Poll: Potential General Election: who are you voting for?

[DarloRich]

Corbyn may well be a leaver at heart, but he's promised to hold a second referendum and immediately implement the result, whichever way it goes. Why does it matter how he will campaign and vote? He will have one vote, just the same as you and I. I can make up my own mind how I will vote and I don't need Corbyn to tell me what to do. I am happy for him to act as a neutral umpire. Some people may see Corbyn's stance as weak but has anyone got any other suggestions how to heal the wounds that Brexit has caused? We've already had one MP murdered and I see that a Labour canvasser has just got their jaw broken an a doorstep in Rotherham.

As for him being unwilling to use nuclear weapons, as it has been said already, it is Labour's policy to keep Trident. For it to be effective any enemy has to believe that there's a chance that it could be used against them. All Corbyn needs to do is keep his gob shut as to wether or not he'd press the button, just like has with his views on Brexit for the three past years!

May I clarify? Are you honestly suggesting PM Corbyn use his 3 months to get a fantastic new Brexit deal, present it to the country and then not tell us why he thinks it is fantastic or why we should vote to accept it, not campaign one way or the other and not attempt to persuade those undecided why it is best for them to back him?

Are you honestly suggesting that as a sensible course of action? Honestly? From the man who would be PM.

 

[Bald Rick]

Not looked at this thread for a while. Probably just as well.

Meanwhile the odds on a Conservative majority have shortened considerably, and they are now odds on. I presume because of Farage’s tactic. A Labour majority is around 40/1.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

France operate a force of SLBM equipped nuclear submarines with one continuously at sea like our own. On top of that they operate nuclear tipped cruise missiles from air force and navy jet aircraft. France have a significantly larger and more expensive nuclear deterrent than our own...

I never knew that. Learned something.

 

[AlterEgo]

Why do we need it? Are you anticipating a Russian invasion? In what possible scenario could you even justify the use of nuclear weapons, and mutually assured destruction?

Those are redundant questions. The existence of the deterrent alone among the nuclear-proliferated powers is enough to keep a check on the balance of global power.

 

[AlterEgo]

Oh dear. As if Britain is still a colonial power.

Nobody actually gives a toss about the UK - at least not that I’m aware of.

So why nuclear weapons?

Also if it was up to me nukes would be one of those inventions that was forgotten, but moving on.

This post doesn’t make any sense; nobody has mentioned colonialism except you, and the rest is wishful thinking.

 

[SteveP29]

Incorrect - I choose not to shares sources etc with you especially in a public forum . I don't think you really want them anyway.

I smell BS

He wont even tell you what position he would take in any such referendum

Why should he?
Why do people feel they have to be lead by the hand for every decision they make in their lives?
People complain about a nanny state and the Government telling them what to do, yet here's a chance to do something for themselves and guess what, complaints.
Is it so they can fortuitously blame that person when it doesn't go the way they want it to?

 

[DarloRich]

Why should he?
Why do people feel they have to be lead by the hand for every decision they make in their lives?
People complain about a nanny state and the Government telling them what to do, yet here's a chance to do something for themselves and guess what, complaints.
Is it so they can fortuitously blame that person when it doesn't go the way they want it to?

As i said at post #841:

May I clarify? Are you honestly suggesting PM Corbyn use his 3 months to get a fantastic new Brexit deal, present it to the country and then not tell us why he thinks it is fantastic or why we should vote to accept it, not campaign one way or the other and not attempt to persuade those undecided why it is best for them to back him?

Are you honestly suggesting that as a sensible course of action? Honestly? From the man who would be PM.

 

[lyndhurst25]

May I clarify? Are you honestly suggesting PM Corbyn use his 3 months to get a fantastic new Brexit deal, present it to the country and then not tell us why he thinks it is fantastic or why we should vote to accept it, not campaign one way or the other and not attempt to persuade those undecided why it is best for them to back him?

Are you honestly suggesting that as a sensible course of action? Honestly? From the man who would be PM.

In a word, yes. Corbyn has clearly set out his time timetable for renegotiation, a second referendum and implementation. Wether his new deal is "fantastic" or not will be up to the electorate to decide. Boris already has a "deal" but Labour can improve on it by keeping us in the single market for example. If the EU won't budge then it's Boris's deal vs Remain in the referendum. I don't need or want Corbyn to tell me which way to vote or care how he votes: all I want is the facts laid bare before me so that I, along with the rest of the country, can make my choice.

 

[DarloRich]

In a word, yes. Corbyn has clearly set out his time timetable for renegotiation, a second referendum and implementation. Wether his new deal is "fantastic" or not will be up to the electorate to decide. Boris already has a "deal" but Labour can improve on it by keeping us in the single market for example. If the EU won't budge then it's Boris's deal vs Remain in the referendum. I don't need or want Corbyn to tell me which way to vote or care how he votes: all I want is the facts laid bare before me so that I, along with the rest of the country, can make my choice.

