Corbin and CDS Squaring-Up
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Corbyn and CDS Squaring-Up
Last edited by Cows getting bigger; 8th Nov 2015 at 17:29.
On miltary matters I would take the word of a Chief of Defence Staff over that of a Politician who looks like his mum dressed him for his visit to the Cenetaph this morning. He wouldnt complain about Senior Doctors giving opinions on NHS matters or trade Union Leaders telling the Government what to do so he needs to wind his neck in.
He wouldn't complain about Senior Doctors giving opinions on NHS matters or trade Union Leaders telling the Government what to do so he needs to wind his neck in - STB
Simply, the best!
Jack
Simply, the best!
Jack
CDS is not making a political statement!
He's making a statement about the effectiveness of a particular weapons system and that is entirely within his remit, in fact, it's his responsibility to do so.
OH
He's making a statement about the effectiveness of a particular weapons system and that is entirely within his remit, in fact, it's his responsibility to do so.
OH
OP,
His name is Corbyn, with a y. I don't like him, nor his ideology, but he is an elected representative of his constituents and elected leader of his party. I, personally, think he is wrong, but he has a mandate to speak publicly about this country's defense policy, CDS does not, his role is to enact it, not make it, he is a servant of the Crown's advisors, Parliament. CDS would have been much wiser to say nothing, the chances of Corbyn's view becoming policy are slim. If they do, he has no choice but to implement to them.
It's called democracy.
His name is Corbyn, with a y. I don't like him, nor his ideology, but he is an elected representative of his constituents and elected leader of his party. I, personally, think he is wrong, but he has a mandate to speak publicly about this country's defense policy, CDS does not, his role is to enact it, not make it, he is a servant of the Crown's advisors, Parliament. CDS would have been much wiser to say nothing, the chances of Corbyn's view becoming policy are slim. If they do, he has no choice but to implement to them.
It's called democracy.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Corbyn, (with a Y) is a socialist and, as such, he believes in the rights of the people. Last time I looked CDS was a British citizen and under Corbyn's ideology everyone's voice should be heard. 
Conversely, is he saying that public servants should be seen and not heard? He can't have it both ways.
Conversely, is he saying that public servants should be seen and not heard? He can't have it both ways.
Beardy it's Defence with c
Glass houses, stones .........
Glass houses, stones .........
CGB, you are correct, public servants do not make policy, they implement it. If CDS wishes to influence policy he should stand down as an implementer. We all have a voice; at the ballot box, that is not the prerogative solely of socialists.
Langleybaston. The spelling of defence/defense should be coherent. Having referred to CDS which is UK English I should of course have used defence despite it being a more modern spelling in British English than defense. Corbyn, however has only one spelling. As does cenotaph.
Langleybaston. The spelling of defence/defense should be coherent. Having referred to CDS which is UK English I should of course have used defence despite it being a more modern spelling in British English than defense. Corbyn, however has only one spelling. As does cenotaph.
Last edited by beardy; 8th Nov 2015 at 18:11.
I don't like him, nor his ideology, but he is an elected representative of his constituents and elected leader of his party.
Working on rounded numbers for ease, Corbyn received 250,000 votes in the Labour leadership election. In the general election Labour, as the losing party, received close to 9,500,000 votes out of a rough total of 25,000,000 votes. That means Corbyn became Leader of the Opposition something like the equivalent of 0.01% of the national vote and something like the equivalent of 2.5% of the Labour vote at the last general election.
I wouldn't therefore describe him or his views as being particularly representative and he would do well to listen to the experts employed to provide specific politically based advice as STB so correctly notes. Furthermore, as a key component of the deterrent capability is the willingness to press the button, to publically announce that you wouldn't ever press the button effectively renders the capability redundant and as a result the nation potentially weakened. Corbyn clearly has much to learn about stepping up from local reactionary to potential statesman.
Melchett01, you have made a very valid, if not original criticism of our version of democracy. I would recommend Churchill's analysis of it's imperfections, weaknesses and alternatives.
CDS has the opportunity to advise in private rather than on television. His choice of the latter was IMHO unwise.
CDS has the opportunity to advise in private rather than on television. His choice of the latter was IMHO unwise.
