UK General Election, June 8th 2017

[thumb21]

I was in St. Albans today and saw an overwhelming number of Lib Dem signs. Probably doesn't mean much. Perhaps it's just that Liberal signs stand out better than Conservative ones which blend in, and probably Liberals are more willing to advertise their political opinions than Conservatives.

It is the kind of seat where the Lib Dems might be competitive if they had managed to get their support into the mid- to high-teens (even though it's never actually elected a Lib Dem in the past), but seems unlikely that they could win it now. I guess it's possible though if a lot of Labour voters are willing to vote tactically? It's much better demographically for the Lib Dems now than a lot of seats they held in all or part of 1997-2015 are.

True. We will see. In 2010, the Lib Dems did quite well there and were only 4.4 points behind the Tories. Perhaps with the Lib Dem vote shifting with rural Eurosceptic Lib Dem supporters abandoning ship and being replaced by more urban "remoaners," places like St. Albans could be in play. I suppose we will find that out. Either way, Tories will probably still win.

[thumb21]

I would have thought the Lib Dems would be the ideal party for British Jews. They are pro-Europe socially liberal but relatively pro free market as well. What's not to like?

The Lib Dems are largely non-interventionist, which tends to include tepid feelings about Israel and support for Israel and moreover attracts some of the kind of people who have less savory views on the subject (regardless of the fact that the party itself does not hold such views).

In the US the Republican try to be more pro-Israel than most Israelis are while the Democrats are much more "nuanced" on the Middle East and yet American Jews favour Democrats over Republicans by about a 4 to 1 margin. Why the difference?

Well, most importantly, U.S. Jews aren't UK Jews?

and most importantly us-democrats are not corbyn labourites.

where would one put corbyn on an americanized scale? bernie sanders, hillary clinton, or something in between?

a reasonable distance to the left of bernie sanders

[thumb21]

young people LOVE corbyn...and are not going to vote.

Yes, BECAUSE THEY HAVE EXAMS TO WORRY ABOUT!!!
Puting the election right in the middle of exam week was a dick move, and probably done that way to make sure the CONservatives would win.

Voting takes 10, 20, at most 30 minutes. Students aren't stuck in an exam room for the entire exam season. It's a poor excuse.

[thumb21]

What type of loss would it take for Corbyn to step down? It seems Labour is past the wipe out phase, I wonder if even a net gain of few seats is enough to keep him around or would he stay even if they lost seats?

Gaining seats is not winning. Labour is a party of government, not a party of opposition. We need to be winning elections. Preferably someone who has his popular policies but doesn't have his stupid baggage should replace Corbyn after the election. I'm sick of Labour supporters celebrating that we are 7-8 points behind. We should be ahead!

[thumb21]

What type of loss would it take for Corbyn to step down? It seems Labour is past the wipe out phase, I wonder if even a net gain of few seats is enough to keep him around or would he stay even if they lost seats?

Gaining seats is not winning. Labour is a party of government, not a party of opposition. We need to be winning elections. Preferably someone who has his popular policies but doesn't have his stupid baggage should replace Corbyn after the election. I'm sick of Labour supporters celebrating that we are 7-8 points behind. We should be ahead!

Considering there are at least 30 seats or so in Scotland that went to the SNP and probably will not come back in the short term, Labour winning even if they don't get a majority is probably a huge victory already. Hell, just getting a hung parliament where SNP+Labour have a majority would already be victory for Labour! (those Scottish seats aren't coming back)

Not really. SNP+Labour majority would be a lose lose scenario for Labour and would be a complete disaster for Labour's long term. If Labour wants to get anywhere, it has to aim for an outright majority. Recent polls are suggesting a Labour rebound at this point in Scotland which is good. Better leadership and by 2022, by then a deeply unpopular Conservative government and a declining SNP, I like Labour would have a good chance.

[thumb21]

young people LOVE corbyn...and are not going to vote.

Yes, BECAUSE THEY HAVE EXAMS TO WORRY ABOUT!!!
Puting the election right in the middle of exam week was a dick move, and probably done that way to make sure the CONservatives would win.

Voting takes 10, 20, at most 30 minutes. Students aren't stuck in an exam room for the entire exam season. It's a poor excuse.

Yes, but what will be a higher priority for a student? Voting, or studying for other exams? Surely you can't say that studying is a poor excuse during exam time?

It takes about thirty minutes. Anyone who is studying to the extent that they can't take a 30 minutes break to vote should probably reconsider their work-life balance. It's not really very healthy. And you have other options like mail ballots and voting by proxy.

[thumb21]

Amazing how far Corbyn has come...this guy was a laughing stock who repeatedly got trolled in the house of commons and now he's almost winning while turning May into the bumbling idiot she is.

And if Labour's surge turns out to be a polling error, he will return to being a laughingstock.

Even if the polling is dramatically overrepresenting Labour, it's severely unlikely that they would fall down back to the 24% that they were polling before. Polls in Britain are bad, but not 14 points bad.

