Rayvin

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.

Go on. How does Blair take a polarising issue like Brexit and win over the 46/47% of the electorate that is fervently leave, and which is propping up the Tories?

So back to that first point then. What would Blair, for the sake of argument, if he were in opposition right now - have done to avert this? So Brexit has happened, and Blair is a staunch remainer. How does that win over any Labour leavers? How does that bring the country back together?

Ah so there's not a desire for centrism widespread enough to actually achieve it, just that if the left wingers within Labour would just sit down and shut up and vote for the centrists, everything will be ok again. I'm not voting for the centrists just to keep the Tories out. Not after austerity. It's not happening. I said right at the start of the Corbyn era that the left had to dig its fucking heels in and stay strong in the face of everything, come what may, if it wants to actually achieve anything. I sometimes think back on that comment and wonder about it, but if this is 'the end' for the left in this country - and I rather suspect it might be - then the centre cannot expect my vote in future. I don't believe they do anything apart from slow down the inevitable decline of the human experience and maybe it's better that we get the speedier version, frankly. Ok I can see this point - Corbyn in and of himself does indeed have a number of attributes that I could see centrist voters struggling with. But let's be honest, anyone who thinks these issues are significant over and above those which are presented by Boris fucking Johnson is really just looking for any excuse not to vote Labour. "We could vote for all these policies if only Corbyn wasn't in charge" harp the Lib Dems, the same thing they've said about every Labour leader in every election in the past 30 years. Corbyn has been a total pain in the arse on the Remain front but he has done exactly what I wanted him to do with Labour in terms of policies. If that makes them unelectable, and tbh I still don't buy that at all - I mean it's clear as fucking day from the numbers that Brexit has fucked everything on that front, so it's beyond me how anyone can draw meaningful conclusions about his performance - then so be it. At least the party can move on from here looking like the actual fucking left. Well, assuming we don't see a return of the centrists.

The centre moved during the austerity years. It's now where the right used to be. EDIT - The Lib Dems are offering that choice, are they not?