Right. You actually believe that the PM should renegotiate a deal then say nothing about it? He shouldn't try to persuade voters that his deal is best for them. He shouldn't even be expected to tell us what he thinks about brexit. Is that your view?

 

[lyndhurst25]

Corbyn can only form an opinion on the deal after he has negotiated it! If the EU won't budge and just offer him Boris's deal then he'd be a hypocrite not to campaign against it and I'm sure that he would. If he manages to negotiate a deal where we stay in the single market then he may well campaign for it. I believe that official Labour Party policy is to negotiate the best deal they can and then hold a special conference vote to decide on which side they will campaign, if any. Either way, I'm voting Remain.

 

[DarloRich]

Either way, I'm voting Remain.

so will I!

I simply feel it is incumbent on the PM to, at the very least, set out why his deal is worthy of your vote and seek to persuade undecideds to vote for it. It is them who decide any vote!

 

[Puffing Devil]

so will I!

I simply feel it is incumbent on the PM to, at the very least, set out why his deal is worthy of your vote and seek to persuade undecideds to vote for it. It is them who decide any vote!

That was not the view of Harold Wilson who remained neutral during the 1975 vote. There is a precedent for this position, even if you do not personally like it, though I do struggle to see anything that you do like.

 

[DarloRich]

That was not the view of Harold Wilson who remained neutral during the 1975 vote. There is a precedent for this position, even if you do not personally like it, though I do struggle to see anything that you do like.

Interestingly Mr Wilson did issue a leaflet setting out that he wanted people to vote remain. The stance taken by Wilson was merely a ploy to buy off the party members who voted roughly 2:1 at conference to oppose continued membership. However before conference the party had decided that it would only support a particular option if the conference voted by more than that margin.

Furthermore Lord Hattersley indicated that he ran the negotiations with the EEC and that Wilson was not neutral. He indicated that while Wilson would not campaign he would vote to remain and would answer when asked. Corbyn wont say how he would vote. That said Wilson did make speeches on Europe ( which may not class as actual campaigning) during the referendum campaign and he or Callaghan spoke every night in the last fortnight of the campaign.

There is one other key difference between Wilson and Corbyn we should consider: Wilson won elections. 4 of them. Wilson was a shrewd political operator who knew the game. Corbyn doesn't.

Of course I am sure you knew all of this but it isnt as clear cut as you and others would like to make out.

BTW - you are right. I like little about Corbyn. I was Labour member long enough to know what he is really like!

 

[DarloRich]

@Puffing Devil It boils down to this:

You aren't bothered that Corbyn wont say what he would vote for. You don't think that matters in someone who wants to lead the country. I do think that it matters and that he should be brave enough to state his case and explain why his case is the right one. If he wants to leave he should say so.

 

[Puffing Devil]

@Puffing Devil It boils down to this:

You aren't bothered that Corbyn wont say what he would vote for. You don't think that matters in someone who wants to lead the country. I do think that it matters and that he should be brave enough to state his case and explain why his case is the right one. If he wants to leave he should say so.

I'm under no illusions that Corbyn would prefer to leave. Traditional Labour party voters are split between remain and leave; he's trying to appeal to both sides to usher in a Labour victory. For me, the greatest threat to the country is a Tory Brexit and I am prepared to use my vote in the most effective way to prevent that. Any damage that may be inflicted by Corbyn the PM is secondary and can be corrected in future elections; Brexit is an ongoing weeping sore that will continue to cause problems after it is "done" by Boris; that is merely the start of many years of trade negotiations that sees us as a weaker party with very little to offer to prospective suitors. A Tory Brexit will see a dive to the bottom - I think that is worth preventing at any price.

I have no issue paying more tax to support those in need - I want people to be treated in time in hospitals; I want a functioning ambulance service; I want people to have same day access to GPs; I want people off the street and into safe accommodation; I want people to be able to live in the cities in which they work and service - either rent control or public housing. None of that will happen with the Tory Brexit - they do not have the social conscience nor will they have the cash as the economy contracts as predicted.

That's why I think of the ends, not the means.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Why do people feel they have to be lead by the hand for every decision they make in their lives?

Its what socialist governments want.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Its what socialist governments want.

And your evidence for this sweeping statement is?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

And your evidence for this sweeping statement is?

Are you for real?

For God's sake man, every political commentator all over the world knows that. Socialist/communists governments love the nanny state. Cradle-to-grave socialism I have heard it called on many occasions. Controlling the people. It is exactly what the republican party in the USA and Conservative governments don't want. Freedom is what it is all about.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Are you for real?

For God's sake man, every political commentator all over the world knows that. Socialist/communists governments love the nanny state. Cradle-to-grave socialism I have heard it called on many occasions. Controlling the people. It is exactly what the republican party in the USA and Conservative governments don't want. Freedom is what it is all about.

Yes, I am for real. What you have posted is your own belief - I strongly doubt that every political commentator all over the world shares your belief.

I note no evidence at all to support your new assertions.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

OK you win- are you happy now?

