RugbyRebels

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:Ah but the SNP bloke in NE Fife managed to scrape over the line by 2 votes - ye wouldn't want to be his missus picking his boxers up of the bathroom floor this morning.

Perth was about 20 votes and between 2 constituencies in Glasgow around 200 votes. These were snp held seats with Tories right up their arse.

cashead wrote:^ Who the fuck wears a leather jacket with no shirt underneath? Have some fucking self-respect, like.

Who the fuck cares about what some love-child of John Lennon if he were inbred and a fucking tampon has to say.

The big irony of the outcome in Scotland, is that all the way through the campaign, Ruth Davidson deflected all discussion about the Tory manifesto and Tory policies to talk only about Indyref2, now she's turned in an exceptional result for her party and they thank her by going into coalition with a bunch of crazies who would quite happily burn her as a witch for being a Lesbian.

Stones of granite wrote:The big irony of the outcome in Scotland, is that all the way through the campaign, Ruth Davidson deflected all discussion about the Tory manifesto and Tory policies to talk only about Indyref2, now she's turned in an exceptional result for her party and they thank her by going into coalition with a bunch of crazies who would quite happily burn her as a witch for being a Lesbian.

Isn't that symptomatic of the world of politics?

Yep. I'm not a Twatterer but I believe she retweeted a blog/post/speech she made on gay marriage as the DUP tie-up was mooted.

Also, confidence and supply deal with DUP is confirmed. Will Paddy Power finally pay me?!?!?

Finally, rumours of Sinn Fein issuing court proceedings on the basis that the confidence and supply agreement contravenes the Good Friday Agreement.

Really any deal with the DUP makes Ruth more important as she could scupper any partnership

Vengeful Glutton wrote:

cashead wrote:^ Who the fuck wears a leather jacket with no shirt underneath? Have some fucking self-respect, like.

Who the fuck cares about what some love-child of John Lennon if he were inbred and a fucking tampon has to say.

Yes yes, you're an edgelord. Look at the edgy edgelord everyone.

Mellsblue wrote:Yep. I'm not a Twatterer but I believe she retweeted a blog/post/speech she made on gay marriage as the DUP tie-up was mooted.

Also, confidence and supply deal with DUP is confirmed. Will Paddy Power finally pay me?!?!?

Finally, rumours of Sinn Fein issuing court proceedings on the basis that the confidence and supply agreement contravenes the Good Friday Agreement.

Yeah, it would. The UK Gov is supposed to be mediating in the NI political crisis. How can that be done on a neutral basis when they are dependent on support from the DUP in Westminster?

The Tories only care about self interest, not national interest.

Zhivago wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Yep. I'm not a Twatterer but I believe she retweeted a blog/post/speech she made on gay marriage as the DUP tie-up was mooted.

Also, confidence and supply deal with DUP is confirmed. Will Paddy Power finally pay me?!?!?

Finally, rumours of Sinn Fein issuing court proceedings on the basis that the confidence and supply agreement contravenes the Good Friday Agreement.

Yeah, it would. The UK Gov is supposed to be mediating in the NI political crisis. How can that be done on a neutral basis when they are dependent on support from the DUP in Westminster?

No need for the rumoured court case then. Can you let me know the clause(s) the deal breaks?

So, what are the best results for either side in the coming weeks/months/years?

Tories:
May manages to get a deal started on Brexit, somehow. She actually gets the framework for a deal that gets some cross party support. They tie up the deal, May steps down, and Rudd or another electable wins the leadership. They then proceed to crush Labour with the help of the media.

Labour:
May comes back battered and bruised from EU negotiations, only to find the DUP do not support what she has finally agreed with Merkel et al. on. She faces calls to step down immediately, again, and Labour call a vote of no confidence. They win with backbench Tory rebellion. May steps down, to be replaced by Boris Johnson. Labour take the Tories to the cleaners in the General, with such a buffoon in charge.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Bet is whether there is a hung parliament. I'd go for the PM bet but Theresa May might try to cling on in the event of a minority.

Hung parliament could still mean a Conservative led coalition, if only a couple of seats out the Ulster Unionists will prop her up.

OK, if the Conservatives have a majority government after the election, which could be just 1 seat, then I win. If not you win. Loser gets to display the avatar of the winner's choice for 1 month (but it has to be safe for work).

Agreed?

Agreed

Here's your avatar, Sandy.

