Corbyn and the military.

[Owlswing]

Jeremy Corbyn has accused the chief of the defence staff of political bias when he stated that the stated policy of Mr Corbyn, that he would refuse to authorise the use of nuclear weapons if he were Prime Minister, would seriously undermine Britain's defenses by removing the nuclear deterrant.

What experience of military matters does Mr Corbyn have that he can criticise a comment made by someone who has spent thier entire working life in the military on a military view of a statement by a politician who has never been employed in anything but political groups of one sort or another?

As Chief of the Defence Staff General Houghton was, in making his comment, doing the job he is paid to do.

Surely Mr Corbyn's complaints and demands for disciplinary action against the general, are political interference in military matters which he cearly has no understanding of beyond political philosophy.

 

[floo]

I hope Corbyn never becomes Prime Minister, our country would be in terrible danger if that  idiot was in charge!

[Owlswing]

I hope Corbyn never becomes Prime Minister, our country would be in terrible danger if that  idiot was in charge!

Unfortunately history has shown that all too often we have found ourselves with an idiot in charge.

Chamberlain springs instantly to mind.

[Outrider]

Corbyn's commentary isn't on whether the claim is correct or not, his comments are on the fact that someone appearing as a military spokesman shouldn't be seen to be endorsing a particular political party or candidate, or advocating against them.

Personally, I don't think any of the current political party leaders - with the possible exception of that Farage dingbat - are stupid enough to actually resort to firing nuclear weapons, regardless of the situation. I don't expect that many foreign sources looking in see it as any different, likewise with the current American administration, although a Republican president is a scary concept.

Given that, I don't see that Corbyn being open about it is any different to everyone understanding that Cameron wouldn't be that idiotic either - Britain's nuclear arsenal is still just advanced sabre-rattling.

O.

[floo]

Corbyn's commentary isn't on whether the claim is correct or not, his comments are on the fact that someone appearing as a military spokesman shouldn't be seen to be endorsing a particular political party or candidate, or advocating against them.

Personally, I don't think any of the current political party leaders - with the possible exception of that Farage dingbat - are stupid enough to actually resort to firing nuclear weapons, regardless of the situation. I don't expect that many foreign sources looking in see it as any different, likewise with the current American administration, although a Republican president is a scary concept.

Given that, I don't see that Corbyn being open about it is any different to everyone understanding that Cameron wouldn't be that idiotic either - Britain's nuclear arsenal is still just advanced sabre-rattling.

O.

Most likely, but it is still crazy to tell a potential enemy you would never use it in anger!

[Outrider]

Corbyn's commentary isn't on whether the claim is correct or not, his comments are on the fact that someone appearing as a military spokesman shouldn't be seen to be endorsing a particular political party or candidate, or advocating against them.

Personally, I don't think any of the current political party leaders - with the possible exception of that Farage dingbat - are stupid enough to actually resort to firing nuclear weapons, regardless of the situation. I don't expect that many foreign sources looking in see it as any different, likewise with the current American administration, although a Republican president is a scary concept.

Given that, I don't see that Corbyn being open about it is any different to everyone understanding that Cameron wouldn't be that idiotic either - Britain's nuclear arsenal is still just advanced sabre-rattling.

O.

Most likely, but it is still crazy to tell a potential enemy you would never use it in anger!

Not if you understand that they already know it.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Jeremy Corbyn has accused the chief of the defence staff of political bias when he stated that the stated policy of Mr Corbyn, that he would refuse to authorise the use of nuclear weapons if he were Prime Minister, would seriously undermine Britain's defenses by removing the nuclear deterrant.

What experience of military matters does Mr Corbyn have that he can criticise a comment made by someone who has spent thier entire working life in the military on a military view of a statement by a politician who has never been employed in anything but political groups of one sort or another?

As Chief of the Defence Staff General Houghton was, in making his comment, doing the job he is paid to do.

Surely Mr Corbyn's complaints and demands for disciplinary action against the general, are political interference in military matters which he cearly has no understanding of beyond political philosophy.

 

Now I'm no fan of Corbyn (I voted in the election and voted for everyone but him), but I think his point is that the military must not get involved in politics. Effectively that the people vote in a government through a democratic process and the military is required to serve that government, whatever its political colour and policies.

And on this I think he is right - a line has been crossed if the military start being seen not to be neutral in relation to the democratic process.

[wigginhall]

I think the general was well out of order.  Soldiers do what politicians tell them to do, not the other way round.

[Hope]

Unfortunately history has shown that all too often we have found ourselves with an idiot in charge.

Chamberlain springs instantly to mind.

Blair sprung to my mind

[Hope]

I think the general was well out of order.  Soldiers do what politicians tell them to do, not the other way round.

Generals - or at least Cheifs of staff can advise, but the final decison is effectively ours.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think the general was well out of order.  Soldiers do what politicians tell them to do, not the other way round.

Generals - or at least Cheifs of staff can advise, but the final decison is effectively ours.

I think it is dangerous when this 'advice' is given in public. I see no problem with there being high level private meetings between top military personnel and government or the opposition, but in public the military need to be seen to be neutral and ready to serve whichever flavour of government we chose to elect.

