UKC

Great piece here.

https://www.indy100.com/article/james-cleverly-victoria-derbyshire-dup-deal...

I never really thought about it being "our money" that's keeping the Tories in power.

Can I get a refund, please?

In reply to krikoman:




Labour's manifesto explicitly promised to take a defined sum of money from a small segment of society and spend it on everyone else. Several times too but that's beside the point. The policy played on voter's selfishness and envy and the cash targeted was far more identifiable as "someone's money" than the sums drawn from general taxation that you're now calling "your money". Yet you didn't have a problem with the manifesto pledge. In fact you revelled in it.

Yes it's a nasty little deal but exactly how do you imagine politics works? Every time I hear this argument I just see hypocrisy.

In reply to BnB:
Funny how it's always the other side who are motivated by greed, envy or hate and one's own side never is.

If you just see hypocrisy you must be very blinkered about those who don't agree with you.

In reply to elsewhere:



Far from it. But since almost everyone here is on "the other side" and in denial of the Tories winning the popular vote, it's a good thing there are those still prepared to offer some balance

In reply to krikoman:

Guys, it's a dry Saturday. Why aren't you Climbing???

I'm injured, that's my excuse.

In reply to bouldery bits:

Been mtb-ing. Heading now for a disco nap.

In reply to BnB:

So you are equating pre election manifesto promises os spending with post electoral bribes that no one, including all those that did vote Tory, voted for, Hmmm, you head is either so blinkered or to be frank, thick.

In reply to BnB:


There's far too much unethical stuff getting done by the Tories recently. Paying off the DUP. Flagrant breaches of electoral law on the 'who cares we'll just pay the fine principle' and the deal with the DUP to launder money for the EU No campaign so as to get round spending limits and hide the source of donations using special concessions for Northern Ireland. The guy behind that scheme having business connections to Pakistan and the former director of Saudi intelligence isn't exactly reassuring either

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/28/paid-leave-vote-fundi...

If this is the way that politics works then it needs to change, just saying 'oh well we all knew they were criminal b*stards what do you expect' isn't helping anyone.

In reply to krikoman:

I am wondering whether some legal beagle will challenge the Government in the Courts for the misuse of public funds which are intended to support the country as a whole, not to prop up a Government lacking an overall majority. Is there any precedent for this?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Isn't the whole point of electing MPs that they then go to Westminster and use their influence there to purse their spending priorities and their policy priorities?

The DUP are doing that, using their influence (given a hung Parliament) to do their best for their constituents. What is wrong with this? What is unethical about the Tories doing a deal with other parties, which involves some acquiesing to their requests? They did the same in the coalition with the Lib Dems.

What exactly do people expect the Tories to do? Call another election? Or do something equivalent, such as refuse the DUP demands and be defeated on a MONC?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

But how dare the Tories waste our money on the Liberal's grubby little alternative voting system plebiscite?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


The answer will depend on whether the question is really what people 'expect' them to do, or whether it's what people think responsible democratic leaders ought to do.

In reply to john arran:


I don't for one minute doubt that TM's primary objective is the retention of power but she can legitimately argue that the two parties together command a majority of the representative vote and it is beholden upon them to find a way to deliver policies that their natural shared constituency would approve of. As both sets of supporters would prioritise keeping Labour out of power in order to avoid the perceived dangers of a shift in economic policy then the deal delivers exactly that. It is democracy in action.

In reply to Coel Hellier


Personally, I expect the hard headed negotiators , who are leading us in brexit negotiations , to be able to strike a better deal with the dup when the alternative is more power to Jeremy corbyn.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

At some point the price (financial and political) must be too high, surely. £bs to a part of the UK that already gets more funding than anywhere else, and getting worryingly close to homophobic, religious zealots must be close to that limit. Minority government would be what I would expect.

In reply to Trangia:


Barnett formula could have been contested a long time ago if there was a case?

In reply to MG:


You mean the EU' s unofficial leader, who voted against gay marriage in Germany last week?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

No. They don't need the deal, the DUP weren't going to vote them down. The deal shows a total lack of regard for all the voters who despise the policies of the DUP - they're a bunch of nutjobs with views that haven't been appropriate for the UK government for well over 50 years. And it shows a total lack of regard for political progress in NI which depends on the neutrality of the UK govt under the GFA. So what May has done is given away £1bn (despite the lack of a magic money tree to pay nurses a decent wage), betrayed any proclaimed values of equality and social progress (not exactly a priority for the Tories, unless it suits them politically, let's face it) and jeopardised peace in NI. Well done, yet another display of being horribly out of her depth. Silly bitch.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:
You are pro EU and remain. Why are you bothering with Corbyn after last Thursdays clear indication of his views ?

