If some elected MPs actually objected sufficiently to stand down / switch parties, would May then have to fill more seats to secure a majority? I'm assuming the number of seats required is Right Now rather than at the point the vote was counted. Is that something that could happen?
If they switch sides - called crossing the floor- then they do not need to stand down as an MP and it reduces her effective majority by 2.
for her to loose, by convention, she needs to lose a no confidence vote rather than just be beaten on a vote. TBH once/if this happens regularly they will call another GE
"I clearly intended to say that child abuse was worse than even homosexuality and sodomy ... At no point have I set out to suggest homosexuality was worse than child sex abuse."
So when they [i]actually [/i]said that homosexuality was worse than child abuse, they subsequently clarified that they [i]really[/i] meant to say that homosexuality was exactly the same as child abuse. That's totally better and a stance I'd be leaping to defend.
I've a spade you can borrow if you like?
I think she made herself perfectly unclear by mis-speaking, (hardly the first MP to do that) but was very careful to clarify
A fuller explanation here
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/robinson-disputes-reporting-of-anti-gay-comments-1.946258
Not views that I agree with on homosexuality, but since they're not illegal ones I would entirely defend her right to hold
That's totally better and a stance I'd be leaping to defend.
You probably want to avoid reading those bits about Aisha in the Koran then.
[quote=thejesmonddingo ]So why was she so careful to make the distinction,if she didn't mean it ?
like clarkson they tried so hard to not say it that they said it OBVS
To be fair Iris Robinson was a woman with upstanding morals and no hypocrisy or scandal about her.
Just like her husband.
A fuller explanation herehttp://www.irishtimes.com/news/robinson-disputes-reporting-of-anti-gay-comments-1.946258
[i]what I clearly intended to say was that child abuse was worse [b]even [/b]than homosexuality and sodomy," she said.[/i]
That's totally better and a stance I'd be leaping to defend.
😆To be fair Iris Robinson was a woman with upstanding morals and no hypocrisy or scandal about her
So she had no idea about the corruption involved in the RHI scandal,which her husband was part of ?
Not guilty of,obvs.
You probably want to avoid reading those bits about Aisha in the Koran then.
Sorry, I missed that, I was too busy reading about non sequiturs and straw men.
No she predates RHI with her hypocrisy 🙂
wonder what all the homosexuals in the tory party think of the dup-pers, theyll not bend over backwards to make them welcome.
cv: The Good Friday agreement was/is two-sided. The British government agreed to give up its arms (army, orange-doninated RUC, special services working with loyalist paramilitary groups) and the likes of Kelly renounced violence too. The British government signed up to impartiality. It's worked. It's based on trust, I trust kelly not to go back to his old ways, he needs to be able to trust the British government not to go back to its old ways of favouring the Unionists.
British government not to go back to its old ways of favouring the Unionists.
I'd favour anybody that wouldn't try to kill me or my family!
That'll be anybody committed to the peace process then.
From wiki;
Kelly later became a leading member of Sinn Féin and played a role in the Northern Ireland peace process negotiations that led to the Good Friday Agreement on 10 April 1998. In promoting the peace process he had talks with Nelson Mandela, Thabo Mbeki, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern.
wonder what all the homosexuals in the tory party think of the dup-pers, theyll not bend over backwards to make them welcome.
I see what you did there.
Ah that makes his heinous crimes absolutely fine then. Rewriting history...
Ah that makes his heinous crimes absolutely fine then. Rewriting history...
People with a hell of a lot of baggage have had to move on towards a more peaceful present and future. Why can't you?
Ah that makes his heinous crimes absolutely fine then.
Yeah, that's exactly what people are saying, hang on, I'll find a quote of somebody saying that, I'm sure it won't take long...
None of the heinous crime on either side were OK. That's why an end to the troubles was so desperately needed. Kelly was very much a part of that peace process and I repsect him for the role he played.
No-one is rewriting history, just learning from it and moving on to a peaceful future. Anything that threatens the curent delicate balance is bad news. May forming an alliance with the DUP goes against the spirit of and commitments in the Good Friday agreement.
...
SV by all means remember the past but it is past. You can not change it you can influence the future just like Mr Kelly. How you choose to do that is your business but I would recommend that you (plural) work to better the province. Be the change you want to be. (Or do you not do change?)
