General Election June 2017

How about "I guarantee that if it would lead to a positive outcome I would authorise the use of nuclear weapons", then move on.

Is it wrong that I am actually getting hopeful that Labour could win this election?

Yes.

LOL. Up since 5:30. Moving away from nighttime nappies.

Adult incontinence is nothing to be ashamed of and I salute your candour.

Though I agree with Corbyn's stance on Nuclear weapon's he ballsed that right up.

Could have easily said -
Explained small chance of us being targetted by any nuclear state
Explained damaging effects of any nuclear war
So, No first strike policy.
There is no 'red button' you Dr Strangelove fantasists. There are letters of last resort written to our nuclear sub commanders which will contain the orders. It would go against the principles of whatever to say what these letters contain.

Done

Our "rational" enemies (Russia and China) are so vast in terms of both
geography and population, that even the total deployment of our nukes
is of no concern to them.

Our "irrational" enemies (Iran, Pakistan and North Korea) either lack
the capability to attack us or don't consider us a primary target
(Iran/Israel, Pakistan/India, N. Korea/S. Korea or Japan).

I find this logic frankly disturbing and more than a little orientalist.

Lumping Iran and Pakistan in as 'irrational' has no justification in the actual conduct of their foreign policy, when you look at their actions rather than the rhetoric, and frankly smacks of bias against them for being counties where religion features more prominently as part of their political discourse.

Then the idea that China and Russia would a) willingly accept the deaths of millions, and b) that this makes them 'rational' is both muddle-headed and deeply distasteful. I think you know full well the incredible physical and economic damage it would do if Moscow and St Petersburg, Beijing and Shanghai were reduced to nuclear rubble and the vast number of people who would die in the process, and I can't believe that the rulers of Russia or China would somehow write that off as a statistic.

Whether or not you agree with it, the nuclear deterrent largely functions at a level below that of actual nuclear war. Yes, there is an architecture of mutually assured destruction to dissuade anyone from being tempted to use them in a first strike. But the deterrent has also functioned as an incentive to the great powers to de-escalate conflicts so that there is little chance of them turning nuclear. Quite a few strategists would argue that the deterrent is one of the reasons we have not had a major land war in Europe since WWII. The First World War started with the Austrian-Hungarian invasion of Serbia. A century later, the Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine results in a far, far smaller loss of life and much lower risk to international stability (although, we were all very worried at the time) in no small part because of the great powers' overriding interest in ensuring that the conflict remained contained and didn't escalate to a larger global stand-off.

For the record, I want a world without nuclear weapons, although I think multilateralism is the way to achieve that, not unilateralism - partly because I think multilateralism gives the opportunity to build a post-nuclear security architecture that we can use to de-escalate conflicts without needing the threat of nuclear apocalypse to sharpen the mind.

Bedtime tantrums in the house then questiontime tantrums on the telly last night. Not sure I can solve either of them.

Isn't all nuclear policy based on game theory devised by people in the middle of psychotic episodes?
#adamcurtis

Bit like bedtime.

Proper lol'd.

I'm just doing a piece of work with a couple of guys who have just finished working for Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR). Based on a sample size of two, I'm inclined to agree with you.

Re Corbyn and his lacklustre Remain campaign: https://musealoudblog.wordpress.com/2017/05/17/corbyn-brexit/

Isn't all nuclear policy based on game theory devised by people in the middle of psychotic episodes?

I've always based my outlook on 80's movies.

[after playing out all possible outcomes for Global Thermonuclear War]
Joshua: Greetings, Professor Falken.
Stephen Falken: Hello, Joshua.
Joshua: A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?

i know polls are bullshit and so often wrong but ......

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-ahead-of-conservatives-tories-ipsos-mori-poll-unadjusted-a7770651.html?cmpid=facebook-post

come on labour you can do it

#votelabour

https://twitter.com/sharonwifey/status/870901573723070464

Anybody seen these adverts? Mine says vote Labour, down the road in Richmond Park, its Liberal.

1 Attachment

That's an awesome link. Cheers.

Looks similar to @velocio 's http://www.tactical2017.com

Wonder if they make the same suggestions...

Yes.

We've all aligned.

Wondered if you'd be giving the same advice.
Also set someone straight on an AAV post who thought it might be a tory con because it was saying they should vote libdem.
@Velocio, are all the suggestions updated regularly to take in to account that labour are doing better now than when you started the site?

are all the suggestions updated regularly to take in to account that labour are doing better now than when you started the site?

Yes and no.

All suggestions are updated, but we aren't doing so according to opinion polls but in the basis of any data we receive.

Different groups have different ways of looking at data. Best for Britain only care about referendum result, Stop the Tories only care about 2015. We have considered last two general elections, local elections and referendum, as well as any evidence of local alliances or strong local support. But we aren't shifting just based on polling... I.e. some Lib Dems areas will never go labour, so local information matters more than national polling.

If we or any group change, we inform the others and discuss to avoid splitting the vote. Few changes are likely to now happen because we're too close to polling day.

The Best for Britain site, looks like they take their data from the last two elections. I'm not sure they're calculating the polls, as there's probably too much inaccuracy, and then which poll do you use?