I have already had quite a few of my Corbyn friend turn away from him last week as his EU position has now nmbeen exposed.

In reply to BnB:


You're making an argument that progressive taxation is per se taking money off a small segment and spending it on everyone else and is therefore somehow wrong, "motivated by envy" (are you just trying to deliberately push my buttons here? Christ...), hypocritical, blah blah. At what point in tax policy does the balance tip from fair progressive taxation (you loosely imply that this is what we have now) to this awful play on "voters' selfishness" (is wanting good public services for everyone *really* that selfish?)?

If this isn't already clear, I don't think there's a consistent position underlying your comment, I just think the idea of trying to get more (/unrealistic amounts of) tax out of the top few % of earners really gets your goat at a personal level. I'm going out so I won't respond btw!

In reply to summo:

That's the one.
( or is there more than one homophobic party leader?)

In reply to Jim C:



Well, eire didn't have a great track record but I think their new incumbent might change things. At present merkel is on a par with trump in that respect.

In reply to MG:


Perhaps yes, though £1bn is, what, about 0.1% of public spending? If they tried doing a deal with the SNP or the LibDems or Labour surely the price (in terms of increased public spending) would be much higher? And, as I understand it, they haven't compromised on any of the "homophobic, religious zealots" policies.

OK, they could indeed have gone for minority government, but I'd guess that the resulting compromises would over time cost the public purse more much than £1bn.

It's also a bit weird for other parties that are generally in favour of higher public spending objecting to a deal that produces higher public spending. Is the main complaint not the deal itself but that the other parts of the UK can't have the same?

In reply to neilh:


Lesser of two evils?

Who got us into Brexit?

Brexit is not the only policy in town.

In reply to captain paranoia:




Well said.

I don't agree with you position but you have outlined your reasoning comprehensively and succinctly. Well done.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


The main complaint about this deal is that it is so transparently votes for money and the general distastefulness of the DUP. The DUP can't form a power sharing administration in Northern Ireland because of the way they spent taxpayers money on a scheme which paid people £1.60 for burning 1.00 worth of fuel with no upper limit on what could be claimed.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/19/northern-ireland-first-min...

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Aye they have the smell of the shyster about them, I would expect parties who support others to bargain on policy rather than demand loads of cash.
I hope their financial affairs are very closely examined in the future.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


So are policies such as cancelling tuition fees and the triple-lock on pensions, etc. Politicians offer such policies in order to get into power. The principle is the same.

In reply to Jon Stewart:



It certainly isn't selfish to want improved public services. I want those and I'm happy to pay more tax to see them realised. However, a policy that promises voters improved spending without asking them to contribute anything themselves appeals to the selfishness within them. Labour isn't alone in such electioneering but their efforts were the most egregious.

I'm not trying to make a sustained argument because the two situations are not comparable in every way. As others have pointed out these are not two competing manifesto promises.

However I'm pricking the balloon of manufactured outrage at "our money being spent over there". Most spending policies scatter the manna unevenly. And my comparison is valid in so far as to highlight the contradictions in people's standpoint.

Coel has made the more logical responses very concisely.

In reply to summo:


"> I am wondering whether some legal beagle will challenge the Government in the Courts for the misuse of public funds which are intended to support the country as a whole,

Barnett formula could have been contested a long time ago if there was a case? "

How ironic given the Barnett formula is part of the basis of current legal based complaint from Wales and Scotland.

I agree with the thrust of BnBs first reply but what he seems to forget in this is the little matter of 'whats good for the goose'. Political reality leads to all sorts of deals, some unsavory, that can do real damage to parties (look at the Lib Dems). Like Jon I think this particular deal is especially nasty and dangerous to the peace process and given the DUP were probably not stupid enough to bring down the minority govenment (and bring in Labour) this is a stupid risk for the government.

