UK General Election, June 8th 2017

[Zinneke]

Chirac 97 paralells are strong.

[Zinneke]

Seems like the mail will play a subtle understated role this campaign:

EnglishPete just ejaculated.

[Zinneke]

Are coal miners in the UK labour conservative or liberal democrats

They are solid tory voters of course, and burn effigies of a former labour PM.

didnt coal miners dislike Reagan here too , and despite that they became solidly gop in the 2000s.

Issue salience on social issues are very very low down on the list of the urban proleteriat in Europe. Besides, the UK Labour party has a quite "workerist" wing to cover any of that particular electorate. Their Stoke by-election campaign was evidence of that.

Also, the traditional standard bearers of depressed industrial peripheries vs urban liberal centres in Europe have been centre-left parties, although this trend is clearly changing. I don't think European workers really care about the centre-periphery issue though, unlike in the US where the Southern and Rust belt GOP vote might be associated with "anti-Washington" politics.

[Zinneke]

Are coal miners in the UK labour conservative or liberal democrats

They are solid tory voters of course, and burn effigies of a former labour PM.

didnt coal miners dislike Reagan here too , and despite that they became solidly gop in the 2000s.

It's a bit different. What you're asking is like wondering if blacks vote mostly GOP.

Actually this is the better analogy, yeah.

I'm wondering if One Nation Toryism ever made inroads in mining communities before Thatcher came along?

[Zinneke]

I assume its polling done by Gina Millers group, or some other well funded anti-brexit group. Labour won't stand aside though; namely because said anti-brexit group has just as good a claim to run against Kate Hoey (a lab MP) in Vauxhall

Is there a consensus on here that the Conservatives under PM Theresa May are on the brink of their own version of the 1997 general election?

Eh I'm a tad bias but it's not 1997 in it's feeling. Blair remodeled the party in 1997 (and hence the dominance New Labour had over the party machine for the next 13 years) yet May (and her own brand of conservatism) isn't that popular within the conservative party.

1997 was in a sense a good bookmark for British Politics (as 1945/1979 was) but 2017 doesn't have that same feeling to it.

Is there a particular wing/faction May is part of? Is she unpopular with the Liam Fox's of this world or the David Camerons of that old world?

[Zinneke]

FT: EU Raises Brexit Bill to 100 Billion Euros.

From Ian Dale "Britain must pay for entire EU budget until 2030"

This is getting bloody ridiculous!!
Theresa May doesn't need to campaign, Brussels are doing a good job for her.

No, FT are doing a good job for her.

"Brussels" doesn't give a sh**t about the election, even less so than the Greek referendum.

[Zinneke]

Apparently campaigning will start again on Friday.

Paul Nuttall will release the UKIP manifesto tomorrow.

[Zinneke]

@JewishNewsUK
THIS WEEK's @JewishNewsUK front page. @Theresa_May writes exclusively. @jeremycorbyn ... still tumbleweed.

Why should the leader of the UK proudly stand up for a foreign entity?

That headline makes me like Corbyn more.

In what way are British Jews foreign entities? EDIT : I just realised you meant the third point of the Con manifesto. I apologise.

YouGov are thinking that there will be a major increase in the youth vote... it may well happen but I remain sceptical. Labour may be close but they are not close enough.

Any increase in registrations? Or are they not counted?
Also is it fair to say registered voters are an indication of turnout or do still a sizeable part take the time to register but do not vote on the day?

[Zinneke]

With Sinn Fein not taking their seats and DUP support, the Conservatives would have an overall majority without the adjustment.

Is DUP support something desirable to the Conservative Party?
How influential has the hard brexit camp (the Liam Fox brigade) been in this campaign? Was this their idea of purging the Soubry-Clarke faction?

[Zinneke]

The Tories had to rely on Unionist under Major and it certainly won't be backing a Corbyn-led Labour.

Sure but DUP were not the leading Unionist party then right? What would they demand in terms of policy?

[Zinneke]

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?

