Theresa May calls General Election on 8th June.

[Xenophon PCDGS]

One newspaper is Theresa may now calling Theresa Maybe.

About par for the course in the never-ending journalistic striving for "catch-phrases"....:roll:

 

[Groningen]

And it is 'marxist' Corbyn. The article is translated from the Economist. So not a dutch, but british view about it.

 

[northwichcat]

One newspaper is Theresa may now calling Theresa Maybe.

Could be worse - they could have said "Theresa May Not"

 

[Howardh]

Regarding the nuclear issue - which comes first to most voters minds, getting treated on the NHS, who pays for your education, inflation, Brexit, policing etc etc, or whether our PM would launch a second strike when we're all dead anyway? Are the dead allowed to vote a government out if they didn't *press the button*?

Basically, the nuclear issue is for the Oxford debating societies. Why would someone use them to attack for land when that land can't be used for 1000's of years - if ever? If it's for defence, then someone's attacked (see above).

SO back to the debate, if we're gonna press the button we're dead, or as good as dead anyway. Maybe Nicola on her remote Scottish island might survive for a short time, at least a part of Scotland will have it's independence!

 

[northwichcat]

Are Free Tuition Fees not effectively a Middle Class Subsidy ?

People send their kids to Private Schools for ££££ and then are major beneficiaries from this largesse.

In Scotland there is not much evidence that this measure has encouraged higher participation rates from disadvantaged kids than in the rest of the UK where fees are charged.

A lot has changed in the last 20 years. It used to be the case that to get a good job in the digital industry you needed to undertake a sandwich degree. Now schools teach some relevant skills which people who are 30+ didn't learn as part of their compulsory education (like how to program in HTML) and there are a considerable number of apprenticeships on offer.

 

[ainsworth74]

Regarding the nuclear issue - which comes first to most voters minds, getting treated on the NHS, who pays for your education, inflation, Brexit, policing etc etc, or whether our PM would launch a second strike when we're all dead anyway? Are the dead allowed to vote a government out if they didn't *press the button*?

Basically, the nuclear issue is for the Oxford debating societies. Why would someone use them to attack for land when that land can't be used for 1000's of years - if ever? If it's for defence, then someone's attacked (see above).

SO back to the debate, if we're gonna press the button we're dead, or as good as dead anyway. Maybe Nicola on her remote Scottish island might survive for a short time, at least a part of Scotland will have it's independence!

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.

 

[Groningen]

At least £150 billion of taxpayer money is devoted to a nuclear defence.

 

[chris11256]

Going back slightly to tuition fees. Personally I don't agree with the fees being abolished. Because of the way the student loan system works, the amount you borrow is irrelevant. Your repayment depends on your income. So you'd make the same payment for borrowing £21000 or £45000.
Most people in average careers won't pay back the full amount. So I see abolishing tuition fees as mostly benefitting the rich, who go into high paid jobs and will simply pay the loan back sooner.

With the nuclear issue, I'm more concerned about Corbyn's message. To me it sounds like he'd rather thousands of British citizens killed than do something to prevent it(beyond talking). If someone has fired a missile at us, I'm afraid it's a bit too late to negotiate with them.

I know that probably isn't whats meant, but thats the way it feels when Corbyn talks about defence.

Although if we ever get to the situation where nuclear missiles are being fired, then the world is going to s*** anyway.

 

[southern442]

With the nuclear issue, I'm more concerned about Corbyn's message. To me it sounds like he'd rather thousands of British citizens killed than do something to prevent it(beyond talking). If someone has fired a missile at us, I'm afraid it's a bit too late to negotiate with them.

You've missed his point entirely. His main message is not that he won't fire one, his point is active discussions to create a nuclear-free world. Obviously, he can't say (and hasn't said) that he wouldn't fire one in retaliation, otherwise there's no deterrent.

 

[EM2]

If someone has fired a missile at us, I'm afraid it's a bit too late to negotiate with them.

So we fire one back and obliterate thousands of innocent people. Seems sensible.

 

[Howardh]

So we fire one back and obliterate thousands of innocent people. Seems sensible.

"thousands" is an understatement. More like millions, depending on where they strike.

