RayC

That maturity meaning that, generally speaking, they favour low-taxation without having to worry about the consequences of lowing public spending on services. Why should being born in the UK, having family and owning property there entitle you to a vote whilst living overseas? Money flows around the world so that is completely irrelevant. It is probably more accurate to say that you pay some tax in the UK, as do foreign nationals on their UK assets. Should they also get a vote in UK elections? Having said all that, you answered your own question: Imo you shouldn't get a vote in UK elections because you have chosen to live abroad.

Of course. The last 13 years under Tory leadership has gone so well. The obvious irresistible retort is that if they care that much then why don't they return there? I am a Brit who has also lived in Belgium and Thailand. I care about what happens to those latter two countries as well as the UK. However, as a non-resident I don't expect a say in how they run the country.

Agreed. In general, I believe that an individual should be taxed, and be able to vote in the country, in which they reside. I don't understand your point? Are you suggesting that Brits in the UK should be able to vote in, say, an Indian election? 70% of Brits vote according to party allegiance. Of the remainder, imo it is domestic issues, notably tax and the NHS, which decide how they will cast their vote.

I doubt that Labour can do much worse than the current Tory government but even if they do, you'd probably get very generous odds from the bookies that they can't make as big a mess in 35 days as your favourite, Liz Truss, did. (Yes, I know that she was in office for 49 days but she was unable to inflict even more damage for 14 days due to the Queen's passing).

The majority of ex-pats are more likely to vote Tory. No doubt purely coincidental that this proposed piece of legislation is put forward prior to a General Election. In any event, if an individual is out of the country for a significant period of time (imo 5 years: one parliamentary term) then the franchise should be withdrawn. Why should non-residents influence domestic policy that directly affect the day-to-day welfare of residents?

In the very majority of countries, individuals had the choice whether to take a vacinne. By the other 'solutions' I assume that you are referring to lockdowns, mandatory mask wearing, etc? Opinions differ as to whether such measures were excessive but, irrespective of whether that was so, how could any government have enacted solutions tailored for individuals?

Well, at least we are similar in that regard

My replies to you are, by definition, personal. I do not intend to offend you but, on the 'Ukraine issue', I disagree with your comments vehemently. I have been direct in stating my disagreement but I do not believe that I have been offensive towards you personally.

It's pure conjecture on all our parts what happens next: Are we entering another long 'cold war'? The US funded 30-odd years of the last one; would it do so again? Could the EU - together with the UK - take the lead from a US-led NATO in defending Europe with the US committed to supporting in the event of a war?

I don't think that I've ever read such perfect written English from a Russian. My compliments, sir 👍. Out of curiosity do you speak with a Russian accent?

I can imagine that Blair may have some influence on Starmer if the latter becomes PM, as they appear to have similar views on many issues. Corbyn? Can you elaborate on how he might influence a PM Starmer. They don't appear to have much in common politically, and probably aren't drinking buddies.

Perhaps you should act your own advice in that case.

So long as you post comments which I disagree with l will post what I consider to be valid responses: As others have said, it's a public forum so you should expect to be challenged about your posts I am not trying to bait you into saying something unintentional, I am pointing out what I consider to be flaws in your rationale. You clearly do not wish to address my challenges to your argument directly which is obviously your choice.

Given that Corbyn will not be a Labour MP in the next Parliament, it's pretty certain that he will not be a member of any Labour government.

There is no perfect electoral system. There are many problems with PR, but at least it has the benefit of ensuring that all individual votes matter to some extent. The main benefit claimed for a FPTP system is that it delivers 'strong' government. The governance of the UK since 2016 suggests otherwise.

Methinks you doth protest too much.

But there is plenty in your posts as a collective to support the view that you are an apologist for Russia's actions in Ukraine. By your rationale, the governance of Ukraine has nothing to do with anyone apart from the Ukrainians. Fine. If only Putin would agree with your view. Much as it irks you to acknowledge the parallels with '30s Europe, they exist: The dangers of the liberal democracies of Europe (and the US) passively accepting aggressive land-grabs by totalitarian states such as Putin's Russia are clearly obvious. Why anyone would seek to defend such aggressors is beyond me and you have been completely unable to offer any justification. Next.

So the 'undefeatable' Russia maintains its' record by ensuring the end of life on Earth? Great!

Ok, here's the 'Next'. I explained why the comparison was valid and not baiting. Your inability to explain the obvious contradiction in your position says it all.

I agree that we should hope that sanity prevails in Congress. That would result in the US continuing to support Ukraine financially and militarily with the eventual withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukraine to follow. The eviction of Putin from the Kremlin would also be a useful by-product of a Ukrainian victory.

Even more predictable that you would counter with an article from the Daily Mail!

Maybe not but NATO still has a bigger conventional arsenal than Russia.

And you wonder why you get labelled as a Russian supporter?

In amongst the reportage in the Western Press, there is, of course, propaganda but so what? It doesn't alter the underlying fact that Russia used the Euromaiden protests as an excuse to invade Crimea and a process of 'de-nazification' to invade the rest of Ukraine last year. Do you think either justification holds water? I don't. I don't know why you think Russia cannot be defeated? Because of its' nuclear arsenal? If so, the same argument could be used for the US and the other nuclear powers. Mutually assured destruction, etc. Interesting that you consider the comparison between Ukraine in 2023 and the UK in 1940 off-topic, but introduce European colonialism in Siam into the conversation. Imo Chulalongkorn played a bad hand very well. Unfortunately, a more recent example of ceding land in Europe i.e. the Sudetenland didn't have such a happy ending.

And perhaps also because it is a bit close to the truth?