See you next time!
Thanks for taking part in the discussion today, for clicking on our poll or just reading along with us. We’ll be back next week with another opportunity for you to tell us what you’d like to talk about and to respond to some of our writers, who will again be here to talk about some of their favourite stories of the week.
In the meantime you can continue the discussion in the comments or email us on matthew.holmes@theguardian.com or sarah.marsh@theguardian.com – we’ll look forward to hearing from you.
If you’re just arriving, here’s a poll readers have been voting in based on discussion below the line regarding cross-party alliances.
How much do you read in to your date's habits – and politics?
It seems online daters are heeding the advice of John Waters. The director famously (and possibly apocryphally) wrote: “If you go home with somebody and they don’t have books, don’t fuck them.”
Now a press release from a dating site says it has found something unsurprising but reassuring: apparently “men who list reading on their dating profiles receive 19% more messages, and women 3% more”.
A friend told me last week that her red lines were “not a Tory, must read books.” Another friend says he couldn’t date someone who chewed with their mouth open. Another would need their partner to be employed. Personally, I would struggle to fall in love with someone who used the passive-aggressive phrase “Do you want to … ” instead of “Can you … ” when they’re asking you to do something.
In Seinfeld, Jerry breaks up with one woman because she eats peas one at a time (even though she scoops sweetcorn). Most of us can’t afford to be that choosy, but everyone has idiosyncratic reasons they’d rule out potential partners.
What are yours? And could you date someone who didn’t read?
Here we return to the hot topic below the line today, that of political alliances.
Didn’t we have a referendum on that? Everyone loves a referendum, but for now isn’t the issue settled?
Here’s a theory on why Labour won’t consider alliances:
Because it would make it even harder for them to continue to pretend that the election is about anything other than the obvious:
May wants to negotiate the softest possible Brexit with Europe, but would struggle to do this with a slim majority in which a few hard liners and an opportunistic opposition (hello SNP!!) to force a hard Brexit. With a majority of a hundred or more, she can sideline the most eurosceptic in her ranks, and get on with negotiating the best deal for us and the EU.
The remain case is lost, but if you want a soft exit, then a large tory majority is what you really want, despite what the other parties want you to believe.
And one more, for now, from a reader who likes the idea of working together:
Join forces...embrace tactical voting where it will work effectively....encourage the young vote....Labour/Lib Dems & Greens should just work together and embrace these tactics in order to achieve the one thing that really matters to a decent future. It is vital to make a stand against the Tories and get them out or at the very least for them to become a tiny minority in parliament...It feels like a real make or break time for the UK. The country is at crisis point & needs saving from the Tory (&UKIP) madness!
Science? Aliens? Are we straying a bit too far from politics? Fear not ... there’s always a link.
Aliens?
Seth Shostak wrote about this in the Guardian questioning Stephen Hawking (my hero) of all things! Hawking is right of course about the prospects for other life in the universe, but whether it would be antagonistic I'm not at all sure.
After all why should an intelligent species want to simply take a planet, land and property, goods and chattels that don't 'belong' to them?! I mean it's fairly illogical for a thinking entity to start a conflict based on greed, xenophobia or intolerance isn't it ....
... oh, wait!
Science story of the week
The story that really caught my eye this week was our colleague Hannah Devlin’s piece on a truly gobsmacking breakthrough: artificial external wombs. A team at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia have shown that premature lambs could be kept alive and growing for four weeks inside a “biobag”.
Doctors are hoping that this could act as a bridge between the womb and the outside world for the the most fragile newborns – those born between 23 and 28 weeks’ gestation. Babies born this early often cannot breathe, feed or fight infection without medical help, and a high proportion of them have severe and permanent health problems as a result of their early birth.
This emphatically does not mean that women will be carrying around their unborn children like handbags, leaving them in pubs, or parking them with the nanny for nine months. It doesn’t even mean that sinister biotech firms will begin growing vast numbers of exploitable humans in pouches. Well, I mean it might; after all, humans are fairly terrifying when they really work at it, but essentially, this could potentially transform the life chances of premature children – a cheering thought for this tumultuous time.
