Trump's Trident

If Donald Trump were to become the President of the United States, then "Britain's" "independent" nuclear "deterrent" could not be fired without his permission.

Mercifully, Donald Trump is not going to become the President of the United States.

Rather less mercifully, people are becoming more and more resigned to the perceived inevitability of Hillary Clinton instead.

Imagine if the five permanent seats on the UN Security Council were respectively controlled by Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Marine Le Pen, either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, and either George Osborne or Boris Johnson.

It would be no exaggeration to say that Putin was the best of that bunch.

Of course, the two-round runoff system that kept down the French Communist Party now also keeps down the Front National, and will continue to do so.

And since the Democratic Presidential nominee is bound to beat the Republican, as is now more or less the law, then that nominee needs to be Bernie Sanders.

Considering the alternatives, I defy anyone to argue that either Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn was all that bad.

If the Conservatives really wanted to give Corbyn a run for his money, then they would put up Theresa May, by then also in her sixties, and no less definite in her views, as well as equally calm and measured in her delivery.

But those are exactly the reasons why they will choose the vile Osborne or the buffoonish Johnson instead.

We opponents of Trident will have a short-term advantage from the fact that one or other of their fingers was on the nuclear button. But Corbyn would then wipe the floor with either of them.

As the Democratic nominee will inevitably wipe the floor with the Republican nominee, the economic changes of the Reagan years having created an electorate in which one in four voters is a single woman.

Hillary Clinton does not deserve to be that inevitably floor-wiping nominee. Bernie Sanders does.