Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
I'm not sure May can stick to any decision unless her puppet master has a firm grip of the handle. She seems incapable of making a decision, defending it and then sticking to it. And since thats with low pressure stuff, what would happen with anything serious?

And just who would that puppet master be?

I don't actually know. But she very much gives the impression that she's being told what to do by more than 1 person, with different agendas.

By all accounts, May has her inner circle, a small inner circle, and the cabinet is largely excluded from the decision making process, hence the disastrous U-turns with ministers being hung out to dry.

In the long run, that will cause a lot of grief.

It's a shame really. She started out making several positive movements back in the direction of Cabinet rule, but couldn't seem to tolerate it for long. I think she likes the idea of it theoretically, but finds the reality (that it puts a cap on her own power) somewhat less desirable. I think it threw the other Cabinet members slightly too, led a bit of friction over expectations and how it actually turned out.

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
I'm not sure May can stick to any decision unless her puppet master has a firm grip of the handle. She seems incapable of making a decision, defending it and then sticking to it. And since thats with low pressure stuff, what would happen with anything serious?

And just who would that puppet master be?

I don't actually know. But she very much gives the impression that she's being told what to do by more than 1 person, with different agendas.

By all accounts, May has her inner circle, a small inner circle, and the cabinet is largely excluded from the decision making process, hence the disastrous U-turns with ministers being hung out to dry.

In the long run, that will cause a lot of grief.

It's a shame really. She started out making several positive movements back in the direction of Cabinet rule, but couldn't seem to tolerate it for long. I think she likes the idea of it theoretically, but finds the reality (that it puts a cap on her own power) somewhat less desirable. I think it threw the other Cabinet members slightly too, led a bit of friction over expectations and how it actually turned out.

More bad news for May - Corbyn has changed his mind and will do the leaders' debate, tonight.

That's a PR disaster for May.

I'm no Corbyn fan, but I respect the fact that he's going out all guns blazing.

To be fair, right now I'd say May is a waking PR disaster.

U-turns whenever, refuses to answer questions, can barely manage personal attacks in the face of an ostensibly crowd pleasing manifesto from the opposition,

If Corbyn can nail it tonight (always the if) it could carry him into No 10.

All he needs to do is show he's not the three headed communist Beast the gutterpress tell folk he is. He might have comparatively radical policies, but he's not dictating within his party (see support for Trident etc).

@ Whirlwind

That was decent of you to say, thank you.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
To be fair, right now I'd say May is a waking PR disaster.

U-turns whenever, refuses to answer questions, can barely manage personal attacks in the face of an ostensibly crowd pleasing manifesto from the opposition,

If Corbyn can nail it tonight (always the if) it could carry him into No 10.

All he needs to do is show he's not the three headed communist Beast the gutterpress tell folk he is. He might have comparatively radical policies, but he's not dictating within his party (see support for Trident etc).

The whole situation is very bizarre. If a month ago someone had said Labour would all pull together behind Corbyn and his policies and Corbyn would become much better at putting his point across (after weak PMQs); compared to the Tories who are already starting become divided http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-election-error-polls_uk_592ecc58e4b0540ffc834f06?utm_hp_ref=uk and a PM that is looking ever more weak and vulnerable then I think most people would have scoffed.

The advantage is Corbyn has shown that although principled he is willing to compromise on issues and for a lot of the public they may recognise that as a good thing in the upcoming negotiations with the EU. Just being deliberately awkward and giving the impression that she'll only hold out for the deal she wants (or else it's the highway) is unlikely to get much a favourable response from a large section of the public.

However part of this was Tories to lose they focussed (and still are) on Corbyn as weak and but by doing so they have left themselves vulnerable because Corbyn is looking ever stronger and confident and hence the attacks just are seen as mudslinging. Hence attacks are becoming more desperate and bizarre like ones suggested in the Express that voting Corbyn would have a negative impact on relationships.

The debate tonight could be interesting. A lot of politicians standing there might actually be working together in a few weeks. If they avoid attacking each others parties policies but rather promote why they are good and then spend the rest of the time attacking May's policies then things could get worse for the Tories because the public will get one message (Tories bad news, we might not all agree on everything but willing to compromise and make things work) and May will likely regret not being there. if they devolve to attacking each other directly and ignore the Tories policies then it may work in May's favour.

The issues facing Corbyn are twofold I think.

