Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
I'd vote for Thatcher. If she weren't dead I was of voting age. Now there was a real conservative party worthy of leading the country. Before she went a little overconfident in the end and thought she could do anything.

May took one year to get to that point.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
I'd vote for Thatcher. If she weren't dead I was of voting age. Now there was a real conservative party worthy of leading the country. Before she went a little overconfident in the end and thought she could do anything.

What exactly is it that she and her government did which you think was good for the country?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
I'd vote for Thatcher. If she weren't dead I was of voting age. Now there was a real conservative party worthy of leading the country. Before she went a little overconfident in the end and thought she could do anything.

May took one year to get to that point.

Know any necromancers?
Least undead Thatcher might scare junker and co at negotiations by eating macrons soul to fuel her existence. Just hope they not change venue to a church or holy place...

I'm pretty sure most of them wouldn't be able to cross the seal either.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
. I am led to think it might be best for the Tories to call another election, lose it badly and let Labour take the rap for the post-Brexit crash. The danger is that if Labour got a great, soft Brexit deal, there wouldn't be a crash, they would be the heroes of the nation and could end up winning the next two elections.

It's not that unlikely that Labour would be able to negotiate a better deal. They still part of on the major alliances in the European parliament which can provide better insights in the positions of other governments and a platform for unofficial talks. In addition a post Brexit UK given form by Labour with decent worker protection would be less troublesome than the low wage, free market, tax haven the Tories dream off. I imagine many EU countries would also like to see the Tory party pay for the whole mess, while Labour would have a clean slate, or even receive sympathy from other governments for having to sort out the mess Cameron made.

 Antario wrote:
It's not that unlikely that Labour would be able to negotiate a better deal. They still part of on the major alliances in the European parliament which can provide better insights in the positions of other governments and a platform for unofficial talks. In addition a post Brexit UK given form by Labour with decent worker protection would be less troublesome than the low wage, free market, tax haven the Tories dream off. I imagine many EU countries would also like to see the Tory party pay for the whole mess, while Labour would have a clean slate, or even receive sympathy from other governments for having to sort out the mess Cameron made.

I'm conflicted, because I know that in order for Brexit to succeed, Britain needs to be an attractive to business, and Corbyn's brand of socialism is likely to drive business away. But get too friendly with business and we end up in the situation that we're in now, with low wages and companies using so many loopholes to dodge tax the Exchequer ends up owning them money. There's got to be a happy middle ground.

 welshhoppo wrote:
I really can't see how anyone can claim Corbs won...

That's because you fail to understand what has happened, or are refusing to acknowledge it, much like many of my conservative friends. Long game, this is a victory for Labour and Corbyn.

 r_squared wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
I really can't see how anyone can claim Corbs won...

That's because you fail to understand what has happened, or are refusing to acknowledge it, much like many of my conservative friends. Long game, this is a victory for Labour and Corbyn.

Exactly, people were saying Corbyn and Labour would be finished, not only did that not happen, they actually did way better than many expected. They ended up better off after the election, whereas the Tories ended up worse off. They might have won more votes, but this election embarrassed them, May gambled their majority away for nothing, now she has to get into bed with the DUP as she doesn't have the numbers by herself. As a Labour voter I'm feeling pretty optimistic about the result, Labour gained and it sent a message. It's a 'win' because it's a step in the right direction, I think a lot of Tories who get fixated on the literal wording are just being obtuse to the deeper meaning behind all this, it worries them so they downplay it's significance. Corbyn and his supporters should feel optimistic, May should be worried.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

What exactly is it that she and her government did which you think was good for the country?

I dunno, break the unions hold over the country so life could continue as normal, and stop subsidising their uncompetitive business, because that's not what governments exist to do. And she increased GDP by 23%.

Corbyn didn't win but May certainly lost. Last week was the first time Labour made gains in an election since 1997. They've been loosing ground ever since that since that first Blair win, until last Thursday. It's not a literal win, but you can't always turn the tide in one go, it is a victory in a longer process.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
You're wrong Mad Doc, we don't have a choice between left and right. We have a choice between left and a weird hodgepodge of all the worst bits of the centre and all the worst bits of the right, as far as I can see. I just wish the tories would get their act together, boot out May, find someone competent, and make a proper, right wing, socially liberal (to an extent) and fiscally conservative party out of themselves.

