Theresa May calls General Election on 8th June.

[Y961 XBU]

I live in a safe Labour seat but that would never stop me voting Green, Everyone should get out and vote for who they think would do the best job for their local area

 

[Dave1987]

The choice in this election for the main parties is utterly terrible. BUT that should never stop you from making use of your vote. Even if that is spoiling your ballot. Vote for an independent if you cannot stomach voting for a main party or spoiling your ballot. Just use your vote! Many millions of people died for us to have the right to vote.

 

[AlterEgo]

The choice in this election for the main parties is utterly terrible. BUT that should never stop you from making use of your vote. Even if that is spoiling your ballot. Vote for an independent if you cannot stomach voting for a main party or spoiling your ballot. Just use your vote! Many millions of people died for us to have the right to vote.

I agree.

I wish there was a "none of the above" option. I am very much undecided about whether I'll spoil my ballot or vote Lib Dem or even independent.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Another thing about Labour is that I am frightened by Momentum, which reminds me of something out of Animal Farm or of certain organisations in the former "people's democracies". I did live for a year in one of those and was fascinated to see just how the party of government operated to keep control of the people. While I might not believe that Corbyn would go down that road, I wouldn't like to bet that McDonald and Milne wouldn't half like to try.

I have many, many, disagreements with Momentum and am not involved with them myself. But I do know a number of people who are significantly involved with Momentum fairly well, and have read some of the stuff they've produced. As far as I can tell from that, comparing Momentum with Animal Farm or with the former Soviet satellites really is absurd. Momentum in my view lack some understanding of economics and tend to want policies that are unrealistic/likely to be ineffective, but so far as I can tell they believe completely in democracy and free speech, and although they want certain key industries such as rail to be run under public ownership, they do on the whole believe in free enterprise. Most people involved with momentum seem to be socially pretty liberal - indeed, more so that much of the Conservative Party! It's inconceivable that they'd want the kind of Government control over people's lives that you seem to be implying.

Are you sure you haven't been believing too many scare stories by right-wing commentators?

 

[AM9]

I agree.

I wish there was a "none of the above" option. I am very much undecided about whether I'll spoil my ballot or vote Lib Dem or even independent.

There is, - you write 'none of the above' in large letters across the paper so that:

a) it is recorded as spoilt
and
b) the number of spoilt papers is reviewed, and in the case of a large increase in their number, the Electoral Comission would probably report on the issue including the method by whichthey were invalidated.​

On the other hand, if you fail to turn up at the polling station and draw your paper, you are included in the metric of 'couldn't be bothered', - nobody cares why you didn't vote, - so nothing changes.

 

[tspaul26]

I live in a safe Labour seat but that would never stop me voting Green, Everyone should get out and vote for who they think would do the best job for their local area

Hear, hear!

One of the main reasons why I support electoral reform: Additional Member System; 360 constituencies; 240 list. Every elector's vote counts.

A strong constituency link is retained; an element of proportionality across the country as a whole is introduced; a party that gets a landslide in the popular vote can win a majority; and, if list regions are used, you have a choice of parties and independents to go to if you don't like your constituency MP.

 

[backontrack]

I have many, many, disagreements with Momentum and am not involved with them myself. But I do know a number of people who are significantly involved with Momentum fairly well, and have read some of the stuff they've produced. As far as I can tell from that, comparing Momentum with Animal Farm or with the former Soviet satellites really is absurd. Momentum in my view lack some understanding of economics and tend to want policies that are unrealistic/likely to be ineffective, but so far as I can tell they believe completely in democracy and free speech, and although they want certain key industries such as rail to be run under public ownership, they do on the whole believe in free enterprise. Most people involved with momentum seem to be socially pretty liberal - indeed, more so that much of the Conservative Party! It's inconceivable that they'd want the kind of Government control over people's lives that you seem to be implying.

Are you sure you haven't been believing too many scare stories by right-wing commentators?

Agreed.

 

[PHILIPE]

If Labour win the Election, I'm sure many people who voted for them will be regretting their decision after a period of time.

 

[Busaholic]

If Labour win the Election, I'm sure many people who voted for them will be regretting their decision after a period of time.

Not half as many as will regret their Referendum choice.

 

[WelshBluebird]

If Labour win the Election, I'm sure many people who voted for them will be regretting their decision after a period of time.

And I am pretty sure you could say that about many people who voted Tory in 2010 and 2015 too!

 

[Tim R-T-C]

If Labour win the Election, I'm sure many people who voted for them will be regretting their decision after a period of time.

