Just trying to convey (badly) the absurdity of asking what someone would do in the event of a nuclear confrontation, where as we know, the only winning move is not to play
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?
America nuked two naval bases to end a world war (and it was probably the wrong decision even then) - that's a very different context to a potential nuclear strike on the UK now
I'd say not having a deterrent would make us more of a targrt, not less.
Why do you think it was the wrong decision?
Because there were surely other options available - I'd need to consult an actual historian obviously! But there had to have been a better way than frying thousands of civilians at a single stroke. The use of nukes was as much a signal to the USSR as anything else.
The war against Japan did not end because of nuclear weapons. Japan was already defeated and seconding out peace feelers before the bombs were dropped and all of Americas top military leaders advised Truman that the use of the bomb was not necessary. But Truman ignored them and under the influence of his Secretary of State, Byrnes, went ahead for two main reasons. One to forestall Soviet territorial gains in east Asia when it entered the war against Japan by invading Manchuria, and secondly to provides a 'real world' demonstration of the power of the new weapon to make the Soviets more 'amenable' in negotiations over territory in Europe – and the populations of two cities were sacrificed for it.
I certainly wouldn’t say you are 100% wrong but I thought that Truman was told that an invasion of Japan would be too costly in American soldiers lives to undertake. There was of course a lack of real understanding of the consequences of the action by most people other than within the scientific community. I would imagine the real reason is as always somewhere in between.
As well as the opposition of virtually all the US's main military leaders, one of the most telling bits of evidence was in the The Potsdam Declaration - Defining Terms for Japanese Surrender, where, against the advice od the State Department, Truman and Byrnes insisted that the Japanese emperor could not remain in place - which they knew the Japanese would not accept. But after the bombs were dropped that's exactly what was agreed.
Thank you. For my part I need to find out more before I would comment further.
Just trying to convey (badly) the absurdity of asking what someone would do in the event of a nuclear confrontation, where as we know, the only winning move is not to play
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?
America nuked two naval bases to end a world war (and it was probably the wrong decision even then) - that's a very different context to a potential nuclear strike on the UK now
I'd say not having a deterrent would make us more of a targrt, not less.
Why do you think it was the wrong decision?
Because there were surely other options available - I'd need to consult an actual historian obviously! But there had to have been a better way than frying thousands of civilians at a single stroke. The use of nukes was as much a signal to the USSR as anything else.
The war against Japan did not end because of nuclear weapons. Japan was already defeated and seconding out peace feelers before the bombs were dropped and all of Americas top military leaders advised Truman that the use of the bomb was not necessary. But Truman ignored them and under the influence of his Secretary of State, Byrnes, went ahead for two main reasons. One to forestall Soviet territorial gains in east Asia when it entered the war against Japan by invading Manchuria, and secondly to provides a 'real world' demonstration of the power of the new weapon to make the Soviets more 'amenable' in negotiations over territory in Europe – and the populations of two cities were sacrificed for it.
I certainly wouldn’t say you are 100% wrong but I thought that Truman was told that an invasion of Japan would be too costly in American soldiers lives to undertake. There was of course a lack of real understanding of the consequences of the action by most people other than within the scientific community. I would imagine the real reason is as always somewhere in between.
That is one view but it is disputed that 1. Japan was already defeated. They still had large armies in Japan and in China and Burma. 2. that the "peace feelers" were from the ruling military group. Truman couldn't know what was going on with the Emperor and the various peace and war parties. Certainly there were strong parties wanting to continue the war. Peace might have come without the bomb or an invasion but that is clear only with hindsight.
I don't doubt that Truman wanted to use and test the bomb both to impress the Soviets (Stalin hadn't been that impressed when told and maybe already knew) but also to show the Japanese what would happened if they didn't surrender.
Labour's Trident replacement position is an area I disagree with them on. I think the Germans do alright without it and so do the Spanish and Italians so why do we need it? It is something that if you use it, it has failed because it is a deterrent after all. If it has failed and we are all dead, it doesn't really matter if you use it or not, but for it to work, I do get the theory that you have to convince your enemies that you would use it. I think we already have a nuclear deterrent - it's called the USA but Corbyn isn't going to convince our enemies he would use it even if he is a terrorist sympathiser - which seems to be a bit of a contradiction but hey ho.
