Defence under a Corbyn Government

[Finningley Boy]

I think I'm on the right forum here for this, but given the level of political turmoil at present and the now just in sight possibility of a Corbyn Government, just what do we imagine, in all seriousness, a Corbyn administration would approach the nation's defence and security arrangements? I'm curious to see what would actually happen given the man's Hinterland. I also note, with interest, how a lot of people support Corbyn openly without any seeming concern for this particular issue. An issue which I'd have thought was one of major concern and worthy of addressing by all.

FB

[Doobry Firkin]

I think there's more chance of Nigel F being elected PM than Corbyn.

[Parson]

Normally, I would say a Corbyn government is unimaginable but nothing in politics surprises me these days.

If BoJo loses the bap with tory remainer MPs and calls a snap election, there is a scenario of the pro-Brexit vote getting split and JC getting in via the back door, at the head of a 'remain/2nd ref' coalition. Unlikely but, dear help us, entirely possible.

[Treble one]

You needn't bother with the replacement for our Vanguard class submarines-he's already said he'd never use the weapons system. Should save a few quid.

[GeeRam]

I also note, with interest, how a lot of people support Corbyn openly without any seeming concern for this particular issue.

Because they are not concerned with it.
From the people I know who support Corbyn, they are all to a person also anti-establishment, anti-services, and all bar one, pro-republic & anti-monarchy.

[chevvron]

I blame Harold Wilson.
It was his Labour government which started closing all our bases 'East of Suez' and successive Labour governments continued his policy of reducing our defences.
Nobody seems to remember that GW1 wasn't the first time Kuwait had been threatened by Iraq; it happened first in the early '60s and we conducted our successful campaign there without the USA and others because we still had the capability (in spite of Duncan Sandys)..

[Herod]

Don't worry. That nice Mr. Putin will look after us.

[NutLoose]

IF Corbyn ever got in which I doubt, it was seen with the cross party talks he is seen to be a liability, so much so that even with their worst fears of Brexit looming they wouldn't have him running a caretaker Government, that speaks volumes. labours only chance would be to ditch him and elect someone like Benn in charge.
It would be a disastrous day for the Military, I could see the independant deterrent being binned, the forces cut back, future programmes chopped and current ones scaled back and all those serving in operations around the world pulled back to the UK.

Myself, I would probably take early retirement and retire onto benefits as one would probably be rich on his give aways to the unemployed.


..

[etudiant]

From the outside, Corbyn appears to be much more interested in domestic issues that international ones, so one would expect his defense policies to reflect that.
Logically that would suggest a greater emphasis on the tactical navy, rather than the more force projection oriented carrier navy.
Doubt he would want to spend heavily to modernize the nuclear deterrent force either.
His stance on European force integration remains to be determined.

[pr00ne]

I blame Harold Wilson.
It was his Labour government which started closing all our bases 'East of Suez' and successive Labour governments continued his policy of reducing our defences.
Nobody seems to remember that GW1 wasn't the first time Kuwait had been threatened by Iraq; it happened first in the early '60s and we conducted our successful campaign there without the USA and others because we still had the capability (in spite of Duncan Sandys)..

chevvron,

"..and successive CONSERVATIVE Governments continued his policy..." There, fixed it for you.

I think you'll find that the policy of reducing the size of the British defence establishment was firmly and decisively started by the Conservative Government in 1957.

It was only a few months ago, in a public address, that Corbyn stated, unequivocally, that "this Government has left the UK armed forces in a desperate state and they need more men, ships and aircraft." Not sure that I have heard anything so clear from Johnson. Not sure that I would believe either.

[just another jocky]

I'm sure I read somewhere that it's under Conservative Governments that Defence gets cut and that Labour tend to be more neutral or increase spending. I could be wrong.

[Finningley Boy]

chevvron,

"..and successive CONSERVATIVE Governments continued his policy..." There, fixed it for you.

I think you'll find that the policy of reducing the size of the British defence establishment was firmly and decisively started by the Conservative Government in 1957.

It was only a few months ago, in a public address, that Corbyn stated, unequivocally, that "this Government has left the UK armed forces in a desperate state and they need more men, ships and aircraft." Not sure that I have heard anything so clear from Johnson. Not sure that I would believe either.

