[JoeJoe]

On 09/06/2017 12:30, Tim Watts wrote:
On 09/06/17 12:22, Andy Burns wrote:
T i m wrote:

All we have done is filed A.50 which starts the
negotiations and we need to decide within two years of that date.
Our decision could be to stay couldn't it?

I don't think so, the decision is on the terms of leaving, and if
we/they can't agree we just get bundled out the with a boot up our arse.

I cannot work out if the result is a good thing or bad.

Corbyn does not have power, so that's good. Unless the MSM were lying
about him cuddling up to terrorist types. But for now I rather not see
him in charge of anything more complex than a can opener.

May's campaign has been like watching the main guy in Fight Club have
that intial fight with Brad Pitt's character, only to find out in
reality he was just punching himself in the face.

I have no idea if she's exceptionally stupid or really was trying to
throw the election!


What we have now at least, once you take out the 7 or so Sinn Fein
absentee seats, gives her a workable government as long as she can
justify every vote to the DUP, or the Libs (assuming the SNP would
rather pull their eyeballs out with teaspoons than support the Tories on
anything - but I may be misjudging them).

Nicola said just that in a speech an hour ago. So as long as she is in
charge, they can forget about the SNP (may not be long though).

[Tim Watts[_3_]]

On 09/06/17 13:27, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:22:41 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

T i m wrote:

All we have done is filed A.50 which starts the
negotiations and we need to decide within two years of that date.
Our decision could be to stay couldn't it?

I don't think so, the decision is on the terms of leaving, and if
we/they can't agree we just get bundled out the with a boot up our arse.

I really don't know why some seem so adamant re the whole Brexit thing
with the result of the direct poll was nearly 50:50 and this snap
election, focused on getting the country together and forging ahead
with Brexit, doesn't seem to be in support of Brexit either?

So, it still doesn't look to me that 'the country' want Brexit, just
some (of those who bothered to vote etc) and yet Mrs May still seems
to be on that mission?


I don;t think it had anything to do with Brexit - May just sat there
punching herself in the face with stupid stuff like tearing up human
rights, "dementia tax" and so on.

And the establishment press went so far to town on Corbyn that people
got ****ed off and supported him just to spite them.

[Tim Watts[_3_]]

On 09/06/17 13:40, T i m wrote:

Now, the whole 'democratic process' really works (or can work if not
corrupt) well, where 'the people' vote out say a despot and replace
them with someone more reasonable, but when it comes down to trying to
pick someone / party out of a bad crop all offering and promising
similar things (when much of it is unlikely to come to fruition) you
can't really use logic / common sense at all.

Cheers, T i m


My new theory is just vote for your MP if he's done good things locally
and for someone else if not.

You'd get a load of people in parliament who actually did something for
someone, proved as good listeners and were capable of negotiating for a
result.

That would be a start...

[Tim Watts[_3_]]

On 09/06/17 14:07, tim... wrote:


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 09/06/17 12:22, Andy Burns wrote:
T i m wrote:

All we have done is filed A.50 which starts the
negotiations and we need to decide within two years of that date.
Our decision could be to stay couldn't it?

I don't think so, the decision is on the terms of leaving, and if
we/they can't agree we just get bundled out the with a boot up our arse.

I cannot work out if the result is a good thing or bad.

I wanted her to get a kick up the bum without compromising our position
on brexit

perhaps restricting her to plus 10 would have been good

(taking them all in Scotland so giving the shouty Scotts woman a kicking
at the same time)

Corbyn does not have power, so that's good. Unless the MSM were lying
about him cuddling up to terrorist types. But for now I rather not see
him in charge of anything more complex than a can opener.

May's campaign has been like watching the main guy in Fight Club have
that intial fight with Brad Pitt's character, only to find out in
reality he was just punching himself in the face.

I have no idea if she's exceptionally stupid or really was trying to
throw the election!

seems most unlikely

The campaign was phenomenally bad

What we have now at least, once you take out the 7 or so Sinn Fein
absentee seats, gives her a workable government as long as she can
justify every vote to the DUP,

yup

or the Libs

not going to happen

they got burned last time




Well no, they won't form a coalition (neither will the DUP) - but they'd
be stupid not to align with or against the Tories on a vote by vote
basis to get some of their thinking transferred to reality.