Corbyn's issue here is that he is a committed pacifist and the Labour position is a strange one in that it wants to pay for a system that the Leader isn't willing to use. It has to sort this anomaly out before the next election as the excuses like we have to keep it going in case the next government wants it are a bit ridiculous.
It is predicted to cost us over £200 billion pounds to replace Trident, which could be better spent in other areas. Mind you, I'm not much use on this thread as I think it is Corbyn who is right here and the Labour party wrong. By the way, I do think nuclear weapons are a deterrent in certain circumstances, just not sure why we need them. But if you think we do need it, it is a valid area to be critical of Labour on and Corbyn as Labour's leader. Their position contradicts itself and is ridiculous here.
Saying we should get rid of something because it works is the most brexit age thing ever.
Yes, if that is what I said. I said I think nuclear deterrents work, but I don't think Trident is important and it can't possibly work with Corbyn in charge of the button. Look who our enemies are that we might have to use it on. Terrorists are hard as we can't bomb Birmingham if somebody from there commits an atrocity. North Korea is too far away. Russia is the obvious one, but the thing stopping them doing that, if we got to that point, is more likely to be the USA than Trident or its replacement.
We can get on to the links with dictatorships and overseas terrorists later.
You're obsessed.
I would say more passionate than obsessed.
Henry clearly has very strong views about Corbyn's behaviour insofar as terrorism and antisemitism is concerned. Views that I share, even if not as passionately.
Thank you. If being passionate about opposing antisemitism and terrorism is a crime then I plead guilty.
@iainment it's a thread about Corbyn. @leuth asked for evidence so I gave some.
What is sad is that your only response is the say "you're obsessed". Why not refute the evidence given? Maybe because you can't.
I try not to argue with people who have a fixed viewpoint. It's not worth it. You won't take any notice of any view but your own because you're obsessed about Corbyn. It'd be like trying to have a conversation with a creationist about Darwin's theory of evolution.
Saying we should get rid of something because it works is the most brexit age thing ever.
Yes, if that is what I said. I said I think nuclear deterrents work, but I don't think Trident is important. Look who our enemies are that we might have use it on. Terrorists are hard as we can't bomb Birmingham if somebody from there commits an atrocity. North Korea is too far away. Russia is the obvious one, but the thing stopping them doing that, if we got to that point, is more likely to be the USA than Trident.
Unless the us president is in the pocket of the Russian dictator and sets up the us as his own dictatorship.
Geopolitics is fluid, we shouldn’t get rid of something because at this exact moment in time we’re okay.
Just trying to convey (badly) the absurdity of asking what someone would do in the event of a nuclear confrontation, where as we know, the only winning move is not to play
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?
America nuked two naval bases to end a world war (and it was probably the wrong decision even then) - that's a very different context to a potential nuclear strike on the UK now
I'd say not having a deterrent would make us more of a targrt, not less.
Why do you think it was the wrong decision?
Because there were surely other options available - I'd need to consult an actual historian obviously! But there had to have been a better way than frying thousands of civilians at a single stroke. The use of nukes was as much a signal to the USSR as anything else.
The war against Japan did not end because of nuclear weapons. Japan was already defeated and seconding out peace feelers before the bombs were dropped and all of Americas top military leaders advised Truman that the use of the bomb was not necessary. But Truman ignored them and under the influence of his Secretary of State, Byrnes, went ahead for two main reasons. One to forestall Soviet territorial gains in east Asia when it entered the war against Japan by invading Manchuria, and secondly to provides a 'real world' demonstration of the power of the new weapon to make the Soviets more 'amenable' in negotiations over territory in Europe – and the populations of two cities were sacrificed for it.
I certainly wouldn’t say you are 100% wrong but I thought that Truman was told that an invasion of Japan would be too costly in American soldiers lives to undertake. There was of course a lack of real understanding of the consequences of the action by most people other than within the scientific community. I would imagine the real reason is as always somewhere in between.
