Oh right, so they can destroy the whole planet fourty times when we can only do it twenty.
Yeah, that works.

It's not the size darling!

No, its the willingness to face up to an aggressor.

Who's the aggressor? Who's threatening us?

Ah, so then, I can destroy the whole planet with 7 big ones, so, just in case some are faulty I have 15 warheads, Mr Naughty needs to keep up so gets 20. That means I increase my holding to 25, meaning Mr N goes to 30. Ooh, I say, oh dear, I'm now buying 50 yah boo. Mr Naughty gets huffy and shouts back; see what my 75 do for you.....where does this end Charlie?

Better dead than dead; doesn't compute does it?

On the bright side if all countries were nuclear weapon free we could get back to the once in a generation slaughter of millions of young people. Would help with the population crisis.

What, you mean a bit different from today, where we are just seeing peoples being slaughtered in Afganistan, Iraq and Syria? And presumably since we've had a nuclear deterrent since 1945, Korea, Vietnam, etc, etc, etc, were just minor blips? If that's your bright side, I think I prefer the dark!

European unity solved that problem..... as long as we don't see a resurgence of nationalism...: oh hold on.

Umm I suspect a good few would argue NATO might have had rather more influence

NATO may have reduced the possibility of a war with Russia (or may have come pretty close to provoking one) it can be argued that the EU that did the most to prevent the real threat - yet another war - round 4 in the heavweight bout between France and Germany.

Some argue the EU provoked the Russia/Crimea situation.

Not really a bout though. The cheese eating surrender monkeys always get whipped by the germanic hordes.

They did pretty well in 1914.

Funny how you can say that sort of thing about certain peoples with impunity, but not others.
If you made that sort of comment about say Muslims or Pakinstanis you would have the "hate crime" police knocking on your door by now!!

France is not a race though. It's just the same as the French calling us Roast Beef.

Nor is Muslim or Pakistani (or Pakinstani). Ones' a religion the other's a nationality. just like French or German.

Is it still OK to hate people down the road? Like Readingites...don't want them using our dump...

Lets build a wall to keep those Readingites out!

Don't give them ideas!

Nor is Muslim like wot Blackdog said.
Try it at you peril!!

Damn the advent of modern technology too and the ability to transmit news of disasters globally. Apart from the times when Great Europeans would engage in mortal combat there was a time when what happened in Africa stayed in Africa. Natural Selection and The Circle of Life kept the population of the Dark Continent in check, but now every time a crop fails we have the saintly Sir Bob and his holiness the Great Bono demanding we dig into our savings to help supply a fleet of Mercedes to African leaders in exchange for allowing a few bags of grain to be distributed to the starving.

And that's the crux. Over 50% of the UK population have enough to worry about feeding themselves and paying the bills. Its always multi millionaires that tell us we should give give give. Dont see too many Syrian children with Bob Geldof, Richard Branson etc. At least Bill Gates has resolved to give his fortune away. When the likes of Geldof and Branson give there money away I'll reconsider. But for now the chuggers can do one.

Well it looks even more likely that we will have another Clinton in da Whitehouse. The Republican party must be wondering how it all went so wrong so fast!

It aint over till the fat lady sings...

Fresh off the press,

"Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has not done enough to tackle anti-Semitism in the party,a committee of MPs has said.The Home Affairs Select Committee report criticised him for a lack of "consistent leadership" on the issue, which it said benefited people with "vile attitudes" towardsJewish people."

Oh dear Jezza. Bad day. Policy decisions made today

Alienate the whole of the Midlands and North. Make UKIP electable again.

Cap earnings at 1 mill per annum. Guess thats the end of the Premiership football!

The most clueless politician. Ever. Period.

He even wants to stand with the RMT on a picket. That will be popular with commuters.😄

He is his own worst enemy. After the party that is.

If you don't want to see him elected, why are you so concerned?

Because every democracy needs an electable opposition. Labour are not.

I fear the next election will be a straight fight between UKIP and the Tories with Scotland retained by the target bunnet brigade. Not really democracy in action is it?

From today's Daily Record,

"It's not a cap Jeremy Corbyn needs, it's a crash helmet"

"The Labour leader’s absolute lack of clarity means that his party have little to offer voters in the Brexit debate. That leaves the Tories writing on the Brexit blank sheet with the SNP making notes in the margin."

"It could have made for a nightmare Prime Minister’s Questions today. But, luckily for the Tories, Jeremy Corbyn was there to save them."

Oh, an he wants to cap footballers wages!

Why do we need an electable opposition?