In reply to Offwidth:


There most certainly is this risk and I wasn't defending a deal which goes further than it probably needed to. I was simply criticising the basis for some people's "outrage". Heaven knows there are sufficient concerns around the GFA.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

No it is not. No one, not Tory voters or DUP voters, voted to give £1 billion to NI, they voted for policies laid out before the election.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


Studies show that the majority of people are inclined to vote for the team they support election after election without much dissection of the policies beyond their general direction. If everyone took policies more seriously, the LibDems would have won!!

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


Well I'm not so sure that the DUP voters did not ... though I've not read their manifesto.

But anyhow, manifestos are what a party wants to do if it gets a clear majority, a hung Parliament necessarily leads to cross-party discussions and compromises that no-one actually voted for.

And further, no government has ever restricted itself to exactly what was in the manifesto, things always evolve. In a Parliamentary democracy you're voting for representatives and for a broad outline of a party's ideas, not a specific bundle of policies.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


1. I'd expect them NOT to pay bribes to stay in power.
2. I f they want to stay in power by paying bribes, I'd expect them to use their own money.
3. If they are going to bribe people to keep them in power, I'd expect them to be honest about it and not PRETEND it's to suddenly ease the problems of underfunding, which have always been there.


* expect - substitute hope, my expectations are exactly what's happened.

This is one of the reasons are why people are sick and tired of politics (why were' out of Europe) and why JC has been seen a some sort of messiah. He's the only one who seems to give us any chance of getting away from this shitting cesspit.

In reply to BnB:


really?

On what evidence are you basing this?

In reply to krikoman:

http://news.sky.com/story/amp/tories-paid-20k-to-fly-dup-leader-arlene-fost...

Beggars belief.

In reply to krikoman:


Whereas JC is bribing students to vote for him by promising to cancel tuition fees. And all to get into power! And he's not doing it out of his own pocket, he would do it with *our* money!!

... not to mention all the other spending commitments ("bribes" in your parlance) that Labour proposes in order to get into power.

In reply to Dave the Rave:


Sounds terrible. Poor JC can't even get a seat on a train.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

The difference obviously being labour were explicit in their manifesto about student loans etc. so we could all consider whether we approved and vote accordingly. Pretending this is comparable to add hoc payments post election with the sole purpose of remaining in power is absurd. Had the Tories promised additional NI funding in their manifesto, you would have a point.

In reply to MG:


First, are you suggesting that any government that ever raises public spending in a way that was not specified in the manifesto is acting unethically?

Second, as up-thread: "manifestos are what a party wants to do if it gets a clear majority, a hung Parliament necessarily leads to cross-party discussions and compromises that no-one actually voted for".

Not one person voted for the Tory--LibDem coalition and the resulting set of policy compromises, yet no-one accused them of acting unethically in working it out together.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


If it is solely to stay in power, I think yes. The whole.point of a manifesto is so we know what a party will do. If the wider economic scene changes that is rather different, of course


Because they implemented a selection of policies.from each manifesto; they didn't just give £1b to Nick Clegg's constituency.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


I think quite a lot of people accused the LibDems of acting unethically when they got into bed with the Tories!

In reply to MG:


Is there ever any major resemblance between a manifesto and what a government ends up doing?

In reply to captain paranoia:

Sound just like a fervent Brexiter mate of mine who then voted for the liberals at the election.

In reply to MG:


I've just looked up the DUP manifesto. It says this:

"The DUP will fight hard at Westminster for a Budget settlement that allows for real terms increases in health and education spending over the next parliamentary term and will prioritise these areas in future Northern Ireland Budgets."

So, since it was in the DUP manifesto, that makes it all ok ?

In reply to Dave the Rave:



Surely, that can't be real!!! No one would be that stupid would they?

Austerity eh!

In reply to Coel Hellier:



And yet this was available for us ALL to vote for OR not, not some "Magic Money" we didn't have.

The point is people had a choice. How far do you go down the route of giving people money to stay in power?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I don't remember the Tories paying the LibDems £1bn to f*ck them up.

I have no issue with the coalition, if parties want to join together then fine, the problem I have is what, you pay for that relationship, compromise NOT pound notes! May seems to think anything is just fine. It's not just money either is it, the risk to the peace process, even more expensive than £1bn.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
I guess it does help to an extent, yes, although it's hardly proportionate or governing in the national interest.

