BREXIT and others

I broadly agree with most of the things in your post, but why do you think he’s a dick, Rick? I’m just curious. In my opinion the title fits Blair and Brown but I’ve seen nothing yet myself of Corbyn that would warrant that description, for me.

Agreed. I’ve been aware of Corbyn for over forty years, and he’s been a consistent voice of determined reasonableness and sanity the whole while. If the whole Labour party was like that I’d still be in the Labour party, or possibly back in it, but I left the Labour party as soon as I realized what Blair was like, and am now in the Green Party and likely to stay there for the foreseeable future.

as soon as I realized what Blair was like

Very good front man for whatever other people did.
Original content value – minimal.

Very good front man for whatever other people did.
Original content value – minimal.

I wouldn’t disagree with that for a moment.

I’ve been aware of Corbyn for over forty years, and he’s been a consistent voice of determined reasonableness and sanity the whole while.

Ooh, I can beat that! 57 years (give or take). I was in the same class as his elder brother, Peter (now Piers) at Adams’ Grammar School in Newport, Shropshire. I knew of Jeremy but I don’t ever remember seeing him though, I suppose, I must have done. He was two years behind me and it was terribly infra dig to speak to the sprogs, “doncha know”.

As to his politics, well, he seems to be an honest politician (Oxymorons ‘R’ Us) and I wouldn’t have too much difficulty in voting for him; not that it would have any real effect, our local MP is Mark Pritchard (Con) and he has a majority of 10 000+. I’ve no doubt that he’ll get in again even if it’s with a reduced majority.

Jeremy’s performance in the Question Time Leaders’ Special (BBC1 on Friday evening) was generally good but I was disappointed with his response to the (ill thought-out) question about what he would do if someone(?) was about to drop a nuclear bomb on the UK. Would he press the button and pre-empt the potential holocaust in this country?

Firstly, that ‘someone’ would have to be a nation state if they were going to be dropping a bomb because that would imply a viable air force. If so, why single out the UK? If a nation state and the UK had fallen out and events were becoming that critical, NATO would be involved and the UK would not be alone. It wouldn’t be up to Jeremy to act on his own.

Secondly, if a nuclear bomb had been smuggled into the UK by a terrorist organisation, there would have likely been no warning. Even if there had been, who would be singled out for nuclear retaliation? Where would the second strike weapons be targeted? The use of nuclear wepons would be a quite inappropriate response.

The situation posed by the questioner was unrealistic and designed purely to embarrass him for political gain. There was no serious need to know the answer. I was disappointed that Jeremy didn’t follow this avenue. I also think he was hamstrung by a hostage given to fortune a long time ago, viz, that he would never press the button. Had he not done so, he could have kept his powder dry by refusing to tell the questioner what he would do. This would have been legitimate because by keeping the questioner guessing, he could argue that a potential enemy would kept guessing too.

I’m not entirely convinced that renewing Trident is a sensible move, though I would be somewhat uncomfortable arguing for its removal. The cost is horrendous. It is currently estimated to be in the mid-30s (billions of pounds, that is) with another 10 billion as a contingency. Even so, this is less than 10% of the defence budget.

Successive governments have let the rest of our defences go to pot. The RAF’s front-line strength is too low to be effective. We have tied ourselves to the USA too closely. The F35s (if we ever get them) will be compromised without special high-altitude drones which will coordinate battlefield activity. The USA will be only too happy to supply them, but at what cost. It seems that the resulting intelligence will be seen by the USA first before we get it. Even more worrying, that data will belong to Lockheed-Martin and even the Pentagon isn’t happy about that.

The fiasco with the Navy’s Type 45 destroyers must be causing Nelson the turn in his grave and the handling of the aircraft carrier situation beggars belief.

The Army is in such a parlous state that it has to include partially-trained Territorials in its front-line strength.

It’ll only get worse with another 5 years (or more) of austerity. I’d say, “God help us!” if I believed in that sort of thing.

This is the longest post I’ve ever made to the forum. I must be worried about something.

I was disappointed that Jeremy didn’t follow this avenue.