If that's the case then there are four options IMO:

A: If Con+Unionists+abstaining Sinn Fein MPs have a majority, there will be an extremely unstable Tory minority government

B: If the Lib Dems haven't learned from 2015, they'll support a Conservative government alongside the unionists. Not likely since Lib Dems and Conservatives are polar opposites in Brexit

C: If all else fails, there's the option of a full "Coalition of Chaos" (Labour+SNP+Plaid+Lib Dems+SDLP+abstaining Sinn Fein MPs).

D (most likely): A minority Tory government and shortly after it is formed there's a snap election (ie the Spanish scenario. No conclusive majorities so a second election is needed).

I honestly think the Tories will have a short majority, but in the likelihood of a hung parliament i would love to see the LibDems actually joining in a kamikaze coalition (Charles Michel knows all about this) with them in order to push Soft Brexit and cause a civil war in the Tory party.

[Zinneke]

BTW that nuclear question was so dumb. Iran doesn't have one & has never bombed or invaded/1st attacked a Western country in possibly centuries. They shirk direct confrontation & rather engage in proxy stuff. Even in Iran vs Iraq, Saddam gassed Iran, but Iran didn't retaliate with chemical weapons. North Korea can't get a ballistic missile right, it goes & falls into the ocean after a few miles, why are people hyping North Korea? They don't even have proper nukes, some crude bombs. And they haven't even attacked South Korea or Japan. It is ridiculous to think North Korea will fly a nuke half way around the globe through the Pacific & Americas or through entire Asia & Europe to reach Britain?

Even if Iran and DPRK do obtain nuclear weapons, the issue is that it increases the likelihood of more proliferation due to a nuclear arms race in the region, which in turn increases the likelihood of use.

Also, possessing nuclear weapons doesn't mean you will use them, but it does put you at a strategic advantage over non-nuclear powers, and increases your pay-offs in the likelihood of invasion of neighbouring countries, therefore increasing the likelihood of expansionist agendas. basic game theory.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The issue is not no nuclear weapons for me, as this just advantages those who do inevitably produce them again. The issue is restricting nuclear powers to countries with responsible, executive governments and no insane casus bellis on neighbouring countries. Already the U.S check and balances for nuclear armament is insanely low. Why Pakistan-India, Israel-Iran-Saud, DPRK-ROK etc should have nuclear weapons is beyond me. The French automatic system is the best.

Other than that, I agree with all your points. Its a silly, warmongering question. I don't understand why it has been revived as an issue in UK politics. Maybe to associate Corbyn with Michael Foot.

[Zinneke]

I don't disagree with most of you. But who decides who will have nuclear weapons? In an arbitrary manner, the 5 Security Council members for it & shut the doors for everyone else. Then US shares it with NATO allies in Europe covering many more countries from Germany to Netherlands & so on. Then you Israel with a secret Nuclear weapons program.

The 5 security council members + the G4 that hopefully succeed in obtaining permanent status, yes. These are leading security and economic actors who simply have to be recognised as world leaders on world issues. And nuclear proliferation is a world issue. Its the least worst option.

Israel´s stance is actually what encourages paranoia and thus the pursuit of a nuclear armed Iran. So its to be deplored for sure. But we all know why Israel gets away with having a nuclear arsenal : Uncle Sam.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Its precisely their responsibility in History that makes them inclined to make more rational judgements in this regard. But I am not suggesting the US or the UK have a god-given right to be hegemonic powers when it comes to nuclear weapons, far from it. I just think its inevitable that two SC powers with nuclear weapons will have to be at the table on nuclear proliferation issues, and that they are right in opposing others from having them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fully agree with this, I just think non-proliferation should come first, then we can talk about UN overarching legislation. Unfortunately I am a pessimist and I think it will take a nuclear event, however far that may be in the future, to create such a body. So in the mean time we need to rely on the current nuclear powers + more normative powers like Germany and Japan to control it. And that also means holding on to their nuclear weapons.