I also watched this interview this morning and I saw nothing that was overtly political. If the political choice is to have nuclear weapons the CDS will support it. If the political choice is not to have nuclear weapons then CDS will support that too.
Where a military man is entitled to speak is on the effectiveness of a deterrent if you tell people you will not use it under any circumstances. I thought CDS spoke wisely. He could have gone further and spoken of the deleterious effect of having any politician taking such a stance as it would undermine the deterrence value for future leaders too.
Doubt and muddling are best avoided when nuclear weapons are involved.
Where a military man is entitled to speak is on the effectiveness of a deterrent if you tell people you will not use it under any circumstances. I thought CDS spoke wisely. He could have gone further and spoken of the deleterious effect of having any politician taking such a stance as it would undermine the deterrence value for future leaders too.
Doubt and muddling are best avoided when nuclear weapons are involved.
Beardy .. you are of course, fully entitled to your opinion ..
"CDS has the opportunity to advise in private rather than on television. His choice of the latter was IMHO unwise."
IMHO he was not only "wise" to do so, but as CDS it was his duty, in the service of his country, to do so. He serves Queen and Country .. not politicians of any party.
"CDS has the opportunity to advise in private rather than on television. His choice of the latter was IMHO unwise."
IMHO he was not only "wise" to do so, but as CDS it was his duty, in the service of his country, to do so. He serves Queen and Country .. not politicians of any party.
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Essex
Age: 65
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OvertHawk said:
"The CDS is not making a political statement!"
The BBC's own website offers this:
Asked about Mr Corbyn's refusal to use nuclear weapons, Sir Nicholas said: "It would worry me if that thought was translated into power as it were." He added: "The whole thing about deterrence rests on the credibility of its use. "When people say you're never going to use the deterrent, what I say is you use the deterrent every second of every minute of every day and the purpose of the deterrent is that you don't have to use it because you successfully deter. "If a prime minister said they would never press the nuclear button, "the deterrent is then completely undermined," he added.
What I would like to understand better is where or when the prohibition on the public expression of political activity or political statements, as proscribed (apparently) under QRs for the rank and file of HM's military personnel, ceases to apply to senior ranks.
Is there an explicit cut-off point or is it implicit?
"The CDS is not making a political statement!"
The BBC's own website offers this:
Asked about Mr Corbyn's refusal to use nuclear weapons, Sir Nicholas said: "It would worry me if that thought was translated into power as it were." He added: "The whole thing about deterrence rests on the credibility of its use. "When people say you're never going to use the deterrent, what I say is you use the deterrent every second of every minute of every day and the purpose of the deterrent is that you don't have to use it because you successfully deter. "If a prime minister said they would never press the nuclear button, "the deterrent is then completely undermined," he added.
What I would like to understand better is where or when the prohibition on the public expression of political activity or political statements, as proscribed (apparently) under QRs for the rank and file of HM's military personnel, ceases to apply to senior ranks.
Is there an explicit cut-off point or is it implicit?
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to me our democratic position on the nuclear deterrent is to have one. For a potential leader of a country to undermine its use is undemocratic and *could* be described as traitorous!
If parliament ever votes against the deterrent that dos of change things. Until such time me Corbyn should wind his kneck in! I think CDS deserves an apology!
If parliament ever votes against the deterrent that dos of change things. Until such time me Corbyn should wind his kneck in! I think CDS deserves an apology!
Comrade Corbychev ticks all the boxes required for a rabble-rousing leftie trot of the old school. The odious pratt needs to be given a good ignoring - along with the rest of his fellow-travellers.
It seems to me that I'm right never to have trusted people with beards....
It seems to me that I'm right never to have trusted people with beards....
Last edited by BEagle; 8th Nov 2015 at 20:46.
Lots of Corbyn outrage on this thread gentlemen, but who was it who said something along the lines of "I don't agree with what he says, but I would die for his right to say it"? I'm sure comrade Corbyn is quite capable of becoming a short lived political leader, without any external help. I thought the CDS was quite right in his opinion, but few serving officers can get away with such overt political comments on national TV. Right or wrong, does he have a remit to take a party political view on military matters ? Awaiting my reeducation.
Smudge
Smudge