[T i m]

On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:37:02 +0100, Tim Watts
wrote:

On 09/06/17 13:40, T i m wrote:

Now, the whole 'democratic process' really works (or can work if not
corrupt) well, where 'the people' vote out say a despot and replace
them with someone more reasonable, but when it comes down to trying to
pick someone / party out of a bad crop all offering and promising
similar things (when much of it is unlikely to come to fruition) you
can't really use logic / common sense at all.


My new theory is just vote for your MP if he's done good things locally
and for someone else if not.

Our previous local councilor would phone me up pre local elections and
was very 'accessible' and responsive. However, I never voted for him
(or any of them etc) and have no idea if he was the best person for
'all of us' (rather than just me).

You'd get a load of people in parliament who actually did something for
someone, proved as good listeners and were capable of negotiating for a
result.

Yup, I like the ideal, just not sure it would really work out.

That would be a start...

That's true. ;-)

I think we could do with a Richard Branson / Alan Sugar or one of the
Dragons (and by that I don't mean them specifically, just someone who
runs a big and successful business and appears to be a 'nice person')
to run the country and just put them on some 'common people' income /
quality of life - profit sharing deal. ;-)

People who can steer us into the future who we can trust *would* be
looking to make the books balance without either selling the family
jewels or ripping people off and if we were therefore to reduce the
cost of heads and the cost of the time wasted whilst 'politics' kicks
every idea round the playground.

e.g. Assume team A have 100 people pulling to the east and team B have
101 people pulling to the west, what we actually have is 200 people
costing us a fortune in wages and wasted energy and one poor soul
slowly dragging us in one direction.

If we want to think we ever actually had a real say in any of this,
have an electronic vote (on whatever has come up) every week where the
outcome has to be represented by 66% of the vote (to make sure
everything is decided with a clear majority, no more of this 48:52
bs).



Cheers, T i m

[Mike Tomlinson]

En el artículo , Tim Watts
escribió:

Well no, they won't form a coalition (neither will the DUP)

Do try reading the news or turning the tv on once in a while.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
(")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West

[Rod Speed]

"T i m" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 07:10:08 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



"alan_m" wrote in message
snip

Worse than that. Con will have most seats but no majority. Brexit
postponed

oh if that were possible

but it isn't

Why isn't it? All we have done is filed A.50 which starts the
negotiations and we need to decide within two years of that date.

And that date can't be postponed. Once it
shows up, Britain is out of the EU regardless.

Our decision could be to stay couldn't it?

Nope. Britain would have to apply to rejoin the
EU, and would have to meet all the mandatory
requirements for new entrants like being in the
eurozone and schengen.

[Rod Speed]

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 07:17:16 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:

snip

So, we are still a very spit country suggesting to me at least that
not enough of us are happy with what is on offer and so just as with
the Brexit vote, maybe we need to think outside the box.

Nope, there we a couple of million gullibles who fell for Corbyn's offer
of
free sweeties for life

And / or a couple of million remainers who took the opportunity to
have their say again?

That's possible with the younger people who were too
stupid to bother to vote in the referendum, but not very
plausible given that Corbyn is quite happy for Britain
to leave. and certainly didn't campaign on the basis
of cancelling Article 50, which isnt even possible now.

Britain is certainly free to apply to join the EU again now
but would have to meet the mandatory requirements of
joining the eurozone and schengen now.

[Tim Watts[_3_]]

On 09/06/17 15:24, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Tim Watts
escribió:

Well no, they won't form a coalition (neither will the DUP)

Do try reading the news or turning the tv on once in a while.


I was reading it at midnight and at 6am this morning.

So when you've quite finished being patronising, would you care to
inform me on what's changed?

[Rod Speed]

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
T i m wrote:

All we have done is filed A.50 which starts the
negotiations and we need to decide within two years of that date.
Our decision could be to stay couldn't it?

I don't think so, the decision is on the terms of leaving, and if we/they
can't agree we just get bundled out the with a boot up our arse.

Nope, Britain is free to leave without agreeing to anything.