Zhivago wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Hung parliament could still mean a Conservative led coalition, if only a couple of seats out the Ulster Unionists will prop her up.

OK, if the Conservatives have a majority government after the election, which could be just 1 seat, then I win. If not you win. Loser gets to display the avatar of the winner's choice for 1 month (but it has to be safe for work).

Agreed?

Agreed

Here's your avatar, Sandy.

Depending on where Sandy works that could definitely be termed not safe for work.

Stom wrote:So, what are the best results for either side in the coming weeks/months/years?

Tories:
May manages to get a deal started on Brexit, somehow. She actually gets the framework for a deal that gets some cross party support. They tie up the deal, May steps down, and Rudd or another electable wins the leadership. They then proceed to crush Labour with the help of the media.

Labour:
May comes back battered and bruised from EU negotiations, only to find the DUP do not support what she has finally agreed with Merkel et al. on. She faces calls to step down immediately, again, and Labour call a vote of no confidence. They win with backbench Tory rebellion. May steps down, to be replaced by Boris Johnson. Labour take the Tories to the cleaners in the General, with such a buffoon in charge.

May won't last until Brexit is agreed. She's only survived because of the unique circumstances that is Brexit. She's already lost her two top advisers and had to make a public apology. They are not things you agree to if you're in a position of power. lt very much depends on her behaviour from here. Be conciliatory and humble and she may last until next year, continue the way she did previously and it's curtains within the year.
You may think Boris is a buffoon but he's won two terms as mayor of London and the referendum. Just like Corbyn, he's a bloody good campaigner.

Zhivago wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Hung parliament could still mean a Conservative led coalition, if only a couple of seats out the Ulster Unionists will prop her up.

OK, if the Conservatives have a majority government after the election, which could be just 1 seat, then I win. If not you win. Loser gets to display the avatar of the winner's choice for 1 month (but it has to be safe for work).

Agreed?

Agreed

Here's your avatar, Sandy.

Right o. I'll sort that later.

Zhivago wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Yep. I'm not a Twatterer but I believe she retweeted a blog/post/speech she made on gay marriage as the DUP tie-up was mooted.

Also, confidence and supply deal with DUP is confirmed. Will Paddy Power finally pay me?!?!?

Finally, rumours of Sinn Fein issuing court proceedings on the basis that the confidence and supply agreement contravenes the Good Friday Agreement.

Yeah, it would. The UK Gov is supposed to be mediating in the NI political crisis. How can that be done on a neutral basis when they are dependent on support from the DUP in Westminster?

The Tories only care about self interest, not national interest.

Labour would hope into bed with the SNP in return for indyref. Would that also be in the national interest? I'd be careful about taking too high a moral ground with this one.

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:So, what are the best results for either side in the coming weeks/months/years?

Tories:
May manages to get a deal started on Brexit, somehow. She actually gets the framework for a deal that gets some cross party support. They tie up the deal, May steps down, and Rudd or another electable wins the leadership. They then proceed to crush Labour with the help of the media.

Labour:
May comes back battered and bruised from EU negotiations, only to find the DUP do not support what she has finally agreed with Merkel et al. on. She faces calls to step down immediately, again, and Labour call a vote of no confidence. They win with backbench Tory rebellion. May steps down, to be replaced by Boris Johnson. Labour take the Tories to the cleaners in the General, with such a buffoon in charge.

May won't last until Brexit is agreed. She's only survived because of the unique circumstances that is Brexit. She's already lost her two top advisers and had to make a public apology. They are not things you agree to if you're in a position of power. lt very much depends on her behaviour from here. Be conciliatory and humble and she may last until next year, continue the way she did previously and it's curtains within the year.
You may think Boris is a buffoon but he's won two terms as mayor of London and the referendum. Just like Corbyn, he's a bloody good campaigner.

Boris now has some baggage, but he can reach voters that other Tories struggle to. I don't see him stepping away from a tv debate with Corbyn and he can connect with people. Rudd is a strict schoolmaam type, although she isn't afraid to campaign. May will be lucky to last 12 months and I think once the negotiations have started in earnest, there will be moves to replace her. Boris or Rudd would be the most obvious replacements, unless someone else can build some support before then.

That'll be Boris preparing a leadership bid then.

Sandydragon wrote: Labour would hope into bed with the SNP in return for indyref. Would that also be in the national interest? I'd be careful about taking too high a moral ground with this one.