That is one view but it is disputed that 1. Japan was already defeated. They still had large armies in Japan and in China and Burma. 2. that the "peace feelers" were from the ruling military group. Truman couldn't know what was going on with the Emperor and the various peace and war parties. Certainly there were strong parties wanting to continue the war. Peace might have come without the bomb or an invasion but that is clear only with hindsight.
I don't doubt that Truman wanted to use and test the bomb both to impress the Soviets (Stalin hadn't been that impressed when told and maybe already knew) but also to show the Japanese what would happened if they didn't surrender.
Saying we should get rid of something because it works is the most brexit age thing ever.
Yes, if that is what I said. I said I think nuclear deterrents work, but I don't think Trident is important. Look who our enemies are that we might have use it on. Terrorists are hard as we can't bomb Birmingham if somebody from there commits an atrocity. North Korea is too far away. Russia is the obvious one, but the thing stopping them doing that, if we got to that point, is more likely to be the USA than Trident.
Unless the us president is in the pocket of the Russian dictator and sets up the us as his own dictatorship.
Geopolitics is fluid, we shouldn’t get rid of something because at this exact moment in time we’re okay.
Which is a fair argument. Like I said, It doesn't bother the Germans, or Italians etc... that they don't have it. But if you think we need it, I appreciate there is a rationale behind it.
We could always pretend we had it and spend the money on our armed forces and the NHS!
We can get on to the links with dictatorships and overseas terrorists later.
You're obsessed.
I would say more passionate than obsessed.
Henry clearly has very strong views about Corbyn's behaviour insofar as terrorism and antisemitism is concerned. Views that I share, even if not as passionately.
Thank you. If being passionate about opposing antisemitism and terrorism is a crime then I plead guilty.
@iainment it's a thread about Corbyn. @leuth asked for evidence so I gave some.
What is sad is that your only response is the say "you're obsessed". Why not refute the evidence given? Maybe because you can't.
I try not to argue with people who have a fixed viewpoint. It's not worth it. You won't take any notice of any view but your own because you're obsessed about Corbyn. It'd be like trying to have a conversation with a creationist about Darwin's theory of evolution.
Apparently God put dinosaurs on earth to test us. You can't prove he didn't.
The irony of a Celtic supporter complaining about IRA symphony isn't lost on me. If an Election was called this month there will be a stage where the unelectable label will be dropped. Shame that most of the Labour voters are too busy working to reply to these comments but as lunch time is upon us this thread will quickly be sunk!
I'm a Charlton supporter, not a Celtic supporter. They are my Scottish club and have been since I was about 7, long before I knew what the IRA was. For the record I condemn the support for the IRA and the disrespect paid to the poppy by some Celtic fans.
Rather than putting up baseless slurs or waiting for the rest of the labour supporters to pile on why don't you put up some defence for Corbyn's long and well documented support for the IRA yourself @Friend Or Defoe
Your only source is Twitter and all the facts I can find, such as him saying he condemns all terrorism is waste of time. There's nothing I can write or show to prove you wrong that will change your mind. You have a strange enjoyment out of calling people racist/antisemitic and for that reason I only ever throw a grenade into threads like this and never lower myself to the debate.
"Your only source is twitter" - False. I have given many sources, three on this thread. Only one is via twitter and it has a photograph of the evidence.
"All the facts I can find" - False. You haven't offered any facts to refute his support for the IRA on this thread.
"You have a strange enjoyment out of calling people racist/antisemitic" - False. Only Corbyn and his ilk. No one else. You have no clue as to whether I enjoy it or not.
" I only ever throw a grenade into threads like this and never lower myself to the debate." False. You have nothing to counter what I say so refused to debate on an adult level. Your hope is to get the thread sunk. You can't rise to the debate so lower yourself to "you're a celtic fan and they support the IRA, so there" levels.
You have an agenda. QED.
Please don't sink this thread.
Which means what?
I oppose Corbyn's friendship with terrorists and anti-Semites.
Call it an agenda so you can pretend what I've evidenced isn't true (you've not challenged it at all) but it's still true.
I highlighted it in bold for you.
I proved you wrong on the first post with an example as well as saying I was wasting my time!
"I proved you wrong on the first post" False. You gave no evidence and even if he has said he condemns all terrorism, as you claim, that only proves his hypocrisy, not you right.