Firstly, the perception in a large segment of the population that Labour will "tax and spend Britain into the poorhouse".

Secondly, the votes needed to push him into #10 will have to come from the youth vote. History shows these votes are vocal in online polling, but don't materialise on the actual day of election.

Possibly third, a hostile press. Recently he and May were on Paxman (?) and he was interrupted by the host 50 times while May allowed to ramble on, only being interrupted 6 times. This last bit is internet hearsay. I did not see the interview myself.

I watched both, they both got it in the neck more or less. I believe the reason May got interrupted less was because generally she stayed closer to the question. She didn't necessarily answer them, but by staying relevant, and tacking on a half answer mixed in with the usual five paragraph fudging, it keeps sounding like she's going somewhere to answer the question. Whereas with Corbyn, he has a bad habit of not just fudging, but ignoring the question altogether and launching off into either a utopian vision speech, or some vague and irrelevant half-hearted attack on the Tories.

I think it also probably didn't hurt that Paxman had a lot more obvious dirt on Corbyn to play with. He's said a lot of dumb things over the years, whereas with May, he spent his time attacking her record of decisions instead. There's a wonderful moment though about mid-way, where he's been carefully leading her through a list of things she's done U-Turns on, and then he sits back and just says, 'Well, having looked at all that, don't you think you'll go to Europe, and they'll see you and think "You're just a blowhard who crumples at the first sign of artillery fire?'"

She gives him the biggest grimace of a smile I've ever seen, and her eyes are literally murder. For the next thirty second, she just has this rictus of a grin on her face, and you can tell that it actually landed a serious blow on her, that she's furious Paxman would dare to, even indirectly, insult her in that fashion. If looks could kill, that would have been enough to fry the lives of at least four or five cats.

 Ketara wrote:


She gives him the biggest grimace of a smile I've ever seen, and her eyes are literally murder. For the next thirty second, she just has this rictus of a grin on her face, and you can tell that it actually landed a serious blow on her, that she's furious Paxman would dare to, even indirectly, insult her in that fashion. If looks could kill, that would have been enough to fry the lives of at least four or five cats.

There were a few looks she gave members of the audience as well if I remember correctly. Didn't quite last as long as the blowhard one though.

Still if there is one thing about this election there's been quite a lot to chuckle about, for example:-
https://twitter.com/hashtag/ChickenMay/

The song, though completely daft did make me smirk (warning very anti-May)

 feeder wrote:
The issues facing Corbyn are twofold I think.

Firstly, the perception in a large segment of the population that Labour will "tax and spend Britain into the poorhouse".

Secondly, the votes needed to push him into #10 will have to come from the youth vote. History shows these votes are vocal in online polling, but don't materialise on the actual day of election.

Possibly third, a hostile press. Recently he and May were on Paxman (?) and he was interrupted by the host 50 times while May allowed to ramble on, only being interrupted 6 times. This last bit is internet hearsay. I did not see the interview myself.

Yeah. Also the polls are always a margin of error, also labour has to seem to have calmed but the internal splits have never gone away. He strong and can at mommebt keep them in check but if he does weaken he night find himself under attack from two fronts *

Which is no different to Theresa May. Except she's pandering to the minority swivel eyed loonies, and that can only carry you so far.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Which is no different to Theresa May. Except she's pandering to the minority swivel eyed loonies, and that can only carry you so far.

True.. But the old balirite/leftwing battle lines seem to never go away.
Even 2-3 elections later.
The Iraq war ghost.

I admit. Torries have divides, and ghosts equally.
Ita like each party never ever can forget.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Which is no different to Theresa May. Except she's pandering to the minority swivel eyed loonies, and that can only carry you so far.

A whole bunch of Tory votes are against Labour rather than for Tory. Much of England views them as the lesser evil.

 feeder wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Which is no different to Theresa May. Except she's pandering to the minority swivel eyed loonies, and that can only carry you so far.

A whole bunch of Tory votes are against Labour rather than for Tory. Much of England views them as the lesser evil.

True. Labour despite best efforts have not been fully able to get rid of the blairite era ghost.
Though it took decades for Thatchers ghost to pass it's full effects

I'm genuinely bemused that Theresa May didn't attend the leaders debate and instead sent Amber Rudd.
Ms Rudds father died 2 days ago, and May still sent her into fight her corner for her.
That's a pretty grim assessment of Theresa May's judgement and compassion, as well as her wisdom and personal courage.

Well done to Amber for showing, however she has assisted in highlighting some more of Theresa May's "qualities".

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Ketara wrote:


She gives him the biggest grimace of a smile I've ever seen, and her eyes are literally murder. For the next thirty second, she just has this rictus of a grin on her face, and you can tell that it actually landed a serious blow on her, that she's furious Paxman would dare to, even indirectly, insult her in that fashion. If looks could kill, that would have been enough to fry the lives of at least four or five cats.

There were a few looks she gave members of the audience as well if I remember correctly. Didn't quite last as long as the blowhard one though.

Still if there is one thing about this election there's been quite a lot to chuckle about, for example:-
https://twitter.com/hashtag/ChickenMay/

The song, though completely daft did make me smirk (warning very anti-May)

Ok, that is fething catchy.

Time for me to pick a candidate.

In my constituency the Conservatives are guaranteed to win by a wide margin. I don't want to vote for them and there is no point even in voting tactically. The only reason for voting is to register one more vote in the post-election display of percentage reasons why we need proportional representation.

Who to vote for, then?

Traditionally I have voted Liberal, and they are the only openly anti-Brexit party and I am very anti-Brexit. A vote here reinforces the pressure for a second referendum.

OTOH, the Green Party aligns more closely with my overall social-political outlook.

On the third hand, it looks like the Labour Party actually have a chance of winning nationally. A 'percentage' vote for them might have a strong moral effect if they poll well but fail to win a lot of seats. Plus I am liking Corbyn and his policies more and more as the campaign progresses, and my wife agrees.

What would the panel advise? Please don't persuade me to vote Conservative. Try and look at the situation as I've laid it out.

Safe Seats are only that way so long as the public accept such a ridiculous concept.

There's no such thing as a wasted vote if you post your ballot.

Me, I say vote Labour.

 r_squared wrote:
I'm genuinely bemused that Theresa May didn't attend the leaders debate and instead sent Amber Rudd.
Ms Rudds father died 2 days ago, and May still sent her into fight her corner for her.
That's a pretty grim assessment of Theresa May's judgement and compassion, as well as her wisdom and personal courage.

Well done to Amber for showing, however she has assisted in highlighting some more of Theresa May's "qualities".

Good post. As people know, my dislike of the Tories is well known, but Amber Rudd has my respect for doing this debate under very difficult circumstances. And considering the flak she took from the other leaders, she deserves better than somebody like May as a leader.

May's no show speaks volumes about her unsuitability for the high office of Prime Minister.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Time for me to pick a candidate.

In my constituency the Conservatives are guaranteed to win by a wide margin. I don't want to vote for them and there is no point even in voting tactically. The only reason for voting is to register one more vote in the post-election display of percentage reasons why we need proportional representation.

Who to vote for, then?

Traditionally I have voted Liberal, and they are the only openly anti-Brexit party and I am very anti-Brexit. A vote here reinforces the pressure for a second referendum.

OTOH, the Green Party aligns more closely with my overall social-political outlook.

On the third hand, it looks like the Labour Party actually have a chance of winning nationally. A 'percentage' vote for them might have a strong moral effect if they poll well but fail to win a lot of seats. Plus I am liking Corbyn and his policies more and more as the campaign progresses, and my wife agrees.

What would the panel advise? Please don't persuade me to vote Conservative. Try and look at the situation as I've laid it out.

I would vote Green. It's not much in the grand scheme of things, but minority parties gain Short money for every vote they get, so anything is better than nothing.

I agree that it must be depressing to live in an area that is so tilted to one party. For years, I had it up here with Labour before it switched to SNP.

 r_squared wrote:
I'm genuinely bemused that Theresa May didn't attend the leaders debate and instead sent Amber Rudd.
Ms Rudds father died 2 days ago, and May still sent her into fight her corner for her.
That's a pretty grim assessment of Theresa May's judgement and compassion, as well as her wisdom and personal courage.

Well done to Amber for showing, however she has assisted in highlighting some more of Theresa May's "qualities".

Yes you do have to feel for A Rudd and that she was willing to put herself in the firing line despite the emotional turmoil I assume she is going through.

It does call in to question just how much empathy May has. I'm sure A Rudd agreed to continue on with the debate, but anyone with some stomach would have told her not to worry and that they'd do the meeting.
How can we expect someone to care about the Country when they don't really care about their nearest colleagues and put themselves first? It's definitely not going to give people a good impression.

You know it isn't going well when even the HouseofCards tweets that you should be turning up. What I'd like to know is exactly what May was doing during the debate?

Particularly impressed with C. Lucas in the debate and Farron did well too and came with some stinging attacks. For me Plaid came across a bit whiney but SNP did well (but then I can't vote for these anyway). UKIP included their joke candidate for laughs I think. Corbyn had a steady night, nothing spectacular but he is demonstrating that its not all catastrophe as papers like the Scum and Daily Fail try to put forward. His message also seems to ring with a lot of people in the audience. A. Rudd's message was we've got to think of the economy so yes things are going to hurt. However she did do reasonably well given the personal and political pressure and attacks she was under. However there was no inspiring message, just you're better off relying on us and we are going to cut your services so we can protect the economy. However I would have preferred May to be there. She is after all promoting herself as the best person to negotiate on Brexit (which is relatively going to be a 'hostile' crowd because the EU will be looking after themselves) - hence by going it would have allowed people to see what she is actually made of. Instead I think the one thing people will take from the debate is that she wasn't there.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


What would the panel advise? Please don't persuade me to vote Conservative. Try and look at the situation as I've laid it out.

You mean you haven't considered UKIP, surely they must be considered....

Seriously though I'm in the same position. I'm in a very blue safe seat (Charnwood) that is unlikely to go anywhere else. I would like to vote Green but worry that overall it will just be 'lost'. Because it is such a safe seat there is no political engagement in the area and effectively candidates don't really bother. Hence I'm considering voting tactically so that hopefully at the next election (assuming I'm still in the UK) all the parties will consider it a more higher profile seat. As such I might go LD or Labour depending on who I think will get closest to the Tories. However also accept DILNT view that more votes for the Greens would be helpful financially. Damn I really hate the FPTP system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Finally my growing concern about this election is the continuing growing divisions in society. Both sides this morning are accusing each other of bias in the debate last night. Farage has stated on LBC that paid Corbyn followers were there. Corbyn supporters accusing the BBC of the presenters being biased to being pro-Tory with the BBC having to put out a statement they weren't.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/bbc-election-debate-highlights_uk_592f3d3fe4b09ec37c317e42?ir=UK+Politics&utm_hp_ref=uk-politics

And when we think things here get heated take a moment to see some of the tripe that gets posted in BBCs comments by both sides. For example this dubious claim...

6491. Posted by Who Does Your Thinking

Let's summarise:

1. Tory Voters

- study/work hard
- self-reliant
- aspirational
- achievers
- financially independent
- educated/intelligent
- net contribution to society
- inspirational

2. Labour Voters

- class clown/feckless
- state dependent
- non-aspirational
- non-achievers
- financially dependent
- uneducated/ignorant
- net drain on society
- depressing

It does make me wonder some times about the state of things in this country

Yeah, go for the Short money option, Whirlwind.

For every 200 votes a party gets, they get £30 or something. Not much in the grand scheme of things, but better than nothing.

Apparently, Labour have cut the gap to a mere 3 points.

We really could be looking at a Labour Government this time next week.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Apparently, Labour have cut the gap to a mere 3 points.

We really could be looking at a Labour Government this time next week.

As long as the SNP gets 50 seats minimum, then I'm happy.

None the less, whoever wins, I hope they get a majority of sorts. A hung parliament, on the eve of Brexit negotiations, would be a disaster for this country.

It would be the biggest gakstorm to hit this country since the 1970s and the winter of discontent.

The French and Germans would cash in on the political turmoil and eat us alive. We'd end up handing over £200 billion or something for the divorce bill


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Holy horsegak! I don't believe it!

Nigel Farage is person of interest in FBI investigation into Trump and Russia!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/01/nigel-farage-is-person-of-interest-in-fbi-investigation-into-trump-and-russia

What the feth!



I hope Nigel is not the evil genius who is secretly controlling Putin and Trump.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Apparently, Labour have cut the gap to a mere 3 points.

We really could be looking at a Labour Government this time next week.

In one poll. Meanwhile, others have a much more extensive separation. But none of the papers are paying attention to that fact, because it's far more fun to pretend it's a competition, and gives them something to talk about.

Plus, what was it that happened last election? 'Tory shame' or something? People never say they're going to, but when they get to the ballot box, they're far more likely to do so.

No, Corbyn isn't going to win this. I reckon we'll probably see a slight Tory boost, twenty seats or so. Mildly embarassing for the Tories though, considering how they were expecting a landslide. They've run an absolute shambles of a campaign here, and they're reaping the consequences.

Please god don't let labour win.

We're about to undertake the biggest challenge our country has experienced in decades. And we can't do it with those balloons in charge.

Not that the Tories are much better. What a mess.

 Ketara wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Apparently, Labour have cut the gap to a mere 3 points.

We really could be looking at a Labour Government this time next week.

In one poll. Meanwhile, others have a much more extensive separation. But none of the papers are paying attention to that fact, because it's far more fun to pretend it's a competition, and gives them something to talk about.

Plus, what was it that happened last election? 'Tory shame' or something? People never say they're going to, but when they get to the ballot box, they're far more likely to do so.

No, Corbyn isn't going to win this. I reckon we'll probably see a slight Tory boost, twenty seats or so. Mildly embarassing for the Tories though, considering how they were expecting a landslide. They've run an absolute shambles of a campaign here, and they're reaping the consequences.

I think the term is "Shy Tories" and was according to the evidence mainly dominated by, IIRC, middle aged women that were uncomfortable admitting that they vote Tory and, generally, when asked stated they were undecided so that gave Labour an apparent bigger advantage in the polls. I haven't seen any data as to why they are more protective of their views though.

I've seen comments at the beginning of the election that the pollsters state they have now taken this into account but the method is yet untested (this time next week I guess we'll know). My assumption is that they are now weighting the undecided vote much more heavily in the Tories favour to give an indication of who might win. Apparently there is also significant differences in the proportion of the younger people that will vote in the polls which is why they are swinging about a bit. Those more pro Tory have much less assumed number of young people voting. As such there's quite a bit of uncertainty because who wins may simply be determined by whether enough young people turn up and vote. I've read that if 80% of the younger <40 year olds vote then Labour would win by a mile in England. The general trend in all of them is towards Labour though.

Other polls also indicate that Tories are set to lose substantial ground in London.

The problem for May now is a catastrophic strategy is back firing but they aren't changing tactics - it's the same old mantra, but it's not really working. In this interview she looks both exhausted, stressed and worried and the 'laugh' just says it all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-awkward-bbc-election_uk_592fd53de4b09ec37c31cff4?ir=UK+Politics&utm_hp_ref=uk-politics

and her answers are becoming so disjointed from the questions being asked it's getting a bit silly.
[url]
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-local-newspapers_uk_592fd315e4b09ec37c31cd63[/url]

You've got Boris trying to accuse the BBC of bias...from Sky News....You can understand the backwards and forwards on the twitter about the issue, but when you have the Foreign Secretary bleating on about it from a Tory supportive TV channel it looks, whiney; hypocritical and smacks of desperation because the party don't think that A. Rudd did that well (though given the circumstances) and that they think in fact they lost the debate (but then if May had actually turned up many of the jokes and burns wouldn't have happened).



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Please god don't let labour win.

We're about to undertake the biggest challenge our country has experienced in decades. And we can't do it with those balloons in charge.

Not that the Tories are much better. What a mess.

We don't really know this. Labour might employ the best negotiator out there if they recognise they don't have the skills. May on the other hand might just try and do it all herself thinking she is excellent at such things based on her own opinion (like the Dementia tax) and come out of the negotiations with something that horrifies the public.

We don't really know what will happen with either one in charge. However it's unlikely that you will get just Labour as they can't win without Scotland (and I think SNP are going to steam roller there now).

There isn't a jot of evidence the Tories have done anything prepare for the Brexit negotiations except to say "Strong and stable" a lot and tell everyone that only May can do it, only if we all vote for her.

Meanwhile the EU has produced a 58 page dossier covering every detail of the points they want to cover in the first round.

Shambling useless Eurocracy at its very worst!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There isn't a jot of evidence the Tories have done anything prepare for the Brexit negotiations except to say "Strong and stable" a lot and tell everyone that only May can do it, only if we all vote for her.

Meanwhile the EU has produced a 58 page dossier covering every detail of the points they want to cover in the first round.

Shambling useless Eurocracy at its very worst!

Yeah, but you're forgetting that German car companies need us more than we need them, or something like that

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Time for me to pick a candidate.

In my constituency the Conservatives are guaranteed to win by a wide margin. I don't want to vote for them and there is no point even in voting tactically. The only reason for voting is to register one more vote in the post-election display of percentage reasons why we need proportional representation.

Who to vote for, then?

Traditionally I have voted Liberal, and they are the only openly anti-Brexit party and I am very anti-Brexit. A vote here reinforces the pressure for a second referendum.

OTOH, the Green Party aligns more closely with my overall social-political outlook.

On the third hand, it looks like the Labour Party actually have a chance of winning nationally. A 'percentage' vote for them might have a strong moral effect if they poll well but fail to win a lot of seats. Plus I am liking Corbyn and his policies more and more as the campaign progresses, and my wife agrees.

What would the panel advise? Please don't persuade me to vote Conservative. Try and look at the situation as I've laid it out.

My constituency is very similar, although I have the added interest of having Paul "not a racist" Nuttall standing for UKIP. I voted Tory in 2015 in order to ensure that UKIP were defeated, and Matt Warman the Conservative candidate did win, but it was close. This time, however, I think Matt is going to pound Paul into the ground without my help, most people around here think he's a toss pot who should piss off back to Bootle.

This time I'm definitely voting Labour, regardless that they came distant 3rd. Their nationalisation policies chime with my personal ideology that essential national infrastructure should be in state hands, and the Brexit negotiations don't even come into it for me. My belief there is that we're probably going to be shaken down until our teeth rattle anyway no matter who's running the show, so I might as well go with the party I actually like.
Living in such a one sided constituency is actually quite liberating, I have the freedom to vote on my conscience and beliefs, and not have to give a thought to tactics. I advise that you do the same.

 r_squared wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Time for me to pick a candidate.

In my constituency the Conservatives are guaranteed to win by a wide margin. I don't want to vote for them and there is no point even in voting tactically. The only reason for voting is to register one more vote in the post-election display of percentage reasons why we need proportional representation.

Who to vote for, then?

Traditionally I have voted Liberal, and they are the only openly anti-Brexit party and I am very anti-Brexit. A vote here reinforces the pressure for a second referendum.

OTOH, the Green Party aligns more closely with my overall social-political outlook.

On the third hand, it looks like the Labour Party actually have a chance of winning nationally. A 'percentage' vote for them might have a strong moral effect if they poll well but fail to win a lot of seats. Plus I am liking Corbyn and his policies more and more as the campaign progresses, and my wife agrees.

What would the panel advise? Please don't persuade me to vote Conservative. Try and look at the situation as I've laid it out.

My constituency is very similar, although I have the added interest of having Paul "not a racist" Nuttall standing for UKIP. I voted Tory in 2015 in order to ensure that UKIP were defeated, and Matt Warman the Conservative candidate did win, but it was close. This time, however, I think Matt is going to pound Paul into the ground without my help, most people around here think he's a toss pot who should piss off back to Bootle.

This time I'm definitely voting Labour, regardless that they came distant 3rd. Their nationalisation policies chime with my personal ideology that essential national infrastructure should be in state hands, and the Brexit negotiations don't even come into it for me. My belief there is that we're probably going to be shaken down until our teeth rattle anyway no matter who's running the show, so I might as well go with the party I actually like.
Living in such a one sided constituency is actually quite liberating, I have the freedom to vote on my conscience and beliefs, and not have to give a thought to tactics. I advise that you do the same.

My area is conservative.

However. We have had a few things through door, now one laid out what he wanted to see done, changes made, had detail on past record as a mp and local problems he wanted to see fixed, mainly some pretty dangerous roads and bad junctions that need a serious rethink as cause alot of delays and crashes.

The other, lived in local area for 50 years, owned a business here, all good but it then states nothing onbwhat he planned to do to help local area just a vauge promise about getting what we worth, not much else...

Do labour want to win a election in some places?. Our labour candidate main argument seems to be he is local.
So is the conservative but at least he gave us some ideas what he wanted to get done.

Lib Dems not even bothered to send a A5 leaflet out...

Anyone catch that The Economist has decided to endorse...the LibDems?

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21722855-leaders-both-main-parties-have-turned-away-decades-old-vision-open-liberal?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/thebritishelectionthemiddlehasfallenoutofbritishpolitics

I did not expect that...