RugbyRebels

Zhivago wrote:

Lizard wrote:Lucky you. We only have 100 or so MPs to wrangle so we're never going to be world class at it.

We have 13 parties in the parliament here. Crazy! Still a better governed country than the UK though...

We've got 5%/1 electorate seat threshold so only 7 parties, although 3 of them have 4 seats between them.

Lizard wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Lizard wrote:Lucky you. We only have 100 or so MPs to wrangle so we're never going to be world class at it.

We have 13 parties in the parliament here. Crazy! Still a better governed country than the UK though...

We've got 5%/1 electorate seat threshold so only 7 parties, although 3 of them have 4 seats between them.

Here there is no formal threshold, but the system is such that in effect there is a threshold of 0.667% per seat.

Mellsblue wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:I'd assume lots of committed god botherers wouldn't have issues with LGBT rights, depends which bit of the yarn they buy into.

This, I'm no christianist; but some branches of christianity recognise gay weddings, have women high up the chain of command, don't disapprove of abortion etc.
Christianity, like all religions, has a large number of sects, all of them technically different from each other, even if those differences are as visible as their gods are to the rest of us

Very true. Hence my judicious use of devout Christians.

I don't think devout is the right word, in that I wouldn't care to suggest those with no LGBT hangups couldn't be devout Christians. Orthodox maybe?

Mellsblue wrote:Very true. Hence my judicious use of devout Christians.

Differences of sect (what you believe in) not devotion (how hard you believe it).

Which Tyler wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Very true. Hence my judicious use of devout Christians.

Differences of sect (what you believe in) not devotion (how hard you believe it).

Maybe not within small sects, but certainly in mainstream Christianity there are a range of views held on the major ethical subjects. I haven't noticed a connection between devotion and intolerance.

What sect of "mainstream Christianity"?

Again though, I'm no expert on christ-ists.

So may is now officially on record as being warned this harms the peace process. Interesting, and worrying.

Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams warned British Prime Minister Theresa May on Thursday that any agreement between the Tories and the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) would be in breach of the Good Friday Agreement.

Speaking to media in front of 10 Downing Street, Adams said he delivered a blunt message to the prime minister. “We have just finished a meeting with the British prime minister and her secretary of state [Damian Green]. And we told her very directly that she was in breach of the Good Friday Agreement and we itemized those matters in which she was dilatory or in default in relation to that agreement,” the Guardian reported.

http://www.politico.eu/article/gerry-ad ... agreement/

jared_7 wrote:So may is now officially on record as being warned this harms the peace process. Interesting, and worrying.

Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams warned British Prime Minister Theresa May on Thursday that any agreement between the Tories and the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) would be in breach of the Good Friday Agreement.

Speaking to media in front of 10 Downing Street, Adams said he delivered a blunt message to the prime minister. “We have just finished a meeting with the British prime minister and her secretary of state [Damian Green]. And we told her very directly that she was in breach of the Good Friday Agreement and we itemized those matters in which she was dilatory or in default in relation to that agreement,” the Guardian reported.

http://www.politico.eu/article/gerry-ad ... agreement/

It's good to get an impartial opinion.

http://rochdaleherald.co.uk/2017/06/09/ ... -the-arse/

may cause offence.

Mellsblue wrote:

jared_7 wrote:So may is now officially on record as being warned this harms the peace process. Interesting, and worrying.

Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams warned British Prime Minister Theresa May on Thursday that any agreement between the Tories and the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) would be in breach of the Good Friday Agreement.

Speaking to media in front of 10 Downing Street, Adams said he delivered a blunt message to the prime minister. “We have just finished a meeting with the British prime minister and her secretary of state [Damian Green]. And we told her very directly that she was in breach of the Good Friday Agreement and we itemized those matters in which she was dilatory or in default in relation to that agreement,” the Guardian reported.

http://www.politico.eu/article/gerry-ad ... agreement/

It's good to get an impartial opinion.

I never implied that. Its just there is a clear difference between media talk and pundits coming out and saying this alignment affects the peace process, and a leader of a very relevant and involved party coming out and doing so. If shit hits the fan in Ireland because of this then May can't say she wasn't warned. She is happy risking stability so she can cling to a thread of power.

jared_7 wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

jared_7 wrote:So may is now officially on record as being warned this harms the peace process. Interesting, and worrying.



http://www.politico.eu/article/gerry-ad ... agreement/

It's good to get an impartial opinion.

I never implied that. Its just there is a clear difference between media talk and pundits coming out and saying this alignment affects the peace process, and a leader of a very relevant and involved party coming out and doing so. If shit hits the fan in Ireland because of this then May can't say she wasn't warned. She is happy risking stability so she can cling to a thread of power.

They're all the same of course in this. Labour tried to do a similar deal with the DUP under Brown

And if Labour were to form a government, they would also need DUP votes. Very easy though to be a protest group when not in power.

Sigh. People need to be able to have opinions or views on things without the answer to every question being "but but but Labour did it too", and visa versa. Your posts are beginning to sound as bad as the Republicans v Democrats in America.

jared_7 wrote:Sigh. People need to be able to have opinions or views on things without the answer to every question being "but but but Labour did it too", and visa versa. Your posts are beginning to sound as bad as the Republicans v Democrats in America.

