Rayvin

It is hard to imagine what they think they're going to gain there.

Indeed.

I mean, it's my assumption that if the Tories get away with Brexit, Labour will more or less collapse. I don't know who will emerge with control but I'm pretty damn sure the left and the centre aren't getting back into bed with each other for some time. Thus the Tories will continue to clear up, off the back of achieving a hard right fantasy, the effects of which will be delivered so slowly that people won't understand that things are becoming increasingly shit (much like austerity) and won't put the blame where it's due (much like austerity). Occasional moments of Brexit success will be feted as if they're hugely significant indicators of the wisdom of leave voters, and all bad news will be ignored for the 'national good'. The Tories will consolidate their grip on social media and spewing toxic bile and lies across anyone and everything, and no one will be able to do anything about it because they hold all the institutional power with which to put in place regulations for its control. My hope is that within 10 to 15 years, a new generation of young people come forward who can be mobilised around some kind of ambitious and forward thinking idea, or perhaps out of desperation in the face of climate change. But either way, lose this and we've got Boris for a decade at least IMO. Irrespective of who takes over Labour - and I personally hope it's a centrist, just so that we can underline the point that Labour's centrism isn't working any better against the shithousing of the Tories than Labour's left wing is. Which after the last decade, you'd think would be obvious. But alas.

And yet this is something the people of this country genuinely think matters at this election. I agree, ridiculous and pointless. This election is about one thing only - whether or not the Tories will govern the UK for the next 10-15 years, and as an extension of that, how much of the country they can sell off to the Americans in that period of time.

True, they wouldn't. Because of the interdependence of their market with everyone else's. Well you would hope that said nation didn't have nuclear weapons, I guess.

Again, I can see that statement logically. Although I would argue the EU has done quite a lot to assist with preventing conventional war in Europe between European states. Moreso than nukes. But with Russia I can see your point. At least up until the 90s. Now I'm really not sure. I think interdependence is far more valuable now.

What point are you trying to make here though. Germany could easily build nukes if it wanted them. The entire western world probably could at this point. You seem to be suggesting that there's an ideological difference between having nukes and choosing to get rid of them, and having the capability to produce them and deciding not to. And maybe there is, but I don't see it myself.

Fair points, I'm not well versed enough in the theory around nuclear weapons from that era to judge it one way or another. I just assumed Renton would be right on that.

In fact, the Russians could actually nuke London, and then threaten to nuke everywhere else in the country if we retaliate. What then? We can't match that threat.

Defence from what? Who are we poised to be at war with? If Russia decides to take out the UK, it's done. We can launch what, 2 nukes at them? They can hit us with 100. If the Americans decide to take the UK there won't even be a war, they'll just ask Johnson for the keys. So who are these nukes meant to be protecting us from? I mean Russia, the USA, China - none of these countries actually even need nukes to take over the UK if they really wanted to. They'd just have to show up. Anyone who won't vote for Corbyn based on nuclear weapons is willfully ignoring the digital nuking Russia is giving us on a consistent basis, and voting in the radioactive fallout. All of which is currently doing an incredible amount of damage to our country. But let's ignore that because someone, somewhere, for some reason, might lob a nuke at us. FFS.

Those people would be cretins. And if the last few years have shown us anything, it's that even with an absolute madman in charge of the US, the global order is still pretty fucking solid.

I do agree with this. It's the same as the anti-semitism issue. Neither issue is really a big deal for Labour in its objectives, at all, and his stubbornness comes only from a determination to remain true to some purist ideological position. So yes, press the red button, rout the anti-semites, and then get on with everything else. It really would have been the way to go.

I wasn't calling you a cretin man, are you about to vote for someone other than Labour because you think the nuclear deterrant is of paramount importance to the country at present? If not, then you're not a cretin. I am embarrassed though - to be British, mostly. Shame, cos a few years ago I remember being fairly proud of this country. Yes, nuclear deterrents did a great job in staving off WW3 during the cold war. It's over now though. Has been for 30 years. The great protection has since become globalisation and the interdependency of markets.

Yes, our ability to protect ourselves from "zee Germans" by having nukes is of paramount importance in an age where our enemies no longer need to actually attack us, and can succeed by influencing elections, flooding social media with utter shit, and pushing right wing nationalists who they know will stand up against the globalist world order and achieve their strategic objectives without even firing a pistol, let alone a warhead. But yes, it's a huge issue for Labour. That's primarily because people are fucking cretins, but we're covering well trodden ground here.

We may as well indeed scrap them. It's a colossal waste of money. I mean who in their right mind is actually going to nuke the UK? Not even Russia is that antagonistic to us. Globalism, if we can manage to stabilise it again, will reduce such nonsense to nothing.

Once half the UK is decimated, aren't we kind of done with that war? I mean unless they're actively genocidal, what difference does it make if we nuke them back?

Is that what he's getting stick for? I thought it was the counter offensive notion. i.e. someone nukes us, Corbyn won't nuke back. Putting aside the fact that actually, once you get into that territory, the only purpose of the counter-nuke is revenge and massacre.

Legitimate question, could Boris Johnson nuke someone without Parliament's say so? Could Corbyn refuse to nuke someone and overrule Parliament?

I actually do appreciate that explanation, thank you. Tea-bagging, through the joys of online gaming, I am familiar with. As for her, chips I think.

Like that matters anymore

I don't think he gives a shit as long as he's Prime Minister.

Separate, left of field notion - if it came down to it, do you think a Tory/Liberal coalition could be achieved off the back of Johnson conceding a second referendum, and Swinson otherwise agreeing to prop him up? It would actually be a less stunning betrayal of the LD voters than it might first appear.

After 10 years of Tory austerity that Labour had effectively stood by and let go unchallenged, that would have been a big ask. But yes, that's the only possible way he could have made any difference. So then we're effectively comparing the net gains of Corbyn's position of having a re-run of the referendum which will appeal to a small but doubtless existent set of Labour friendly leavers, versus Blair just persuading them to vote the right way. I would argue that the difference would be vanishingly small.

Corbyn's position is by far and away the most logical one being put forward by any party. I defy anyone to explain to me that it isn't. Both from an electoral point of view in terms of maximising the pool of potential voters for Remain, and morally in terms of undoing the damage that this has caused in the fairest possible way. And ok, so Johnson would have definitely been more or less where he is in the polls then under what you're proposing - full leave vote behind him, in the 40-45% range. And you think that Labour therefore is either ahead of that or at least matching it. Something that I'm not sure we've ever even seen as a country (45%+). The Lib Dems basically non-existent along with all other parties, including the SNP.

So he abandons the Labour leavers. I see. And what is done about the Brexit Party under this grand strategy? I mean what you're proposing is simply cannibalizing voters from another Remain party.