"Bye, we're off, we dont owe you lot nuffin"

[Rod Speed]

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 09/06/17 12:22, Andy Burns wrote:
T i m wrote:

All we have done is filed A.50 which starts the
negotiations and we need to decide within two years of that date.
Our decision could be to stay couldn't it?

I don't think so, the decision is on the terms of leaving, and if we/they
can't agree we just get bundled out the with a boot up our arse.

I cannot work out if the result is a good thing or bad.

Corbyn does not have power, so that's good. Unless the MSM were lying
about him cuddling up to terrorist types. But for now I rather not see him
in charge of anything more complex than a can opener.

May's campaign has been like watching the main guy in Fight Club have that
intial fight with Brad Pitt's character, only to find out in reality he
was just punching himself in the face.

I have no idea if she's exceptionally stupid or really was trying to throw
the election!

Not enough nouse to realise what gamble it always was, or one
hell of a gambler. No evidence that she's much of a gambler tho.

What we have now at least, once you take out the 7 or so Sinn Fein
absentee seats, gives her a workable government as long as she can justify
every vote to the DUP,

Or can find enough others to support a particular bill.

or the Libs (assuming the SNP would rather pull their eyeballs out with
teaspoons than support the Tories on anything - but I may be misjudging
them).

[Rod Speed]

Huge wrote
Tim Watts wrote

One other thing this has highlighted:

Social Media is turning politics on its head

Most of what I've seen on social media has been
vile, hypocritical, bigoted, lying, abusive, two-faced,
propagandist crap. Ghod help us if this is the future.

It is, you should top yourself now.

Politics has always been like that and always will be.

[Andy Burns[_13_]]

Mike Tomlinson wrote:

Tim Watts wrote:

they won't form a coalition (neither will the DUP)

Do try reading the news or turning the tv on once in a while.

The DUP haven't entered a coalition government, they're supporting a
minority Conservative government ... at least we haven't been left in
limbo for a week like 2010.

[Rod Speed]

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:31:59 +0100, Tim Watts
wrote:

One other thing this has highlighted:

Social Media is turning politics on its head and the MSM are being
caught out badly - the remaining problem is: who is NOT talking
********, because I'm buggered if I can see.

Quite ... and how my *choice* is to spoil my paper,
it's the only thing this right brainer can do.

Yes, you actually are that stupid. Just a little
kid scribbling obscenitys on the dunny wall.

It's all just become a media / personality circus

Politics always is. It's the main downside of democracy.

but if it were not for even that exposure, I'm not sure how
many people would actually have a clue about any of it?

So who are you claiming does have a clue currently ?

So they IM (and yours potentially) HO have all now fallen
to the same status as double glazing salesman where we
don't actually believe most of what they say or promise.

Sure, but most still end up with houses and cars etc anyway.

Now, the whole 'democratic process' really works (or can work
if not corrupt) well, where 'the people' vote out say a despot
and replace them with someone more reasonable,

Have fun listing even a single example of that.

but when it comes down to trying to pick someone / party
out of a bad crop all offering and promising similar things
(when much of it is unlikely to come to fruition) you can't
really use logic / common sense at all.

But only silly little children write rude words
on the dunny wall in that situation.

[Rod Speed]

"GMM" wrote in message
news
On 09/06/2017 02:52, Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jun 2017 03:18:19 +0300, TimW wrote:

Staying up hoping to see Amber Rudd lose her seat.
TW

So am I.




Sadly that was not to be, but we do have the consolation that the vile
pestilence that was UKIP has now been consigned to the murkier depths of
history once and for all.

Only if Britain leaves the EU on reasonable terms.

If Britain ends up outside the EU with nothing
else changed, they'll be back, you watch.

Let's hope we never see or hear from them again.

Then you had better ensure that Britain doesnt
end up with what Norway and Switzerland have.

[Capitol]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Such as Canada has a trade deal with the EU.

An unconditional one?

Are you suggesting that
they need the EU's permission to have a trade deal with some third
country (e.g. NZ)?

Canada isn't in Europe. Neither is NZ. So things like fishing quotas don't
apply.


Is that a red herring response?

[Capitol]

TimW wrote:
On 09/06/17 08:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/06/17 07:10, tim... wrote:


"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 09/06/2017 03:40, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 02:15:08 +0100, alan_m
wrote:
[...]

