JUST A THOUGHT - THE VOTER'S DILEMMA : WHO OR WHICH PARTY SHOULD I VOTE FOR? THE END!

Having pondered the party's 'credibility' and 'reliability' factors, as they apply to his/her preferred party.  

The voters might eventually make their voting choice based on 'traditional party loyalty.' By sticking to the party he/she 'always vote for.' 

Although this might be the case with the majority of 'loyalist voters', and represents the core of the party's support, it might not be what determines whether or not they win an election.  

Instead, what can oftentimes determine whether or not a party wins an election, can be the percentage of the electorate that participate in 'tactical' voting. 

The proportion of voters who, for their own political reasons, decide not to vote for the party they traditionally support, if any, but to vote for one of the parties opposing that party. 

In the hope of preventing their traditional party from being able to implement a proposed policy which they strongly oppose. 

Or in an attempt to empower a party which they do not normally support, to implement a proposed policy/ies which, on this occasion, they believe are better than that or those of their traditional party.

With regards to the pending British, French and German elections. It would make good sense for the electorate to become re-engaged with what are the basics, the essentials, which us humans need to sustain and enjoy living. 

Even if our politicians too often becomes distracted by their aspirations to perform on the international stage and lay their claim to be 'world leaders'; most often by embarking on military adventures abroad.

And what are these 'basics', these 'essentials' of which I speak?

Simply these. The nation's ability to feed itself, to have a viable health service which is able to help to maintain the good health of its citizens. 

To have a sustainable education system which is fit for the purpose of educating its children and young people to achieve a meaningful and enjoyable living. 

And to help to build a global compassionate human society, which is more in symmetry with itself and the rest of the faunal and floral eco-system. 

The creation of more socially desirable jobs, and building of more homes for people to live in, and not just as 'investment' for wealth accumulators. 

The promotion of greater respect for the young and the infirm old. As well as paying greater attention to reducing the taxation burden on the current and future working populations. 

So that they can enjoy their working lives more, considering that their retirement will provide them with less time and opportunities to do so.

Yes, voters should carefully consider these matters, and not become too burdened by the increased 'politisation' of terrorism. Which, unlike the immigration and Brexit issues, although real and requiring appropriate strategies to effectively address it properly.  

Probably does not merit being placed at the top of Britain's, Germany's or France's national or international agenda. 

It should not be allowed to become a casus belli, and be used to divert attention and resources from more socially desirable and pressing issues. 

There is a case to be argued that, 'media and populism friendly' tragic as terrorist outrages are. 

In the totality of the government of these countries and the welfare of their people, some of the other concerns are of greater magnitude and requires more attention.

None of which might prevent Britain's Conservative Party from winning the election on 8th June.  As the dominant public opinion manipulators will have done their job.  

In using the media to 'convince' the public of what should be their primary concerns and what action should be taken to address them. 

Including the need to have 'a strong, credible leader' to take the nation into battle and 'win the campaign.'