This I don't doubt pr00ne (that he said it) indeed I've heard a few comments from the Labour Party about the Tories cutting Armed Forces, I suppose all in my life time have done so. I was born in 1960, Sandys anti-RAF cull was still to reach its final swing of the axe. Next came Peter Thorneycroft, I believe, as Defence Secretary, he dragged his heals on TSR2 but pursued the then large Carrier project, about 120 Phantoms were to be bought for the Navy. Then we got a Labour government, Harold Wilson with Denis Healey at Defence. TSR2 was cancelled with the plan to buy F-111s instead, numbers uncertain. They were offered a good deal from the USA. As always, however, the Labour government had a massive public spending programme to pursue as well, to shore this up, the Chancellor de-valued the pound to help exports. It didn't help imports and so the F-111 became a casualty and aided by the previous CDS, one Lord Mountbatten, the Buccaneer mk 2 was accepted, this had already been ruled out by the air staff as not affording the same survivability and long range reach as either of the other two. Also, Wilson set about, against protests, the end of East of Suez policy.

Next came Heath, his government stayed the execution of the Ark Royal, it along with Eagle, Victorious and Hermes was to have gone under Labour's East of Suez which included, as a result a drastic drop in the number of F-4s for the Navy, the few they had were to go to the RAF. But Ark Royal carried on under Heath's government. Next came Wilson again, and again extra money for public services was the priority, defence was to be pruned to help pay for this. Hence this time, the cull of Air Support Command and the removal of units in Cyprus. In 1977 a Labour Defence Study Group, rather like the ERG, only in regards to Defence, published their recommendations to Callaghan, that the Tornado should be scrapped entirely and the BAOR be reduced from 55,000 to 30,000.

Then Thatcher, carried out significant cuts to the RAF and Navy, the effects hadn't taken place in time to affect the Falklands deployment. John Nott resigned as Defence Secretary. Meanwhile, the promise to unilaterally disarm the UK nuclear arsenal strategic and tactical were clear from the Labour opposition along with further defence cuts. The Thatcher government, however, did make good on some points, they bought additional F-4s to replace the Squadron deployed to the Falklands permanently. They pressed ahead with further Invincible Class cruiser carriers and were looking to order an additional 40 Tornados on top of the 385 being delivered, tha was in early 1989.

The rest is largely history, the Tories cut defence through Options for Change and Front Line First. Blair got into that many overseas rucks one might have thought Labour at the time would have significantly increased defence spending to some substantial level. Instead, units of the RAF in particular were disbanded, Jaguar Force etc, to balance out the cost of the overseas operations. More to protect public avarice again. Next credit crunch, austerity and Liam Fox MD, apologising, as a Tory MP, for presiding over the deep cuts to come.

2015, the Tories in office have indicated a willingness to consolidate and stop any further cuts, but they continue here and there, Scampton, Linton-on-Ouse? I suspect Corbyn only criticises the Government over Defence to confuse people who look to his passed history,, he will conduct a root and branch SDSR on arrival in office. Whatever he says now will be dismissed by the findings of a Corbyn government SDSR.

FB

[Mil-26Man]

Paragraphs please, FB. My eyes hurt just looking at that.

[Finningley Boy]

Paragraphs please, FB. My eyes hurt just looking at that.

Have scan now Mil-26Man!

FB

[Parson]

The issue maybe isn't whether a Corbyn government would make defence cuts - more that he wouldn't want use our forces. He prefers to engage in 'dialogue'.

[esscee]

Corbyn and Defence are two words that do not naturally fit together. As others have mentioned he and other commie friends (McDonnell) will be laying down in front of Comrade Putin and other "so-called" friends of Labour like Hezbollah and its Iranian paymasters.

[chevvron]

The issue maybe isn't whether a Corbyn government would make defence cuts - more that he wouldn't want use our forces. He prefers to engage in 'dialogue'.
Makes him sound like a communist; yes I know he never joined but that doesn't stop him being one at heart.

[Melchett01]

It would undoubtedly be an interesting dynamic when the intelligence community didn’t trust the PM - as I think would happen. Without opening up a detailed discussion, the question of national security, our place in the world and the UK’s ongoing association with the Five Eyes partnership would to my mind be at risk under a Corbyn administration. And given that all our recent operations have been conducted in an international / alliance context, that is a big issue.