In reply to krikoman:


This "risk to the peace process", explain it to me. Which bit of May's deal with the DUP risks the peace process?

In reply to krikoman:


Sometimes the compromise costs too though, it's just that the figure isn't so front and centre.

Given that Labour were in a much weaker position after the 2010 and 2015 elections when they had talks with the DUP what do you think Labour were promising, that other parties haven't? As clearly the DUP didn't enter into any agreement with Labour.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


The bit where the British government is supposed to demonstrate “rigorous impartiality”, I don't think being beholding to one side demonstrates this at all.

"The legal challenge is likely to focus on subsection five of article 1 of the 1998 Good Friday agreement, which states that the UK and Irish governments “affirm that whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions and shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities.”

In reply to summo:



They probably decided they couldn't do anything and stay rigorously impartial, so decided NOT to.

In reply to MG:

The Torybots have been programmed to repeat the mantra that £1 billion post election bribes are exactly the same as manifesto pledges. Coel, The Postie, summo and BnB have been posting this shite for days now!

Strong and stable
Strong and stable
blah, blah blah

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Impartiality, clearly.

In reply to krikoman:


If the money went purely to Protestants then you may have a point.

But it doesn't, it goes to the power-sharing executive[*] to be spent in the interests of NI citizens generally. Thus greater funding to NI does not itself violate the "rigorous impartiality" clause that you quoted.

[*Well it would if Sinn Fein cared to join it; and if they don't it still gets spent by "direct rule" in the interests of both Catholic citizens and Protestant citizens.]

In reply to krikoman:


I think the reality is Labour lost by such a margin in the last 3 elections the few seats the DUP hold wouldn't make enough of a difference.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

No my point is Labour were quite happy to talk to the evil DUP when it suited them. I'd rather of seen a lib dem coalition, or just a minority government where parties talked to each for the good of everyone.

In reply to krikoman:



How about considerably more money and a more comprehensive policy for the NHS than Labour or the Tories? In fact Radio 4, summarising the manifestos on the eve of the election, described Labour's NHS policy as more akin to the Tory's pledges than what they praised as the more ambitious and more convincingly funded Liberal policy. Which reminds me that their 1% across all tax groups was polled as the best received (by voters) of all manifesto initiatives across the parties.

In reply to Coel Hellier:




Would you join in with a group who've just pissed away £££££m's on stupid scheme that encouraged people to burn as much wood as they can and get paid to do so. That was such a well thought out policy to save to world.

Are you really suggesting they ( The DUP ) won't be saying, "look how good we are, we've just won Ireland £1bn. What have Sinn Fien ever done for you?"

In reply to BnB:


And yet he IFS actually said that Labour's approach had "much to commend it" - largely as it matched the IFS' own approach.

The problem for the Libdems is, it's still tarnished by the U-turn on tuition fees, so they still don't have the trust of people.

1% across all tax groups, hits the poorest more though doesn't it?

Why not have a bit of both?

In reply to Coel Hellier:




Sorry Coel but do you actually have a f*cking clue what is going on. No you don't.

The DUP precipitated the collapse of the power sharing agreement because of a flagrant abuse of power that resulted in a £500,000 million overspend of public money without any accountability.

And now we are asked to believe that the Westminster Govt can exercise impartiality for direct rule when they are propped up by the same party that lost all of that cash.

I believe the Scottish phrase is "GetTee

In reply to BnB:


Labour would win hands down everytime, if the majority of the population had half a biscuit of a conscience.
Trouble is, money talks and no one gives a f*ck about anybody else, sad but true, no matter how much you try and fluff it up.

Self
Self
Self


That's the way the world works.

In reply to krikoman:


Not really - it would be more for the richer (it is a % after all).

I don't think it is intended to create a new 1% band for those who would otherwise be exempt.

In reply to andyfallsoff:



Not only that but, with the first £11,500 going untaxed, anyone on an low to average wage well under £30k would only pay 0.5%-0.6% extra.

Although I'd happily pay more than 1% extra if I felt everyone accepted our need to contribute more to achieve better services instead of foisting the pain and blame on another segment of society.

In reply to everyone:

Just supposing that Labour had got the most MPs, but a few short of a majority. So they did a deal with the LibDems, who requested --- say -- a £1bn infrastructure project in the West Country that had been in their manifesto but (shock, horror) not in Labour's. And JC had said "Ok, fair enough, it's a deal".