"I was wasting my time" False You are just not succeeding in offering any rational response
Are you deliberately proving me right?
I'll prove you wrong with various balanced sourses.
Saying we should get rid of something because it works is the most brexit age thing ever.
Yes, if that is what I said. I said I think nuclear deterrents work, but I don't think Trident is important. Look who our enemies are that we might have use it on. Terrorists are hard as we can't bomb Birmingham if somebody from there commits an atrocity. North Korea is too far away. Russia is the obvious one, but the thing stopping them doing that, if we got to that point, is more likely to be the USA than Trident.
Unless the us president is in the pocket of the Russian dictator and sets up the us as his own dictatorship.
Geopolitics is fluid, we shouldn’t get rid of something because at this exact moment in time we’re okay.
Which is a fair argument. Like I said, It doesn't bother the Germans, or Italians etc... that they don't have it. But if you think we need it, I appreciate there is a rationale behind it.
We could always pretend we had it and spend the money on our armed forces and the NHS!
I'd get the people responsible for convincing us we needed Brexit to convince our potential enemies we have a nuclear deterrent.
We can get on to the links with dictatorships and overseas terrorists later.
You're obsessed.
I would say more passionate than obsessed.
Henry clearly has very strong views about Corbyn's behaviour insofar as terrorism and antisemitism is concerned. Views that I share, even if not as passionately.
Thank you. If being passionate about opposing antisemitism and terrorism is a crime then I plead guilty.
@iainment it's a thread about Corbyn. @leuth asked for evidence so I gave some.
What is sad is that your only response is the say "you're obsessed". Why not refute the evidence given? Maybe because you can't.
I try not to argue with people who have a fixed viewpoint. It's not worth it. You won't take any notice of any view but your own because you're obsessed about Corbyn. It'd be like trying to have a conversation with a creationist about Darwin's theory of evolution.
Maybe you won't change my mind but maybe others reading this will see the wisdom of your arguments and change their minds.
Or maybe it is rather than you'd prefer not to shine so much light on Corbyn and his real views so duck the debate.
Or maybe it is easier to put those people who tell you uncomfortable truths that disturb YOUR fixed viewpoint into a neat box so you can dismiss them. That is usually the Corbyn cult way. All those who disagree are red tories/blairites/Zio-nazies/etc etc. Some on here tried that telling me I was a tory and brexiter, when I'm neither. Haven't you either thought that maybe it's you, not everyone else, who's got it wrong. Maybe the Hackney Council view isn't real.
But if you don't want to debate that is fine. Lots of free space for me, @kentaddick and everyone one else with their eyes open to expose Corbyn for what he is.
I do recognise, however, that it doesn't provide in-line citations, and is in most respects an opinion piece. But the author is writing sincerely and pretty reasonably.
The irony of a Celtic supporter complaining about IRA symphony isn't lost on me. If an Election was called this month there will be a stage where the unelectable label will be dropped. Shame that most of the Labour voters are too busy working to reply to these comments but as lunch time is upon us this thread will quickly be sunk!
I'm a Charlton supporter, not a Celtic supporter. They are my Scottish club and have been since I was about 7, long before I knew what the IRA was. For the record I condemn the support for the IRA and the disrespect paid to the poppy by some Celtic fans.
Rather than putting up baseless slurs or waiting for the rest of the labour supporters to pile on why don't you put up some defence for Corbyn's long and well documented support for the IRA yourself @Friend Or Defoe
Your only source is Twitter and all the facts I can find, such as him saying he condemns all terrorism is waste of time. There's nothing I can write or show to prove you wrong that will change your mind. You have a strange enjoyment out of calling people racist/antisemitic and for that reason I only ever throw a grenade into threads like this and never lower myself to the debate.
"Your only source is twitter" - False. I have given many sources, three on this thread. Only one is via twitter and it has a photograph of the evidence.
"All the facts I can find" - False. You haven't offered any facts to refute his support for the IRA on this thread.
"You have a strange enjoyment out of calling people racist/antisemitic" - False. Only Corbyn and his ilk. No one else. You have no clue as to whether I enjoy it or not.