I'd blame all of the political parties. Whereas those trying to claim it's Tories bad, Labour good are simple minded cretins in denial of reality, even citing housing bills which would have made sod all difference

jared_7 wrote:Sigh. People need to be able to have opinions or views on things without the answer to every question being "but but but Labour did it too", and visa versa. Your posts are beginning to sound as bad as the Republicans v Democrats in America.

When a political party is being somewhat hypocritical though, its a fair shout to expose that.

Digby wrote:

jared_7 wrote:Sigh. People need to be able to have opinions or views on things without the answer to every question being "but but but Labour did it too", and visa versa. Your posts are beginning to sound as bad as the Republicans v Democrats in America.

I'd blame all of the political parties. Whereas those trying to claim it's Tories bad, Labour good are simple minded cretins in denial of reality, even citing housing bills which would have made sod all difference

Its also a fair shout to expose rank bullshit in the shape of this rejected Corbyn Bill which would have made no difference or nonsensical conspiracy theories.

Digby wrote:

jared_7 wrote:Sigh. People need to be able to have opinions or views on things without the answer to every question being "but but but Labour did it too", and visa versa. Your posts are beginning to sound as bad as the Republicans v Democrats in America.

I'd blame all of the political parties. Whereas those trying to claim it's Tories bad, Labour good are simple minded cretins in denial of reality, even citing housing bills which would have made sod all difference

I don't really know what Labour has to do with this, at all. We are talking about the Tories and the DUP forming an alliance, I haven't read a single opinion saying "Labour would do this better" or "form a better coalition". All Labour is doing is raising the issue which is what you get to do as the opposition.

The only people bringing up Labour are you and Sandy, because your default position over the last year is to turn everything onto Corbyn.

You're either against forming a coalition with the DUP and risking the peace process, or you are for it. The party doing so shouldn't matter. Politics should be viewed along belief lines not party lines which is what you are both denigrating this discussion into.

jared_7 wrote:

Digby wrote:

jared_7 wrote:Sigh. People need to be able to have opinions or views on things without the answer to every question being "but but but Labour did it too", and visa versa. Your posts are beginning to sound as bad as the Republicans v Democrats in America.

I'd blame all of the political parties. Whereas those trying to claim it's Tories bad, Labour good are simple minded cretins in denial of reality, even citing housing bills which would have made sod all difference

I don't really know what Labour has to do with this, at all. We are talking about the Tories and the DUP forming an alliance, I haven't read a single opinion saying "Labour would do this better" or "form a better coalition". All Labour is doing is raising the issue which is what you get to do as the opposition.

The only people bringing up Labour are you and Sandy, because your default position over the last year is to turn everything onto Corbyn.

You're either against forming a coalition with the DUP and risking the peace process, or you are for it. The party doing so shouldn't matter. Politics should be viewed along belief lines not party lines which is what you are both denigrating this discussion into.

If Labour could form a government without the DUP I wouldn't mention it. But they can't, at least not a majority administration which makes it all rather pointless in the medium to long term.

And the point is that a previous Labour government tried to do exactly the same as the current Conservative one is doing now, but now its somehow underhand and dangerous.

Sandydragon wrote: When a political party is being somewhat hypocritical though, its a fair shout to expose that.

Has Labour said they will form a coalition with the DUP? I mean, we can assume they may do because they need to if they wanted to form a massive coalition, but its still just assumptions.

Thats how politics works. As the opposition you get the advantage of being able to call out the government for their actions because you don't have to make these tough calls yourself.

If May says she won't form a government and then Corbyn decides to go and try, then we should all start attacking him and the Tories would be well within their rights to do so as well.

Sandydragon wrote:
If Labour could form a government without the DUP I wouldn't mention it. But they can't, at least not a majority administration which makes it all rather pointless in the medium to long term.

And the point is that a previous Labour government tried to do exactly the same as the current Conservative one is doing now, but now its somehow underhand and dangerous.

And there it is again.

Who gives a shit? You either agree with this or you don't.

jared_7 wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: When a political party is being somewhat hypocritical though, its a fair shout to expose that.

Has Labour said they will form a coalition with the DUP? I mean, we can assume they may do because they need to if they wanted to form a massive coalition, but its still just assumptions.

Thats how politics works. As the opposition you get the advantage of being able to call out the government for their actions because you don't have to make these tough calls yourself.

And its reasonable to expose the hypocrisy when noted - Labour have spoken to the DUP in the past about a coalition, or similar arrangement, so to paint th Tories as undermining the NI peace process by doing an unreasonable deal is just taking advantage of short political memories and deserves to be called out.

jared_7 wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
If Labour could form a government without the DUP I wouldn't mention it. But they can't, at least not a majority administration which makes it all rather pointless in the medium to long term.

And the point is that a previous Labour government tried to do exactly the same as the current Conservative one is doing now, but now its somehow underhand and dangerous.

And there it is again.

Who gives a shit? You either agree with this or you don't.

Fine, we disagree.

Labour now in talks with the DUP. Its all about integrity for Glorious Leader™

Digby wrote:Labour now in talks with the DUP. Its all about integrity for Glorious Leader™

the dream coalition starts to form.