Corbyn and the military.

[Nearly Sane]

So if Corbyn is an idiot, then you support Iran having nuclear weapons, JK? If not, then their leaders would be idiots.

[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.

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

The remit of a general is to run the army, not to comment on the politics of its purpose.

[Jack Knave]

So if Corbyn is an idiot, then you support Iran having nuclear weapons, JK? If not, then their leaders would be idiots.

Read my post and the context in which it was put in. Nothing about Iran there!!!

[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.

The remit of a general is to run the army, not to comment on the politics of its purpose.

From what I heard he didn't do that. What do you think he said that was as you claim.

[Nearly Sane]

So if Corbyn is an idiot, then you support Iran having nuclear weapons, JK? If not, then their leaders would be idiots.

Read my post and the context in which it was put in. Nothing about Iran there!!!

It's the logical implication for an Iranian general.

[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.

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

The remit of a general is to run the army, not to comment on the politics of its purpose.

From what I heard he didn't do that. What do you think he said that was as you claim.

He said that " he would be worried by any prospect of the Labour leader’s views being “translated into power” because Corbyn has said he would never be willing to approve the use of nuclear weapons. Corbyn’s stance defeated the point of having a nuclear deterrent."    It is not his remit to make such pronouncements.  He was in the wrong.  It matters not whether I, or you, agree, it is not within Houghton's authority to make such comments.  When we allow the generals to interfere in the politics of it, we are on a slippery slope.

[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.

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.

I think Corbyn was entitled to comment as he did, he's a very principled politician, unelectable but stubborn.

[Outrider]

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.

I suspect how this makes Corbyn look is almost entirely predicated on how you already saw him - people that thought he was an idiot have had their suspicions confirmed, and people who thought he was a principled pacifist have had that confirmed. There don't appear to be many people in the middle on this one.

O.

[wigginhall]

I don't think Corbyn is a pacifist, actually.   It would be interesting to see if he thinks that the UK was wrong to fight in WWII.  He is certainly anti-nuclear weapons. 

But these issues are normally misrepresented by the right-wing media, and presumably those who are hostile to Corbyn will feel yeah, he's a crazy lefty, and others will try to find out what he is actually saying, which often sounds quite moderate to me.   

[Nearly Sane]

The Labour party have a leader opposed to Trident renewal but a policy in favour of it but their Scottish branch office is opposed with a leader in favour of it

[BashfulAnthony]

author=Nearly Sane link=topic=11135.msg568069#msg568069 date=1447247388]
The Labour party have a leader opposed to Trident renewal but a policy in favour of it but their Scottish branch office is opposed with a l...

And the Tories have a Party which is split between pro- and anti-EU.    So what?  That's politics.

[jakswan]

I don't think Corbyn is a pacifist, actually.   It would be interesting to see if he thinks that the UK was wrong to fight in WWII.  He is certainly anti-nuclear weapons. 

But these issues are normally misrepresented by the right-wing media, and presumably those who are hostile to Corbyn will feel yeah, he's a crazy lefty, and others will try to find out what he is actually saying, which often sounds quite moderate to me.

I don't read or watch anything other than BBC for news. He comes across as being quite a nice bloke but too left for my taste.

Was chatting my wife the other day, in every election that she has voted for the party that ended up in government, if you use her as a barometer Corbyn has no chance.

I don't thinks it the media its just that the electorate are not that left wing.

[wigginhall]

I don't think Corbyn is a pacifist, actually.   It would be interesting to see if he thinks that the UK was wrong to fight in WWII.  He is certainly anti-nuclear weapons. 

But these issues are normally misrepresented by the right-wing media, and presumably those who are hostile to Corbyn will feel yeah, he's a crazy lefty, and others will try to find out what he is actually saying, which often sounds quite moderate to me.

I don't read or watch anything other than BBC for news. He comes across as being quite a nice bloke but too left for my taste.

Was chatting my wife the other day, in every election that she has voted for the party that ended up in government, if you use her as a barometer Corbyn has no chance.

I don't thinks it the media its just that the electorate are not that left wing.

Yes, I think that's right, at the moment, anyway.   But the right-wing vilification of Corbyn is bizarre really, for example, that he didn't bow enough at the Cenotaph, or he stole sandwiches from veterans at St Paul's.    Actually, it's quite scary really, kind of thoughtcrime stuff.

I like him, and he is actually raising issues, which are normally dormant, and not questioned.   But I agree that he can't win if conditions stay the same. 

[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.

The remit of a general is to run the army, not to comment on the politics of its purpose.

From what I heard he didn't do that. What do you think he said that was as you claim.

He said that " he would be worried by any prospect of the Labour leader’s views being “translated into power” because Corbyn has said he would never be willing to approve the use of nuclear weapons. Corbyn’s stance defeated the point of having a nuclear deterrent."    It is not his remit to make such pronouncements.  He was in the wrong.  It matters not whether I, or you, agree, it is not within Houghton's authority to make such comments.  When we allow the generals to interfere in the politics of it, we are on a slippery slope.

So you are saying that if our leader, or potential leader, puts the UK in a dangerous position, and refuses to change course, then people like Houghton still shouldn't say anything? I think he did the British people a favour. If Corbyn can't see the stupidity of his position then he needs to be shot down.

[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.

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

The remit of a general is to run the army, not to comment on the politics of its purpose.

