DUP negotiations

It is grubby.

It risks the Good Friday Agreement

It breaks the Barnet formula, thus risking unity between the countries of the UK

Demand what is wrong with another GE Rose, are you afraid that your badly corrupt party will be voted out? I think I would give JC a try any day

BarmyOld Bat..... your first sentence means?

If JC were to take over he would have to do deals with; one green, one indie and the Lib Dems and all the SNP.You can be certain that money would be changing hands there!

RaR I am not concerned about WHO did the agreement, it is the fact of it being done. As many have said, it is grubby, desperate and basically a bribe, and I would be just as angry and disgusted at how my money is being spent if this was done by Labour in an effort to hold together a shaky administration.

But....Gill it has to be done ( by either side) if there is any chance of getting work done, policies passed etc.This way it takes all the uncertainty away, and there is so much to do in the next few years.

Don't agree RaR. A minority government can get things done, albeit it may be more tricky. Apart from my issue with the expense etc of joining up with a party with policies so alien to the majority of the rest of the UK, surely TM and her cabinet don't expect every single of their MPs to agree with every single proposal? The recently purchased majority of 10 could be an expensive mistake if 11 or 12 backbenchers vote against a proposal, and there is always the likelihood of by-elections. As I said, it is not the party, it is the principal that I object to. As to what is to be done in the next few years, I disagree that there is much to be done; I think that nothing will get done, certainly not the manifesto promises that were made and quickly discarded. This administration will become moribund due to the Brexit fiasco which will clog the courts and parliament for years.

It doesnt HAVE to done

be done

Politics always involves money or money equivalents.
Can you evidence that with something a bit more current than the Danegeld?

The biggest risk to the unity of the UK is not coming from the Tories or the DUP or even those two in combination. And the threat was there already.

People are saying the deal threatens the NI peace agreement. I haven't heard anyone saying how yet. Why should it be automatically threatened? (yeah, yeah, call me thick, but explain as well, please ✌️)

Just think back to many of the reasons quoted by the SNP as to why they want independence from England, maiz. Many, many of the reasons come back to what the SNP saw/sees as unfair money distribution.

Economics is often, quite rightly, the central issue during general elections. Differences in approach between left and right boil down much of t he time to different approaches to taxation.

Will that do for now?

You can be certain that money would be changing hands there!

How can you be certain, roses? You are basically implying that corruption is implicit in politics. Is that why you are always so sure that everything is going to be fine if we leave it to the politicians; because they're going to buy their way to achieving their goals?
Apalling to think that votets are happy to condone corruption. Is this one of your 'British values' roses

OK, I've found out for myself. The DUP opposed the Good Friday agreement. But the adreement was made by majority vote in both NI and the Republic. The DUP isn't the only thing involved. They lost.

Is it corrupt if it's out in the open?

baggs The Good Friday Agreement is internationally recognised and lodged with the UN.

It is incumbent on the signatory governments I.e. The British and Irish to remain entirely neutral in their dealings with all political parties in NI. This includes I should imagine not getting into bed with any one of them by doing dirty deals.

Baggs the SNP 's core policy is independence ,we want control of our affairs it not all about money,with less than 10% of MP's in westminster(total Scottish mp's) we have NO chance of having our voice heard over things that matter to us.London has more MP's so they alone can vote us down .I dont understand why people have difficulty understanding that.Scotlands total income is more than sufficient to run our country ,if we can run it on the 30% we get from WM think how much more we could do with ALL our income .Apart from that SNP are not tied to any terrorist organisations ,the DUP are closely allied to the UDF ....look it up and see the murals on the walls in Belfast proclaiming it..all with Arlene Fosters face in evidence on them .And for your information we want independence from the UK ,ENGLAND is only ONE part of that body ,Though many think that ENGLAND and the UK are the same thing!!

Is it corrupt if it's out in the open?

Oh, please! It's corrupt whether it's overt or covert.

But as bagg's has posted it's out in the open, it may not be a deal everyone agrees with but that doesn't make it 'dirty'.

As roses posted on the previous page, Labour had talks with the DUP in 2010 and 2015 so what's the real issue here? Is it that the gov. has struck a deal with them, offered a financial insentive to benefit NI or both?

The SNP regarding the unfair distribution of money as good reason for Scottish independence obviously wasn't shared by the Scottish people as they voted to remain so perhaps it wasn't and isn't as big an issue as the SNP portrayed it as being.

Not everyone does want independence paddyann. Isn't that why the SNP lost so many seats because Sturgeon's constant rhetoric about Scottish independence wasn't wanted by the majority of Scottish voters?

It's a bribe, Smileless. It's a dirty great bloody BRIBE. That's what you call it when you pay someone money to ensure that things go the way you want them to.

I don't know how it feels to anyone else but it doesn't feel to me like the usual wheeler dealing implicit in setting up a coalition or a 'pact' in Parliament. Yes, you expect trading of 'favours' but not money.

Paddyann.
'UDF' - I think you mean 'UDA'.
As for the murals in Belfast - I'm yet to see one with Arlene Foster's face.
But I can see how it would strengthen your argument if it was true.

So are you saying then maizie that it's not the deal per se with the DUP that offends but the 'bribe'? "Pay(ing) someone money to ensure that things go the way you want them too" can just as easily be called a financial insentive, depending of course on whether you agree with it or not.

Sorely the main problem with a bung of any size is that there is no guarantee of a pro-Tory vote anyway - works if everyone in both parties vote plus they all toe the line. Is that really likely?

What's dirty about the deal, ww?