Current Affairs 2017 General Election

2017 general election

  • Lib Dems

    Votes: 24 6.5%
  • Labour

    Votes: 264 71.0%
  • Tories

    Votes: 41 11.0%
  • Cheese on the ballot paper

    Votes: 35 9.4%
  • SNP

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 4 1.1%

  • Total voters
    372
Status
Not open for further replies.
This issue about undermining the Good Friday Agreement is a bit silly to be honest. The first people I heard claiming it were Jonathon Powell and Alaistair Campbell. Campbell was present at a meeting with Gordon Brown and the DUP the day after the 2010 election where they discussed a pact to keep Cameron out of Downing Street.

Also, the Tories had an electoral pact with the UUP for the 2010 election where any UUP candidates elected would take the Tory whip. No one suggested this was undermining the peace process. Incidentally none of the Ulster Conservative and Unionist candidates won. And that's because there's less in common between Northern Irish Unionists and Tories than people in the mainland have suggested. If an agreement occurs it's due to a dislike and distrust of Corbyn, not because of any love of the Conservative Party. But that's also why it's doomed to failure in the mid to long term, perhaps even sooner.
 
I find myself in a difficult position with this DUP alliance. I'm a Catholic so the reailty is they'd probably sooner spit on me then talk to me and I'm uncomfortable with some of their more archaic views. However I also believe strongly in democracy and as elected representatives the DUP have an absolute right to form part of a government no matter how distasteful we might find them. I'll judge them like Ruth Davidson (who i have a massive amount of respect for) has and say that providing that assurances are met that they can't push their more extreme views on the whole UK it could be workable. You don't have to like work colleagues (I know I can't several of mine!) or support all their views to do a good job together and that could prove to be the case here.
 
Last edited:
This issue about undermining the Good Friday Agreement is a bit silly to be honest. The first people I heard claiming it were Jonathon Powell and Alaistair Campbell. Campbell was present at a meeting with Gordon Brown and the DUP the day after the 2010 election where they discussed a pact to keep Cameron out of Downing Street.

Also, the Tories had an electoral pact with the UUP for the 2010 election where any UUP candidates elected would take the Tory whip. No one suggested this was undermining the peace process. Incidentally none of the Ulster Conservative and Unionist candidates won. And that's because there's less in common between Northern Irish Unionists and Tories than people in the mainland have suggested. If an agreement occurs it's due to a dislike and distrust of Corbyn, not because of any love of the Conservative Party. But that's also why it's doomed to failure in the mid to long term, perhaps even sooner.

...I thought a key principle was that the British Government would be totally impartial in dealing with NI issues. I don't see how that can be the case if they have a dependency on the DUP in Westminster.
 
...I thought a key principle was that the British Government would be totally impartial in dealing with NI issues. I don't see how that can be the case if they have a dependency on the DUP in Westminster.

It's not a coalition agreement, and the DUP would have their own whip. DUP would still vote against things they didn't support. I thought initially that what you're saying is correct, but now that I've thought about it and with these previous examples I've given, I don't see it as an issue.

And anyone claiming it's a threat to the peace process is dangerous cause it's only a danger if you reject the democratic process. Anytime I hear someone claim the peace process is undermined I'm immediately frustrated as the peace will only be under threat by someone who sees violence as a legitimate alternative.
 
That's the thing though isn't it? He's been a politician for over 30 years, and despite 13 of those years having a Labour government, he wasn't even given a minor position of responsibility. You see signalling used all the time in recruitment situations, and someone that's been around for so long yet passed over for every job going doesn't give off great signals, so I don't see it as a given that he's automatically going to be better than someone even as awful as May is/was.
So May having 7 years of abject failure in senior roles under her belt made her a safer bet?

Ok mate
 
So May having 7 years of abject failure in senior roles under her belt made her a safer bet?

Ok mate

I'm not sure I said that, did I? I said that one candidate has a track record whilst the other has been overlooked by his party whenever in government. So if people believe Corbyn will automatically be good when given any power to actually deliver things, I'm not sure there's any evidence to support that at all, as his own party have never felt him capable enough to hold any cabinet or shadow cabinet position in his entire 30+ years as a politician.
 
I'm not sure I said that, did I? I said that one candidate has a track record whilst the other has been overlooked by his party whenever in government. So if people believe Corbyn will automatically be good when given any power to actually deliver things, I'm not sure there's any evidence to support that at all, as his own party have never felt him capable enough to hold any cabinet or shadow cabinet position in his entire 30+ years as a politician.
He couldn't have been any worse than a woman who decided that she was the draw that was going to seal a massive majority and then promptly lost a 20+ point poll lead in 6 weeks lol

She's doing a great impression of the last day's of the witch at the minute
 
It's not a coalition agreement, and the DUP would have their own whip. DUP would still vote against things they didn't support. I thought initially that what you're saying is correct, but now that I've thought about it and with these previous examples I've given, I don't see it as an issue.

And anyone claiming it's a threat to the peace process is dangerous cause it's only a danger if you reject the democratic process. Anytime I hear someone claim the peace process is undermined I'm immediately frustrated as the peace will only be under threat by someone who sees violence as a legitimate alternative.
The mere fact that the Tories are reliant on them, means that'll there'll be a payback at some point, which makes the UK Govts impartiality in NI - which is a requirement of the Good Friday agreement - severely undermined
 
The mere fact that the Tories are reliant on them, means that'll there'll be a payback at some point, which makes the UK Govts impartiality in NI - which is a requirement of the Good Friday agreement - severely undermined

Correct. It's very different from things of the past - this is a UK government actually propped up by one half of the power sharing agreement.
 
The mere fact that the Tories are reliant on them, means that'll there'll be a payback at some point, which makes the UK Govts impartiality in NI - which is a requirement of the Good Friday agreement - severely undermined

Neither Conservatives nor Labour are impartial currently. Tories never claimed to not be unionists, and Corbyn supports republicans. So I don't get the point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top