Worse than that. Con will have most seats but no majority. Brexit
postponed

oh if that were possible

but it isn't


Watch and see.

Now the tide will turn as the media and the politicians - now all firmly
remoaners, try and sell a watered down version.


It is indeed good news for centrist politics, for compromise,
inclusiveness and sound sense. Let's hope it's the end of the far right
wing of the brexit project and their kamikaze talk of no deal and hard
brexit.

Just to cheer you up, this is what the DUP (who hold the keys to no. 10
now) manifesto says about brexit: they want a "comprehensive free trade
and customs agreement with EU". Sound sense.

Tim W



As I pointed out to the daughter in law, what you want and what you get
are not necessarily the same thing!

[Capitol]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2017-06-09, Tim Watts wrote:
One other thing this has highlighted:

Social Media is turning politics on its head

Most of what I've seen on social media has been vile, hypocritical,
bigoted, lying, abusive, two-faced, propagandist crap. Ghod help us if
this is the future.

Quite. Why it is so attractive to the likes of Trump.


Ooh! Touchy!

[Rod Speed]

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
T i m wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

the decision is on the terms of leaving, and if
we/they can't agree we just get bundled out the with a boot up our arse.

I really don't know why some seem so adamant re the whole Brexit thing

The last I heard, was that legal opinion to both "sides" was that once A50
was triggered there was no way to not leave.

Dunno. I expect that if Britain did say to the EU, "those fools
wanted to leave, but we dont", that the EU wouldnt give a
damn about any legal opinion and would be happy to kiss
and make up. And there would be nothing anyone with
legal standing could do about it if they chose to do that.

[Rod Speed]

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 09/06/17 13:40, T i m wrote:

Now, the whole 'democratic process' really works (or can work if not
corrupt) well, where 'the people' vote out say a despot and replace
them with someone more reasonable, but when it comes down to trying to
pick someone / party out of a bad crop all offering and promising
similar things (when much of it is unlikely to come to fruition) you
can't really use logic / common sense at all.

My new theory is just vote for your MP if he's done good things locally
and for someone else if not.

Stupid approach. There are a lot more important things than local politics.

You'd get a load of people in parliament who actually did something for
someone, proved as good listeners and were capable of negotiating for a
result.

What matters is whether that result matters a damn for the country.

That would be a start...

Nope, its just mindlessly ignoring the bigger picture
and focussing on what you personally got out of it.

[Capitol]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
alan_m wrote:
The UK currency has crashed as a result of
people voting Labour.

But Brexiteers told us this was a good thing when it happened after that
result. But a real crash then rather than a couple of percent.


That crash was caused by B o E stupidity in reducing jnterest rates,
not by the vote to leave. Having just returned from the US, it is
apparent that the exchange rate is wrong. How the Americans can afford
to buy groceries is beyond me. A pack of mini plum tomatoes there is x5
the UK price and own brand cornflakes is x3. Eating out is now around
x1.5 the UK price. OK, petrol is very cheap at about 1.60 pounds a US
gallon. Car prices seem high to me for small cars and big trucks.

[Capitol]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tim... wrote:
So, we are still a very spit country suggesting to me at least that
not enough of us are happy with what is on offer and so just as with
the Brexit vote, maybe we need to think outside the box.

Nope, there we a couple of million gullibles who fell for Corbyn's offer
of free sweeties for life

May, after becoming PM, promised to help the disadvantaged. Not surprising
given Brexit was carried by just those.

And what did she actually do? Propose to remove the triple pension lock
and winter fuel payment. And a half thought through way of paying for old
age care.

Oh - and try and mimic Thatcher. Which might suit the right wing, but
alienate those she was hoping to win over.


What did Corbyn propose? To bankrupt the country as fast as possible.

[Capitol]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

And what did she actually do? Propose to remove the triple pension lock

and replace it by something almost as good.

Or even less good for those OAPs.

and winter fuel payment.

Keep your lies to yourself please. There may be children present. There
was no suggestion of removing the WFP, just means-testing it. Making it
taxable would be one way.

Yes. Tax the WFA to allow for even more tax cuts to the most well off. You
just know it makes sense.

But, of course you snipped the bit where she promised to help the
disadvantaged. Those are presumably CEOs and above to the likes of you?


