UK General Election, June 8th 2017

[MaxQue]

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 Fox hunting..trident there is virtually no threat of nuclear war right now or the near future, the concept of MAD is obsolete.

Is Fox Hunting really a wedge issue though? Don't the vast majority of people oppose it though?

The vast majority opposes it and it's illegal (banned under Blair), but legalisation is in Conservative manifesto.

[Helsinkian]

Maybe this makes me crazy but the idea that this would move anyone's vote strikes me as wishful thinking on the part of the right, unless Trident is some sort of Shibboleth for something else, I fail to see why the refusal to commit a "tit for tat" policy of murdering millions of innocents is scandalous, particularly considering that the Cold War ended 25 years ago.

The point is that the policy of mutually assured destruction ensures that nuclear weapons will not be used.

[MaxQue]

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.

[MAINEiac4434]

May the new Hillary Clinton?

MAY'S EVEN STEALING HILLARY'S SLOGANS!

[Antonio the Sixth]

Britain is already great!

[warandwar]

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.

[User157088589849]

I cannot understand why anyone would want to use a nuclear weapon.

I have so much respect for politicians right/left who have principles. It fills me with great confidence that someone like Corbyn, one week before an election, refuses to use a nuclear bomb to kill millions of innocent people.

[Silent Hunter]

You don't have to use them on a city... suppose the Chinese navy was sending an invasion fleet to occupy Alaska... you could drop a nuke on the ships and destroy it.

[User157088589849]

You don't have to use them on a city... suppose the Chinese navy was sending an invasion fleet to occupy Alaska... you could drop a nuke on the ships and destroy it.

I think you play to many computer games.

Your talking about innocent people. Use other weapons not a nuclear bomb.

[Zanas]

You don't have to use them on a city... suppose the Chinese navy was sending an invasion fleet to occupy Alaska... you could drop a nuke on the ships and destroy it.

And you would ruin all the ocean, fish and other sea life with the radiation for decades and for everyone. Good job!

[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.

[cp]

So the UK needs its nuclear deterrent because if some unnamed enemy annihilated its cities with nuclear weapons, the UK has to be able to respond by annihilating the enemies' cities in retaliation.

Forgive me, but what exactly has been deterred in this scenario?

Getting back to the campaign, the BBC has an interesting analysis of where the Labour and Tory campaigns have sent their respective leaders over the course of the past few weeks. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40133849

[ApatheticAustrian]

to cut the chase, corbyn just bangled his "dukakis death penalty"-question.

doesn't mean this matters a lot since corbyn was "known" as a loon to start with, just could be a final nail in labour's coffin.

i don't say it is fair or logical - it's imho just the truth.

[Pericles]

The nuclear deterrent works because anybody who could threaten the UK would know that they would suffer nuclear retaliation in return. It is a threat and deterrent, the main purpose of having a deterrent is to ensure that it would never have to be used.

[parochial boy]

what the actual  has this thread managed to degenerate into?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The nuclear deterrent works because anybody who could threaten the UK would know that they would suffer nuclear retaliation in return. It is a threat and deterrent, the main purpose of having a deterrent is to ensure that it would never have to be used.

And even if they wiped the UK off the map, they'd have the rest of NATO wiping them off the map. Not happening, obviously.

[Silent Hunter]

what the actual  has this thread managed to degenerate into?

Oh, there's much worse on Twitter.

[Former President tack50]

Ok, decided to look at what would happen if the results in each region were equal to the results of the last regional vote. So for Scotland and Wales the Assembly elections of 2016, for NI the 2017 one and since England does not have a regional assembly I used the local elections of 2017 for the entire UK (couldn't find England only popular vote results). Anyways the results would be:

Con 324
Lab 223
Lib 26

SNP 53
PC 4
Green 1
UKIP 0

DUP 10
Sinn Fein 5
SDLP 2
UUP 0

Conservatives short by 2

Other than the Lib Dems being way too high it doesn't look that bad. Give the Lib dems 15 less seats or so (mostly towards the conservatives) and it's a pretty good prediction

[Silent Hunter]

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

[Tintrlvr]

Any thoughts on Northern Ireland?

Seems like the Alliance should be favored to re-gain Belfast East from the DUP, given that the DUP-UUP alliance there has broken down and the UUP is standing a candidate again. I would hazard a guess that SF will re-gain Fermanagh and South Tyrone from the UUP as well, though less certain as DUP still stood aside there (but presumably SDLP will be squeezed even harder there this time). Belfast South also seems very unpredictable; could stay SDLP or go DUP or possibly even Alliance. Finally, could see the DUP re-gaining South Antrim from the UUP.

[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?

[Silent Hunter]

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

[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?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

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?

££££££££

[jaichind]