Updated
Maybe there really are aliens among us ...
Aliens are out there and one day they'll come for us
Do you believe in life beyond planet Earth? Veteran director and creator of Alien, Ridley Scott, has said he is convinced that there are extra-terrestrials out there – and one day they will come for us.
As he prepares to release the sixth episode of the sci-fi horror series Alien: Covenant, next month, he said: “An expert I was talking to at Nasa said to me, ‘Have you ever looked in the sky at night? You mean to tell me we are it?’ That’s ridiculous.”
“The experts have now put a number on it, having assessed what is out there. They say that there are between 100 and 200 entities that could be having a similar evolution to us right now.”
What do our readers think? Are the aliens coming? Share your views.
Earlier Sarah promised lots of topics other than the politics ...
Marsh:
Today we will be talking about a range of topics, from the election to aliens.
Judging from the Tories' ceaseless repetition of their election slogans, it's hard to tell the difference.
So we’ll have some of that coming up soon.
Here are a couple more of your thoughts on alliances.
Would moral superiority get in the way?
Because many of the Parties who would form such an 'alliance' are in the moral superiority business it would very difficult for senior members of such Parties to admit that anyone outside of their wing of their particular Party could be morally pure enough for them to side with. This is what the modern Left has become, ironically intolerant and obsessed with the quest for moral superiority. Labour Party members can't stand each other let alone members of other Parties.
And does who is leader make a difference?
It'd be interesting to know which groups would join an alliance with labour, if it had a diffeent leader.
I realise that online fora are inhabited by a self-selcting group, but one thing that I see a lot of, in places other than here (but here too) is comments along the lines of "I can't vote labour with the current leadership", is it possible that other parties are put off for the same reason?
Here’s a direct response to Susanna Rustin (see earlier post).
Great stuff Susannah--reminds me of Mhairi Black's heartfelt maiden speech. But, Jesus, Labour seems to be stuck in some sort of weird time warp--their response to our current unprecedented situation is so hackneyed, joyless and just plain bloody stupid.
Young people – are you voting?
Some unexpected news from the world of student politics: Shakira Martin became the new president of the National Union of Students on Wednesday, unseating Malia Bouattia at an election in Brighton. After Bouattia’s controversy-ridden one-year term, Martin sought to calm the waters with a promise of less “infighting” within the student body.
Martin’s first move as president was to join a growing list of public figures – from Youtube’s Zoella to Veep’s Armando Iannucci – in her appeal to young people to vote in the general election.
What do readers think of these pleas to the young’uns? Could there be a more imaginative way to engage 18-24-year-olds in the election? (Or is the whole idea patronising?) Tell us in the comments.
Updated
Alliance with the Greens doesn’t seem popular with this reader, but our poll so far suggests many of you would be in favour of some tactical alliances.
An alliance with the greens isn't going anywhere.
The only seats where greens get a siginificant number of votes (apart from brighton), is when the seats are extreme safe-labour.
In the 3rd or 4th best seats for green they only get about 10% of the vote.
And I don't think that Libdems would see eye to eye with the more ardent and dogmatic parts of the labour party.
Share your views below the line.
Updated
A poll!
Here’s an entirely unscientific poll to collect some of your views based on Susanna Rustin’s thoughts. Of course, the issue is more complex and perhaps non-binary – so you can tell us about which way you voted and share your thoughts in the comments below.
Why won't Labour consider tactical cross-party alliances?
I’m a Green party member but hope to vote Labour on 8 June and will do so provided that the local parties can come to some arrangement. My local MP, Karen Buck, has a majority of 1,977 – making Westminster North, where I live, the 21st least safe Labour seat in the country.
Whether there is a formal “progressive alliance” or not I don’t care, and I agree such initiatives will be stronger if they are bottom-up – especially since the Conservative election jingle “coalition of chaos” appears to be aimed at anyone (apart from Ukip, who are reportedly thinking of standing aside in favour of extremely rightwing Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg and extremely sexist MP Tory Philip Davies) planning to attempt anything as threatening to the security and prosperity of this great former empire as working with anyone else.