Unless the economy, security situation and global situation remains completely static, it is impossible to say as we could only surmise as to how the opposition might have reacted to an issue.

At the minimum, no-one can say where the Brexit negotiations are going to go. Whether the remaining EU block would view Corbyn or May more kindly.

 

[Class172]

Hear, hear!

One of the main reasons why I support electoral reform: Additional Member System; 360 constituencies; 240 list. Every elector's vote counts.

A strong constituency link is retained; an element of proportionality across the country as a whole is introduced; a party that gets a landslide in the popular vote can win a majority; and, if list regions are used, you have a choice of parties and independents to go to if you don't like your constituency MP.

Agreed, a Mixed-member proportional system such as you describe would be ideal in my personal view. It has the additional benefit that people can vote for a local MP that they feel represents their local issues best, even if they don't necessarily support the party they represent — the party they support can then be selected from the electoral lists.

 

[HSTEd]

Hear, hear!

One of the main reasons why I support electoral reform: Additional Member System; 360 constituencies; 240 list. Every elector's vote counts.

A strong constituency link is retained; an element of proportionality across the country as a whole is introduced; a party that gets a landslide in the popular vote can win a majority; and, if list regions are used, you have a choice of parties and independents to go to if you don't like your constituency MP.

I don't like party lists.
I prefer the Hansard system where top-up candidates are derived from the 'highest scoring losers' for that party. This has the advantage that candidates that are selected inevitably tend to live in the portions of the electoral region with greater concentrations of that party's support.

Additionally MMP with two votes to cast has been demonstrated to be somewhat confusing, withs ome people thinking that the system is some form of Supplementary Vote.
I prefer a single ballot cast for simplicity's sake.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Agreed, a Mixed-member proportional system such as you describe would be ideal in my personal view. It has the additional benefit that people can vote for a local MP that they feel represents their local issues best, even if they don't necessarily support the party they represent — the party they support can then be selected from the electoral lists.

Out of interest, how would you solve the problem of ending up with two different types of MP.... The ones who have been elected for a constituency and therefore have loads of constituency casework, and the top-up ones who therefore don't?

 

[Class172]

Out of interest, how would you solve the problem of ending up with two different types of MP.... The ones who have been elected for a constituency and therefore have loads of constituency casework, and the top-up ones who therefore don't?

To that… I don't really have an answer! Perhaps it would involve a careful look at the balance between the number of constituency and list MPs, such that each 'local' MP doesn't cover too large a population. I don't profess to have any knowledge of the workings of the different electoral systems, so those are just my thoughts.

 

[vrbarreto]

Out of interest, how would you solve the problem of ending up with two different types of MP.... The ones who have been elected for a constituency and therefore have loads of constituency casework, and the top-up ones who therefore don't?

No different to the bloatware we have in the house of Lords.. They don't represent anyone! These MP's without constituencies would be able to devote more time to being involved in committees and trade delegations

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

No different to the bloatware we have in the house of Lords.. They don't represent anyone! These MP's without constituencies would be able to devote more time to being involved in committees and trade delegations

What the House of Lords actually does in reality is to give any required checks and balances to matters sent to it from another place. It has been so for eons.

 

[SteveP29]

We really do need to stop and discuss this issue, but has it been raised at any debates? What will future Government to do give the next generation work, with or without Brexit as a further complication?

This, and it needs to be done in conjunction with talks about Universal Income.
If the government aren't able to provide work for people, then we will end up with even more welfare dependency and anger from those working who think that their taxes are being used to fund 'layabouts and scroungers' lifestyles with cigarettes, alcohol and sky tv and all those other cliches

 

[SteveP29]

The problem is any answer other than 'Yes, absolutely I would launch a retaliatory strike' undermines the whole point of having it in the first place. Anyone who might consider attacking the UK needs to be convinced that, if pushed too far or attacked by nuclear weapons, we will retaliate. Prevaricating is not an option.

Personally speaking I agree with Corbyn on this issue. If by some very strange twist of fate I became PM then I wouldn't order a retaliatory strike and my letters of last resort to the submarine commanders would instruct them not to retaliate. But if a journalist asked me the question my answer would be an unequivocal 'Yes, absolutely I would launch a retaliatory strike' because that has to be the answer.

Indirectly quoting something I saw on twitter the other day (as in, I can't remember the tweet exactly, but it went along the lines of:

If we are attacked with nuclear weapons, our deterrent wasn't much of a deterrent and if we strike first, then we become the aggressor, which isn't a deterrent

 

[DarloRich]

The problem is any answer other than 'Yes, absolutely I would launch a retaliatory strike' undermines the whole point of having it in the first place. Anyone who might consider attacking the UK needs to be convinced that, if pushed too far or attacked by nuclear weapons, we will retaliate. Prevaricating is not an option.