Well, your turn, I guess. Even moderate leftists had no one to vote for for decades other than tiny parties that recieve a fraction of a percent of the vote.

You have parties that suit you. They're just not the Tories.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
I'd vote for Thatcher. If she weren't dead and I was of voting age. Now there was a real conservative party worthy of leading the country. Before she went a little overconfident in the end and thought she could do anything.

The current regime better reflects your desires in a Tory party than Thatcher's one did. Well, competency aside.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

What exactly is it that she and her government did which you think was good for the country?

I dunno, break the unions hold over the country so life could continue as normal, and stop subsidising their uncompetitive business, because that's not what governments exist to do. And she increased GDP by 23%.

Rail subsidies in the UK. Despite being privatised for 20 years, and now owned by foreign nation states, the tax payer still subsidies the rail companies.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rail-subsidy-per-passenger-mile

Plus, I was there, as a teenager, and I can state categorically that she was a terrible prime minister for the country. I remember sky high interest rates, record unemployment, and the start of rocketing house prices.
She may have broken the unions, but she also destroyed lives and communities in the process with absolutely no plan, or even consideration, of how to mitigate or repair the damage. She unbalanced the economy of the country in favour of spivs and speculators and that has lead to the financial chaos we see now.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/datablog/2013/apr/08/britain-changed-margaret-thatcher-charts

Finally, She created Blairism.

 gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:

 Knockagh wrote:

 gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:
Well you stated that many loyalist paramilitaries would find it 'particularly difficult' to vote DUP which is simply not true, they seem to be plenty paly.

The line saying that the DUP were against violence is also simply not true many of their members have been at and supported loyalist paramilitary rallies, serving in the UDR or else threatened violence if there was a united Ireland.

I never claimed that you told people to ignore? So I'm not sure where tat has come from, and I'm not sure what my false narrative is as everything that I've said about the DUP can be backed up by facts.

Anyone who knows anything about loyalist paramilitaries knows they hated the DUP for years. There are a multitude of works out there to back it up. I personally knew David Ervine who led the UVFs political wing and he spat venom daily about them. Here's a guardian article says as much

.https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2007/jan/08/obituaries.northernireland

The UDR were a regiment in the British Army until they merged with the Royal Irish Regiment. The UDR received a standing ovation at the yearly commeration ceremony in London in the Albert Hall, the Queen herself in attendance. The only regiment to do so. The entire regiment was awarded the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross after they merged with the Royal Irish in recognition of their services.

That doesn't take away from the fact here and now the DUP and UDA are very chummy with the UDA for gods sake Foster was meeting with them days after they killed a man and in the past the weren't exactly sworn enemies were they? 1., 2., 3.

While I'm sure you're right about Ervine not liking the DUP they were in different political so not much of a surprise. I can find no mention of them in that article and even if the UVF didn't agree with them it doesn't mean they aren't linked to the UDA, the IRSP aren't too fond of SF, doesn't mean that SF weren't linked with the IRA.

Regarding the UDR I was simply saying for people who hate violence they had a lot of people who were in the army. The UDR weren't exactly all flowers and picnics either they were pretty tied in with loyalist paramilitaries like the Glenanne Gang.

I don't think you read the article it states
"He was equally disappointed that over the last few years the unionist-loyalist electorate haf voted in record numbers for the one party he despised more than any others: the Rev Ian Paisley's Democratic Unionists." Good idea to read before commenting.

Foster hasn't met SEA UDA as far a as I know. She met some mainstream UDA leaders after Colin Horner was shot. Colin was shot by the breakaway South East Antrim UDA who have been a law unto themselves for years now as they formally withdrew from the main UDA in 2006. Saying she met with SEA is like meeting the UDA is like saying she met the INLA when it was the IRA. Facts.

When Peter Robinson made that video the UDA were a legal organisation.

Rail shouldn't be privatized, it should be government run, but only because on a single line there can't be competition, so private business can get away with being crap in a way they can't in the rest of the market. And no, I didn't live through it, but I know people who did and their view of it is rather different. As regards the guardian statistics, it looks like a mixed bag, as regards the ad bits I obviously can't argue with hard facts but I'd like to see the actual axis, that might just be a mobile problem. I take it you're more left wing than Blair, what exactly was it that was so terrible about him? I hear a lot of complaining but I don't actually know of any faliures other than the 2008 cra... yeah I guess that makes sense.

