Consider this before voting…

As an American citizen, I completely agree with that, although I'd phrase it differently - another Trump term makes Putin a far bigger threat to world stability (and that's without getting into the China problem). But I would add that Farage/Reform and their ilk are cut from much the same cloth.

@Ourfuturetheirfuture

I knew who I was voting for and then did the online quiz, which returned a different party that I agreed with- 92% vs 90% for my original choice. I went with my original and now can't decide if that was head or heart 😅. It's a safe seat, though, so no real issue.

OP - just look at the manifestos, and vote for what fits best for you. The world has always been a dangerous place, and the UK has always been “boom and bust”.

It doesn’t need a drama, just see who you prefer.🙂

It isn't saying that humans are behaviourally like dogs. It refers to a whistle which is inaudible to human hearing but can be heard by dogs, because they can hear higher frequencies. So it just means something that people not in the know wouldn't pick up on/hear anything amiss in, but people who are within the community know. Like 'from the river to the sea', until it became better known.

If you want to phrase it another way, it's just covert messaging.

People use it incorrectly to mean anything that isn't spelled out, is left implied, but we all recognise parties who do that. That's not dog whistling. For it to be dog whistling, you would need someone who has studied it or is part of the group to explain what the implication is, it wouldn't be 'heard' (i.e. remarked upon, noticed) by ordinary people.

I STILL haven't made up my mind 😳

Been past the village polling station twice (walking up to sports day and back) and i'll be going past it twice more in the next couple of hours!

I've been giving it the side eye.

I’ve been and spoiled my ballot. I couldn’t bear not to turn up. Feels pretty pointless but at least nobody could accuse me of apathy.

I didn't mean to come across as snippy by asking if you had studied history at all, but pretty much everything in your opening paragraph is a list of things that are better now than at almost any other time and place in the world, and yet you label our time as unique and dangerous. It's just not true:

Death in war worldwide is at one of the lowest points (as a proportion of the population) that it has ever been in recorded history. Not quite as low as the early 2000s, but so abnormally low compared to every other decade going back 1000 years. And that's over the whole world. Dying as a result of war as a UK citizen, military or civilian, is so incredibly unlikely that it wouldn't even be visible on a pie chart. So, yes, there are current tensions in the world, areas of conflict, and the risk of escalation. But historically speaking we are still well below average war casualties.

Children in poverty now is shocking, but, again, as nothing compared to periods when child mortality was between a third and a half (i.e. up to 50% of children born alive wouldn't live until their 5th birthday, which doesn't even count all the miscarriages and maternal deaths).

Public services are struggling. But for most of history they were non-existent, or dependent on the whim of a rich benefactor, or severely restricted (free education for citizens of X, but 85% of residents are not citizens, for example).

I'll give you climate change. Not because the climate hasn't fluctuated before, but because human activity is making it worse by a huge margin.

It's not that I disagree with the premise that there are things wrong with the country, and that many things are worse now than in the recent past. But it's helping no one to claim that 'we are in a unique and dangerous time in history' when it is so patently false. Surely it just undermines the overall message.

no but a reminder like this one doesn't hurt!

I agree with you op, but it was Churchill who said that the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. Some will vote based on facts, some will even do extensive research. Some will vote because they like a face, a hair cut, the fact that he's experienced, or young and in touch. I'd love for people to properly educate themselves before voting. But, we live in a democracy and democracies are not perfect.

Vote counter here- any spoilt votes are included in the overall numbers, as obviously we have to confirm that if the polling station said they've got 150 votes in the box, there actually is 150 votes in there.
When we count the votes individually, it'll be something like 50 for this candidate, 50 for that one, 49 for the other and 1 spoilt vote.

So rude! Honestly, OP your posts have been neutral and not patronising, no idea why MN has turned into a bitter place- maybe it's the MH crisis 😂

I dont agree that it's a dangerous time but we can't all agree.

I hope you ignore the rude people, I think they forget how to interact with people as they spend too much time online.

I feel rather insulted by the OP's question on how I choose to vote.
It's the whole of me, head and heart, that has informed my decision. HTH.

You sound like you are ten years old. Do you even have voting rights yet?

I have got a postal vote and have done for some time. It really takes the stress out of the process. I read manifestos (ok with a glass of wine!) use the fact check online facilities, make my decision and post the vote then binge watch vintage TV programs instead of watching all the election noise.