Not that I would expect Corbyn or his acolytes to worry about that. They would probably be quite happy to sideline the entire intelligence and security architecture, citing an anti-democratic agenda.

And beyond our military partnerships and alliances how does all that translate? A lack of ‘Understanding’ (see JDP 4 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/584177/doctrine_uk_understanding_jdp_04.pdf), some pretty questionable statecraft and a general mess in terms of our entire approach.

[ShyTorque]

The first priority of any government is defence of the realm. I don't think that is Corbyn's first priority.

[etudiant]

It would undoubtedly be an interesting dynamic when the intelligence community didn’t trust the PM - as I think would happen. Without opening up a detailed discussion, the question of national security, our place in the world and the UK’s ongoing association with the Five Eyes partnership would to my mind be at risk under a Corbyn administration. And given that all our recent operations have been conducted in an international / alliance context, that is a big issue.

Not that I would expect Corbyn or his acolytes to worry about that. They would probably be quite happy to sideline the entire intelligence and security architecture, citing an anti-democratic agenda.

And beyond our military partnerships and alliances how does all that translate? A lack of ‘Understanding’ (see JDP 4 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/584177/doctrine_uk_understanding_jdp_04.pdf), some pretty questionable statecraft and a general mess in terms of our entire approach.

That seems sort of a replay of the US situation with Trump. He came into office facing exactly those issues.
In his case, it has taken him most of his first term just to get to a marginal situation, even though as C in C and Chief Executive, he has much more freedom than
a British PM.
So I'd expect a Corbyn administration to be deliberately boring. Just as Corbyn, an excellent tactician, has thus far been able to deflect or overcome numerous efforts to sideline him in politics, I'd expect the same in defense and intelligence.
Indeed, most likely he would start with a dollop of sugar and a dash of kindness for the Services, just to take the wind out of the sails of his more rabid opponents.
That would buy him time to come to grips with the reality of restoring a shrunken resource base and of re balancing the country's global commitments.

[VinRouge]

Because they are not concerned with it.
From the people I know who support Corbyn, they are all to a person also anti-establishment, anti-services, and all bar one, pro-republic & anti-monarchy.

Problem you have chap, is remain oriented liberal Tories like me. We are frankly disgusted with how the Tory party is turning out, over the result of an advisory referendum. Pretty much behaving as though they are the fourth Reich to be honest. So whilst I agree a Corbyn government would be pretty unpleasant for us all for the next 5 years, I would still prefer it to Bojo the clown et al and restore the Parliamentary democracy our institutions are based on. I’m not the only one either (90% of those not entitled to the flu jab/within 5 years of death/In receipt of the Pension therefore can sit fat and happy whilst the rest of us work trough the carnage) think Boris has done all he can to claw back enough of the Brexit Loon Party vote, but don’t think it’s enough.

I also think it will will be more likely that a Lib Dem/Labour coalition based around a second referendum will be the most likely outcome. Oh, with Sir Kier or Tom Watson at the helm. The unions will forget Corbyn the minute power is denied them by his leadership. The Tory party will be split by not only Brexit Loon Party vote dilution, but by Remain favoured constituencies that will vote en masse for Lib Dem. Wait and see what happens when clown boy expels leading Tories this week - I am guessing that a few will be wearing a yellow seagull by the end of next week. Their constituents would prefer this than than see the current bunch of careerist rank amateurs further slur the name of this country in support of an agenda very few support.

[charliegolf]

The first priority of any government is defence of the realm. I think that is neither Bozza's nor Corbyn's first priority.

Better Shy, better.:ok:

CG

[hoodie]

... the result of an advisory referendum...
Whether one is a Remainer or a Leaver, you have to acknowledge that is NOT what the voters were very clearly told at the time in the Government leaflet that came through everybody's door.
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/950x671/dcdk0_gxcaiko_w_e14ebd56b0fa3709c3c2e334a0ce7f5428749db4.jpg

[ShyTorque]

Better Shy, better.:ok:

CG

Not what I wrote and not what I meant.

[Finningley Boy]

Just a quicky relating to the EU but slightly off topic, can anyone recall the Red Arrows, among other, being banned from over flying the crowdline from the rear? An EU air safety regulation or other I recall.