2008 crash wasn't Government policy. It was idiot bankers.

Main idiocy was US style NINJA loans. NINJA standing for No Income No Job - all on the basis house prices could only rise.

I do wish people would stop blaming Labour for what was a global crisis with dozens of factors involved (here in the UK, it's entirely possible that had the gutter press not freaked out over Northern Rock, directly leading to a run on the bank, things may not have been so bad)

 Knockagh wrote:

 gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:

 Knockagh wrote:

 gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:
Well you stated that many loyalist paramilitaries would find it 'particularly difficult' to vote DUP which is simply not true, they seem to be plenty paly.

The line saying that the DUP were against violence is also simply not true many of their members have been at and supported loyalist paramilitary rallies, serving in the UDR or else threatened violence if there was a united Ireland.

I never claimed that you told people to ignore? So I'm not sure where tat has come from, and I'm not sure what my false narrative is as everything that I've said about the DUP can be backed up by facts.

Anyone who knows anything about loyalist paramilitaries knows they hated the DUP for years. There are a multitude of works out there to back it up. I personally knew David Ervine who led the UVFs political wing and he spat venom daily about them. Here's a guardian article says as much

.https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2007/jan/08/obituaries.northernireland

The UDR were a regiment in the British Army until they merged with the Royal Irish Regiment. The UDR received a standing ovation at the yearly commeration ceremony in London in the Albert Hall, the Queen herself in attendance. The only regiment to do so. The entire regiment was awarded the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross after they merged with the Royal Irish in recognition of their services.

That doesn't take away from the fact here and now the DUP and UDA are very chummy with the UDA for gods sake Foster was meeting with them days after they killed a man and in the past the weren't exactly sworn enemies were they? 1., 2., 3.

While I'm sure you're right about Ervine not liking the DUP they were in different political so not much of a surprise. I can find no mention of them in that article and even if the UVF didn't agree with them it doesn't mean they aren't linked to the UDA, the IRSP aren't too fond of SF, doesn't mean that SF weren't linked with the IRA.

Regarding the UDR I was simply saying for people who hate violence they had a lot of people who were in the army. The UDR weren't exactly all flowers and picnics either they were pretty tied in with loyalist paramilitaries like the Glenanne Gang.

I don't think you read the article it states
"He was equally disappointed that over the last few years the unionist-loyalist electorate haf voted in record numbers for the one party he despised more than any others: the Rev Ian Paisley's Democratic Unionists." Good idea to read before commenting.

Foster hasn't met SEA UDA as far a as I know. She met some mainstream UDA leaders after Colin Horner was shot. Colin was shot by the breakaway South East Antrim UDA who have been a law unto themselves for years now as they formally withdrew from the main UDA in 2006. Saying she met with SEA is like meeting the UDA is like saying she met the INLA when it was the IRA. Facts.

When Peter Robinson made that video the UDA were a legal organisation.

Ok fair enough I missed that David Ervine didn't like the DUP but then again I said it was probably true as they were political opponents and from a different paramilitary group and loyalists are pretty well known for their feuds.

So she is still meeting with the UDA? Yes they may be a different faction of it but they still use the title of UDA, SF always seem to get a hard time when he dissidents do something so surely it should be replicated onto the DUP. DUP members also appeared on stage with Billy Wright endorsing him as well as Foster defending her relationship with Dee Stitt leader of the North Down UDA.

They may have been legal but they at time were committing murders all over the North which is eluded to in the video and he still stood by them.

This has all stemmed from me saying the DUP have links to loyalist paramilitaries which you have said don't exist and that the hate violence, which simply isn't the case you can argue the details of it but you yourself admitted she's had meetings with the UDA and as far as hating violence they march every year to celebrate beating Catholics at the Battle of the Boyne so they could continue hundreds of years of Protestant dominance.

Prognostication!

One wonders how the result might affect the Scottish vote in the next General Election - be that in the next few months, in five years time or anything in between.

See, Scotland is traditionally seen as a good deal more left than the rest of the UK - hence still holding on to Nice Things, like free prescriptions, Uni etc.

With Labour having shown some impressive teeth, and Corbyn not being a fan of independence, it could be the perception that the Tories are the only ones to stand in the way of the SNP is less certain than before.

If Scottish Labour can get their heads out their rear ends and get behind Corbyn (who if nothing else totally silenced his critics) we could see Labour regain traditional Scottish heartlands.