Giving tax cuts to the rich generates spending power to employ the
poor. Taxing the rich simply drives them away. Anyway, you haven't
justified LVT yet, is that because it will hit you much harder than the
rest of us?

[Capitol]

T i m wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 07:17:16 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:

snip

So, we are still a very spit country suggesting to me at least that
not enough of us are happy with what is on offer and so just as with
the Brexit vote, maybe we need to think outside the box.

Nope, there we a couple of million gullibles who fell for Corbyn's offer of
free sweeties for life

And / or a couple of million remainers who took the opportunity to
have their say again?

Cheers, T i m


How do you work that out, Labour policy is to Brexit! Unless they are
lying again!

[Mike Tomlinson]

En el artículo , Andy Burns
escribió:

The DUP haven't entered a coalition government, they're supporting a
minority Conservative government

It amounts to the same thing.

Not that it'll last long, anyway, once they come up with their list of
demands for supporting the Tories.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
(")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West

[Tim Watts[_3_]]

On 09/06/17 18:08, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Andy Burns
escribió:

The DUP haven't entered a coalition government, they're supporting a
minority Conservative government

It amounts to the same thing.

Not really.

A coalition is an agreement to form and act with some general unity.

A working arrangement is "we'll agree with you when we agree with you,
but we'll try to be slightly more helpful than your enemy"

Not that it'll last long, anyway, once they come up with their list of
demands for supporting the Tories.

[T i m]

On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 15:50:04 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

snip

The DUP haven't entered a coalition government, they're supporting a
minority Conservative government ... at least we haven't been left in
limbo for a week like 2010.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/s...20170609129159


Cheers, T i m

[Mike Tomlinson]

En el artículo , Tim Watts
escribió:

Not really.

Assuming it lasts that long, I give it a week at most before everyone is
referring to it as a de-facto coalition government.

The Tories might have trouble dealing with some aspects of the DUP
manifesto though. Anti-gay, anti-same-sex-marriage, anti-abortion, free
borders with EU/Ireland, climate change deniers, leader being
investigated for backhanders over "cash for ash", many secret members of
the Orange Order, the ghost of Ian "Never, never, never, never!" Paisley
hovering in the background...

It won't last

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
(")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West

[Adrian[_9_]]

In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , tim...
wrote:

"tim..." wrote in message
news


"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 05:11:35 +0100, Clive George
wrote:

On 09/06/2017 03:40, T i m wrote:

Getting up again (stuff on my mind, 0% of it to do with any election
g) I see that Lab look like they are in the lead (189 V 178) so does
that mean they are on their way to winning and the whole time and
effort wasting debacle changes again?

Labour always get more seats earlier on since they tend to have urban
constituencies whereas the tories have the rural ones.

Makes sense.

(massive generalisation of course - look how early the Caithness etc one
declared...)

Sure, but looking at the map that does seem to be the case:

What's not clear is, with only 5 seats to go, why Kensington hasn't
declared. It's a safe Tory seat so unlikely to have multiple
recounts and there are no logistical issues with getting the ballot
boxes to the count. Perhaps they have a lie in and don't bother to
count overnight :-)

seems I was wrong

5th recount

I wonder if it's an argument about who came second. That has happened
before - caused a bit of panic at HQ because it was just a bare report
on the telly, until they found out it was to confirm second place.


Tail ender trying to save their deposit ?

Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "diy" with "news" and reverse the domain

If you are reading this from a web interface eg DIY Banter,
DIY Forum or Google Groups, please be aware this is NOT a forum, and
you are merely using a web portal to a USENET group. Many people block
posters coming from web portals due to perceieved SPAM or inaneness.
For a better method of access, please see:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

[tim...]

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 09/06/17 14:07, tim... wrote:







Well no, they won't form a coalition (neither will the DUP) - but they'd
be stupid not to align with or against the Tories on a vote by vote basis
to get some of their thinking transferred to reality.

and what LD policies are the Tories proposing to implement?

Apart from increasing the nil rate tax band, I can't see anything that would
enthuse them to back the Tories on a single issue vote

[tim...]

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
En el artículo , Andy Burns
escribió:

The DUP haven't entered a coalition government, they're supporting a
minority Conservative government

It amounts to the same thing.

