Talk:Conservative–DUP agreement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge?[edit]

No one uses the term "Con–DUP pact". Shouldn't the content of this article be in Second May ministry? EddieHugh (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but I think a separate article could prove to be a useful place to record more specific information as the relationship develops over the course of the parliament. It is also possible that the "pact" will survive longer than the Second May ministry if we see a Tory leadership contest with no immediate general election subsequently, in which case the page will need to be revived (if the consensus decision is made to merge the pages for the time being). WatermillockCommon (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I used the same nomenclature as on the Lib-Lab and Lib-Con pact articles. Agree in hindsight that it wasn't the best title for this article.
Regarding whether this article should be merged, I don't think so. There's a history of arrangements between the two parties that predates the current one, and it's true that the present alliance may last into another Tory leader's tenure. --RaviC (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Title too long?[edit]

Is 'Arrangement between the Conservative Party and the Democratic Unionist Party' just a touch long winded for this article? Would something like Conservative–DUP Agreement (/Arrangement/Understanding etc.) not suffice better? In similar circumstances the dash has been used to adequately express the delineation of a specific relationship between two parties, so this idea has precedent. 

Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition agreement.

Obviously a chosen adjective can be debated accordingly and changed depending on the nature of the relationship that develops with the DUP and Tories. MatthewJAFields (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Any reference to an agreement or arrangement may need to include a date in the title in the future, as the current article also refers to the history of informal understandings/discussions between the two parties. But we'll see how things pan out... WatermillockCommon (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree with 'Conservative-DUP agreement' (we could give DUP its proper name, but it's too long really). If no one opposes, I might make the move as this will be a high-traffic article over the next few days. — Quasar G. 17:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with to an extent both points raised. On the point raised about a date potentially being needed to be tagged into the article title in order to avoid conflict between an article of generic DUP-Tory history with an article on any specific agreement: I would argue perhaps that the generic relationship between the two parties prior to the election is itself not warranting of its own article, and would be better spun off elsewhere; eg the Conservative and DUP's main pages, the main General Election 2017 page, other historical articles covering generically the state politics in the UK - and obviously mentioned in the opening context of any article on the specific deal the two parties reach forming the basis of a government in 2017. Thus mitigating such need to date the article.
I agree that DUP should be used as a shortened version of the Democratic Unionist Party - anyone who would argue that it is unfair to shorten one party and not the other holds double standards. For if both parties were to be fully named in the title the article would become 'Conservative and Unionist Party-Democratic Unionist Party agreement'- which is ridiculous (WP:NC). Obviously common sense is best placed to use shorthand versions which are much commonly used and well known, namely Conservative and DUP. One other solution could be the removal of 'Party' in the title, which out of its three word title, is perhaps the party's least relevant descriptor. Thus leaving Conservative-Democratic Unionist agreement. But I remain of the opinion that from the amount of attention people in Northern Ireland and the media give to the 'DUP' abbreviation, that it has become practically the unoffial party name as, just as Conservatives has become the de facto name of the Conservative and Unionist Party. Therefore, Conservative-DUP agreement would use incarnations of the two parties' names that are the most well known and the most used; concise, well understood and relevant.
- MatthewJAFields (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Page moved as per discussion above. WatermillockCommon (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Agreement not signed yet - was an error[edit]

Sky news is saying that the statement about an agreement was in error. [1]

"Sky sources: Downing Street's statement on DUP made in error"
"The DUP tells Sky News that talks with the Tories have so far been positive - but there has been NO agreement on a deal."