As for the SNP? I've lived in England since 1991 when my folks moved here with my Dad's job, so I don't really have an opinion on them politically. But Sturgeon could do with hushing up for a while.

The is a conversation of the blind. So I'm stopping.

But just to say the Battle of the Boyne was nothing to do with Protestant or Unionist dominance it was the culmination of the Glorious Revolution or ironically as its called in some parts the Bloodless Revolution. This was probably the most defining constitutional moment of the modern United Kingdom. It established parliament as we know it the monarchy as we know it and a promise of civil and religious liberty for all citizens of the UK.
And before you start yes we still have a long way to go before this is realised, definitely more so in NI but it established a goal we should all be aiming for.

The End

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Prognostication!

One wonders how the result might affect the Scottish vote in the next General Election - be that in the next few months, in five years time or anything in between.

Depends on a few things, I reckon:

1) The new coalition of chaos. The longer any Tory-DUP alliance remains (if it ever starts!) the more apparent Scottish Tory links to bigotry will become. Whatever your opinionon NI politics or the DUP, the vast majority of Scots that associate themselves with NI unionism do so because of either Rangers or hating Catholics. Usually both. The councillors who belong to lodges, the MSP who loves to tweet about the Queen's 11 etc have managed to only really attract attention from the leftist independent media, but they're going to start getting put on the front of papers. Every week that goes by where the Tories are explicitly connected to the DUP will reduce Tory support in Scotland. By orders of magnitude around Glasgow.

2) SNP positions on independence. If they kick it into the long grass, then the Scottish Tories disintegrate overnight. Their vote is entirely due to opposition to independence. If it's no longer on the near horizon, the Scottish Tories have no reason whatsoever to exist. It's the only thing Ruth Davidson talks about and it's the only thing that appears in their election campaign material. I recieved about 8 or 9 Tory maildrops in the last three months concerning two distinct elections and none of them mentioned anything except independence. They tend not to even use 'Conservtive' anywhere bar in the logo. It's all 'Vote for Ruth Davidson to Stop an Another Divisive Independence Referendum'. If Scottish Tories falter, Labour will hoover up their votes by default because their voters are crossing the No Independence box, not the Scottish Conservative and Unionist box.

3) Kezia Dugdale. If she goes and is replaced by someone who didn't spend two years kicking Corbyn in the shin then Scottish Labour's chances will significantly improve. That's going to be put to her everytime she tries to claim some influence on Scottish Labour gains and she's going to make a mess of responding to it because that's what she does. They need a new learer pronto. Doesn't even need to be a good one. Just one that doesn't have a history of opposing everything that has just gained them ground. A nobody that just parroted 'I endorse whatever Jeremy has most recently said' would do better at this point.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Prognostication!
See, Scotland is traditionally seen as a good deal more left than the rest of the UK - hence still holding on to Nice Things, like free prescriptions, Uni etc.

They hold onto those nice things by being subsidised by English taxpayers. Scotland on it's own would go into austerity far worse than UK austerity over the last 5 years if it left.

This is significantly worrying...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40248366

A 96% drop in EU nurse applications. I'm not seeing an increase in applications from non-EU or domestic increases to make up for this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Prognostication!
See, Scotland is traditionally seen as a good deal more left than the rest of the UK - hence still holding on to Nice Things, like free prescriptions, Uni etc.

They hold onto those nice things by being subsidised by English taxpayers. Scotland on it's own would go into austerity far worse than UK austerity over the last 5 years if it left.

I'd be careful about confidently opening that particular can of worms with flat statements of subsidy. The UK oil industry was a significant contributor to the treasury for decades, and it can be argued that that makes up for current perceived imbalances.
However, what's important to remember is that the devolved Scottish government has a budget to stick to, and it chooses these benefits for its population, just as we could do too, if we wanted to.
The money can always be found from somewhere, it's just down to your ideology and beliefs about what you think is important and what should be cut. England, and Wales "chose", by voting Tory, triple lock pensions, high tax bands and low corporation tax, rather than health and education spending.

 Knockagh wrote:
The is a conversation of the blind. So I'm stopping.

