So basically....

.....in a country of 65 million people, a party that won 200,000 votes and has nothing to do with Wales, England or Scotland holds the balance of power.

Democracy at its finest.

On the plus side, the bloodless one is finished - good riddance to a terrible leader and a vile human being.

Please provide an a working alternative?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barry Dragon

Please provide an a working alternative?

---

Well, we have a minority government, and they are protected by the Fixed Term Parliament Act. We're going into the most important negotiations of a lifetime, and we have a Government that needs to pander to anti-abortionist, Climate denying folk.

When people talked of an SNP/Labour alliance, May claimed that Sturgeon would be pulling Corbyn's strings.

Whose pulling May's strings?

Ideally we should have another election but Cameron (protecting his party not his country) came up with a clever little tool called the Fixed Term Parliament Act. He's the same bloke who kicked off Brexit to appeal to a couple of his MPs. Do you see the pattern yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barry Dragon

Please provide an a working alternative?

---

I can think of one, the party that was already in Government could have carried on with it's working majority until 2020, just like our strong and stable leader said they were going to - seven times apparently.

Instead, she called an election purely on the grounds that she saw an opportunity for her party and so, after plenty of talk about how there was so much to do in the Brexit negotiations in such a short time, promptly put them back another couple of months!

Let's not forget that Trimmer Cameron got himself in a right mess by winning an election he didn't think he would and so was forced to hold the referendum on EU membership that he had offered as a sop to the anti EU faction of his party.

So, twice now we've been left dropped in it because Conservative Prime Ministers think more of what's in it for their party, rather than what's in it for the UK.

For the first few weeks of the election campaign, it seemed that the Government were trying to win their "landslide" by relentlessly parroting two three letter phrases - "strong and stable" and "coalition of chaos".

To concentrate on one of those words, I always think that, in political terms at least, "stable" and "stability" is meant to signal competence, solidity, a safe pair of hands. So, can I ask what on earth have the Tories done in the last seven years to justify such descriptions being applied to them? To carry on as they have done, while telling us about the "mess" Labour left for them in 2010 takes arrogance to unbelievable levels.

I hated Thatcher and her Government, but I had to admit that many within it had the authority and gravitas you should expect from the party running the country, but this lot are incredible - they are just so inept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

I can think of one, the party that was already in Government could have carried on with it's working majority until 2020, just like our strong and stable leader said they were going to - seven times apparently.

Instead, she called an election purely on the grounds that she saw an opportunity for her party and so, after plenty of talk about how there was so much to do in the Brexit negotiations in such a short time, promptly put them back another couple of months!

Let's not forget that Trimmer Cameron got himself in a right mess by winning an election he didn't think he would and so was forced to hold the referendum on EU membership that he had offered as a sop to the anti EU faction of his party.

So, twice now we've been left dropped in it because Conservative Prime Ministers think more of what's in it for their party, rather than what's in it for the UK.

For the first few weeks of the election campaign, it seemed that the Government were trying to win their "landslide" by relentlessly parroting two three letter phrases - "strong and stable" and "coalition of chaos".

To concentrate on one of those words, I always think that, in political terms at least, "stable" and "stability" is meant to signal competence, solidity, a safe pair of hands. So, can I ask what on earth have the Tories done in the last seven years to justify such descriptions being applied to them? To carry on as they have done, while telling us about the "mess" Labour left for them in 2010 takes arrogance to unbelievable levels.

I hated Thatcher and her Government, but I had to admit that many within it had the authority and gravitas you should expect from the party running the country, but this lot are incredible - they are just so inept.

---

Enough is enough
Terrorism breeds terrorism

Credit us with more intelligence next time you posh tarts.

"No deal is better than a bad deal"

We still don't know what it means and neither does May.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

"No deal is better than a bad deal"

We still don't know what it means and neither does May.

---

Whatever deal is brought to Parliament, it's likely to be opposed by the opposition. If it is a hard Brexit, DUP will vote against it, and if it's soft Reece-Mogg and Redwood will vote against it.

Result is, No deal. This incompetence would be hilarious if it wasn't going to affect us and the next few generations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kris

Whatever deal is brought to Parliament, it's likely to be opposed by the opposition. If it is a hard Brexit, DUP will vote against it, and if it's soft Reece-Mogg and Redwood will vote against it.

Result is, No deal. This incompetence would be hilarious if it wasn't going to affect us and the next few generations.

---

I'm guessing "no deal" would have to result in a north / south Irish border. The DUP would vote against that - but would it be too late by then?

As I understand it, if parliament doesn't agree with the proposed deal, we end up out with no deal. Is that correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veg1960

I'm guessing "no deal" would have to result in a north / south Irish border. The DUP would vote against that - but would it be too late by then?

As I understand it, if parliament doesn't agree with the proposed deal, we end up out with no deal. Is that correct?

---

It's as clear as mud

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PRV_s-Ftuo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninianclark

If you are trying to put in place something that the country has mandated you to do AND then at every opportunity you are getting stopped from doing that by people taking you to court for judicial Reviews, by the party's in the house of commons trying to filibuster every debate and by a house of Lords that are throwing back every piece of brexit legislation etc

Then I think you are more than entitled to get a further mandate re Brexit before you start - dont you Bob.

That election should have been fought about one subject only - who do you want negotiating Brexit - that was all that should have been on the agenda. Labour and the Lib Dems should have stood on a ticket of - we will have a second referendum and the conservatives should have been the ones offering the Brexit go ahead.

All parties seem to have fought this election on other issues - rather than the one it was called for - so the result is now the worse of all possible scenarios. We need to be IN or OUT - and we seem to be neither.

I blame May totally for the result she got and Corbyn basically bribed and bullsh1tted kids by offering to scrap tuition fees - something which would never happen.

That's UK politics though - a never ending cycle of boom, bust, crash, rebuild, then do it all again :frown:

---

What evidence do you have that tuition fees would not be scrapped. And didn't the Tories try to bribe voters with things like caps on fuel rises?

Also, Governments often act illegally - that's why we have a separate Court system.

For you the issue was Brexit. It was for the Tories too because that was the only policy that mattered to them. It is obvious that Brexit is not the only issue. If people voted on Brexit then the Tories vacuous statements of "Brexit means Brexit" and "No deal is better than a bad deal" left Brexitters unconvinced.

What happened on Thursday was that the people who turned up last June didn't turn up this June and were replaced by young voters pissed off by Brexit. It's high time young people took an interest and n their futures. Bad news for the Tories because, for 18-24 year olds, Labour are polling some 50%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninianclark

If you are trying to put in place something that the country has mandated you to do AND then at every opportunity you are getting stopped from doing that by people taking you to court for judicial Reviews, by the party's in the house of commons trying to filibuster every debate and by a house of Lords that are throwing back every piece of brexit legislation etc

Then I think you are more than entitled to get a further mandate re Brexit before you start - dont you Bob.

That election should have been fought about one subject only - who do you want negotiating Brexit - that was all that should have been on the agenda. Labour and the Lib Dems should have stood on a ticket of - we will have a second referendum and the conservatives should have been the ones offering the Brexit go ahead.

All parties seem to have fought this election on other issues - rather than the one it was called for - so the result is now the worse of all possible scenarios. We need to be IN or OUT - and we seem to be neither.

I blame May totally for the result she got and Corbyn basically bribed and bullsh1tted kids by offering to scrap tuition fees - something which would never happen.

That's UK politics though - a never ending cycle of boom, bust, crash, rebuild, then do it all again :frown:

---

Bit of an exaggeration that first paragraph of yours isn't it?