I agree. The answer, at least in public, is yes. But then Corbyn ( i think) wants to undermine the concept of deterrence.

I am very happy to subscribe to the view outlined by Corbyn that we should ALL work towards delivering a nuclear free world. However, until he can do that we have to keep our weapons. At the very least they cause a moment of pause in the minds of the lunatics ( North Korea, Iran etc).

Personally speaking I agree with Corbyn on this issue. If by some very strange twist of fate I became PM then I wouldn't order a retaliatory strike and my letters of last resort to the submarine commanders would instruct them not to retaliate. But if a journalist asked me the question my answer would be an unequivocal 'Yes, absolutely I would launch a retaliatory strike' because that has to be the answer.

If the submarine captains open the letters then the writer is most likely dead so the deterrent has clearly failed. I think I would take the cowards way out. I think i would say sorry chaps - up to you.............................

Indirectly quoting something I saw on twitter the other day (as in, I can't remember the tweet exactly, but it went along the lines of:

If we are attacked with nuclear weapons, our deterrent wasn't much of a deterrent and if we strike first, then we become the aggressor, which isn't a deterrent

But by the same logic if nothing happens the deterrent has been a success. Nothing has happened thus far................

 

[SteveP29]

Labour would do the same but worse, I had some goon from Labour asking if I've vote for them - well with the gold reserve being sold of cheaply, the near bankrupcy of the country, the backdoor attemt are holding Britain to random in regards to Brexit and the continuous pulling of the race card (I asked them if they could name me another race other than human, they couldn't answer) I think not.

I'd rather have another five years of the Tories before we boot them out and replace them with UKIP or SDP in 2022, than I would with Labour who would destroy the country within a year especially with Captain Birdseye at the controls.

You need to have a read of this before you accuse Brown of selling it off cheaply, you'll find that we're in a significantly better position now than if he hadn't
https://www.ft.com/content/5788dbac-7680-11e0-b05b-00144feabdc0

 

[DarloRich]

Labour would do the same but worse, I had some goon from Labour asking if I've vote for them - well with the gold reserve being sold of cheaply, the near bankrupcy of the country, the backdoor attemt are holding Britain to random in regards to Brexit and the continuous pulling of the race card (I asked them if they could name me another race other than human, they couldn't answer) I think not.

I'd rather have another five years of the Tories before we boot them out and replace them with UKIP or SDP in 2022, than I would with Labour who would destroy the country within a year especially with Captain Birdseye at the controls.

can we try and keep things rational? :roll:

 

[Tetchytyke]

I am very happy to subscribe to the view outlined by Corbyn that we should ALL work towards delivering a nuclear free world. However, until he can do that we have to keep our weapons. At the very least they cause a moment of pause in the minds of the lunatics ( North Korea, Iran etc).

Germany, the biggest and most powerful nation in Europe, doesn't have nuclear weapons. No "lunatics" have tried to invade Germany.

Israel won't say whether they have nuclear weapons or not. So they get all the benefits of deterrence without any of the cost, either political or financial. Israel aren't even prepared to admit they have them, never mind say that they will use them.
Maybe that's the way forward, Schroedinger's Trident.

 

[me123]

Out of interest, how would you solve the problem of ending up with two different types of MP.... The ones who have been elected for a constituency and therefore have loads of constituency casework, and the top-up ones who therefore don't?

Works fine in Scotland and Wales. Our parliaments use AMS to boost he numbers of members 1 not a problem that we have in Westminster so I don't support this in the Westminster system. But, those additional MPs represent people across a number of constituencies. Since they are unlikely to be all from one party, it means that I can approach MPs from a range of political persuasions. If my constituency MP doesn't care about my issue or is a workshy deadweight in a safe seat, I can still get local representation from the regional MPs.

It also means that MPs who are appointed ministerial positions aren't just abandoning their constituents for national issues. One of the problems in the current system is that a not insignificant number of MPs simply cannot represent their constituency. The speaker is the obvious example here. He is returned with no real contest and cannot represent his constituents. The PM has more ability to do so, but has obvious time constraints. Under the AMS, the ministers would either be appointed from a regional list, so don't represent a single constituency, or from a constituency seat where the additional members can still represent the constituents.

 

[DarloRich]

Germany, the biggest and most powerful nation in Europe, doesn't have nuclear weapons. No "lunatics" have tried to invade Germany.