But just to say the Battle of the Boyne was nothing to do with Protestant or Unionist dominance it was the culmination of the Glorious Revolution or ironically as its called in some parts the Bloodless Revolution. This was probably the most defining constitutional moment of the modern United Kingdom. It established parliament as we know it the monarchy as we know it and a promise of civil and religious liberty for all citizens of the UK.
And before you start yes we still have a long way to go before this is realised, definitely more so in NI but it established a goal we should all be aiming for.

The End

Oh come on James was literally in Ireland to try and regain the throne he lost mainly due to being catholic and this causing him to lose the favour of his court, and if its one of the most important moments for the UK why s it barely celebrated anywhere else? In recent times (when all current DUP members have been involved) it is little more than a hate fest and an attempt to show dominance, marching through nationalist areas, burning effigies of the pope along with rival political posters and kids running around with KAT/I written everywhere (Kill All Taigs/Irish).

However, as you say the DUP talk is going no where I doubt ill be able to convince you their anything other than saints despite the evidence and you'll not be able to convince me they aren't bigots mainly due to their actions directly contradicting it.

 r_squared wrote:
This is significantly worrying...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40248366

A 96% drop in EU nurse applications. I'm not seeing an increase in applications from non-EU or domestic increases to make up for this.

This is what I can't understand about the anti immigrant crowd many of those coming over ''taking our jobs'' are fulfilling roles that we by ourselves can't do. Due to the proposed cuts on grants to student nurses the situations only going to get worse as less and less people see it as a viable option for them.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Prognostication!
See, Scotland is traditionally seen as a good deal more left than the rest of the UK - hence still holding on to Nice Things, like free prescriptions, Uni etc.

They hold onto those nice things by being subsidised by English taxpayers. Scotland on it's own would go into austerity far worse than UK austerity over the last 5 years if it left.

You could have nice things if you voted for them, too.

It was on the radio today that, if the UK's exports to the EU should drop by 5%, the UK would need to increase exports to the rest of the world by 28% to make up the lost money.

Another item was a big survey of small to medium businesses by Harvard Business School, unsurprisingly revealing they don't like Brexit one bit.

 gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:

 Knockagh wrote:
But just to say the Battle of the Boyne was nothing to do with Protestant or Unionist dominance it was the culmination of the Glorious Revolution or ironically as its called in some parts the Bloodless Revolution.

Oh come on James was literally in Ireland to try and regain the throne he lost mainly due to being catholic and this causing him to lose the favour of his court, and if its one of the most important moments for the UK why s it barely celebrated anywhere else?

To suggest that the Boyne, and by extension the whole of the Glorious Revolution, was not connected to a protestant movement against catholicism is revisionism on par with the US deep south claiming the ACW was only about "state's rights".

The Glorious Revolution is one of the most significant events in UK history (for one it was the last time it England was conquered by foreigners) and is one of the most fascinating periods in our history. It isn't remembered anywhere else in the UK and sadly I don't recall being taught a single thing to do with it in GCSEs at school as everything was WW2 dialed up to eleven.

 r_squared wrote:
This is significantly worrying...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40248366

A 96% drop in EU nurse applications. I'm not seeing an increase in applications from non-EU or domestic increases to make up for this.

Hey the stop the gmmigration camp is happy. They got their wish.

More has to be done then to train domestic nurses.

Recruitment of native nurse student candidates is down by half since withdrawal of the training bursary.

We also have a crisis in midwifery, and a growing crisis in general practice.

It takes about 10 years to train a GP.

Brexit means don't get ill.

Great article from Australia on Britains new Iron Lady

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/the-times/uk-election-2017-arlene-foster-britains-powerbroker-forged-in-fire/news-story/a950d65f552e947b590506f800a9f202


And I didn't mean to suggest the GR wasn't connected to a Protestant movement I said it wasn't an attempt at Protestant dominance. I perhaps could have phrased it better, but I get fed up with the William hated Catholics and just wanted to kill them attitude at times. William 3rd was probably one of the most liberal monarchs we have ever had. He brought in early civil rights acts and for his day extended religious liberties far beyond anything seen in the western world. It was a wonderful historical movement that has largely been forgotten in England due to the almost universal support for replacing James and his hasty flight. It's remembered in Ireland due to the fact that the battles were fought here. The legacy it has left us runs right through the core of British and American society. It's a fascinating subject worthy of more than a dakka discussion. An excellent book on the subject is; King William III: Prince of Orange, the First European by Bryan Bevan. An eye opener in many ways....