 

[phoenixcronin]

Labour's current position on Trident is somewhat ridiculous. They basically support renewal as a sop to the union workers/unions in the shipyards, and yet are asking people to vote for a man who has no intention of using it.

They are taking the public for fools

 

[Dave1987]

I don't see the nuclear argument as anything more than a side show to the real issues at hand. If a nuclear strike did happen, enough of our allies have nukes to obliterate the aggressor. It will never happen. May refusing to sign a letter condemning Trump for withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement worries me hugely! Says she expects no deal from any negotiations with the EU and then she will need a trade deal with the US.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Labour's current position on Trident is somewhat ridiculous. They basically support renewal as a sop to the union workers/unions in the shipyards, and yet are asking people to vote for a man who has no intention of using it.

If Labour did win the election (extraordinarily unlikely, but for the sake of argument, let's say they do), Corbyn would become Prime Minister for - maybe 5 years. Maybe more, but noone in living memory has managed much more than 10 years. On the other hand, a quick Google suggests that the the earliest possible delivery date for Trident's replacement is 2028.

So, whatever you might think about whether we should or shouldn't renew Trident, the fact that Corbyn himself would - it appears - be determined not to use nuclear weapons while he is Prime Minister would appear to have no relevance to Trident's replacement: He will, very likely, have long since retired by the time decisions on whether we actually use the replacement have to be made. So from that point of view, there is some logic to Labour's position: Corbyn will presumably on moral grounds not use nuclear weapons while he is Prime Minister, but they will replace Trident, so the option is there if a subsequent Prime Minister feels differently.

 

[EM2]

They are taking the public for fools

Sounds like transparency & honesty to me.

 

[Barn]

You've missed his point entirely. His main message is not that he won't fire one, his point is active discussions to create a nuclear-free world. Obviously, he can't say (and hasn't said) that he wouldn't fire one in retaliation, otherwise there's no deterrent.

Yes he has said exactly that, and yes that does entirely ruin deterrence.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...i-would-never-use-nuclear-weapons-if-i-was-pm

 

[Y961 XBU]

Survation say Labour are just a point behind now!

http://mailchi.mp/survation/survation-post-debate-poll-cuts-conservative-lead-to-one-1118437

 

[Howardh]

Survation say Labour are just a point behind now!

http://mailchi.mp/survation/survation-post-debate-poll-cuts-conservative-lead-to-one-1118437

And another puts the Tories 10 ahead or something. They are all over the place, but when the election was called I wasn't bothered, now I'll probably stay up all night.

But it is looking better for Labour - my perfect result would be a majority of two (including a UKIP and NI-alligned coalition) so just one dissenter can rock the weak and wobbly boat.

 

[Kite159]

A lot has changed in the last 20 years. It used to be the case that to get a good job in the digital industry you needed to undertake a sandwich degree. Now schools teach some relevant skills which people who are 30+ didn't learn as part of their compulsory education (like how to program in HTML) and there are a considerable number of apprenticeships on offer.

And some of those apprenticeships being offered are a joke

(I'm thinking along the lines of "apprentice Kitchen Porter" or "Apprentice Stock Maintenance on shelves", which are basically a dodge so that the company can employ someone and pay then Apprentice wages instead of the proper min wage with giving them a piece of paper 6 (or so) months down the line saying "congrats you are now a Kitchen Porter, so keep on washing them pots and pans"


For most students going to university, they will never pay back the full amount of loan, the only students which will benefit are those who will go into higher paying jobs

 

[chris11256]

And another puts the Tories 10 ahead or something. They are all over the place, but when the election was called I wasn't bothered, now I'll probably stay up all night.

But it is looking better for Labour - my perfect result would be a majority of two (including a UKIP and NI-alligned coalition) so just one dissenter can rock the weak and wobbly boat.

There is a reason for this. Most polling companies are estimating a very high turn out for the 18-24 group, who heavily support Labour. This has given them part of the the increase in polls recently.

The only problem with this is the 18-24 group are notoriously unreliable for actually turning up and voting. Last time about 3/4 of young people said they were certain to vote, but only about 40% actually did.

So a large part of this election will be determined by who actually votes.

Other polls released today show Conservative 45% and Labour 34%(ICM), ORB conservative 45% and Labour 36%, YouGov Conservative 42% and Labour 38%.