From what I heard he didn't do that. What do you think he said that was as you claim.

He said that " he would be worried by any prospect of the Labour leader’s views being “translated into power” because Corbyn has said he would never be willing to approve the use of nuclear weapons. Corbyn’s stance defeated the point of having a nuclear deterrent."    It is not his remit to make such pronouncements.  He was in the wrong.  It matters not whether I, or you, agree, it is not within Houghton's authority to make such comments.  When we allow the generals to interfere in the politics of it, we are on a slippery slope.

So you are saying that if our leader, or potential leader, puts the UK in a dangerous position, and refuses to change course, then people like Houghton still shouldn't say anything? I think he did the British people a favour. If Corbyn can't see the stupidity of his position then he needs to be shot down.

Whether you agree with what he said  -  if he's right, or not  -  is not the issue.  We have a Parliament and a free Press to make the argument.  He is a soldier, not a politician, and should stick to that 

[DaveM]

From the perspective of someone sitting at the southern tip of Africa, I have always been scared stiff every time a presidential election is looming in the USA and I look at the list of potential candidates.

For the first time that I can remember, I now have similar feelings about the UK and it's potential future prime minister.  I can only trust that the view that he is unelectable holds true.

[Jack Knave]

From the perspective of someone sitting at the southern tip of Africa, I have always been scared stiff every time a presidential election is looming in the USA and I look at the list of potential candidates.

For the first time that I can remember, I now have similar feelings about the UK and it's potential future prime minister.  I can only trust that the view that he is unelectable holds true.

That's if everything being equal, or as it is today. But if the global situation really shifts and people have to endure even more hardships then it could change (Also, the Tories seem to be shooting themselves in their foot with the elixir of power). Corbyn is also trying to change the rules about how a Labour leader is dethroned, and he is playing nice (i.e. compromising with the moderates) whilst he builds his power base in the various structures of the Labour party. If all this is true then it would look like he is planning to stand for the 2020 elections.

[Shaker]

I don't think Corbyn is a pacifist, actually.   It would be interesting to see if he thinks that the UK was wrong to fight in WWII.  He is certainly anti-nuclear weapons. 

But these issues are normally misrepresented by the right-wing media, and presumably those who are hostile to Corbyn will feel yeah, he's a crazy lefty, and others will try to find out what he is actually saying, which often sounds quite moderate to me.

I can help you there, courtesy of Private Eye:

http://i.imgur.com/UZlDEuP.jpg

[Ricky Spanish]

Corbyn Is the best thing to have happen to English politics for a long time.

For too long we have had Maggie TORY, followed by grey tory then jumbled tory, then Tony Tory and a short spell of Red Tory..

Then the disaster that was yellow Tory.. but now we have TORY TORY TORY..

Now there is an echo of the workers questioning the land owners right to suppress them, and the plantation owners don't like it...

[BashfulAnthony]

Corbyn Is the best thing to have happen to English politics for a long time.

For too long we have had Maggie TORY, followed by grey tory then jumbled tory, then Tony Tory and a short spell of Red Tory..

Then the disaster that was yellow Tory.. but now we have TORY TORY TORY..

Now there is an echo of the workers questioning the land owners right to suppress them, and the plantation owners don't like it...

We'll keep the Red Flag flying here  -  just to make sure that Labour continues to be unelectable.  Well done, Jeremy!

[Jack Knave]

Corbyn Is the best thing to have happen to English politics for a long time.

For too long we have had Maggie TORY, followed by grey tory then jumbled tory, then Tony Tory and a short spell of Red Tory..

Then the disaster that was yellow Tory.. but now we have TORY TORY TORY..

Now there is an echo of the workers questioning the land owners right to suppress them, and the plantation owners don't like it...

That's a tall Tory!!!

[Owlswing]

My problem with Corbyn's comments and their target is that, regardless of Corbyn's credentials in politics he is NOT a soldier or even an ex-soldier and he most certainly is not a ex-high ranking soldier.

General Houghton is all these things that Jeremy Corbyn is not and therefore he is doing the right thing in pointing out to a potential Prime Minister and possible flaw in his political agenda!

[Jack Knave]

My problem with Corbyn's comments and their target is that, regardless of Corbyn's credentials in politics he is NOT a soldier or even an ex-soldier and he most certainly is not a ex-high ranking soldier.

General Houghton is all these things that Jeremy Corbyn is not and therefore he is doing the right thing in pointing out to a potential Prime Minister and possible flaw in his political agenda!

I agree with you. But someone on TV pointed out that because Labour are in the process of discussing and debating this issue for their party, right now, Houghton's comments could be viewed as political as they would be impacting those debates.

[Nearly Sane]

Except this was politics.

[Owlswing]

My problem with Corbyn's comments and their target is that, regardless of Corbyn's credentials in politics he is NOT a soldier or even an ex-soldier and he most certainly is not a ex-high ranking soldier.

General Houghton is all these things that Jeremy Corbyn is not and therefore he is doing the right thing in pointing out to a potential Prime Minister and possible flaw in his political agenda!

I agree with you. But someone on TV pointed out that because Labour are in the process of discussing and debating this issue for their party, right now, Houghton's comments could be viewed as political as they would be impacting those debates.

As per my above - the debate would be incomplete and ill-informed for the reason stated above.