 

[EM2]

Are you for real?

For God's sake man, every political commentator all over the world knows that. Socialist/communists governments love the nanny state.

Interesting that you seem to conflate socialism and communism.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The existence of the deterrent alone among the nuclear-proliferated powers is enough to keep a check on the balance of global power.

The "nuclear deterrent" is nothing more than willy-waving. "Mine's bigger than yours!" "I've got an enormous deterrent, the biggest deterrent, just like my huge hands!"

Some countries are simply too big and powerful to invade. China, for instance. Regardless of the nukes.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Some countries are simply too big and powerful to invade. China, for instance. Regardless of the nukes.

Afghanistan has not exactly been a cakewalk either and it has zero nukes. Sometimes terrain etc makes a country difficult even with no nukes or other advanced weaponry.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Corbyn really is disgusting
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-poli...apology-from-corbyn-over-labour-anti-semitism

 

[dcsprior]

The best hope is for a humiliation of Labour and a replacement of their leadership.

I disagree. I think the best hope is for labour to be in a strongish position but short of a majority and for other left-of-centre parties to offer support contingent on Corbyn going. I'd prefer a Starmer government relying on one or more of LD/SNP/PC/SDLP/Green to a Boris government.

 

[Cowley]

I disagree. I think the best hope is for labour to be in a strongish position but short of a majority and for other left-of-centre parties to offer support contingent on Corbyn going. I'd prefer a Starmer government relying on one or more of LD/SNP/PC/SDLP/Green to a Boris government.

Not a bad shout.

 

[lyndhurst25]

Corbyn really is disgusting
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-poli...apology-from-corbyn-over-labour-anti-semitism

Corbyn could have handled the questioning more slickly but the whole thing was set up as a trap, no matter what he said he'd loose.

If he apologises - "So, you admit that the Labour Party is anti-semitic then!"
If he doesn't apologise - "So, you are ignoring the concerns of British Jews. Anti- semite!"

 

[Bald Rick]

I disagree. I think the best hope is for labour to be in a strongish position but short of a majority and for other left-of-centre parties to offer support contingent on Corbyn going. I'd prefer a Starmer government relying on one or more of LD/SNP/PC/SDLP/Green to a Boris government.

Yes that would be my preference, albeit not with such a strong Labour showing. They will need to lose seats for him to go, probably a net 20-30 or so. It also means the Conservatives have to lose a net 10-20 seats so that they can’t form a minority Government, even with support from the DUP and any other parties (eg Farage’s bunch might pick up a couple).

Given the SNP hold in Scotland (which will presumably get stronger), this means a massive swing to the Lib Dems, across the board in Labour and Conservative seats, so that they pick up a net 40-50+. Fairly unlikely I’d say, although not impossible. Even then it would require co-operation between Labour, LD, SNP & PC, and that means at least two referenda, and interesting negotiations about some SNP MPs becoming Ministers governing a country they actively want to leave.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

so will I!

I simply feel it is incumbent on the PM to, at the very least, set out why his deal is worthy of your vote and seek to persuade undecideds to vote for it. It is them who decide any vote!

That's not how I see it.

In the first place, although we have a fair idea what Labour's negotiating position would be, we do not as yet have much idea what the final deal will be. You appear to be expecting that Corbyn declares now that he will campaign in favour of (or against) an unknown deal. That hardly seems reasonable - and I'm pretty sure that if Corbyn did now declare either way which way he'd campaign, the Conservatives would immediately pounce on that as an attack line.

Secondly, we all saw what happened to David Cameron: Campaigned on one side of the referendum, lost, and instantly found himself in the almost untenable position of having as Prime Minister to implement something that he'd very publicly and very strongly been opposing 2 days before hand.

For those reasons, it seems to me that negotiating the best deal you can, then remaining neutral during the referendum so you can then credibly implement whatever the referendum result is seems to me like quite a sensible strategy. (And it's not like there won't be hundreds of other senior politicians weighing in with their views on either side of the debate).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Yes that would be my preference, albeit not with such a strong Labour showing. They will need to lose seats for him to go, probably a net 20-30 or so. It also means the Conservatives have to lose a net 10-20 seats so that they can’t form a minority Government, even with support from the DUP and any other parties (eg Farage’s bunch might pick up a couple).

Given the SNP hold in Scotland (which will presumably get stronger), this means a massive swing to the Lib Dems, across the board in Labour and Conservative seats, so that they pick up a net 40-50+. Fairly unlikely I’d say, although not impossible. Even then it would require co-operation between Labour, LD, SNP & PC, and that means at least two referenda, and interesting negotiations about some SNP MPs becoming Ministers governing a country they actively want to leave.

More plausibly, I could imagine a result in which the Tories gain 20 seats from Labour, and lose 20 seats to the LibDems +Dominic Grieve etc. and another 10 seats to the SNP. That would make it almost impossible for them to form a Government (although it would also make it very hard for Labour to form one).