But what makes me want to gnash my teeth, wring my hands and leap off a cliff into the yawning abyss of political despair is the sense that Labour, unbelievably, have so far as far as I can tell – apart from in Surrey where a few heroes have gone out on a limb and started plotting a pact with the Lib Dems to get rid of Jeremy Hunt – refused to countenance cooperation with anyone, anywhere, not even in Brighton Pavilion, where the 1.1m people who voted Green in 2015 have their only member of parliament. (Just one MP, between a million of us, and they don’t think she should be in parliament?)
Labour party people everywhere: I am begging you. The best chance of preventing a Tory landslide and hard Brexit is to work together in places where the combined anti-Tory, anti-hard Brexit vote could defeat a Tory hard Brexiter. To quote the words of your murdered sister Jo Cox, “we have far more in common than that which divides us.” Don’t we?
We’re going to discuss the hot idea of tactical voting and cross-party alliances next. Do you have thoughts on the issue?
Here are some of your views on whether we are getting the debate we deserve.
Firstly, a no vote
Are we getting the political debate we deserve?
Good lord, no. Just look at it! Strong and stable invisibility, Mugwumps, parties thinking about what to put in their manifestos after calling an election.
It certainly isn't debate to decide whether May's heels make her a better choice than scruffy Corbyn, and why is Farron's personal view of one particular 'sin' important when the vicar's daughter doesn't have to defend her thoroughly unchristian values?
And that's just the tip of the Crosby iceberg.
And a point about whether we should be having this election/debate in the first place
We're getting the election we deserve.... because the Opposition shamefully caved in by voting for it to happen in the first place.
There were many compelling and respectable reasons for voting against holding an election now - not least that May's "reasons" for holding it are such self-evident and self-serving drivel. Plus it is her only chance of avoiding electoral catastrophe in 2020, when the Brexshit mess will be at crisis point.
But May having constructed a giant man-trap, Labour and the Lib Dems walked cheerfully and voluntarily straight into it. The SNP - not for the first time - showed how to cannily oppose the Tories by abstaining..... thus avoiding the accusation of running away from the electorate, yet still failing to vote for this entirely Tory-focussed election.
If Labour had likewise abstained, this election wouldn't be happening, and the Tories would be trapped in a Brexshit nightmare of their own making. Jezza and Tiny Tim can expect to be knighted in the next Honours list for services to the Conservative Party.
And here’s a reader who’s flipped the question on us, the voters
Whether we are getting the political debate we should be getting is one question. I'm not sure, though, how you would work out what political debate we deserve. What, among our actions, would be taken into account to determine that? Have our actions been good enough to warrant a good debate or have they been so bad that we deserve a bad one?
Here’s that video explainer Martin Belam mentioned.
The election campaign so far? This reader wants to cry at it all ...
Are we getting the political debate we deserve?
Are we getting any political debate?
So far this campaign Johnson has called Corbyn a "mugwump" (although at the time I thought maybe something is going on between those two and Johnson accidentally used his pet name for Corbyn), May has refused to debate anyone, she has refused to publish a manifesto with any real detail and refused to enter a room with anyone other than some Conservative supporters in it, even then she looks on shaky ground!!
This election campaign is basically the tories trying to ride out a large poll lead while they casually slander Corbyn. It is so depressingly vapid I want to cry.
Are we getting the political debate we deserve?
It’s the second week of the 2017 general election campaign, and thankfully there were some light-hearted moments this week to keep us going. With all the pressure there has been on him declaring his position on gay sex, it must have been a relief for Tim Farron to be making headlines for saying “smell my spaniel”. Today is Ed Balls Day. Ed Miliband mocked George Osborne over the French election. My daughter called the PM “Chorizo Mayo”. And who can forget the sight of Paul Nuttall barricaded in a room with the press mob gathered outside?