FB

[VinRouge]

Whether one is a Remainer or a Leaver, you have to acknowledge that is NOT what the voters were very clearly told at the time in the Government leaflet that came through everybody's door.
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/950x671/dcdk0_gxcaiko_w_e14ebd56b0fa3709c3c2e334a0ce7f5428749db4.jpg

should have read the small print. I do have a document categorically stating by Leave.EU that leaving without a deal was not an option. The Tories don’t have a mandate to leave no deal and what is going on is an affront to democratic process.
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/447x585/55b749e8_e9d6_409c_8858_2c030911d546_a5eb3ced285df96885c8b38 3e4e3f3ace70fe44e.png

[Melchett01]

That seems sort of a replay of the US situation with Trump. He came into office facing exactly those issues.
In his case, it has taken him most of his first term just to get to a marginal situation, even though as C in C and Chief Executive, he has much more freedom than
a British PM.
So I'd expect a Corbyn administration to be deliberately boring. Just as Corbyn, an excellent tactician, has thus far been able to deflect or overcome numerous efforts to sideline him in politics, I'd expect the same in defense and intelligence.
Indeed, most likely he would start with a dollop of sugar and a dash of kindness for the Services, just to take the wind out of the sails of his more rabid opponents.
That would buy him time to come to grips with the reality of restoring a shrunken resource base and of re balancing the country's global commitments.

etudiant,

I have heard Corbyn described as many things in recent times, excellent tactician isn’t however, one of them.

His approach is one of the student debating Society and is naive. His strength is in campaigning not leading or governing. Just look at the current outrage over the planned proroguation of Parliament. Corbyn has had how long to call a no confidence vote in Johnson, but he fluffed it. Not only did he fluff it, he telegraphed his intent ahead of time before then holding back for the perfect moment. Johnson’s circus must have been laughing all the way to Balmoral to speak to the Queen. They didn’t need intelligence, Corbyn told them what he was thinking and then waffled.

For me, Corbyn is the puppet. McDonnell and Momentum are the real puppet masters and the threat to Defence and the nation’s security. Should Corbyn ever be elected (and I’m with Vin Rouge here in thinking the Tories are currently in a hard right / populist echo chamber which may or may not reflect as much of he electorate as they imagine) I think we’ll find him being sidelined by his own people to press home the full extent of Marxist Government they want.

[BluSdUp]

" Defence , but why , we are all friends Comrade"

[Pontius Navigator]

FB, your defence narrative is seductively plausible but pr00ne's point about the Tories is the clincher. You are quite wrong about the Invincible class. Before the Falklands the Illustrious was being proper for sale to Australia and I am not sure about Arm Royal.

You mention Sands.

I don't have the time to work out the aircraft procurement time lines or research, orders and cancellations. I know that cancelling aircraft programmes and smashing up completed aircraft is virtually criminal. Similarly suddenly scrapping an entire force is monumentally risky.

Wilson is seen to be the architect of our withdrawing from East of Suez. In fact my earlier research shows the reverse. The US, with increasing involvement in Vietnam, urged Wilson to maintain our presence East of Suez and he wanted to do that. He was also under pressure to maintain our forces in NATO.

[weemonkey]

I think there's more chance of Nigel F being elected PM than Corbyn.


https://youtu.be/vFznQdRhlZ0

[nomorehelosforme]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49552403

Politics is not my forte but Mr Corbyn seems to be clutching at straws

[woptb]

Always find it odd Corbyn is referred to as a communist and or Marxist, when ( unless you cleave to the wise pronouncements of the Daily Heil!)he patently isn’t;
As far as preferring dialogue over war fighting, really not an aspect of any politician I would hold in contempt! Even Winnie preferred “jaw jaw to war war” ! Can’t really think of many recent conflicts that changed anything for the better!

[Finningley Boy]

FB, your defence narrative is seductively plausible but pr00ne's point about the Tories is the clincher. You are quite wrong about the Invincible class. Before the Falklands the Illustrious was being proper for sale to Australia and I am not sure about Arm Royal.

You mention Sands.

I don't have the time to work out the aircraft procurement time lines or research, orders and cancellations. I know that cancelling aircraft programmes and smashing up completed aircraft is virtually criminal. Similarly suddenly scrapping an entire force is monumentally risky.