Not that it'll last long, anyway, once they come up with their list of
demands for supporting the Tories.

I don't believe that they will come up with an unacceptable list.

They know that trying to impose their nutty vies on abortion etc will never
wash so the only thing that they will want is more money for NI. There are
few general policies where they disagree with the Tories, though they wont
agree with most of the welfare reductions.

In the great scheme of things an extra billion or two a year for NI is
affordable, it just has to be requested/given in a non-partisan way or there
will be trouble.

If it weren't for the fact that it doesn't solve the problems with Brexit
negotiation, I could see a Tory/DUP agreement running (almost) to term.

tim

[tim...]

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"T i m" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 07:10:08 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



"alan_m" wrote in message
snip

Worse than that. Con will have most seats but no majority. Brexit
postponed

oh if that were possible

but it isn't

Why isn't it? All we have done is filed A.50 which starts the
negotiations and we need to decide within two years of that date.

And that date can't be postponed.

It can,

by 100% agreement (us and the other 27 countries voting individually) be
extended by a year

They would be very reluctant to agree to that extension as it would mean
that the UK would still be members at the time of the next EU election and
hence, have to hold those elections


tim

[tim...]

"Capitol" wrote in message
o.uk...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

And what did she actually do? Propose to remove the triple pension lock

and replace it by something almost as good.

Or even less good for those OAPs.

and winter fuel payment.

Keep your lies to yourself please. There may be children present. There
was no suggestion of removing the WFP, just means-testing it. Making it
taxable would be one way.

Yes. Tax the WFA to allow for even more tax cuts to the most well off.
You
just know it makes sense.

But, of course you snipped the bit where she promised to help the
disadvantaged. Those are presumably CEOs and above to the likes of you?


Giving tax cuts to the rich generates spending power to employ the poor.

so the trickle down theory says

There are many who say that it doesn't work.

Taxing the rich simply drives them away.

at a certain level

there is little to no evidence that at the rates the Tories inherited were
too high

tim

[tim...]

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:15:54 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:

snip

And / or a couple of million remainers who took the opportunity to
have their say again?

but on the campaign options they would have voted for the LibDems, at
least
in areas where they had a chance of winning.

But as you say, no use in those places where they stood no chance.

well yes

but there was about 70 locations where it would

and they didn't come close in more than about 2 of them

I think that's sufficient proof that it didn't happen because the voter
wasn't motivated to do it.

But that didn't happen

Quite.

I mean, Zac even took Richmond back from them

Whoever he is.

Goldsmith

the guy that lost the self inflicted by-election over Heathrow (that turned
into a vote on his support for Brexit, in a 70% Remain area)


So, if Mrs May was pushing for a hard Brexit and Labour for something
less, isn't it possible people might vote for a part most likely to
spoil Conservatives control but not lead us further down the plughole?

but the Labour policy on Brexit is a mess. The LD's policy is the only one
that Remainers can vote for with certainty.


tim

[tim...]

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , tim...
wrote:

"tim..." wrote in message
news

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 05:11:35 +0100, Clive George
wrote:

On 09/06/2017 03:40, T i m wrote:

Getting up again (stuff on my mind, 0% of it to do with any election
g) I see that Lab look like they are in the lead (189 V 178) so
does
that mean they are on their way to winning and the whole time and
effort wasting debacle changes again?

Labour always get more seats earlier on since they tend to have urban
constituencies whereas the tories have the rural ones.

Makes sense.

(massive generalisation of course - look how early the Caithness etc
one
declared...)

Sure, but looking at the map that does seem to be the case:

What's not clear is, with only 5 seats to go, why Kensington hasn't
declared. It's a safe Tory seat so unlikely to have multiple recounts
and there are no logistical issues with getting the ballot boxes to
the count. Perhaps they have a lie in and don't bother to count
overnight :-)

seems I was wrong

5th recount

I wonder if it's an argument about who came second. That has happened
before - caused a bit of panic at HQ because it was just a bare report
on the telly, until they found out it was to confirm second place.