Indeed. Given that this was an obvious question he was likely to face, I’m surprised he hadn’t got a better answer prepared. With questions you’re not prepared for, it’s very difficult to produce the best response off the cuff (I know – I was the Green Party candidate in our local constituency in 2015, and have faced questions at hustings) and in general Corbyn doesn’t do all that badly at it (some politicians are astonishingly good at it – he’s not, but he’s better than I am – years of practice I guess).

I don’t think he’s the sharpest tool in the box – no fool, of course, but not a genius – but he’s an honest man who’s thought about policies a lot and has the public interest at heart, all of which sets him apart from other, slicker politicians. Being the sharpest tool might help dealing off the cuff with unexpected questions, but isn’t actually all that important to being a good policy maker.

Of course the site will encourage green and lib dem votes in non marginals, because they have the brexit policies that the site advocates.

In a marginal they advocate tactically voting to replace eurosceptics (mostly tories, obviously).

The aim of the site is to get a non hard brexit supporting government, not a particular party.

I was impressed by its logic.

Jess I agree that the site is well designed. My worry though is that voting on an issue without concern for what party is likely to gain a majority will only work if enough of the elected MPs stand by their beliefs in votes which in many cases would require them to rebel against party lines.

If many people vote tactically on a single issue rather than for a Labour government, I’d imagine either a Tory government or another Con Dem coalition would be the likely outcome, and I can’t see Lib Dems in a coalition with Tories being able to put up much resistance to a hard Brexit. Just my 2p though.

That’s worth a hell of a lot more than 2p, Andy.

Why thanks Clive. In this day and age sometimes it’s hard to keep abreast of inflation.

In fairness I think Rick said much the same thing, in different words, in his last post.

First up, let’s get this out of the way:

I was disappointed with his response to the (ill thought-out) question about what he would do if someone(?) was about to drop a nuclear bomb on the UK. Would he press the button and pre-empt the potential holocaust in this country?

It is an entirely fraudulent assertion – that being the First Strike would avert a nuclear catastrophe. That is the sort of thinking that dominated the Cold War, and the only thing preventing Russia and America from nuking each other is that the entire concept of First Strike is a fallacy. Systems are set up now to ensure Mutually Assured Destruction. That is to say, if a nuclear strike is inbound, the military and leaders will get notification and the option to retaliate. And if they dither, it isn’t a big deal, as upon detection of a nuclear strike, the missiles will launch without human intervention. As the WOPR from the film WarGames eventually decided, the only winning move is not to play.

In short, Corbyn’s only option is whether he is capable of retaliating to an inbound strike before it hits (and the retaliation option is taken out of his hands). By being the one “with the balls to strike first” may well be the ultimate worst decision.

The next thing to consider is who the supposed enemy is. Who has nuclear weaponry that is likely to attack the UK? It’s pretty much game over if we’re talking America or Russia. Both have enough nuclear capability to ensure that there’s no part of the UK remaining in the aftermath. The test of the Tsar bomb was stepped back by half, and it still broke windows in Finland. Attempting a First Strike against the US or Russia would be utter madness.
France? Things would have to go pretty badly wrong for France and the UK to get to the stage of using nuclear weapons. Elsewhere – China, India, Pakistan, North Korea (maybe)… I don’t see them specifically picking on the UK. It’s more likely that we’d be involved in US-Russia crossfire or the like, where the smartest move may be to not get involved.

With that in mind, asking specific questions about nuclear response is akin to asking about “what’s your stance on abortion”. There are no simple black and white answers.