Paul Nuttall is barricaded behind these doors, there are a lot of journalists outside wanting to know if he is standing in June. pic.twitter.com/VCbfpg6UvF
— Jessica Elgot (@jessicaelgot) April 24, 2017
But there’s also the serious business of whether we are getting the political debate we deserve. Following the foreign secretary’s description of Jeremy Corbyn as a “mugwump” – (here’s a video explainer if you don’t know what one of those is) – the Guardian’s editorial today has called political debate in this country “dangerously unserious”:
The alliterative abuse eclipsed interesting things that Mr Johnson said in an interview: his refusal to commit to Theresa May’s numerical targets for reducing migration, for example, and his readiness to commit British troops to military action in Syria without parliamentary approval. Mr Johnson’s felicitous phrasemongery is a tactic to avoid scrutiny and disarm critics.
Some elements of the campaign look atrociously stage-managed as well. Theresa May’s appearance in Leeds last night tried to convey that she was meeting ordinary voters – but actually the people who worked in the venue had all gone home, and the crowd was invite only.
@MagsNews @christopherhope 100% correct. That's my workplace, she didn't arrive until we'd all left for the day. Everyone in the building past 6pm was invite-only.
— Rik Kendell (@Rikki_Sixx) April 27, 2017
How have you found this week’s campaigning and media coverage? Are you getting to hear about the issues that you think are important? And how much faith do you have in the polls predicting a Tory landslide?
Updated
As mentioned earlier, we’ll move on to talking about some of the other issues of the week shortly. First up it’s the use of that word once only known to me as the title of a Terrorvision song ...
Mugwump is a track on the Terrorvision album "Regular Urban Survivors".
A billiant, straightforward album by probably the best pub-rock band ever.
'I just don't get where the upside is'
Here’s one more view on Brexit for now. We’ll move on to discuss some of the specifics of general election campaigning so far shortly, after highlighting that callout in our previous post.
The issue to me appears simple. The list of things we are about to lose by exiting is tangible and growing by the day (financial passporting, roaming data, EHIC, right to work in the EU... the list feels endless). We actually have no idea what we are going to gain from this. So we might get a trade deal with the US... whoopee - we only pay 2% tariffs now so not a lot of gain there. Maybe India - oh no, they want free movement for technology workers - can't have that). Sovereignty then... turns out that if anything Brexit has encouraged our politicians to do their best to avoid parliamentary sovereignty rather than embrace it.
I just don't get where the upside is. All I hear about is controlling immigration - from a bunch of people who are not directly impacted by it. High immigration areas tended to vote remain. It's bollocks.
General election: what's happening where you are?
You may have noticed the blue “contribute” buttons on this article, which link to our callout asking you to tell us – and show us – what’s happening in general election campaigning where you are.
Here’s our colleague James Walsh from the callout:
Politicians are dusting down their soap boxes and canvassers are readying their door-knocking skills. (Yet) another British general election is upon us, and we’d like to see your images, videos and stories as the campaign gathers momentum.
Wherever you are in the UK, we want to see how the campaign is impacting your area. Theresa May says she is eschewing TV debates for old-fashioned “meeting the voters” – so has she, or any other politician, turned up in your town?
We’re also interested in the leaflets, banners and posters of a British election, especially any that you’ve seen in your constituency or on your travels – share what you’ve seen with us.
Give us as much context as you can: which constituency do you live in? What are the main local issues? Which candidate is expected to win, and how do you feel about them? Are you campaigning yourself? Let us know how it’s been going – and what kind of issues you’ve been experiencing.
This reader says the referendum was inspiring:
I found the referendum pretty inspiring. It brought about the democratic re-engagement of millions of working-class people, many of whom had never voted, or had not voted for decades, who found that for the first time that their vote counted, and their voice mattered. Hopefully, this will be the beginning of a much needed democratic revival in this country. If anything has poisoned politics, it is the incessant attacks on the legitimacy of the vote by vested interests that disagreed with the result.