How many of the commenters on this thread would be using terms such as "bribe", "unethical", "they're using our money just to get into power" etc?

In reply to Coel Hellier:
I'm guessing most of the Tory supporters.

(and actually, as a Lib Dem voter, I would be critical too)

In reply to andyfallsoff:



True, but if you're already struggling, then any extra is going to create a hardship, not just an inconvenience.

Average wage is £22k and full time average wage is £27K.

I'm all for more taxes, but EVERYONE should pay, not be able to invest in some scheme that exempt you, not keeping money offshore, not letting big business "deal" with our tax collectors, with no transparency.

The Libdems might actually of got this partly right, but how could you trust them, and you certainly couldn't vote for them and expect them to win.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Well for a start it would have made public spending more even than it is now, these are 2015/2016 figures, so I'd imagine the figures will be even more skewed now.

Spending per head of population.
Scotland: £10,536 (16% above the UK average)
Wales: £9,996 (10% above the UK average)
Northern Ireland £10,983 (21% above the UK average).

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN04033

And we might have been giving it to a party that would have had better control over how it was spent, not pissed away on stupid schemes.

In reply to Coel Hellier:



When you put it like that, I'd say most people would be saying it was effectively a bride, especially if the spending was in a council borough that had just blown £500 million on ill-thought out energy program that had brought down the council and that the UK government was meant to be helping re-instate as an independent facilitator.

However you look at it, equating a pre-election manifesto promise with a potentially unnecessary* closed door deal with a disgraced party potentially risking the stability of Northern Island is ridiculous. You can call Labour's tuition fee promise a cynical vote grab but it was all out in the open.

* I'm still unsure what the point o the DUP deal is. Would they ever vote against the Tories? They'd vote the queens speech through as top of their "to Do" list is keep Jezza off the top spot so what has the deal achieved?

In reply to krikoman:

I posted this on another thread. Clearly its not universally popular within the Conservatives:

"I can barely express my anger' at deal with DUP"

I urge you to listen to my local Conservative MP (for whom I didn't vote) on the issue. She speaks very eloquently about why it is the wrong thing to do (and why she is likely to remain backbench in this government). It is unfair to tar all Conservatives with the same brush.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2017/jun/29/heidi-allen-i-can-ba...

In reply to galpinos:

The dup were anti austerity and what better way to end it in NI than spending other people's money. No wonder the Labour party are up in arms, that's their usual trick.

In reply to galpinos:

However you look at it, equating a pre-election manifesto promise with a potentially unnecessary* closed door deal with a disgraced party potentially risking the stability of Northern Island is ridiculous. You can call Labour's tuition fee promise a cynical vote grab but it was all out in the open.

But this is what politicians do.
At the moment the Conservatives are openly discussing relaxing the 1% pay cap , not really because they think the public sector deserve it , but because they believe they lost seats because of it.
So if they do use taxpayers money to pay for this policy change, in what sense is that not also going to be a vote grab?

In reply to GrahamD:

But Heidi Allen doesn't vote how she speaks. She is full of fake anger but obeys the party whip

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


True, of course, but to vote against the whip is a pretty major step for an MP to take, isn't it? especially since the vote was on the queens speech, not the bribe.

I doubt its fake anger - she had nothing to gain by saying what she did.

In reply to Jim C:




I may have missed your point and if so I apologise. The Tory MPs talking about relaxing the pay cap is cynical as they had the option to vote in favour of it at the Queen's Speech but didn't, but are now happily undermining their leader as they jostle for position ready for the redistribution of power when May comes a cropper. However, looking past the cynicism of some of the individuals involved, having failed to win the landslide predicted and seeing how close the popular vote was, I have no issues in the Tories re-aligning some of their policies with what they believe the nation wants.

The reason I said:


is that I understand may Tories thought it was an unfinanced giveaway to entice the youth. I disagree but understand where they are coming from. Interestingly they are also re-assessing tuition fees at the moment.....

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


Indeed. An impressive speech very much let down by the words, "But that anger is overshadowed in my mind by the voice that tells me that the Tory party is the only... blah, blah, blah."

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Yes. Recent UK governments have at least attempted to pass the majority of what they offered in their manifestos in one form or another, it's the exceptions and omissions that make the news.
jk