Slippery as a vaselined otter.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8AC-dlXkAAs4ak.jpgWell he might answer, but it won't be to the question asked.
Slippery as a vaselined otter.
did not realise you two had met
sidicks said:
So it is people that do already get 'hundreds of pounds'?
Wasn't it Labour that started shutting down Remploy factories and a Coalition study that suggested that each of the 2,800 Remploy factory workers was subsidised by an average £25,000 a year that could be better spent.
Yes homeless, disabled, mentally ill, they all get "hundreds of pounds", every single one.Wasn't it Labour that started shutting down Remploy factories and a Coalition study that suggested that each of the 2,800 Remploy factory workers was subsidised by an average £25,000 a year that could be better spent.
I don't know the politics of who did what around Remploy, I simply remember that they lost a ton of funding that could very much make a difference to some peoples lives.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Yes homeless, disabled, mentally ill, they all get "hundreds of pounds", every single one.
Do we not provide funding / benefits for the disabled, mentally ill etc etc?bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I don't know the politics of who did what around Remploy, I simply remember that they lost a ton of funding that could very much make a difference to some peoples lives.
The independent report suggested that the money could be better used to support those people.citizensm1th said:
Not sure that's Siddicks, pretty sure he had an eel in his mouth last time we communicated.bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Sidicks I'm not getting into this as I really don't give a st about having the last word, you're welcome to it.
It's simple for me - this deal is morally wrong and the money could be used for better things.
I don't agree with the deal.t about having the last word, you're welcome to it.It's simple for me - this deal is morally wrong and the money could be used for better things.
However, IMO it's somewhat misleading to compare the cost of the deal (a one-off, funding infrastructure etc) with ongoing payments to certain members of the population (with the implication that these people do not already receive significant amounts).
Whether they receive enough is a different matter.
sidicks said:
I don't agree with the deal.
However, IMO it's somewhat misleading to compare the cost of the deal (a one-off, funding infrastructure etc) with ongoing payments to certain members of the population (with the implication that these people do not already receive significant amounts).
Whether they receive enough is a different matter.
So, just to clarify, when you were referring to people getting 'hundreds of pounds' you were thinking of those examples provided by bHowever, IMO it's somewhat misleading to compare the cost of the deal (a one-off, funding infrastructure etc) with ongoing payments to certain members of the population (with the implication that these people do not already receive significant amounts).
Whether they receive enough is a different matter.
hstewie?It's just 'hundreds of pounds' is a rather arbitrary figure to pluck out of the air. One might almost say 'hundreds of pounds' is rather a specific figure when thinking of recent events.
BigMon said:
So, just to clarify, when you were referring to people getting 'hundreds of pounds' you were thinking of those examples provided by bhstewie?
It's just 'hundreds of pounds' is a rather arbitrary figure to pluck out of the air. One might almost say 'hundreds of pounds' is rather a specific figure when thinking of recent events.
Councils spend billions on homelessness:hstewie?It's just 'hundreds of pounds' is a rather arbitrary figure to pluck out of the air. One might almost say 'hundreds of pounds' is rather a specific figure when thinking of recent events.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38016728
Mental heath spending will be £11.7bn in 2016/17
https://fullfact.org/health/spending-mental-health...
In 2014/15, £41 billion was spent on benefits for people who are ill or disabled, while £10 billion went on elderly care payments
http://visual.ons.gov.uk/welfare-spending/
etc
sidicks said:
Councils spend billions on homelessness:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38016728
Mental heath spending will be £11.7bn in 2016/17
https://fullfact.org/health/spending-mental-health...
In 2014/15, £41 billion was spent on benefits for people who are ill or disabled, while £10 billion went on elderly care payments
http://visual.ons.gov.uk/welfare-spending/
etc
Indeed, none of which refer to 'hundreds of pounds'.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38016728
Mental heath spending will be £11.7bn in 2016/17
https://fullfact.org/health/spending-mental-health...
