The big one: I want to vote as soon as possible, and won’t be eighteen until October 2008. So there musn’t be an election before then. Any point after October 2008 is absolutely fine. Had there been an election in November, there would be no compulsion upon the resulting government to go to the country until November 2013.

The smaller one: I don’t want a hung parliament, which was a risk had there been an election. Neither Conservative or Labour have a defining vision at the moment to unite the country behind them to any meaningful extent, as Margaret Thatcher did in 1979 (rescue Britain from the misery of the Winter of Discontent by wrestling control back from the unions) and Tony Blair did in 1997 (socialism that doesn’t damage the economy). This means that the poll results are more unstable, and voters more fickle. We can see that by the massive effect that the relatively insignificant Tory announcement of an increase in the threshold for income tax had on the polls. This instability could, possibly, have led to a hung parliament, which would have been bad for Britain, since we wouldn’t be able to go in any particular forward direction with a coalition.

So Gordon Brown ultimately made the right strategic decision, with the added bonus of letting me vote more quickly after I turn eighteen.

I’d encourage everyone else to do the same. Whilst it doesn’t actually do anything to get him released directly, I think it is important that as many people as possible point out that it is not acceptable to kidnap a person doing his best to report the story of a region as accurately as possible. We need to show that this matters, and that we are not going to let the matter drop.

Tony Blair has announced that he wants the UK to renew it’s nuclear deterrent. Currently we have four Vangard-class submarines which carry the Trident missiles. The missiles themselves are fine for the moment; it’s the submarines which need replacing.

People seem to confuse themselves between two entirely separate issues related to this topic; having the nuclear deterrent and using it. It is absolutely essential we maintain the nuclear deterrent because it puts us in a much stronger position in terms of international diplomacy (we get to be a member of the ‘nuclear club’) and it is a good disincentive to other countries looking to destroy Britain in a war to attack us using nuclear weapons if that country knows that we have the ability to fight back. The problem with states such as Iran and North Korea having nuclear weapons is that they are not stable democracies. Britain has had serious parliamentary government since the Glorious Revolution at the end of the seventeenth century, with ever increasing involvment of the people as respect for lower classes increased. Iran has had several revolutions as late as the 20th century, and North Korea is a dictorship, led by a mad, meglomaniac despot. Therefore, if I were Prime Minister, I would ensure that we had nuclear weapons in a usable state at all times.

I would not necessarily press the button. The circumstances under which I would use nuclear weapons would be severely limited. I like Aquinas and Augustine’s ideas about Just War. There are various tests which proposed millitary action must pass if it is to be morally acceptable. The principle centres around the concept of the lesser of two evils. Essentially, I would only press the button if it prevented or stopped a greater evil. I can’t think there are many circumstances in which that would apply.

We still need the nukes though!