Israel won't say whether they have nuclear weapons or not. So they get all the benefits of deterrence without any of the cost, either political or financial. Israel aren't even prepared to admit they have them, never mind say that they will use them.
Maybe that's the way forward, Schroedinger's Trident.

Technically several lunatics have tied and succeeded in invading Germany. The last one was a Russian chap. The Germans DO ( or did) have nuclear weapons in the form of bombs to be delivered by their Tornado aircraft should the Russians return.

Israel, despite not confirming the position, has nuclear weapons and is said to have an ICBM capability and nuclear armed submarine cruise missiles.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Technically several lunatics have tied and succeeded in invading Germany. The last one was a Russian chap.

And Germany had nuclear weapons at that time.

Oh.

Germany doesn't have a nuclear capability. It obviously enjoys the protection of NATO, and the US, French and British nukes. But it doesn't have any of its own.

Israel, despite not confirming the position, has nuclear weapons and is said to have an ICBM capability and nuclear armed submarine cruise missiles.

It's said that Israel has nukes, and it's probably a good guess that they do, but they don't officially have them. My point is that Israel won't say they have them and so, inevitably, can't say that they will use them. And that's been the criticism of Corbyn- that he "won't commit to using nukes" and that that is bad for safety. It doesn't seem to do Israel any harm.

 

[vrbarreto]

What the House of Lords actually does in reality is to give any required checks and balances to matters sent to it from another place. It has been so for eons.

Hardly democratic though is it? Loose you seat in an election.. get elevated to the house of Lords.. Have some spare cash to donate...get elevated to the house of Lords... Member of a particular religion.. get an automatic seat in the house of Lords...

 

[HSTEd]

Germany, the biggest and most powerful nation in Europe, doesn't have nuclear weapons. No "lunatics" have tried to invade Germany.

Then why does the Luftwaffe train continuously in the employment of nuclear arms?

Israel won't say whether they have nuclear weapons or not. So they get all the benefits of deterrence without any of the cost, either political or financial. Israel aren't even prepared to admit they have them, never mind say that they will use them.
Maybe that's the way forward, Schroedinger's Trident.

Unfortunately Israel does spend the huge sum of money on maintaining a facility that at least appears capable of producing such weapons.

Germany doesn't have a nuclear capability. It obviously enjoys the protection of NATO, and the US, French and British nukes. But it doesn't have any of its own.

Those two things are not intimately connected.
In time of war nuclear weapons could and would be delivered by German aircraft.

Just because the weapons have USAF written on the side changes little.

And don't you believe that Britain should contribute to its own defence rather than simply freeloading on the Americans and French?

 

[GusB]

Out of interest, how would you solve the problem of ending up with two different types of MP.... The ones who have been elected for a constituency and therefore have loads of constituency casework, and the top-up ones who therefore don't?

That's what happens with Scottish Parliament elections, and I don't really see it as a problem. My "local" MSP is SNP, but if I voted for another party I still have have representatives to take up any issues on my behalf (3 Conservative, 2 Labour and 1 Green). I would imagine that they still do constituency work of sorts, just with much bigger areas.

 

[DarloRich]

And Germany had nuclear weapons at that time.

Not sure they did. Cpl Schicklgruber didn't get that far.

Germany doesn't have a nuclear capability. It obviously enjoys the protection of NATO, and the US, French and British nukes. But it doesn't have any of its own.

it has (or did) access to a supply of nuclear bombs via the Americans as part of their NATO commitment. They don't own them but are ( or were) responsible for dropping them onto Russians.

It's said that Israel has nukes, and it's probably a good guess that they do, but they don't officially have them. My point is that Israel won't say they have them and so, inevitably, can't say that they will use them. And that's been the criticism of Corbyn- that he "won't commit to using nukes" and that that is bad for safety. It doesn't seem to do Israel any harm.

I am sure if you asked the IDF commanders a theoretical question that IF they had such weapons would they use them in response to an attack by an enemy with similar weapons they would say yes.

In any event we do have nuclear missiles. We have to give the appearance we would use them if attacked even if we all know it is probably a bluff. Corbyn needs to just say yes when asked. He can wibble on about retaliation and nuclear disarmament all he likes after that.

The concept only works if everyone agrees that they would use their missiles if attacked. As mad as that it there is logic. If one player doesn't play by the rules then other, smaller, players may feel they have an advantage and can "win"

See Yes Minister on deterrent: Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn't, they don't certainly know that, although you probably wouldn't, there is no probability that you certainly would.