Given Labour and every other party could still have any Queen's speech and/or budget voted down by the Tories and the DUP then I'd tend to think Jeremy would simply call another election and dare the Tories to block it in the commons if he was given a shot. The Tories might feel with the need to get on with Brexit there simply isn't the time to have another election, but I don't see how they could allow themselves to be tagged as a party who aren't up for an election (and it'd be following on from May refusing a leadership debate). So I don't know Labour would need/want to do a deal with the SNP, indeed they'd likely see a great chance to get in and take another 10-20 seats off the SNP with their being a viable alternative to the Tories.

Maybe just maybe if Corbyn knew he could carry the Labour Party he'd take a shot at governing as a minority government if given the chance, but he can't, he'd never get onto his agenda as he'd always have to be securing votes on the right of his party even before setting off to get votes from 4-5 other parties.

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Labour would hope into bed with the SNP in return for indyref. Would that also be in the national interest? I'd be careful about taking too high a moral ground with this one.

Given Labour and every other party could still have any Queen's speech and/or budget voted down by the Tories and the DUP then I'd tend to think Jeremy would simply call another election and dare the Tories to block it in the commons if he was given a shot. The Tories might feel with the need to get on with Brexit there simply isn't the time to have another election, but I don't see how they could allow themselves to be tagged as a party who aren't up for an election (and it'd be following on from May refusing a leadership debate). So I don't know Labour would need/want to do a deal with the SNP, indeed they'd likely see a great chance to get in and take another 10-20 seats off the SNP with their being a viable alternative to the Tories.

Maybe just maybe if Corbyn knew he could carry the Labour Party he'd take a shot at governing as a minority government if given the chance, but he can't, he'd never get onto his agenda as he'd always have to be securing votes on the right of his party even before setting off to get votes from 4-5 other parties.

Agreed entirely.
Labour's claims of wanting to put together a Queen's speach are to put pressure on the conservatives to rush into something; if he had his way (say the tories call his bluff), then his queens speach would be "fancy another election? August good for everyone?
We're basically going to get another election within the next 12 months; Corbyn would far rather face the busted flush that is Teresa May, than a populist like Johnson, a competent politician like Hammond, or a popular, competent but unknown element like Davidson. He'd also rather do so whilst his support is on a high and his party is actually backing him for once.

Mellsblue wrote: Finally, rumours of Sinn Fein issuing court proceedings on the basis that the confidence and supply agreement contravenes the Good Friday Agreement.

The current Irish government is a minority one. Before a deal was struck there was talk of shinners forming a minority coalition with Fine Gael. Fortunately it didn't happen, but during the few months when we had no government, there was no mention of a Fine Gael Sinn Fein minority government contravening the GFA.

twitchy wrote:

although its a spoof, I'm trying to imagine how Corbyn could be PM in a strong stable coalition....not quite succeeding.

It's increasingly looking like Unionists v Republicans in parliament, as an aside; Jezza is anti monarchy iirc.

Banquo wrote:

twitchy wrote:

although its a spoof, I'm trying to imagine how Corbyn could be PM in a strong stable coalition....not quite succeeding.

It's increasingly looking like Unionists v Republicans in parliament, as an aside; Jezza is anti monarchy iirc.

I'm anti monarchy too. Though given they exist, and we'd still need a head of state, and I don't want a President, or for the PM to have many of the head of state duties, and the monarchy is a useful diplomatic tool, and the monarchy is useful for tourism, and that it'd swamp any Parliament for time to try and unwind the monarch as the head of state I don't know I'd ever bother to try and change the monarchy, I'll just grumble it was ever set up like that in the first place.

Given it is there I wouldn't be as rude about them as Corbyn has been.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

twitchy wrote:

although its a spoof, I'm trying to imagine how Corbyn could be PM in a strong stable coalition....not quite succeeding.

It's increasingly looking like Unionists v Republicans in parliament, as an aside; Jezza is anti monarchy iirc.

I'm anti monarchy too. Though given they exist, and we'd still need a head of state, and I don't want a President, or for the PM to have many of the head of state duties, and the monarchy is a useful diplomatic tool, and the monarchy is useful for tourism, and that it'd swamp any Parliament for time to try and unwind the monarch as the head of state I don't know I'd ever bother to try and change the monarchy, I'll just grumble it was ever set up like that in the first place.

Given it is there I wouldn't be as rude about them as Corbyn has been.

good for you, but you aren't the leader of the Labour party.