That said, one might wonder about keeping the UK’s active nuclear deterrent on four Vanguard submarines based at Clyde Naval Base. I really hope that one or two are always out at sea at any given time…

but why do you think he’s a dick, Rick? I’m just curious. In my opinion the title fits Blair and Brown

Oh, Brown was definitely a dick, and my thoughts on Blair are not printable. As for Corbyn, if we ignore his track record on picking sides (Northen Ireland comes to mind here) and his interesting interpretation of reality (link); that he was naive enough to take a wodge of cash to lend some Western authenticity to Iran’s state broadcaster (link); the somewhat bizarre idea that the Falkland Islands (that Maggie went to war to defend) should be ruled by a power sharing deal with Argentina….should be assume the same for Gibraltar? (link); his extremely ham-fisted and bullcrap laden attempt to complain about the lack of space on the trains that was only a notch below Farage’s idiotic attempts to blame motorway congestion on immigration; his decision not to back the police on a shoot to kill policy on terrorists which he then U-turned on the following day (gee, a U-turn even faster then May’s…) (link); having basically lied as much as Theresa May in “backing Remain” – he voted against the Common Market in ‘75 (link), against the Maastricht Treaty (link), against Lisbon Treaty (see previous link), and compared to the Brexit campaign, the Remain campaign was one of the worst and most ineffectual campaigns I’ve ever seen in British politics. Neither his head nor his heart were in it. That was extremely clear. As if all of that wasn’t enough, there are strong accusations that his office sabotaged the Labour Remain campaign, such that a little under half of the Labour voters didn’t even apparently know what the party stance was supposed to be (link).
If we can somehow manage to ignore all of that (and more that I can’t be bothered typing up), if we can ignore all of the above, then the one thing we should absolutely never forget is that in the days following the result of the referendum when the Conservatives were falling apart, there was no opposition. There was a sickening, somewhat surreal, Jeremy Corbyn Show, but the opposition were absolutely dead in the water. I would go so far as to make the suggestion that it was a very deliberate act of sabotage – since he really wanted Brexit, he went out of his way to disable the opposition at the point where it was needed like never before in the past two decades.

The man is a dick, a liability, and quite likely a danger to the UK.

Unfortunately, May is a greater liability, no statesman whatsoever, and ultimately a far greater danger to the UK.

As such, as much as it sickens me, the only logical option if I was able to vote, would be to vote for Labour, not because I like them or Corbyn (I think I’ve made my feelings on that quite clear), but simply because voting Labour is the best chance of getting rid of May (or at least helping to prevent her gaining absolute majority). Because the biggest threat isn’t the fur-coat wearing dick, but the <unprintable words> that brought this calamity on us in the first place…

As the song’s video says (you know, the one they aren’t playing…) – TORIES OUT.

Wow Rick, you’ve managed to round up most of the major smears the mainstream media have been running on JC. Many of the well-intentioned things he has said and done are deliberately presented out of context and spun to smear him. Unfortunately I don’t have the time or inclination to debunk them one by one – so we’ll just have to agree to disagree on the “dick” moniker – but I’m sure you must have noticed the intense media bias (and blackout to begin with) when it comes to Corbyn.

his decision not to back the police on a policy which he then U-turned on the following day (gee, a U-turn even faster then May’s…)

The original BBC report on that has been discredited by a report by the BBC Trust. It’s a prime example of what I just said about a remark of his being taken way out of its original context.

Regarding the trains, they vary, but I’ve certainly had to stand or sit on the floor on a few occasions. And for the price you pay for many main line services, you ought to get your own private cabin! It should at least be clean. It’s my understanding when Corbyn made that video, all the empty seats were First Class or reserved – so I don’t think it was really bullcrap although it was maybe a bit of a corny way to illustrate a point.

Regarding the Labour Remain campaign, all I can say is I was somewhat on the fence myself with regards to Brexit, in that there are advantages as well as the serious disadvantages, so I don’t personally mind if a politician has a view on it that isn’t black and white. He genuinely seems to care for the rights of both Britons and foreigners and I am sure he would do his best to get a fair deal in the negotiations. I think he’s a good diplomat.

Either way, I couldn’t agree more with your conclusion. For sure, May is the worst option by far in my opinion. TORIES OUT yes indeed.

+1

Wow Rick, you’ve managed to round up most of the major smears the mainstream media have been running on JC. […] but I’m sure you must have noticed the intense media bias (and blackout to begin with) when it comes to Corbyn.

Fake News, eh?