Again the massive variations are because of the polling companies estimating a high turn out among young people.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Why this particular thread has chosen to concentrate on a party leader rather than the many party candidates who will actually stand for election and are out and about electioneering on a daily basis beggars belief.

There has been far too much of the American style Presidential contest colouring the views of many contributors to this thread.

Probably because the Prime Minister and the person who called the election is trying to make it about party leaders?

 

[507021]

Probably because the Prime Minister and the person who called the election is trying to make it about party leaders?

That's how I see it, too.

 

[PHILIPE]

There is a reason for this. Most polling companies are estimating a very high turn out for the 18-24 group, who heavily support Labour. This has given them part of the the increase in polls recently.

The only problem with this is the 18-24 group are notoriously unreliable for actually turning up and voting. Last time about 3/4 of young people said they were certain to vote, but only about 40% actually did.

So a large part of this election will be determined by who actually votes.

Other polls released today show Conservative 45% and Labour 34%(ICM), ORB conservative 45% and Labour 36%, YouGov Conservative 42% and Labour 38%.

Again the massive variations are because of the polling companies estimating a high turn out among young people.

The younger people, with all respect to them, are more easily taken by promises and cannot see beyond that in regard to their practicablity, whereas older voters have seen it all before.

 

[chris11256]

The younger people, with all respect to them, are more easily taken by promises and cannot see beyond that in regard to their practicablity, whereas older voters have seen it all before.

Exactly.

If voting pattens remain the same as the 2015 election(with lowish turn out among younger people) then we're looking at a Conservative majority. If not then a hung parliament.

I don't think any poll at this stage is predicting a Labour majority. Their route to power is most likely to be minority government or coalition.

 

[Y961 XBU]

I think at best it will be a Lab Coalition government, I also dont understand why younger people dont vote, i am 22 and i have voted every single time without fail, going off topic but maybe it should be made law that you must vote, i think that is the case in Belgium

 

[chris11256]

I think at best it will be a Lab Coalition government, I also dont understand why younger people dont vote, i am 22 and i have voted every single time without fail, going off topic but maybe it should be made law that you must vote, i think that is the case in Belgium

I don't think there will be any formal coalition this time around. As all parties have publicly ruled them out. SNP have said they'd only look at a confidence & supply agreement, whilst LibDems have ruled out both. Besides I can't see the SNP ever agreeing to a Westminster coalition. It'd ruin their image of being anti-westminster.

Unless parties from NI prop someone up. But I don't understand politics in NI much.

 

[Howardh]

The younger people, with all respect to them, are more easily taken by promises and cannot see beyond that in regard to their practicablity, whereas older voters have seen it all before.

The youngsters might have twigged that "immigration control" is a two-way thing, and makes it difficult for them to get jobs in the EU which they have taken for granted today. So there might be a kick-back on that - they could be voting Labour in the hope of keeping some FoM through the negotiations.

 

[Y961 XBU]

I don't think there will be any formal coalition this time around. As all parties have publicly ruled them out. SNP have said they'd only look at a confidence & supply agreement, whilst LibDems have ruled out both. Besides I can't see the SNP ever agreeing to a Westminster coalition. It'd ruin their image of being anti-westminster.

Unless parties from NI prop someone up. But I don't understand politics in NI much.

The SNP have said they would prop up Labour to get the tories out, But i dont think any other party would say they would go into a coalition yet as it could ruin their election run as its like saying vote for me but you will get him instead

 

[507021]

TBut i dont think any other party would say they would go into a coalition yet as it could ruin their election run as its like saying vote for me but you will get him instead

This, 100%.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Probably because the Prime Minister and the person who called the election is trying to make it about party leaders?

Indeed. This is election address I've received from our Conservative candidate Theresa May. It's not even written as from the candidate! The thing that really stands out for me is the phrase 'Give me and my candidate your vote' - without even naming the guy (although he is named on the front of the leaflet). It looks to me like it's definitely trying to make the election about Theresa May full stop.

(I'd also say as a piece of communication it's inept. 'Me and my candidate'?!?!?! For the message that's going to send, the text may as well have been 'We don't care about your puny little constituency. Just vote for us anyway')