But, as ever in debate below the line, there’s a counterpoint not far away:
So inspiring to have millions of honest working taxpayers lied to again and again by self-serving politicians seeking nothing but their own personal gain. As University of Liverpool Law Professor Michael Dougan has stated the leave campaign was "dishonesty on an industrial scale".
Those affected by Brexit will be the factory workers in Sunderland, Bridgend and Burnaston, not millionaires like Arron Banks and Peter Hargreaves. So inspiring. In ten years time, when the madness of Brexit comes fully apparent, few will own up to have voted out.
A quick reminder – when we post comments up here you should be able to click on the timestamp to jump directly to that comment in the thread and reply or expand the conversation.
Here are some of your views so far.
Less poisoning, more cleaning up, according to this reader:
Has Brexit poisoned British politics?
It seems to have clarified and exposed the poisons eternally present in British politics and society.
This, unlike Brexit per se, is a good thing.
And how about this view?
Has Brexit poisoned British Politics?
Brexit has poisoned everything.
Less-educated, provincial voters from every party have become convinced that the white British are under existential threat from immigrants. That they’ll be culturally and ethnically replaced. That’s what ‘legitimate concerns’ means. That’s why no one cares about the economic implications of Brexit. They’re voting for people they think are standing up for their ethnic, racial interests. They’ll crash the economy if it allows them to build a sealed-off, ethno-nationalist, white state.
It doesn’t matter that Theresa May, as home secretary, could have brought non-EU immigration (the source of the dreaded ‘non-compatible cultures’) down to zero if she wanted to, while staying in the EU. It doesn’t matter that there’s nothing culturally incompatible about incoming Europeans, who in two generations will be Brits with foreign surnames. Logic is patronising. Logic is for latte-sipping elitists who arrogantly dismiss the ‘legitimate concerns’ of idiots.
The Labour party, by meekly submitting to the will of the idiots, are on the wrong side of this argument. Labour, like the Tories and UKIP, would have the UK descend into chest-pounding, flag-waving, know-nothing nationalism. The only difference is, they would do it slower. No one who thinks of themselves as progressive or liberal should endorse them. Historic loyalty to the Labour party has nothing to do with it.
Anyone who isn’t suffering from race-anxiety delusions should vote for whoever is a) opposing Brexit the loudest and b) has the best chance of winning their seat, whatever party they’re from.
Here’s one more for now:
Brexit has poisoned British politics, but that is only because the majority view among politicians is not aligned with the British public
Hence the 'new propaganda' with phrases like 'hard Brexit' and 'soft Brexit', when anyone that voted Leave was fully aware of the implications, given that the establishment, media, big business, almost all politicians, were on the side of Remain
Even last night Question Time featured 5 Remainers on its panel. Every poisonous (see first comment on this thread for classic example) is aimed at making Leave voters feel they made mistake
What do you make of it all? Share your views below.
We’ll share some of the most interesting comments and debate from below the line up here shortly – do get involved.
David Cameron thinks Brexit has 'ended poisoning of British politics'
On the same day that a Tory MP warned that the election would become a “bloodbath”, David Cameron re-emerged to declare the Brexit vote has ended a “poisoning” of British politics.
“The lack of a referendum was poisoning British politics and so I put that right,” he said at a tourism conference in Bangkok on Wednesday, standing on a podium made of delusion and self-denial.
Still, Cameron added that he has some regrets. Was it the surge in post-Brexit hate crime? The EU “divorce bill”? Families’ subsequent plummeting living standards? Not quite.
“Obviously I regret the personal consequences for me. I loved being prime minister.”
Share your views on Cameron’s perceptions below the line.
Updated
Welcome!
Hello everyone and welcome to our social. Today we will be talking about a range of topics, from the election to aliens. If you want to suggest a topic then email it over (sarah.marsh@theguardian.com/ matthew.holmes@theguardian.com) or let us know in the comments. We’re looking forward to getting started.
This country doesn't need half-arsed, one-off tactical alliances -- it need properly-balanced representative democracy delivered by a voting system that ensures proportionality.