The original BBC report on that has been discredited by a report by the BBC Trust. It’s a prime example of what I just said about a remark of his being taken way out of its original context.

Story also appears in the Independent, where Labour MP John Woodcock is quoted as saying: I can only apologise to Sky viewers for the confusion over the last 24 hours but I’m glad that our leader Jeremy Corbyn has retracted, or at least clarified, his remarks of yesterday and said that he would support it too.

So, if this is a lot of fake news designed to smear Corbyn, may I ask you why he was paid to appear on Iranian TV? Why he wants power sharing for the Falklands? Why he even pretended to be in favour of the EU when it was clear from his history that he was against it? Why he interfered with his party’s remain campaign? Why he utterly failed to be any opposition whatsoever when the country needed it the most?

You cannot simply dismiss this as Fake News and Smear Campaign – that’s as stupid as May’s “it was the internet wot did it” rhetoric on terrorism.
You will notice I quoted multiple sources in the above, for a specific reason of not relying upon any one source. A simple Google search will find more.
Either it is a huge mass conspiracy, or Corbyn really is a bit of a dick. Given that the likes of the Grauniad and the Daily Fail will never agree on anything, I am not inclined to believe the conspiracy approach when there’s a much simpler explanation…
…Russian hackers.
That’s is, isn’t it?
:-)

all the empty seats were First Class or reserved

I thought it turned out to be that all the seats on that part of the train were “unavailable” for whatever excuse. So he eventually got up and found a seat on another part of the train.

Thing is – if we have the idea that “train is crowded, let the people take reserved or first class seats”, then that will just become the norm, and those people who actually reserved¹ a seat or paid extra for the first class² can just suffer if their seat is already taken by somebody?

And for the price you pay for many main line services,

There’s your problem. You aren’t paying what the service is worth or what it costs to run. You are paying what careful analysis has demonstrated “the market is willing to pay”. It’s like recent release DVDs are either €19,99 or €24,99 (add €5-€10 for Bluray) regardless of what the film is or how much it cost to make. The production companies have decided that this is what the market will pay for a DVD, and that’s what the price is.³

so I don’t personally mind if a politician has a view on it that isn’t black and white.

I don’t expect a politician to have views that are black and white, but I do expect them to have sensible views that match that they are doing, and are not backtracked when The Rabble start making disapproving noises. I mean, aren’t we supposed to have “strong and stable leadership” right now? Yet when May’s manifesto went down like a lead balloon, it was suddenly Manifesto 2.0. She’s on video in interviews rubbishing the idea of a snap election, yet here we are.
I actually predicted this about a year ago – the quickest way to annul the closeness and potential illegalities⁴ of the referendum is to gain a majority vote on the issue of implementing Brexit. And had she kept her mouth shut, she might have won her majority.
But no, in fine Tory form, you can’t win an election without promising to screw the little guys and favour the elite. My God, Brexit is going to be hard enough when May, the right wing press, and the screaming idiots that want Brexit at any cost realise that….yes, the UK really is a fairly small and not terribly important island in the north west of Europe that has a serious ego problem. With the fallout of that lurking, one doesn’t want to contend with disability care, pensions, and education being messed around with as well.

Top story in the Daily Mail right now – “HOW DID THEY MISS HIM”? Well, I dunno. Maybe it’s the Tory government’s fetish for snooping on people’s communications, stockpiling personal (meta)data on ordinary citizens, and a long string of cuts to policing. A long time ago, I said that all this rampant snooping was NOT going to make us safer, it was going to have the exact opposite effect, the security services already have a pretty good idea who the bad guys are and what they need is not more toys and more data to wade through, but simply more resources to do a better job with what they have right now. Instead, more people are going to die, and “[he was|they were] known to police” will kept being repeated as our stupid inept leaders call for more snooping, more controls on the internet, and more draconian laws, but never consider simply training more f***ing detectives … and I don’t mean that farcical idea about making a person a “detective” if they have “a degree in something” – what the hell good is a degree in media studies when you’ve got a girl with a knife in her back lying on the floor? Oh, wait, you can tell the photographer how to get good angles for better on-screen impact. Whoo.