Tail ender trying to save their deposit ?#

nope

It appears that there is 20 votes between the two candidates

But that the numbers didn't tally with the total votes case

so they have to start again

[Rod Speed]

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 09/06/17 18:08, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Andy Burns
escribió:

The DUP haven't entered a coalition government, they're supporting a
minority Conservative government

It amounts to the same thing.

Not really.

A coalition is an agreement to form and act with some general unity.

A working arrangement is "we'll agree with you when we agree with you, but
we'll try to be slightly more helpful than your enemy"

But the dup is getting a minister or two.

Not that it'll last long, anyway, once they come up with their list of
demands for supporting the Tories.

[Rod Speed]

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
news
En el artículo , Tim Watts
escribió:

Not really.

Assuming it lasts that long, I give it a week at most before everyone is
referring to it as a de-facto coalition government.

The Tories might have trouble dealing with some aspects of the DUP
manifesto though. Anti-gay, anti-same-sex-marriage, anti-abortion, free
borders with EU/Ireland, climate change deniers, leader being
investigated for backhanders over "cash for ash", many secret members of
the Orange Order, the ghost of Ian "Never, never, never, never!" Paisley
hovering in the background...

Doubt May will give a damn as long as the Torys stay the govt.

It won't last

We'll see. I doubt the dup will actually be stupid enough
to give up one hell of an opportunity to have some say.

[Rod Speed]

"tim..." wrote in message
news


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 09/06/17 14:07, tim... wrote:







Well no, they won't form a coalition (neither will the DUP) - but they'd
be stupid not to align with or against the Tories on a vote by vote
basis to get some of their thinking transferred to reality.

and what LD policies are the Tories proposing to implement?

Apart from increasing the nil rate tax band, I can't see anything that
would enthuse them to back the Tories on a single issue vote

Getting some say on Tory policy would.

Not that the Torys will actually be that stupid again.

[Rod Speed]

"tim..." wrote in message
news


"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
En el artículo , Andy Burns
escribió:

The DUP haven't entered a coalition government, they're supporting a
minority Conservative government

It amounts to the same thing.

Not that it'll last long, anyway, once they come up with their list of
demands for supporting the Tories.

I don't believe that they will come up with an unacceptable list.

They know that trying to impose their nutty vies on abortion etc will
never wash so the only thing that they will want is more money for NI.
There are few general policies where they disagree with the Tories, though
they wont agree with most of the welfare reductions.

And the Torys don't need them to. That can be deferred and its
a lot better to be in govt and to have to defer some stuff like
that than to not be in govt. Even May can work that one out.

In the great scheme of things an extra billion or two a year for NI is
affordable,

Yep, particularly given the saving on what the EU gets.

it just has to be requested/given in a non-partisan way or there will be
trouble.

Not necessarily if the Torys can find
someone else to support them on that.

If it weren't for the fact that it doesn't solve the problems with Brexit
negotiation,

There are no problems that matter.

I could see a Tory/DUP agreement running (almost) to term.

Bet it does, just like the last one did.

[tim...]

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim..." wrote in message
news


"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
En el artículo , Andy Burns
escribió:

The DUP haven't entered a coalition government, they're supporting a
minority Conservative government

It amounts to the same thing.

Not that it'll last long, anyway, once they come up with their list of
demands for supporting the Tories.

I don't believe that they will come up with an unacceptable list.

They know that trying to impose their nutty vies on abortion etc will
never wash so the only thing that they will want is more money for NI.
There are few general policies where they disagree with the Tories,
though they wont agree with most of the welfare reductions.

And the Torys don't need them to.

but they won't be able to help themselves in wanting

That can be deferred and its
a lot better to be in govt and to have to defer some stuff like
that than to not be in govt. Even May can work that one out.

In the great scheme of things an extra billion or two a year for NI is
affordable,

Yep, particularly given the saving on what the EU gets.

it just has to be requested/given in a non-partisan way or there will be
trouble.

Not necessarily if the Torys can find
someone else to support them on that.


I think you misunderstand the NI situation if you think that is a solution


If it weren't for the fact that it doesn't solve the problems with Brexit
negotiation,

There are no problems that matter.

Oh not the fact that with a majority of zero our negotiators wont be taken
seriously



I could see a Tory/DUP agreement running (almost) to term.

Bet it does, just like the last one did.

If Brexit goes bad we wont get a chance to find out