" I only ever throw a grenade into threads like this and never lower myself to the debate." False. You have nothing to counter what I say so refused to debate on an adult level. Your hope is to get the thread sunk. You can't rise to the debate so lower yourself to "you're a celtic fan and they support the IRA, so there" levels.
You have an agenda. QED.
Please don't sink this thread.
Which means what?
I oppose Corbyn's friendship with terrorists and anti-Semites.
Call it an agenda so you can pretend what I've evidenced isn't true (you've not challenged it at all) but it's still true.
I highlighted it in bold for you.
I proved you wrong on the first post with an example as well as saying I was wasting my time!
"I proved you wrong on the first post" False. You gave no evidence and even if he has said he condemns all terrorism, as you claim, that only proves his hypocrisy, not you right.
"I was wasting my time" False You are just not succeeding in offering any rational response
I do recognise, however, that it doesn't provide in-line citations, and is in most respects an opinion piece. But the author is writing sincerely and pretty reasonably.
I think it is a nice piece of "we can't deny that Corbyn was linked to this terrorist group so let's play all down"
Even in this peice defending Jeremy it says
"The more reasonable version of this claim runs thus: that Corbyn was either too romantic or sentimental about the Republican movement, too trusting of its claims to want only peace, and too lax on connections between the political and armed wings of the movement.
It amounts less to a political endorsement of terrorism than a question of his political judgement. I don’t wish to defend every choice Corbyn made in this period: it would be strange if among the Sinn Féin members he met there were no active IRA members, and certainly the timing of his invitation to Adams after the Brighton bomb was crass."
So even his friends question his political judgement and call his invitation to Adams so soon after an attack "crass".
And this is from someone trying to defend him!
None of this is even disputed, not his involvement in labour briefings that @Stu_of_Kunming pointed out was pretty full on earlier when you tried to dismiss it, not his meeting with IRA members nor his invitation to Adams.
And I repeat, this is someone trying to defend him.
All sound evidence for his friendship with terrorists at that time.
So maybe it was his youth only he was 35 at the time of the Brighton bomb.
I absolutely believe that contemplation of Corbyn's judgement is totally valid. It is that kind of thing that guides the votes of individuals. It is also in the realm of personal opinion. For example to read in that article that Michael Gove described the Good Friday Agreement as a 'mortal stain' and a 'humiliation' for the British Army would influence my vote if Gove ever decided to stand in Lewisham East.
The irony of a Celtic supporter complaining about IRA symphony isn't lost on me. If an Election was called this month there will be a stage where the unelectable label will be dropped. Shame that most of the Labour voters are too busy working to reply to these comments but as lunch time is upon us this thread will quickly be sunk!
I'm a Charlton supporter, not a Celtic supporter. They are my Scottish club and have been since I was about 7, long before I knew what the IRA was. For the record I condemn the support for the IRA and the disrespect paid to the poppy by some Celtic fans.
Rather than putting up baseless slurs or waiting for the rest of the labour supporters to pile on why don't you put up some defence for Corbyn's long and well documented support for the IRA yourself @Friend Or Defoe
Your only source is Twitter and all the facts I can find, such as him saying he condemns all terrorism is waste of time. There's nothing I can write or show to prove you wrong that will change your mind. You have a strange enjoyment out of calling people racist/antisemitic and for that reason I only ever throw a grenade into threads like this and never lower myself to the debate.
"Your only source is twitter" - False. I have given many sources, three on this thread. Only one is via twitter and it has a photograph of the evidence.
"All the facts I can find" - False. You haven't offered any facts to refute his support for the IRA on this thread.
"You have a strange enjoyment out of calling people racist/antisemitic" - False. Only Corbyn and his ilk. No one else. You have no clue as to whether I enjoy it or not.
" I only ever throw a grenade into threads like this and never lower myself to the debate." False. You have nothing to counter what I say so refused to debate on an adult level. Your hope is to get the thread sunk. You can't rise to the debate so lower yourself to "you're a celtic fan and they support the IRA, so there" levels.
You have an agenda. QED.
Please don't sink this thread.
Which means what?
I oppose Corbyn's friendship with terrorists and anti-Semites.
Call it an agenda so you can pretend what I've evidenced isn't true (you've not challenged it at all) but it's still true.