TORIES OUT yes indeed.

At least we agree on that. :-)

¹ You can reserve seats? Shouldn’t seats be available for everybody and morally “reserved” (offered) to pregnant women, old people, disabled people, etc?

² First Class is still a thing? Maybe there’s your problem – pulling around a first class carriage when you could replace that with a peasant-class carriage to put more actual people in.

³ My base rule of thumb for buying DVDs is “no DVD that costs more than a cinema ticket” (€6,50). I make exceptions for some animé and Japanese DVD releases (a sort of karma balance for downloading stuff that is just never released in the west), but for western/Hollywood movies, if I like the film I’ll wait a year or two until it hits the bargain bucket or turns up on FilmFour…

⁴ The idea of restricting long-term ex-pats (who are likely to be directly affected a lot more harshly than citizens within the country) is extremely undemocratic. Everybody of lawful age who is a citizen of the country concerned should be allowed a vote. Anything else is “the democratic will of selected people”, which isn’t too far away from describing numerous dictatorships.

And for the price you pay for many main line services,

There’s your problem. You aren’t paying what the service is worth or what it costs to run. You are paying what careful analysis has demonstrated “the market is willing to pay”.

Of course. It couldn’t really be any other way when a private, profit-motivated organisation runs the service. So maybe JC’s nationalisation plan for the railways makes a certain amount of sense. Either that or real regulation of the profit margins. Before you call me a commie I should add that this should only apply to essential public services rather than, say, DVDs.

You can reserve seats? Shouldn’t seats be available for everybody and morally “reserved” (offered) to pregnant women, old people, disabled people, etc?

Yeah. For some strange reason when you book rail tickets in advance, you are forced to reserve a particular seat – to the extent that your ticket upon inspection is actually considered invalid without the accompanying reservation. I mean, WTF?

I expect someone might come up with the argument that if the train fares were lowered, the trains would become even more overcrowded but hey, if they do, that shows like you say that they’re not making enough standard class carriages available and the service isn’t fit for purpose (some would say for the population size but I couldn’t possibly comment on that except to say that the whole world is overpopulated).

I’m not going to respond to your other points as I think the discussion could become long, repetitive, and heated (don’t you just love political debates? I know I do). Different media portray events differently and everyone interprets them according to their own biases. I agree to disagree, as I said.

It’s still the same old Labour act of bribing the electorate with other people’s money though. Just how much are all these promises really going to cost exactly. And how many big foreign companies will keep UK bases when they have costs added such as higher minimum wage and corporation tax increases hit them from the other side. Similarly, those that have large incomes aren’t forced to remain based in this country to pay more tax when they have the funds to move anywhere else that will have them. How much of the extra revenue will be realised?

It’s always the same, people clamour for more to be spent on everything, but always expect someone else to pick up the bill.

Once the trade union curbs are removed and the railways are privatised we will end up back to 70’s with ‘one out, all out’, closed shops, secondary picketing and productivity falling further. Cheaper train journeys are all well and good, but if the unions shut down the entire network you’re going nowhere – yet another reason for businesses to leave the sinking ship.

It’s all fine and dandy wanting to eliminate nuclear weapons and cure war by discussions, but nukes can’t be uninvented. A nuclear deterrent is only any use if the other side(s) know you have it and believe that you will use it. It’s a great idea, but there’s as much chance of stopping war as there was with Brown’s ‘no more boom and bust’!

A nuclear deterrent is only any use if the other side(s) know you have it and believe that you will use it.

You forget the principle of MAD (ever an appropriate acronym). Nuclear deterrents these days are effective not because somebody is willing to use the weapons, but because using them will be met with retaliation. You’ll be deciding who the “winner” is by who has the fewest fatalities (measured, these days, in millions). The phrase you’re looking for is Pyrrhic victory.

There’s a big difference between being willing to launch nukes if another country already has, and being the one willing to hit first.