[wigginhall]

Well, the right-wing press will use stuff like this to increase their vilification of Corbyn, which has now reached insane levels.   I find it scary really, it's a kind of totalitarian thinking - he didn't bow enough!  FFS. 

[wigginhall]

It's ironic that Corbyn stayed behind after the ceremonies, to talk to veterans, while all the VIPs disappeared, no doubt for their G and Ts and lunches.  It's the first time I've seen a politician actually go up to the veterans marching and talk to them.  Yes, but his tie wasn't right and he didn't bow enough!

[Hope]

I think it is dangerous when this 'advice' is given in public. I see no problem with there being high level private meetings between top military personnel and government or the opposition, but in public the military need to be seen to be neutral and ready to serve whichever flavour of government we chose to elect.

C.A.M. PD.  (couldn't agree more)

[Owlswing]

I think the general was well out of order.  Soldiers do what politicians tell them to do, not the other way round.

Generals - or at least Cheifs of staff can advise, but the final decison is effectively ours.

I think it is dangerous when this 'advice' is given in public. I see no problem with there being high level private meetings between top military personnel and government or the opposition, but in public the military need to be seen to be neutral and ready to serve whichever flavour of government we chose to elect.

And what do you think the reactions would have been had he refused to answer the question put to him on that basis?

[Hope]

And what do you think the reactions would have been had he refused to answer the question put to him on that basis?

Matt, I've never heard the actual questio nhe was asked, but bhe could just as easily have responded with something alone these lines - 'that is a good question, but not one I'm at liberty to discuss in public'.

[Owlswing]

And what do you think the reactions would have been had he refused to answer the question put to him on that basis?

Matt, I've never heard the actual questio nhe was asked, but bhe could just as easily have responded with something alone these lines - 'that is a good question, but not one I'm at liberty to discuss in public'.

And we'd have had every lefty in the country demanding to know what he was hiding! Or trying to hide!

[ProfessorDavey]

And what do you think the reactions would have been had he refused to answer the question put to him on that basis?

Matt, I've never heard the actual questio nhe was asked, but bhe could just as easily have responded with something alone these lines - 'that is a good question, but not one I'm at liberty to discuss in public'.

And we'd have had every lefty in the country demanding to know what he was hiding! Or trying to hide!

I think it would have been more appropriate for him to simply confirm that government policy on defence is a matter for the democratically elected government and that the role of the military is to serve that government, and by inference the people of the country.

[Harrowby Hall]

Unfortunately history has shown that all too often we have found ourselves with an idiot in charge.

Chamberlain springs instantly to mind.

Blair sprung to my mind

Blair wasn't an idiot - that was the subject of his crush in Washington.

Blair was a fool.

[Jack Knave]

Corbyn is in the wrong here as Houghton's statement was not political but just common sense or logical.

[Outrider]

Corbyn is in the wrong here as Houghton's statement was not political but just common sense or logical.

Whether you think the content was correct or not isn't the point - it's not his place to comment, as a military spokesman, on the political status of the discussion, it's his place to explain what the military is doing to complete the instructions of the government of the day and to prepare for any future instructions that might come from future governments.

O.

[BashfulAnthony]

Corbyn is in the wrong here as Houghton's statement was not political but just common sense or logical.

Whether you think the content was correct or not isn't the point - it's not his place to comment, as a military spokesman, on the political status of the discussion, it's his place to explain what the military is doing to complete the instructions of the government of the day and to prepare for any future instructions that might come from future governments.

O.

In a nutshell, that is the whole point.

[jakswan]

Corbyn is in the wrong here as Houghton's statement was not political but just common sense or logical.

Whether you think the content was correct or not isn't the point - it's not his place to comment, as a military spokesman, on the political status of the discussion, it's his place to explain what the military is doing to complete the instructions of the government of the day and to prepare for any future instructions that might come from future governments.

Its place is surely to comment on the implications of the politics from a military point of view?

I admire Corbyn for sticking to his principles but the circus over Labours indieicsion on this policy makes them look inept.

[Jack Knave]

Corbyn is in the wrong here as Houghton's statement was not political but just common sense or logical.

Whether you think the content was correct or not isn't the point - it's not his place to comment, as a military spokesman, on the political status of the discussion, it's his place to explain what the military is doing to complete the instructions of the government of the day and to prepare for any future instructions that might come from future governments.

O.

He explained the purpose and utilisation of a deterrent. That seemed to be within his remit. 

[Jack Knave]

Corbyn is in the wrong here as Houghton's statement was not political but just common sense or logical.

Whether you think the content was correct or not isn't the point - it's not his place to comment, as a military spokesman, on the political status of the discussion, it's his place to explain what the military is doing to complete the instructions of the government of the day and to prepare for any future instructions that might come from future governments.

Its place is surely to comment on the implications of the politics from a military point of view?

I admire Corbyn for sticking to his principles but the circus over Labours indieicsion on this policy makes them look inept.

Corbyn's response to this made him look like a bit of an idiot as seem to fail to see the stupidity of his position; based of course on his ideology.