Wilson is seen to be the architect of our withdrawing from East of Suez. In fact my earlier research shows the reverse. The US, with increasing involvement in Vietnam, urged Wilson to maintain our presence East of Suez and he wanted to do that. He was also under pressure to maintain our forces in NATO.

Pontius,

The Labour Governments of Wilson and Callaghan did make it clear they wanted to concentrate the defence effort in Central Europe and NATO. But they were at the time less easy to convince of the need for what we now call expeditionary forces. Hence the scrapping of the aircraft carriers, that was a part of the end of the East of Suez deployments. Labour in office did in fact increase the number of aircraft in Germany, they maintained the Harrier Force while assigning only two squadron number plates the third, 20, becoming an additional Strike Sqn at Bruggen with Jaguars. The trouble with Labour is, they have always been blighted by the left wing of the party, the Labour Defence Study Group I referred to was headed by Ian Mikardo MP his recommendation that the entire Tornado Force be scrapped before the first aircraft rolled off the production line was simply to divert funds elsewhere including raising the school leaving age. Callaghan paid no notice of course. When we've had a Labour government it has always been essentially the right wing of the party which has largely filled the cabinet. When Foot and Kinnock were leading they remained in opposition, this time with Corbyn....

FB

[etudiant]

etudiant,

I have heard Corbyn described as many things in recent times, excellent tactician isn’t however, one of them.

His approach is one of the student debating Society and is naive. His strength is in campaigning not leading or governing. Just look at the current outrage over the planned proroguation of Parliament. Corbyn has had how long to call a no confidence vote in Johnson, but he fluffed it. Not only did he fluff it, he telegraphed his intent ahead of time before then holding back for the perfect moment. Johnson’s circus must have been laughing all the way to Balmoral to speak to the Queen. They didn’t need intelligence, Corbyn told them what he was thinking and then waffled.

For me, Corbyn is the puppet. McDonnell and Momentum are the real puppet masters and the threat to Defence and the nation’s security. Should Corbyn ever be elected (and I’m with Vin Rouge here in thinking the Tories are currently in a hard right / populist echo chamber which may or may not reflect as much of he electorate as they imagine) I think we’ll find him being sidelined by his own people to press home the full extent of Marxist Government they want.
You may be quite right, but he has kept his post despite multiple efforts to supersede him or to fragment the Labor party. A man who can match Tony Blair at conniving is unlikely to be anyone's puppet imho.

[Sun Who]

I'm not a fan of JC but the historical defence budget presents an interesting picture:

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1/2018/06/26/11/wire-3429630-1530009589-706_634x513.jpg

[Meester proach]

It will no longer concern me, because if that filth gets in , I’m leaving on a jet plane .

[Bob Viking]

That is an interesting graph. However, using spend per head may be slightly misleading.

Between 1983 and 1997 the population increased by roughly 2-3 million. That will clearly affect the figures somewhat.

Now, I accept that the population also increased once Blair took over but let's not forget that his ‘reign’ coincided with an almost permanent state of war on two fronts. Some might say that he had a tiny involvement in that fact.

So, whilst I am not arguing the ‘who spends the most’ point I would be interested to see a graph that shows defence spending in real terms or something similar.

BV

[woptb]

It will no longer concern me, because if that filth gets in , I’m leaving on a jet plane .
What complete bolleaux!

[Imagegear]

Meester proach

I have already left, but it still concerns me for my kids, grand-kids, extended family, friends, colleagues, international relations and cultural heritage.

If you have no ties whatsoever with the UK then you are obviously free to go as you choose, and do not need to be concerned.

IG

[VinRouge]

I have already left, but it still concerns me for my kids, grand-kids, extended family, friends, colleagues, international relations and cultural heritage.

If you have no ties whatsoever with the UK then you are obviously free to go as you choose, and do not need to be concerned.

IG
one term of Corbyn will be well worth avoiding the carnage that will result from the current thick lunatic fringe in government and what they are trying to impose without mandate and on purely doctrinal lines. At least the Europe question which has been tearing the Tories apart for years will be put to bed once we realise all it delivered was a hard left government.

[Dan Gerous]

It will no longer concern me, because if that filth gets in , I’m leaving on a jet plane .

Don't let the door skelp you on the arse on the way out.

