Which is still just pocket money compared to what Corbyn planned to spend.

 

Maybe he should have run a less effective campaign, then the Tories would have had a majority, and £1.5bn would have been saved? :rolleyes:

And we'd still be subjected to new grammar schools, losing the triple lock and everything else which didn't make it from the manifesto to the Queen's Speech. Great idea.

 

Has that *seriously* been cited as a reason? If so, I bet I can guess who made that claim...

...yes?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40453054

 

The cladding was changed partly for aesthetic reasons and partly to save £300k from the contract.

And we'd still be subjected to new grammar schools, losing the triple lock and everything else which didn't make it from the manifesto to the Queen's Speech. Great idea.

...yes?

 

Of course, if they'd dumped the more unpopular of the policies *before* the election, then they'd probably have won it...

Of course, if they'd dumped the more unpopular of the policies *before* the election, then they'd probably have won it...

 

Or if they'd dumped Theresa Maybe. Or had some actual detailed policies.

 

Re Brexit, yes my memory is very very clear on the Leave campaign, the vast majority in the public eye were toffs, especially the leaders of the campaign. Perhaps you failed to notice. I didn't.....by a remarkable co-incidence a trio of wealthy dummies (one of whom has been dismissed previously for devious financial behaviour, one who folds under pressure from people with a quicker intellect, and one who decimated the London Fire Brigade while wasting tens of taxpayer millions on a privately-owned bridge that isn't going to be built) form our future economical hopes for the next few decades - at least until the stiffed generation outnumber the future stiff generation.

 

 

I do find it ironic when the Opposition complain about the £1.5bn 'bribe' to get the DUP on board.

 

How much more difficult (and expensive) it would it be for Labour to form a coalition with the LD's, Green, SNP, PC etc., especially as they would *also* need the DUP to make up the numbers. And since the DUP are far less friendly towards Labour, it's a fair bet that they'd have demanded more than £1.5bn for their support...

Edited July 2, 20178 yr by vidcapper

Maybe it is because Theresa May went on about there being no 'magic money tree' that she could suddenly shake to provide everything that people want (e.g. a pay rise for NHS staff), and yet she easily found £1 billion funding to persuade the DUP to prop up her weak minority government and desperately cling to power. Could that be the reason?

 

Your point is moot because the DUP would have supported anyone who kept JC out and the progressive alliance would have supported anyone to keep the Tories out. This was a very poor deal indeed as we shall see when power sharing talks at Stormont break down next week!

Edited July 2, 20178 yr by Doctor Blind

Maybe it's also something to do with the Tories banging on at the last two elections about how Labour would be "held to ransom by the SNP" demanding more for Scotland.

While I suspect Labour would have had to spend a lot of money to keep a coalition going (and give in to some crazy demands) I do find it very hypocritical that Teresa May was banging on about the 'money tree' only to find £1.5bn out of nowhere.

 

No real surprise now that key members of the party will start turning on her.

Time for a "you couldn't make it up" update.

 

Last week, Labour (joined by the SNP and Lib Dems) forced a vote on the cap on public sector pay. It was defeated because the Tories and their new friends voted against. Ever since that vote Tories (including ministers) have been queuing up to argue in favour of relaxing the cap. Some have even admitted that the only reason for voting against relaxing the cap was that Labour had proposed it.

 

Last week the Daily Mail said that £1.5bn was a small price to pay to keep Labour out of power. Gove said the same thing at the weekend. Clearly they both need reminding that spending government cash explicitly on keeping a rival party out of power isn't how democracy is supposed to work.

Last week the Daily Mail said that £1.5bn was a small price to pay to keep Labour out of power. Gove said the same thing at the weekend. Clearly they both need reminding that spending government cash explicitly on keeping a rival party out of power isn't how democracy is supposed to work.

 

ISTM the real question is - does anyone really believe Labour would have acted differently if the situation was reversed?

 

ISTM the real question is - does anyone really believe Labour would have acted differently if the situation was reversed?

Labpur didn't spend a large part of the campaign saying that their opponents would be held to ransom buy a smaller party. The Tories did.

Labpur didn't spend a large part of the campaign saying that their opponents would be held to ransom buy a smaller party. The Tories did.

 

I can't help noticing you didn't answer my question... :teresa:

Probably because your raison d'être is avoiding questions, evidence and actual facts

I can't help noticing you didn't answer my question... :teresa:

 

That's because it's unanswerably hypothetical based on biased assumptions - you are assuming they would have done the same, others may assume they would instead have perhaps formed a coalition instead without having money waved about to favour one part of the United Kingdom over the others (or more correctly to pay half of the money the DUP owe from having made rather expensive policy errors).

 

You know about coalitions, like the one the Tories did with the LibDems (without having to pay them a penny), and the one where they did have to pay more than a penny to get informal support. Coalition Of Chaos and money tree.

 

One of the ways of showing you aren't blindly biased is by stopping cheerfully chirping "the other lot are just as bad" as they march you off to the gas chambers. Hypocrisy is worth criticising, whatever your general support of any particular party (and I have certainly slagged off Corbyn for it as well, where he deserves it).

Probably because your raison d'être is avoiding questions, evidence and actual facts

 

Then I have taught this group well. ;)

please delete - i'm a potato

Edited July 4, 20178 yr by Soy Adrián