...still looking, this is proving harder than expected
[quote=Edukator ]None of the heinous crime on either side were OK. That's why an end to the troubles was so desperately needed. Kelly was very much a part of that peace process and I repsect him for the role he played.
No-one is rewriting history, just learning from it and moving on to a peaceful future. Anything that threatens the curent delicate balance is bad news. May forming an alliance with the DUP goes against the spirit of and commitments in the Good Friday agreement.
THIS whatever side of the issue you stand we all know that what we have now is preferable to what we had then
People with a hell of a lot of baggage have had to move on towards a more peaceful present and future. Why can't you?
I'd like to see justice served first and i mean on all sides. No hiding place for murdering scum.
You want to start with former UDA members in the DUP
Oh do tell us their names?
If none of the Northern Irish are willing to forgive,then they will have to fight that war forever.The present situation is so much better than pre GFA,and both sides have moved to help this.
And yes if they have committed any acts of terrorism. All sub human in my book.
[url= http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2017/dup-chief-arlene-foster-met-uda-boss-days-after-loyalist-murder-in-bangor-35776873.html ]no links ?[/url]
I'd like to see justice served first and i mean on all sides. No hiding place for murdering scum.
Good point, let's hold off on the peace while we sort that out
Perhaps the easiest thing would be to lock up all the paramilitaries on both sides,in their own jails,it worked so well in the 70s,or would you like to bring back capital punishment,specifically for NI ?
I'd like to see justice served first and i mean on all sides. No hiding place for murdering scum.
You belong in the past. Well, it seems that you'd probably be keen on Brokenshire's moves to help the DUP out in their quest for justice (or as many would term it, vengeance) on one side and for legacy issues to be less focused on police, security services and army on the other.
You realise that your mortal enemies in Sinn Féin will quietly stand back and let this happen. It plays straight into their hands. It will also give them an excuse to refuse to support any new assembly. There is also a realistic chance of snap-elections in the RoI as well. SF need to look there for votes too. Harnessing themselves to the DUP and the Tories, as Brexit looms, is not going to do them any favours there.
So there you go; NI paralysed by election after election. You stay focused on the past enough and you might even get a chance to return to it if you like it that much.
You need, like many have, to move on.
Oh do tell us their names?
The British government refuses to release the documents concerning the Dublin and Monaghan attacks.
That would obviously include the security services and rich overseas donors and arms suppliers.
reading the previous 5 pages does little good for the soul.. it seems as if the NI parties are all looking to move forward whilst those on this side of the irish sea want to resurrect issues for political point scoring
reading the previous 5 pages does little good for the soul.. it seems as if the NI parties are all looking to move forward whilst those on this side of the irish sea want to resurrect issues for political point scoring
I actually think the most concerning part of the DUP deal is their dodgy politics, rather than their history.
I see nothing wrong in highlighting the [b]current[/b] attitudes of the DUP, as they have the potential to affect all of us.
it seems as if the NI parties are all looking to move forward whilst those on this side of the irish sea want to resurrect issues for political point scoring
I agree wholeheartedly.
Bringing up the past and getting involved in the blame game isn't going to do any of us any good.
I just hope that this weekend's events don't jeopardize the potential for further reconciliation and the potential for lasting peace.
If we want to see the UK government move forward why not release the papers on the Dublin and Monaghan bombings.
I mean what is the likelyhood that the UK government were behind the deaths of 33 on the republics streets? So obviously nothing to fear and would answer many questions and help the relatives of those who died.
I actually think the most concerning part of the DUP deal is their dodgy politics, rather than their history.
+1
For sure, we can all have a giggle at the irony of the Tories cuddling up to a party with a dodgy past. But make no mistake, the DUP are scumbags who filled a unionism vacuum when Trimble lost the Orange Order's support, eventually dropping from No.1 party in NI to the recent dismal No.4 (or is it 5?).
Current policies are the issue.
If you look at the history of UK government you will find some pretty horrible things. We, and they, are what we are now not what they were then.
Look at Paisley and McGuiness
This petition is hysterical. The Conservatives won more seats and had more votes than any other party. Under and sort of democratic system that means they get to try and form a Government.
As pointed out elsewhere Corbyn managed only slightly more seats than did Brown in 2010 the main difference is expectations for Labour where abysmally low so in losing by a mere 52 seats it looks like a "result"