[thumb21]

Corbyn won't retaliate to a nuclear attack that isn't going to happen? outrageous!

Things can change a lot in 5 years. People deserve to know that if we are attacked, we are not just gonna sit back.

[thumb21]

Corbyn won't retaliate to a nuclear attack that isn't going to happen? outrageous!

Things can change a lot in 5 years. People deserve to know that if we are attacked, we are not just gonna sit back.

yea man, i'm sure that the irradiated zombies living in the rubble of post-nuke london would be primarily concerned about britain's ability to incinerate moscow or pyongyang and not about the fact that they are  dying a horrible death.

If we are attacked, we have to attack back. This should be one of the most uncontroversial things ever.

[thumb21]

Corbyn won't retaliate to a nuclear attack that isn't going to happen? outrageous!

Things can change a lot in 5 years. People deserve to know that if we are attacked, we are not just gonna sit back.

yea man, i'm sure that the irradiated zombies living in the rubble of post-nuke london would be primarily concerned about britain's ability to incinerate moscow or pyongyang and not about the fact that they are  dying a horrible death.

If we are attacked, we have to attack back. This should be one of the most uncontroversial things ever.

Retaliating against the country that attacked you isn't controversial. Killing thousands of innocent citizens of that country is.

Your solution is what? How would you prevent multiple British cities from being incinerated? Sometimes there are necessary evils.

[thumb21]

Corbyn won't retaliate to a nuclear attack that isn't going to happen? outrageous!

Things can change a lot in 5 years. People deserve to know that if we are attacked, we are not just gonna sit back.

yea man, i'm sure that the irradiated zombies living in the rubble of post-nuke london would be primarily concerned about britain's ability to incinerate moscow or pyongyang and not about the fact that they are  dying a horrible death.

If we are attacked, we have to attack back. This should be one of the most uncontroversial things ever.

Retaliating against the country that attacked you isn't controversial. Killing thousands of innocent citizens of that country is.

Your solution is what?

Targeting strategic places, state institutions, infrastructure and politicians responsible for and supportive of the attack.

I agree but if you think large numbers of civilians are not also going to die there, you are mistaken.

[thumb21]

I agree but if you think large numbers of civilians are not also going to die there, you are mistaken.

Still different than nuking a place.

I advocated for retaliating, not necessarily nuking back unless there are no other options.

[thumb21]

Corbyn won't retaliate to a nuclear attack that isn't going to happen? outrageous!

Things can change a lot in 5 years. People deserve to know that if we are attacked, we are not just gonna sit back.

yea man, i'm sure that the irradiated zombies living in the rubble of post-nuke london would be primarily concerned about britain's ability to incinerate moscow or pyongyang and not about the fact that they are  dying a horrible death.

If we are attacked, we have to attack back. This should be one of the most uncontroversial things ever.

Retaliating against the country that attacked you isn't controversial. Killing thousands of innocent citizens of that country is.

Your solution is what? How would you prevent multiple British cities from being incinerated? Sometimes there are necessary evils.

By definition, retaliation is AFTER said cities were incinerated.

Yes, and if you fail to show your strength by retaliation, more cities will be incinerated.

I agree but if you think large numbers of civilians are not also going to die there, you are mistaken.

Still different than nuking a place.

I advocated for retaliating, not necessarily nuking back unless there are no other options.

There has never been a time in the history of the world where there are "no other options" than dropping a nuclear bomb.

Good and let's keep it that way.

So many weird wedge issues in the UK. Fox hunting..trident there is virtually no threat of nuclear war right now or the near future, the concept of MAD is obsolete.

Once again, you don't know what will be going on in 4 years time. It's important to keep our nuclear deterrent to keep ourselves safe from any threats.

[thumb21]

Their model appears to be a waste of time. Copeland is shown as lean Labour. Even if we are optimistic for Labour and the results are 38 - 42, Copeland as a by-election gain for a ruling party going back to Labour would be massive...and probably unrealistic. Unless someone has more information on this than I?

[thumb21]

Let's say the Tories lose just barely (by 10-20 seats, for example).  If they agreed to form a coalition, who would they form it with? 

I would assume the Lib Dems learned from their 2015 slandering and won't side with the Tories, so would that leave Northern Irish parties like DUP and UUP?

Probably then just a Conservative - Unionist minority coalition or a Conservative minority govt with Unionist support in that case.

I don't see any other alternative unless maybe UKIP does better than expected, but that would come mostly at the Conservatives' expense anyway and it's extremely unlikely. If there is a hung parliament, there is definitely a chance that we could be having another election this year.

[thumb21]

Survation

CON 40
LAB 39
LIB 8
UKIP 5

I think somebody is regretting calling an election. Serves her right.

I just hope the SNP doesn't get its way whoever wins.

[thumb21]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40146916

Unfortunately... another attack..........

[thumb21]

I would advise against that. It's too soon.