In 2014/15, £41 billion was spent on benefits for people who are ill or disabled, while £10 billion went on elderly care payments
http://visual.ons.gov.uk/welfare-spending/
etc
I think we both know who you were referring to and, thankfully for you, b
hstewie provided you with a handy getout.BigMon said:
Indeed, none of which refer to 'hundreds of pounds'.
I think we both know who you were referring to and, thankfully for you, bhstewie provided you with a handy getout.
Is this where you claim to know my mind? Who do you think I was referring to?I think we both know who you were referring to and, thankfully for you, b
hstewie provided you with a handy getout.It seemed quite obvious to me that b
hstewie was either referring to the disadvantaged in society and / or public sector. All of whom already receive billion of pounds of public money.The implication was that we give these people 'nothing' and yet we can find money for the DUP. My point is that we don't give these people 'nothing' we already give them a lot (hence my comment about 'hundreds of pounds' compared to 10p), so the comparison is entirely false (even if we could / should give them more).
For me there's a few things that cross my mind:
1. Hypocrisy: Corbyn was promising would write off student debts to the tune of £60 Billion if students voted for him. If that isn't blatant cash for votes I don't know what is.
2. Good Friday Agreement: It's a blunt instrument but showing this is a cash only deal does tend to disarm the Republican argument that this makes the government biased to the DUP.
3. The DUP are not terrorists. Arlene Foster's dad was shot on his doorstep by the IRA, they blew up her village (Enniskillen) and they clew up her school bus. Her reaction to that terrorism and intimidation was to get a law degree and go into politics to try to sort it out in some way. While all that sts going on around you I think you can be forgiven for being a few years behind the London set on gay rights, etc.
1. Hypocrisy: Corbyn was promising would write off student debts to the tune of £60 Billion if students voted for him. If that isn't blatant cash for votes I don't know what is.
2. Good Friday Agreement: It's a blunt instrument but showing this is a cash only deal does tend to disarm the Republican argument that this makes the government biased to the DUP.
3. The DUP are not terrorists. Arlene Foster's dad was shot on his doorstep by the IRA, they blew up her village (Enniskillen) and they clew up her school bus. Her reaction to that terrorism and intimidation was to get a law degree and go into politics to try to sort it out in some way. While all that s
ts going on around you I think you can be forgiven for being a few years behind the London set on gay rights, etc.sidicks said:
Is this where you claim to know my mind? Who do you think I was referring to?
It seemed quite obvious to me that bhstewie was either referring to the disadvantaged in society and / or public sector. All of whom already receive billion of pounds of public money.
The implication was that we give these people 'nothing' and yet we can find money for the DUP. My point is that we don't give these people 'nothing' we already give them a lot (hence my comment about 'hundreds of pounds' compared to 10p), so the comparison is entirely false (even if we could / should give them more).
Why didn't you say that about ten posts ago?!It seemed quite obvious to me that b
hstewie was either referring to the disadvantaged in society and / or public sector. All of whom already receive billion of pounds of public money.The implication was that we give these people 'nothing' and yet we can find money for the DUP. My point is that we don't give these people 'nothing' we already give them a lot (hence my comment about 'hundreds of pounds' compared to 10p), so the comparison is entirely false (even if we could / should give them more).
Thank you for the clarification, and I'm relieved that I got the wrong end of the stick.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:Carl_Manchester said:
By all means scrutinise the deal but I am finding the opposition commentary from Labour deeply unpatriotic.
Put party politics and your own political leanings to one side and look at it objectively.What patriotic commentary would you like? What possible spin paints this as a good use of our money?
Your comment about it being a tenner down the back of the sofa, well that's all well and good but if a tenner is scale we're working to there are plenty of people for whom yesterday there wasn't 10 pence.
The politicians are hostage to circumstance, the election was run, there is no appetite to run another one and so it is the Tories national responsibility to govern in the best way it can, the Libs were not in a position to offer one this time around, so it falls to the DUP.
If the shoe were on the other foot and it was Labour+SNP, no doubt Labour would have done similar with the SNP and personally, I would see sense in doing that because government has a job to do. It would have been Labour's responsibility to do a deal with the SNP, with the attached 'cost'.