Yes, of course, its quite sound to properly test new proposals but you can do that within your own party. Anyone who had had anything to do with big business and indeed party politics will confirm that the 'opposition' is built in!

So, the question remains, if Labour are unelectable, why are you so concerned about its leader?

Actually, yes it is. There will be candidates from Labour, LibDem and UKIP plus the Tory in almost every constituency. What more do want?

OK you don't like the Labour leader, but he isn't the party. Loads of Tories didn't like Mrs Thatcher, but they still got elected.

The premise that all parties must simply be vanilla versions of the same ice cream is marketing nonsense. I hate Tesco Bourbon biscuits, don't understand why Sainsburys don't sell them because it would give me a bigger choice?

Im not. Why would I be concerned about an unelectable leader and indeed his whole party? As for challenging from within... Ever heard of whips?

Yes, of course there are whips, but what MP worthy of the name hasn't challenged them. Ever heard of the 1922 Committee?

Yes. Are you a fan of Corbyn then? To me he is a throwback to an era of 1970s industrial unrest. The world has moved on.

Not particularly and he's certainly not charismatic. However, in purely practical terms, for those who believe in socialism, which is what the party is supposed to be about, he was the only choice who had the credibility and the perceived will to restore it. That is, it was and is intended as a party who believe in 'we' rather than 'me'. So, amongst the Labour supporters, he is actually being quite successful. On 1970s industrial unrest; I'm not sure we have moved on. The problem is still there as the escalating rail dispute is demonstrating.

Wow, hope I'm never as credible,
"Mr Penning said Mr Corbyn was unfit to be put in charge of Britain's defences. 'It is unprecedented for a Leader of the Opposition to attack the defensive deployment of British troops on Nato territory,' he said."
The man is as mad as a matter and will, if given the chance, sell us out to the nearest dictatorship!

Although Mr Penning is a Tory and all Corbyn said was: “I don’t want to see any more troops deployed on the borders between Nato and Russia,” Corbyn told BBC Wales Today. “I want to see a de-escalation, ultimately a de-militarisation and better relationships between both sides of it … there cannot be a return to a cold war mentality.”
I'd say Penning was the nutter in this instance.

Meanwhile,
"Mr Corbyn's questioning of Labour's support for Nato caused anger in Labour's ranks.
Former frontbencher Michael Dugher said the Labour leader's team appeared to be 'continuing to fight the Cold War – for the wrong side'. "

It is said that Nia Griffith (shadow defence) and a number of labour MP's are concerned over his attitude to defence.

Well said!

Jeremy, please don't even consider resigning. You're doing far too good a job, for the Conservative party. Well done.

He isn't!!

Well, he did pretty well holding on to Stoke in the face of a media prediction that UKIP had it in the bag. Whitehaven even Tony Blair would have lost - local issues with NHS and its biggest employer Sellafield. Plus the Brexit locals didn't really appreciate a Labour remainer as candidate! Again, should have been a kipper here. So, suspect you might be in wrong queue Je suis!

Yeah. go Jeremy. Go the Momentum party.... i mean the Labour party. Has he costed any policy with his dimwit Mcdonell yet? Oh hang on has he got any policies? Ooooo and people have been nasty to that wondeful mp Diane Abbot on twitter and she wants a parliamentary enquiry. Good grief. You dont have to use Twitter. Its not compulsory. I want a parliamentary enquiry. Newres was nasty to me on the newburytoday forum.

I reckon Billy Liar lost that one. Isn't it strange how many nutters manage to get into UKIP. Even the top job. Clearly Corbyn is the wrong man for the job, but he's essentially honest.

That's a pretty good summary.

Did you not see that piece Giles Brandreth did on the streets in Guildford - asking locals what they tought of Corbyn's policies? They thought they were marvellous, until they learnt they were Labour policies.

The Country will never elect a left wing government. So essentially they are just a protest party now.

Never say never, the Country has done so in the past. I can well remember in my youth people thought we'd never have a rabid right wing government and the Tories were just as defunct.

Like blackdog says, Labour's policies are pretty popular.

Take the national living wage for example - I don't think it's moral for companies to pay their workers less then they need to live on, but successive governments have created a welfare state that subsidises workers' wages so that businesses don't need to pay the market rate, while at the same time demonizing the low-paid for receiving that state support which in reality is supporting those businesses. I tend to agree with Adam Smith and would sooner the free-market was left to itself, but the free-market's answer is to let the low-paid starve, and that's exactly what happened in the eighteenth century when Adam Smith was influencing Liberal economic thought. So given that state intervention is necessary to protect people from unbridled capitalism the most just solution is to oblige employers to pay a living wage.