As I said, Britain’s likely involvement will be either being coerced to enter into some half-assed conflict the Americans start with another nuclear power, or just getting caught in the crossfire. Either way, the primary two nuclear powers have an order of magnitude more firepower than the UK. Closest is France, and I just don’t see a nuclear option there, next closest is Israel…

The most likely nuclear event in the UK is likely to be the result of an act of terror. Is somebody blows up a Hinkley Point or Sellafield, or a dirty bomb in London, the results could be dramatic – but what use is Trident? Where do you aim your nuked when you are fighting an ideology?

That’s why we should consider “he who is willing to press the button first” to not necessarily be the sort of person ideally suited to be a leader.

[Corbyn] wants power sharing for the Falklands

As you have repeated this, it is necessary to remind you that the policy of the Thatcher government in the early 80s was precisely that.¹ Had the Galtieri regime not invaded, encouraged by the weak stance taken by Britain, it would have happened. Following the war, and the expenditure of blood and treasure, there is no way that any British government could countenance it now.

¹ Carrington, an honourable man, resigned because of its consequencss, and Nott’s notorious defence review was partially premised on it. I was in the RN at the time and have some first-hand knowledge.

Whatever happened to honourable politicians – ones like Profumo who not only resigned, but stayed resigned?

There’s a big difference between being willing to launch nukes if another country already has, and being the one willing to hit first.

But deterrent isn’t about being the first to strike, it’s there to reduce the risk that someone else will strike first against you.

But deterrent isn’t about being the first to strike, it’s there to reduce the risk that someone else will strike first against you.

When I was somewhat younger that kind of statement was considered to be best answered with a phrase on the lines of “fighting for peace is rather like f’-ing for virginity”

A common variant on the “protect and survive” mantra advised people to not just put their head between their knees but to stretch a little further and “kiss their ass goodbye”

While I’m probably not going to manage to double my current age I’d really rather not have some idiot pee on my attempt.

As you have repeated this, it is necessary to remind you that the policy of the Thatcher government in the early 80s was precisely that.

Yup. And once upon a time, Ireland was unified and Gibraltar was a part of Spain, etc etc.
We talk about what applies now, not what may have applied then if only…

Had the Galtieri regime not invaded,

Which kinda changed the plan somewhat.

I was in the RN at the time and have some first-hand knowledge.

I was at school at the time, but got lots of stories from somebody who was on board the Canberra. Actually, got some spent bullet casings beside the printer – he thought to grab those for me while running for cover.

But deterrent isn’t about being the first to strike, it’s there to reduce the risk that someone else will strike first against you.

But… Wasn’t the question posed to Corbyn basically “do you have the balls to strike first?”. It’s that that I am responding to. Plus, one should probably point out that the countries without nuclear capabilities are by far the majority.

One should probably also point out, with a facepalm or two, that there are many many options that need to be exercised before we turn to nuclear strikes. Nukes are the ultimate failure, not just of diplomacy and politics, but of military strategy. Your nukes will cross their nukes and the result will be something sci-fi and horror films alike have failed to adequately portray. Modern weapons are many orders of magnitude larger than the two bombs dropped on Japan at the end of WW2. Now? Now we can predict entire metropolitan areas simply ceasing to exist.

Consider the Tsar bomb tested by the Russians (scaled down to 50MT). Imagine that detonated above central London. Kensington, Battersea, Brixton, Peckham, Whitechapel, Camden Town. Everything within that radius will simply cease existing. That’s the fireball radius. The large air blast radius will destroy everything that remains of London, from Chiswick in the West to Poplar in the East. The weaker air blast radius (will destroy most typical non reinforced buildings), the radius here is Heathrow, Epsom, Biggin Hill, Bexley, Dagenham, Chigwell, Cheshunt, Borehamwood, Eastcote…
And, finally, the circle of third degree burns: Reading, Hindhead, Billingshurst, Burgess Hill, Uckfield, Wadhurst, Sheerness, Malden, Braintree, Saffron Walden, Henlow, Leighton Buzzard, Aylesbury. Expect many things in that zone to burn to the ground.
That’s just the scaled down test. The actual designed Tsar bomb is 100MT, so the third degree burns radius Basingstoke, Brighton, Canterbury, Colchester, Cambridge, Milton Keynes, Oxford.