Robert Walker (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the Good Friday Agreement.[edit]

There seem to be some very serious concerns regarding this agreement and its relationship to the Good Friday Agreement, particularly the impartiality of the British and Irish governments. Here are some useful sources:

General

Enda Kenny's comments:

Jonathan Powell's comments:

  • "Mrs May's deal with the DUP threatens 20 years hard work in Ireland" – The Guardian, 11 June (written by Powell)

I'm not really an expert in the area but I am very willing to help add this to the article – it seems a particularly glaring omission. GringisMan (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


-> I agree that the controversy associated with this agreement-in-progress should be covered. Other controversies such as the DUP's LGBT views and the petition signed objecting to this agreement, for example, also warrant coverage in my opinion. Obviously with the terms of this agreement still so vague it is somewhat difficult to frame accurately into encyclopedic format at the moment. Yet the focus on this topic is getting to the stage where the subsection 'Since 2017 minority goverment' ought to be separated out as a new section where the various aspects and relevant opinions on the agreement can be properly outlined.
  • Telegraph Reporters and Press Association (10 June 2017). "Backlash against Tory-DUP deal grows as petition hits 500,000 signatures". The Telegraph. Retrieved 11 June 2017.
I would agree with you there. I'd also include a section on the DUP's view on LGBT rights in Northern Ireland, but a very brief summary and a hatnote to the subsection on the DUP page/LGBT rights in Northern Ireland page. Although this agreement has shone a torch onto the issue in the mainland British MSM, that isn't really exclusively related to the agreement – but it will inevitably tarnish the Tories by association. GringisMan (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-> Agree with all points raised and will assist with this where I can, thank you.
MatthewJAFields (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section needs to be on the page. It seems like one of the most obvious threats to the agreement at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.200.104.73 (talk) 04:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality has not been made into criminal offences in Northern Ireland since the year 1982. Civil partnerships are legally recognised and are domestically available as lawful in Northern Ireland since the year 2004. What's the problem, really?! This is just a faux fake pink outrage...from pro-Irish Republican Irish Catholic Labour activists within the Labour Party, masquerading this as a gay-rights issue...those who basically want to bash the DUP under any excuse or pretext simply because the DUP are Protestants in Northern Ireland...in the 1980s, they (or their parents) would had simply yelled "Brits out [of Ireland]"! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 08:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Factual inaccuracies contained in the File:UK House of Commons Elxn 17 Results.svg graphic[edit]

1. The Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland are NOT actually forming a full "full-on" formal governing coalition with the Conservative Party like what the Tories did with the LibDems back in 2010-2015, instead of just trying to reach a confidence and supply agreement to enable the Conservatives to form and maintain a minority government, so they will not be expected to sit on the Conservatives' Government benches.

2. At least 2 Labour MPs will not be actually sitting as Labour MPs, but instead they become (or more likely expect to return to become) Deputy Speakers of the House of Commons.

3. Sinn Féin MPs customarily (as SF Party policy) do not actually assume (take up) their seats in the HOC by taking the required oaths of allegiance to the Queen as the Crown and of office, so unless they actually start doing so they are not really "real MPs" at all and they cannot really be depicted in the graphics.

Aside / civility

(And Labour persuading SF to renounce Westminster "abstentionism" is basically just that: a Momentum/Corbynista Hard Left/Trot Left fantasy wet/wank dream, like a 15-year-old schoolboy fantasising having a threesome with two of his married female teachers with kids of their own...it is just simply not going to happen!)

-- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 03:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that anonymous IP user - I was about to suggest that you also take your comments to the talk page for this image on Commons, but I see you have already done so, including your rather lewd choice of metaphor! Perhaps you might like to consider less "un-Parliamentary language" when discussing Commons matters in future... Anyway, the graphic will probably be updated to relfect any changes such as members move to become Deputy Speakers. You can (politely) request this from the original uploader. The graphic does not imply coalition, and information about SF abstention is handled in the accompanying text key. However, other graphics are available - you may feel that this one is more accurate, in which case feel free to replace it, or have a look in Commons:Category:2017 UK General election. I think it's useful to have this type of graphic in this article, but accuracy is important, as you rightly point out. Cnbrb (talk) 10:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why...and why?! Firstly, UK politics articles here on Wikipedia are generally written in the perspective of a 18-25-year-old (and usually male) Labour activist, with almost no due regard to political neutrality, as far back as Iain Duncan Smith's and Michael Howard's articles back in '04/5...what is the problem with a bit of "blue" (pardon the pun!) thrown in the mix to liven up the discourse a bit, when they are so biased that they are virtually unusable and unreadable for the Under-18s at schools or back at home anyway?! And I am not an MP anyhow, so why should I be expected to use Parliamentary language?! And who are you exactly, Mary Whitehouse?! And secondly, my point stands here! SF MPs do NOT sit in the HOC, therefore they should NOT be depicted as ordinary sitting MPs in any graph, chart or graphic. And thirdly, I think that the three (in fact) Deputy Speakers (who WILL be one from the Government benches (Tory) and 2 from the official Opposition's benches (Labour) based upon established British Parliamentary convention, regardless of who they are going to be) should be taken out (from the respective benches) from any graph or graphic depicting Parliamentary (HOC) dynamics with regards to majorities and minorities. -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 08:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Parliamentary language" was of course a reference to the requirement on all editors to be civil, which means sexually explicit language isn't accepted. I'm sorry you didn't understand that. As for the graphic, an editor has changed it to one that is felt to be more accurate. As I have already stated, changes to reflect deputy speakers can be reflected in the graphic if you ask the original poster in a civil manner. As I have also already explained, the 7 abstaining seats held by Sinn Féin are marked as such. You could perhaps argue that abstaining seats could be reflected in the graphic, e.g. a line through them, but to leave them out of such graphics would not be accurate. Wikipedia is about impartiality and accuracy. Your continued use of caps lock does not make you any more right.Cnbrb (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What "agreement" between the DUP and the Conservatives in 2015?[edit]

An article in the Daily Telegraph refers to and shows a photograph of a "draft agreement" between the DUP and the Conservatives following the 2015 general election. But the existence of the draft has not been confirmed by either party, and a "draft" agreement is not an agreement. We do not know

  • whether it is a genuine document

If the Daily Telegraph's account is accurate, then all it indicates is that representatives of Conservatives David Cameron and George Osborne drew up the document. Assuming it is accurate, we do not know

  • whether the document incorporated points that had been agreed in principle by both parties
  • whether it was agreed by the Conservative party
  • whether it was actually given to the DUP
  • whether it was agreed by the DUP

I will edit the article to say that the Tory newspaper the Daily Telegraph has claimed that representatives of two leading Tories drew up a draft agreement in 2015. Alternatively we could omit reference to the purported draft. 73lendge (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article can state that it has been claimed in the media, of course, if you want to reword it. The claim has been repeated today in the Independent, if you want another source. The Telegraph is still considered as a reliable source by Wikipedia as far as I am aware, so personally disliking the newspaper isn't really a good reason for removing the content.10:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Dislike wasn't offered as a reason for anything. The Independent article is not an independent source: it simply cites the Daily Telegraph. If a document surfaces, it is good journalism to put it to the party that is supposed to have produced it. One can reasonably assume that this was done. And there is no report either in the Daily Telegraph or anywhere else reliable that David Cameron or George Osborne have confirmed the genuineness of the document. 73lendge (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You said the Telegraph was a "Tory newspaper", and that its account was possibly untrue. That suggests you think it's an unreliable source.16:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Update[edit]

Would somebody in the know please make a referenced update to this article? Does the Conservative-DUP agreement still apply, now that Theresa May is no longer Prime Minister? Does it still apply now that there has been a Queen's Speech and a new session of parliament? Thanks in advance! --Wavehunter (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to Martin McGuinness[edit]

Martin McGuinness passed away in March 2017. Yet, this article makes reference to his comments and an op-ed about the agreement in June 2017!

This should probably be changed to refer to Gerry Adams. The op-ed cited in reference [75], attributed to McGuinness in the article, was definitely authored by Adams.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Conservative–DUP_agreement&oldid=1206778112"