I highlighted it in bold for you.
I proved you wrong on the first post with an example as well as saying I was wasting my time!
"I proved you wrong on the first post" False. You gave no evidence and even if he has said he condemns all terrorism, as you claim, that only proves his hypocrisy, not you right.
"I was wasting my time" False You are just not succeeding in offering any rational response
Comments
I don't doubt that Truman wanted to use and test the bomb both to impress the Soviets (Stalin hadn't been that impressed when told and maybe already knew) but also to show the Japanese what would happened if they didn't surrender.
Brexit,Corbyn,Nuclear weapons, American military strategy in 1945Corbyn's issue here is that he is a committed pacifist and the Labour position is a strange one in that it wants to pay for a system that the Leader isn't willing to use. It has to sort this anomaly out
before the next election as the excuses like we have to keep it going in case the next government wants it are a bit ridiculous.
It is predicted to cost us over £200 billion pounds to replace Trident, which could be better spent in other areas. Mind you, I'm not much use on this thread as I think it is Corbyn who is right here and the Labour party wrong. By the way, I do think nuclear weapons are a deterrent in certain circumstances, just not sure why we need them. But if you think we do need it, it is a valid area to be critical of Labour on and Corbyn as Labour's leader. Their position contradicts itself and is ridiculous here.
“Balthasar is a good man but until all men are like him we must keep our swords bright”
It'd be like trying to have a conversation with a creationist about Darwin's theory of evolution.
Geopolitics is fluid, we shouldn’t get rid of something because at this exact moment in time we’re okay.
1958 for example.
We could always pretend we had it and spend the money on our armed forces and the NHS!
I'll prove you wrong with various balanced sourses.
Your reply, "This only proves his hypocrisy."
I will therefore have wasted my time.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/shortcuts/2017/jun/04/plot-corbyn-allotment-politics-labour-leader-clues
Or maybe it is rather than you'd prefer not to shine so much light on Corbyn and his real views so duck the debate.
Or maybe it is easier to put those people who tell you uncomfortable truths that disturb YOUR fixed viewpoint into a neat box so you can dismiss them. That is usually the Corbyn cult way. All those who disagree are red tories/blairites/Zio-nazies/etc etc. Some on here tried that telling me I was a tory and brexiter, when I'm neither. Haven't you either thought that maybe it's you, not everyone else, who's got it wrong. Maybe the Hackney Council view isn't real.
But if you don't want to debate that is fine. Lots of free space for me, @kentaddick and everyone one else with their eyes open to expose Corbyn for what he is.
https://www.huckmag.com/perspectives/opinion-perspectives/jeremy-corbyn-no-ira-sympathiser/
I do recognise, however, that it doesn't provide in-line citations, and is in most respects an opinion piece. But the author is writing sincerely and pretty reasonably.
Even in this peice defending Jeremy it says
"The more reasonable version of this claim runs thus: that Corbyn was either too romantic or sentimental about the Republican movement, too trusting of its claims to want only peace, and too lax on connections between the political and armed wings of the movement.
It amounts less to a political endorsement of terrorism than a question of his political judgement. I don’t wish to defend every choice Corbyn made in this period: it would be strange if among the Sinn Féin members he met there were no active IRA members, and certainly the timing of his invitation to Adams after the Brighton bomb was crass."
So even his friends question his political judgement and call his invitation to Adams so soon after an attack "crass".
And this is from someone trying to defend him!
None of this is even disputed, not his involvement in labour briefings that @Stu_of_Kunming pointed out was pretty full on earlier when you tried to dismiss it, not his meeting with IRA members nor his invitation to Adams.
And I repeat, this is someone trying to defend him.
All sound evidence for his friendship with terrorists at that time.
So maybe it was his youth only he was 35 at the time of the Brighton bomb.
James Butler is a writer and editor at Novara Media based in London.
Talk about having an agenda
It is that kind of thing that guides the votes of individuals. It is also in the realm of personal opinion.
For example to read in that article that Michael Gove described the Good Friday Agreement as a 'mortal stain' and a 'humiliation' for the British Army would influence my vote if Gove ever decided to stand in Lewisham East.
It's a what would happen scenario.