What patriotic commentary would I like? OK, I will tell you what's got my goat.
What I would like to see from the Labour opposition, is exactly the opposite of what Emily Thornberry did today in parliament for Labour today. A woman we need to remember took money from the disgraced law firm which hounded and brought charges against our people in the Army. Let's also not forget the infamous tweet about flying the English flag and driving a white van.
This is not a woman of the people, she fits the classic 'champagne socialist' cliche i.e. lives in North London, is married to a barrister and sends her kids to private school.
Thornberry also voted against Trident and had no idea what DEFCON was despite being shadow defence secretary.
In terms of patriotic standing you can see why she is not on my christmas card list and from the little list above anyone can clearly see why she absolutely cannot be allowed to actually be the foreign secretary or the defence secretary.
There was nothing wrong with Maria Eagle, she was replaced by Thornberry simply because of her stand on Trident.
Anyway, now as Shadow Foreign Secretary, up-steps Thornberry in Parliament today and basically gives us a diatribe fit for a punch and judy show (wow - new type of politics!!!) and dips into her, no doubt bottomless intellectual talent to tell us that the deal has been done to 'prop up this dismal prime minister'. Well blow me down, with that line she has redefined herself as a real political tyrannosaurus.
Boris Johnson, armed with the average IQ of a 15 year old, must be pissing in his sleep tonight at the thought of having to do battle with such an intellectual heavyweight as Thornberry.
Thornberry as Foreign Secretary is a total lame duck, you ask me what I want in terms of Patriotism from the opposition? I want Thornberry (along with others) removed from the Labour front benches as they will simply keep on name calling with soundbite politics and not actually offering true opposition - ala SNP.
What questions would I be pressing the Tories on? What is the guarantee or the process whereby Sinn Fein controlled areas in N.I will be granted money out of the pot being assigned by central government? Because actually, Sinn Fein don't exactly come out of this deal with nothing and we need to ensure that the DUP areas in N.I don't receive all the money. Because of the 'ash for cash' scandal N.I had a big black hole in its books, at least with this deal the hole gets plugged for the good of all the people in N.I - if the money can be allocated fairly.
on me by way of apology. Olf said:
For me there's a few things that cross my mind:
1. Hypocrisy: Corbyn was promising would write off student debts to the tune of £60 Billion if students voted for him. If that isn't blatant cash for votes I don't know what is.
2. Good Friday Agreement: It's a blunt instrument but showing this is a cash only deal does tend to disarm the Republican argument that this makes the government biased to the DUP.
3. The DUP are not terrorists. Arlene Foster's dad was shot on his doorstep by the IRA, they blew up her village (Enniskillen) and they clew up her school bus. Her reaction to that terrorism and intimidation was to get a law degree and go into politics to try to sort it out in some way. While all that sts going on around you I think you can be forgiven for being a few years behind the London set on gay rights, etc.
1. All manifestos are cash for votes, one way or another. People tend to vote for what it good for them. They might dress it up a bit, but essentially that's it. 1. Hypocrisy: Corbyn was promising would write off student debts to the tune of £60 Billion if students voted for him. If that isn't blatant cash for votes I don't know what is.
2. Good Friday Agreement: It's a blunt instrument but showing this is a cash only deal does tend to disarm the Republican argument that this makes the government biased to the DUP.
3. The DUP are not terrorists. Arlene Foster's dad was shot on his doorstep by the IRA, they blew up her village (Enniskillen) and they clew up her school bus. Her reaction to that terrorism and intimidation was to get a law degree and go into politics to try to sort it out in some way. While all that s
ts going on around you I think you can be forgiven for being a few years behind the London set on gay rights, etc.2. The GFA is all NI has. Favouring one 'side' over another is risking the tender peace in NI.
3. Sinn Fein are not terrorists either. However, history shows that there were deaths on both sides. The main objection to the DUP is their farcical views on homosexuality, women's rights and, unbelievable I know, creationism. And May is letting this mob have a say as to what the government does. It is not a case of a few years. It's that they are religious nutters. No place in the modern day.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff