Well it depends if he has been abroad for 15 years or more. That is the cut off point at which you apparently become a second class citizen who can't actually vote any more. And it doesn't matter if you continue to pay income tax, NI contributions, have family back home who might need your support because of lousy government policies, etc, etc.
Other more civilised countries believe that if you are a citizen you have a right to vote. Period.
Surely the stuff about gay marriage causing floods and stopping aid to 'bongo bongo land' will put many off voting UKIP, even if they want to vote against the main parties.
Because the trendy urban elites can't handle the truth?
There's always a party for racists. The name is a dead giveaway - English Democracy United or National Executions Party or whatever it is this time around
Exactly, so many different party names, it makes it confusing, at least if you hate the Jews you can cut out all the confusion and just vote Labour eh?
Lovely to see this. Well done.
I always think it is helpful to randomly bracket people and assume everyone in that bracket is the same.
Effing trotskys.
Was going to go in with other brackets people use but have decided life is too short.
As an atheist I found Tim Farron's views (or rather, lack of clarification of them) pretty disgusting, however this open letter has made me re-evaluate my position -
Although.. I still think he's an idiot and while I would like to give the Lib Dems or the Greens my vote I think the anti-Brexit Peter Kyle in Hove deserves my cross... the above piece made me re-evaluate him from a certain perspective at least.
p.s. I haven't really commented post Brexit. I see the choice I made as one of the biggest mistakes of my life and I'm hoping that this GE gives me an opportunity to in some way correct that.
As an atheist I found Tim Farron's views (or rather, lack of clarification of them) pretty disgusting, however this open letter has made me re-evaluate my position -
Although.. I still think he's an idiot and while I would like to give the Lib Dems or the Greens my vote I think the anti-Brexit Peter Kyle in Hove deserves my cross... the above piece made me re-evaluate him from a certain perspective at least.
p.s. I haven't really commented post Brexit. I see the choice I made as one of the biggest mistakes of my life and I'm hoping that this GE gives me an opportunity to in some way correct that.
Just as a matter of interest, can I get a by ball for having a vote in the West Tyrone constituency (where a non-attending SF MP is routinely returned)?
The candidates here are almost entirely bonkers, representing a range of political views that does cause me to worry about the validity of the Darwinian theory of natural selection...
Trust me when I say that the finding of something to say for, rather than against, either is beyond my capacity.
The best I can manage is to vote for the one that offends me the least
Corbyn's incompetency on Europe notwithstanding, May is walking a tightrope expecting a rubber stamp for a hard Brexit. Seven years of austerity and worse to come particularly schools where their cumulative budget cuts are this year worse yet, juxtaposed by her fixation with Grammars.
Back to Brexit, an incompetent referendum (who has ever gone for straight majority on such a key issue) with no identification of hard/soft options, our EU contribution or "taking control" where we have less. The whole charade was to save a Tory embarrassment, poorly run by Cameron, blighted by lies on both sides of the Tory Party, with Corbyn silent and now scared by his Labour Sun reading voters supporting out.
Good Labour policies out last fortnight, Jezza needs to be brave and promise a more professional referendum on EU on HIS agenda. Doubt the result would be the same. My Spanish holiday has doubled in price, as for all Brits, inflation up, wages and prospects down.
At this stage - and the way politics is going, it can change - it is looking like a Tory landslide which will be a disaster for the country. It will make the prospect of a soft Brexit all the more unlikely. The best result for May would not be to gain a landslide though, only a slightly enhanced majority - this will terminally weaken Corbyn and make the Labour party more of a future threat, especially when Brexit turns out not to be the great thing some people think. She has given the people another two years of post Brexit decline to cement their views - not clever! I think staying in the single market is more important than party politics and in that respect, I will put my vote wherever the chances of that prospect is improved.
The alternative, and I think more plausible view, is that May fears the hard right in her party will inhibit her negotiations for what she knows is required for trade deals - a softer line on immigration. The secret of successful negotiation is both sides being able to show they have won. For any deal, the EU will need to show they have retained an element of free movement of people and the UK will need to retain some preferential trade relationships, and both claim credit for being able to compromise.
Calling the election is being portrayed as being done in the interests of the Tory party, not the nation. Why the two are mutually exclusive is not quite explained, unless you believe May is intent on making no concession to the EU on immigration and will sacrifice any opportunity of a trade deal.
The frenzy stoked up by the death rattles of the Remainers that all May wants is a hard, hard Brexit is based on what? She is nothing if not a shrewd and pragmatic politician, and will change her tune as the moment dictates and seems unruffled by accusations of "U" turns and broken promises, if they can be justified, - and she is a Remainer.
The inevitable backlash from the rabid anti-immigrant element of Brexit voters, who, supported by the hard right Tories, can be ignored and left to voice their demands at the ensuing election, rather than disrupt the final negotiations.
Give May some credit for genuinely wanting to avoid a divided nation and expect her to justify rowing back on "Brexit means Brexit" as being a negotiating stance and subsequently necessary to unite the nation.
The post 2020 election will then allow all major parties to be in support of retaining trade deals over blanket immigration bans, leaving UKIP for the isolated anti immigration voters. With May still in control of her party, the hard right can either shut up or, if UKIP makes a resurgence join their ranks.
Certainly the improvement in Sterling is on the back of raised hopes of trade deals rather than the fear of trade deals being sacrificed for blanket immigration controls.
Her oportunity to clarify this bloodfest was when she was made leader, explained why she sat on the fence and what her views on Brexit were, rather than follow the votes of Sun reading trade unionists in Hull and similar. She is scared of hard Brexit.
The Conservatives were first out of the block with a full manifesto on their website. That makes me think they might have been planning the election for longer than Theresa May has said.
If I am honest, I think there's some surprisingly interesting stuff in there.
Leuth, in his eagerness to have a dig at the Conservatives, asks what's so interesting about the Conservative Manifesto without even bothering to click it.
If he would've clicked it he would've realised it's a poor parody website, registered by some guy on Reddit. Continuing the fine tradition of positive campaigning that won brilliant victories like Hillary Clinton in the US, and Remain in Brexit, it focuses on making a negative case against an option (in this case The Conservative Party) as opposed to making a positive case for an option (i.e Labour).
There lies the quality of the debate in two posts, Ladies and Gentleman. Pretty much what @Huskaris has mentioned about the complete and utter over willingness to jump on the anti-Conservative bandwagon without even bothering to look into it.
Take a bow, chaps!
Let's rephrase this then, rather than posting negatively against a party - how far can we get arguing positively FOR a party?
The inability to do that - by all means as most options appear to be a bit of a shower of shit at the moment - is why the political landscape is so shitty at the moment. No one seems to be able to proclaim why their proud of their party, only why they detest the alternatives.
I said this a lot in the Brexit thread previously, but there's no positive campaigning anymore. If someone had proclaimed the beauty of the EU, and the wonderful benefits of the money we recieve, rather than the project fear tactics* then perhaps the result would've been different in June.
(I say Project Fear not to say it was false as per se, but that fear seemed to be the major driving force of the Remain campaign - not the beauty and pride attached to the EU.)
Just as a matter of interest, can I get a bye ball for having a vote in the West Tyrone constituency (where a non-attending SF MP is routinely returned)?
The candidates here are almost entirely bonkers, representing a range of political views that does cause me to worry about the validity of the Darwinian theory of natural selection...
Trust me when I say that the finding of something to say for, rather than against, either is beyond my capacity.
The best I can manage is to vote for the one that offends me the least
Just out of interest @NornIrishAddick, for us uninitiated, could you provide a synopsis of the differences between the DUP and the UUP? Are they so diverse that they could not consider amalgamating?
The Conservatives were first out of the block with a full manifesto on their website. That makes me think they might have been planning the election for longer than Theresa May has said.
If I am honest, I think there's some surprisingly interesting stuff in there.
Leuth, in his eagerness to have a dig at the Conservatives, asks what's so interesting about the Conservative Manifesto without even bothering to click it.
If he would've clicked it he would've realised it's a poor parody website, registered by some guy on Reddit. Continuing the fine tradition of positive campaigning that won brilliant victories like Hillary Clinton in the US, and Remain in Brexit, it focuses on making a negative case against an option (in this case The Conservative Party) as opposed to making a positive case for an option (i.e Labour).
There lies the quality of the debate in two posts, Ladies and Gentleman. Pretty much what @Huskaris has mentioned about the complete and utter over willingness to jump on the anti-Conservative bandwagon without even bothering to look into it.
Take a bow, chaps!
Let's rephrase this then, rather than posting negatively against a party - how far can we get arguing positively FOR a party?
The inability to do that - by all means as most options appear to be a bit of a shower of shit at the moment - is why the political landscape is so shitty at the moment. No one seems to be able to proclaim why their proud of their party, only why they detest the alternatives.
I said this a lot in the Brexit thread previously, but there's no positive campaigning anymore. If someone had proclaimed the beauty of the EU, and the wonderful benefits of the money we recieve, rather than the project fear tactics* then perhaps the result would've been different in June.
(I say Project Fear not to say it was false as per se, but that fear seemed to be the major driving force of the Remain campaign - not the beauty and pride attached to the EU.)
I remember the benefits of remaining in the EU been stressed endlessly during the referendum. I think you are suffering some false memory syndrome there.
This election is not a normal one. It has nothing to do with anything other than should the country give May a mandate for a hard Brexit or not. No other issue matters.
Not often that you are aligned with Teresa May I suspect.
Still the Labour Party has no voice on Brexit. A ship with a master with a compass set on a foggy horizon.
The Conservatives were first out of the block with a full manifesto on their website. That makes me think they might have been planning the election for longer than Theresa May has said.
If I am honest, I think there's some surprisingly interesting stuff in there.
Leuth, in his eagerness to have a dig at the Conservatives, asks what's so interesting about the Conservative Manifesto without even bothering to click it.
If he would've clicked it he would've realised it's a poor parody website, registered by some guy on Reddit. Continuing the fine tradition of positive campaigning that won brilliant victories like Hillary Clinton in the US, and Remain in Brexit, it focuses on making a negative case against an option (in this case The Conservative Party) as opposed to making a positive case for an option (i.e Labour).
There lies the quality of the debate in two posts, Ladies and Gentleman. Pretty much what @Huskaris has mentioned about the complete and utter over willingness to jump on the anti-Conservative bandwagon without even bothering to look into it.
Take a bow, chaps!
Let's rephrase this then, rather than posting negatively against a party - how far can we get arguing positively FOR a party?
The inability to do that - by all means as most options appear to be a bit of a shower of shit at the moment - is why the political landscape is so shitty at the moment. No one seems to be able to proclaim why their proud of their party, only why they detest the alternatives.
I said this a lot in the Brexit thread previously, but there's no positive campaigning anymore. If someone had proclaimed the beauty of the EU, and the wonderful benefits of the money we recieve, rather than the project fear tactics* then perhaps the result would've been different in June.
(I say Project Fear not to say it was false as per se, but that fear seemed to be the major driving force of the Remain campaign - not the beauty and pride attached to the EU.)
Just as a matter of interest, can I get a bye ball for having a vote in the West Tyrone constituency (where a non-attending SF MP is routinely returned)?
The candidates here are almost entirely bonkers, representing a range of political views that does cause me to worry about the validity of the Darwinian theory of natural selection...
Trust me when I say that the finding of something to say for, rather than against, either is beyond my capacity.
The best I can manage is to vote for the one that offends me the least
Just out of interest @NornIrishAddick, for us uninitiated, could you provide a synopsis of the differences between the DUP and the UUP? Are they so diverse that they could not consider amalgamating?
Well, off the top of my head....
The UUP is the historical Unionist political party in Northern Ireland. It's been in existence for over a hundred years, from the days of a wider Irish Unionist movement from which the likes of Edward Carson came to prominence (and was closely associated with things like the Solemn League and Covenant, the foundation of the UVF and the threat of armed resistance to Home Rule, etc.). In many ways the UUP was the party of the establishment, led by wealthy landowners and industrialists, until the 1970s-1980s. The party was (and is) closely linked with the Orange Order, but had an arm's length relationship (at best) with working class Unionism.
It was closely associated with the Conservative Party for most of the last 100 years, and was the Government of Northern Ireland until the outbreak of the Troubles, when it was generally quite happy to entrench gerrymandering and a restricted franchise to ensure continuing Unionist rule. The party leadership did try to reform at least some of the discriminatory policies that led to the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s (under O'Neill and Chichester-Clark), but that was not popular with some, and there was a split within Unionism.
The hardliners were led by Ian Paisley, first in the Protestant Unionist Part, in what became the Democratic Unionist Party. For much of the 1970s-1990s, the UUP were the moderate voice of Unionism, with the DUP employing more extreme language and making use of large rallies (reminiscent of the sort of thing that Carson did in the run up to the First World War). The DUP was closely associated with both the Paisley family and the Free Presbyterian Church; unlike the UUP, it did not have an establishment-based leadership - the party was popular with farmers and the urban working class.
Right up until becoming First Minister, few would have expected that Ian Paisley would have any interest in moderating either his language or political views. The DUP, however, entered into government with Sinn Fein (leading to a further split and the creation of Traditional Unionist Voice).
I don't think that amalgamation is on the cards (partly because this would not be a merger, but a collapse of the UUP into the DUP, which would not be palatable to many in the UUP). In fact, if the Conservatives, rather than just paying the lip service they do to having candidates stand in all parts of the UK, were to make a concerted effort in Northern Ireland, following any such merger, I'd expect a significant proportion of UUP voters to change allegiance to them instead.
The UUP is going through a process of reinvention (though this may be amended by the recent change of leadership), where its role in opposition in Stormont, alongside the SDLP, was changing its image. However, the old guard are all but gone from the UUP, and it takes some time for a new vision to emerge and be accepted as viable by the electorate (the SDLP are further along the same path).
Both the UUP and SDLP have suffered in recent years in the face of the, previously, seemingly unstoppable DUP/SF partnership, but I think this is unravelling (which is a cause for concern). I don't think that Arlene Foster can manage to unite Unionists (she will manage to wreck any pact, or suggestion of same, by being triumphalist or failing to moderate her views), there are slim, but important differences in policies between the two parties, and they are sufficiently alike for the dislike of the other to be both deep and meaningful among numbers of their party members.
PS. Lazy generalisations are taken as read - there are clearly exceptions to my broad brush approach.
Tories pounding the poor + NHS Labour a rudderless ship Other parties are hardly being noticed as the party leader is as weak as the main 2
I've never been one to vote for the same political party no matter but what a dismal lack of viable options.
This country desperately needs someone of integrity and someone they can believe in. I can't see it on the horizon so we will continue to stumble around as country in a fine mess with a lack of values and ideas continually bad mouthing all other parties until a person of greatness steps forward to take this country forward, hopefully sooner rather than later.
They need to break out HIGNFY's tub of lard. Seriously though, the TV debates are total cack. I've yet to sit through a whole one.
Does anyone seriously think that we should judge who is best placed to run the country based on who is better at making PR scripted soundbites. In the old days the news used to report large chunks of the politicians speeches (or have a long interview from Robin Day or similar) - rather than 20 second intervals overlaid with journalist's interpretations for those who they were not smart enough to understand the original soundbite. I suspect that we would all be better informed, and get politicians who could make proper decisions rather than PR men/women, if we went back to the old way of doing things.
Tories pounding the poor + NHS Labour a rudderless ship Other parties are hardly being noticed as the party leader is as weak as the main 2
I've never been one to vote for the same political party no matter but what a dismal lack of viable options.
This country desperately needs someone of integrity and someone they can believe in. I can't see it on the horizon so we will continue to stumble around as country in a fine mess with a lack of values and ideas continually bad mouthing all other parties until a person of greatness steps forward to take this country forward, hopefully sooner rather than later.
The sad truth is that I'm not sure any of the parties have any candidates that would satisfy your criteria. We are basically stuck with the rubbish we have currently.
Trouble is that elections are not about careful discussion of policies but smearing, character assasination, & manipulation of facts /stats & a whole heap of half truths, exagerations, scaremongering, misrepresentations and downright lies. Decisions based on negative campainging on how someone eats a sodding sandwich. It is not doing the country any good.
Maybe the answer is to look at the individual candidates in your constituency in the whites of their eyes, and vote according to your personal judgement regarding their character. Always bearing in mind that your judgement may be wrong, and they might be a lying bastard like Theresa May.
Maybe the answer is to look at the individual candidates in your constituency in the whites of their eyes, and vote according to your personal judgement regarding their character. Always bearing in mind that your judgement may be wrong, and they might be a lying bastard like Theresa May.
In the case of May you'd need to look in the reds of her eyes.
Maybe the answer is to look at the individual candidates in your constituency in the whites of their eyes, and vote according to your personal judgement regarding their character. Always bearing in mind that your judgement may be wrong, and they might be a lying bastard like Theresa May.
In the case of May you'd need to look in the reds of her eyes.
The issue for me is that a hard Brexit is going to impact the long term future of the country more than any poor prime minister who may be voted out within 5 years or sooner. Much of the business will be negotiating our way out of Europe over the coming years, so like it or not, it has to be the main issue. I want lists to be published of the position in terms of hard/soft Brexit of every candidate. Then those of us that are so inclined can vote for the candudate we believe is best placed to hold out for a soft one. If they are Conservative fine. I'd vote for Ken Clarke happily.
We need to get organised to try to save the country from the disaster a hard Brexit will be.
Reading Corbyn's speech and exchanges with the press, for the first time in my life I am seriously impressed with what a Labour leader is saying. Needs to get these messages out so everyone can see them, not let the alt-right hijack the election and print yet more propaganda on the side of buses.
Maybe the answer is to look at the individual candidates in your constituency in the whites of their eyes, and vote according to your personal judgement regarding their character. Always bearing in mind that your judgement may be wrong, and they might be a lying bastard like Theresa May.
When I lived in London, I voted Labour for the most part, which was always a wasted vote as my area (Beckenham constituency) was always a Tory win, they haven't returned a different party since 1950. I now vote in the Gloucester constituency which Tories have a slender 4000 or so majority and Stroud before that which is also a marginal. Whilst it feels that my vote counts more when it comes to an election (as it flip flops between Tory and Labour), what I enjoy the most is that I can vote predominantly on local issues and can effect the way things function in my own area.
As the years have gone by I've become more and more disillusioned with Westminster politics so feeling that my vote can make a difference in my local area means I actually feel engaged with politics still. If I still lived in the Beckenham area, I'm not sure what motivation I would have to vote.
Comments
I always think it is helpful to randomly bracket people and assume everyone in that bracket is the same.
Effing trotskys.
Was going to go in with other brackets people use but have decided life is too short.
For fucks sake.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jennie-rigg/tim-farron-lgbt-record_b_16095906.html?utm_hp_ref=uk
Although.. I still think he's an idiot and while I would like to give the Lib Dems or the Greens my vote I think the anti-Brexit Peter Kyle in Hove deserves my cross... the above piece made me re-evaluate him from a certain perspective at least.
p.s. I haven't really commented post Brexit. I see the choice I made as one of the biggest mistakes of my life and I'm hoping that this GE gives me an opportunity to in some way correct that.
Back to Brexit, an incompetent referendum (who has ever gone for straight majority on such a key issue) with no identification of hard/soft options, our EU contribution or "taking control" where we have less. The whole charade was to save a Tory embarrassment, poorly run by Cameron, blighted by lies on both sides of the Tory Party, with Corbyn silent and now scared by his Labour Sun reading voters supporting out.
Good Labour policies out last fortnight, Jezza needs to be brave and promise a more professional referendum on EU on HIS agenda. Doubt the result would be the same. My Spanish holiday has doubled in price, as for all Brits, inflation up, wages and prospects down.
PMSL What a twerp
Poor form on her part? Stupid idea in the first place? Should be replaced with a list of her u-turns?
Still the Labour Party has no voice on Brexit. A ship with a master with a compass set on a foggy horizon.
The UUP is the historical Unionist political party in Northern Ireland. It's been in existence for over a hundred years, from the days of a wider Irish Unionist movement from which the likes of Edward Carson came to prominence (and was closely associated with things like the Solemn League and Covenant, the foundation of the UVF and the threat of armed resistance to Home Rule, etc.). In many ways the UUP was the party of the establishment, led by wealthy landowners and industrialists, until the 1970s-1980s. The party was (and is) closely linked with the Orange Order, but had an arm's length relationship (at best) with working class Unionism.
It was closely associated with the Conservative Party for most of the last 100 years, and was the Government of Northern Ireland until the outbreak of the Troubles, when it was generally quite happy to entrench gerrymandering and a restricted franchise to ensure continuing Unionist rule. The party leadership did try to reform at least some of the discriminatory policies that led to the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s (under O'Neill and Chichester-Clark), but that was not popular with some, and there was a split within Unionism.
The hardliners were led by Ian Paisley, first in the Protestant Unionist Part, in what became the Democratic Unionist Party. For much of the 1970s-1990s, the UUP were the moderate voice of Unionism, with the DUP employing more extreme language and making use of large rallies (reminiscent of the sort of thing that Carson did in the run up to the First World War). The DUP was closely associated with both the Paisley family and the Free Presbyterian Church; unlike the UUP, it did not have an establishment-based leadership - the party was popular with farmers and the urban working class.
Right up until becoming First Minister, few would have expected that Ian Paisley would have any interest in moderating either his language or political views. The DUP, however, entered into government with Sinn Fein (leading to a further split and the creation of Traditional Unionist Voice).
I don't think that amalgamation is on the cards (partly because this would not be a merger, but a collapse of the UUP into the DUP, which would not be palatable to many in the UUP). In fact, if the Conservatives, rather than just paying the lip service they do to having candidates stand in all parts of the UK, were to make a concerted effort in Northern Ireland, following any such merger, I'd expect a significant proportion of UUP voters to change allegiance to them instead.
The UUP is going through a process of reinvention (though this may be amended by the recent change of leadership), where its role in opposition in Stormont, alongside the SDLP, was changing its image. However, the old guard are all but gone from the UUP, and it takes some time for a new vision to emerge and be accepted as viable by the electorate (the SDLP are further along the same path).
Both the UUP and SDLP have suffered in recent years in the face of the, previously, seemingly unstoppable DUP/SF partnership, but I think this is unravelling (which is a cause for concern). I don't think that Arlene Foster can manage to unite Unionists (she will manage to wreck any pact, or suggestion of same, by being triumphalist or failing to moderate her views), there are slim, but important differences in policies between the two parties, and they are sufficiently alike for the dislike of the other to be both deep and meaningful among numbers of their party members.
PS. Lazy generalisations are taken as read - there are clearly exceptions to my broad brush approach.
Labour a rudderless ship
Other parties are hardly being noticed as the party leader is as weak as the main 2
I've never been one to vote for the same political party no matter but what a dismal lack of viable options.
This country desperately needs someone of integrity and someone they can believe in. I can't see it on the horizon so we will continue to stumble around as country in a fine mess with a lack of values and ideas continually bad mouthing all other parties until a person of greatness steps forward to take this country forward, hopefully sooner rather than later.
Always bearing in mind that your judgement may be wrong, and they might be a lying bastard like Theresa May.
We need to get organised to try to save the country from the disaster a hard Brexit will be.
As the years have gone by I've become more and more disillusioned with Westminster politics so feeling that my vote can make a difference in my local area means I actually feel engaged with politics still. If I still lived in the Beckenham area, I'm not sure what motivation I would have to vote.