These figures are for one 3.8km detonation directly over Westminster of the largest nuke designed. They are, admittedly, scaled up from the 20MT tests due to lack of available test data, but even if there are inaccuracies… Oxford to Brighton, one bomb, damn.

Either way, nuclear deterrents are an interesting way to keep peace, but they are also a guaranteed way to end a country’s reign in the history books.

Those lists of places, by the way, are the immediate impact. Social breakdown, sickness, poisoning, all those will follow. Ever watched a TV film called “Threads”? It’s a bit dated, but rather than the nuclear strikes ending the film (as is often the case), they pretty much set the scene for the hell that follows.

Remember, all I’ve said relates to one bomb. A genuine nuclear attack will likely dump a larger number of smaller bombs on the populace. Smaller bombs: London, Brighton, Portsmouth, Swindon (Bristol?)… You can pretty much count the entire south to be left in ruins. 24h fatalities measured in millions. Deaths directly related, tens of millions.

That’s a foreign power nuking the UK. And that’s what you’d be responsible for if you were eager to strike first. Twice, their country and yours in retaliation. Any leader who claims to be willing to hit first is not a person sane enough to be given the ability to make such decisions.

Now, go back, read the list of places, and really think carefully about what nuclear weapons truly mean in this day and age.

If you want to play yourself (easier to look at the pretty circles superimposed on the map): http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

I’ve lived and worked on a nuclear-armed RAF base in Germany during the cold war in the full understanding that it was a high priority target. There was always that thought at the back of your mind, especially being that bit closer to the ‘front line’.

It would be great if we could get rid of nuclear weapons and the costs associated with building, maintaining and supporting them. But we live in a world where China, North Korea, Pakistan, India, Israel, US and others all have them. Unilateral disarmament by us won’t make any difference to the other nuclear powers and will probably reduce our already diminishing influence in the world. There are several rogue states out there that either have overtly or covertly worked towards gaining nuclear armaments – the methods and recipes are well known and as such can’t be forgotten or deleted from science.

But… Wasn’t the question posed to Corbyn basically “do you have the balls to strike first?”. It’s that that I am responding to.

While he was asked that initially, there were follow-up questions about what he would do if the ‘other side’ launched first. I’m happy that he won’t take a pre-emptive stance, but having the weapons is a form of insurance which is invalidated if you make it clear that you won’t use them in any circumstance (or unclear that you will). From everything I have heard from him it seems that his way forward in any conflict would be appeasement. And this includes his position on Brexit – it sounds to me that he is setting out a position where if he doesn’t get the deal he wants he would negate Brexit and stay in – so all the EU has to do is make the conditions such that he can’t/won’t accept them.

I voted to remain, and I think the arguments and expectations put up by both sides were bogus and deliberately misleading. But the vote was leave and so that is what we should do. The big problem is that no-one knows what Brexit will look like, what sort of deal we will end up with. We won’t get what we ask for, we won’t give in to everything that is asked of us. It’s not in Europe’s interest to be generous with us or they will have others queueing to leave. Is it better to accept a punitive deal or walk away without a deal? Who is going to trust a party that finds a way to override the Brexit vote?

Then we have the union question. When the unions have supremacy they see themselves as being an opposition party to whoever is in government – they either want to bring down the elected government or force it to bend to their will. While I’m all for workers’ rights, safety at work, and the real benefits that unions bring to the workforce, it can’t be acceptable for them to act in a subversive manner against the elected government even if they don’t agree with it.

If you want to play yourself (easier to look at the pretty circles superimposed on the map): http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

Well the goodish news is that if I’m at home then anything less than a 350kt device over central Coventry leaves me in a condition to be able to walk down the road to the pub (away from the blast) and drink enough that I don’t care what happens next.
From the selections available that means the French are probably the first ones to worry about so Brexit better stay civil.

Hey hey the witch is dead?

Hey hey the witch is dead?

More like on life support, by the looks of it. : S