[etudiant]

It is surprising that Corbyn generates so much visceral antipathy. He's kept Labor together, no mean feat and he's been more right than most in his rejection of Mid East adventures. Plus his stance on Brexit seems more reasonable than that of the current Government.
Why is he considered as a bogeyman?

[Mil-26Man]

It is surprising that Corbyn generates so much visceral antipathy. He's kept Labor together, no mean feat and he's been more right than most in his rejection of Mid East adventures. Plus his stance on Brexit seems more reasonable than that of the current Government.
Why is he considered as a bogeyman?

Was Labour falling apart under Miliband? I would suggest that Labour has kept itself together despite Corbyn, not because of him.
Rejection of Mid East adventures. By the West, for sure. No problem if it's Russia.
His stance on Brexit has been duplicitous at best. He has tried to have it both ways, and his reluctance to come down off the fence makes him as responsible as anyone for the mess we are in now.

All of that said, I would still vote for him over the current Tory cabal. Strange times.

[charliegolf]

His stance on Brexit has been duplicitous at best. He has tried to have it both ways, and his reluctance to come down off the fence makes him as responsible as anyone for the mess we are in now.


I cannot abide the man, viewing him as a disaster-in-waiting, but... any more duplicitous than the shower of sh1t who started and are perpetuating this? More responsible than Cameron for the mess we are in now?

CG

[Mil-26Man]

I cannot abide the man, viewing him as a disaster-in-waiting, but... any more duplicitous than the shower of sh1t who started and are perpetuating this? More responsible than Cameron for the mess we are in now?

CG
I would say so. Cameron was incompetent and hubristic, rather than duplicitous. Corbyn has played a double-game, though I sense that now at the 11th hour he is finally seeing a need to take a stance to try and end this madness.

Would trust him as far as I could throw him, but would still vote for him over Johnson (rather, the extremists Johnson has surrounded himself with).

[BEagle]

If Labour selected Hilary Benn as leader, they would get a lot more support from those who are utterly fed up with the dictatorial antics of Johnson, the current government and its right-wing ERG gang...

[pasta]

If Labour Hilary Benn as leader, they would get a lot more support from those who are utterly fed up with the dictatorial antics of Johnson, the current government and its right-wing ERG gang...
Yep, ditto Kenneth Clarke. The structures of both major parties seem to encourage leaders from either end of the political spectrum; I wonder whether it's because those of us in the middle ground, who might countenance voting for either party if the leadership and policies were right, don't tend to join those parties and therefore can't influence their leadership.

[Imagegear]

It used to be the case that political parties were considered to be so close to centre that it didn't really matter that much who was in power. These days, it seems that the Tories and Labour are polarising to the extremes of the spectrum.

It doesn't bode well if compromise is required to deliver a solution to this morass, not to mention the potential for more direct action.

IG

[weemonkey]

Yep, ditto Kenneth Clarke. The structures of both major parties seem to encourage leaders from either end of the political spectrum; I wonder whether it's because those of us in the middle ground, who might countenance voting for either party if the leadership and policies were right, don't tend to join those parties and therefore can't influence their leadership.

One for beagle at al.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/391x391/img_e2y713_d69e8b5dee374bff399270e440321415fb4ae63f.jpg

[Mil-26Man]

One for beagle at al.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/391x391/img_e2y713_d69e8b5dee374bff399270e440321415fb4ae63f.jpg
Wait until to Google Boris Johnson. You're in for a shock.

[Finningley Boy]

I'm not a fan of JC but the historical defence budget presents an interesting picture:

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1/2018/06/26/11/wire-3429630-1530009589-706_634x513.jpg

I wouldn't doubt the graph at all sir. What it needs is the detailed explanation, the spikes in the period to 1990 were the Golden years after the 1981 cuts. Then came the end of the cold war hence the drop. With a further drop under the more middle of the road John Major. Thereafter, the rise from 1997 would be due to Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. The drop after 2010, due to recession and near bankruptcy. I remain given his past statements on record and his seeming chumminess with Gerry Adams etc, just what he would do with regard the current defence posture, how would he get on with the military chiefs.

FB

[Wensleydale]

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x638/52366965_1996085960685394_5180933794063974400_n_1__4495ce43c 05f26032ac0675e3bea0844d309a93e.jpg

[Timelord]

Why is he considered as a bogeyman?

For me, it’s his past affinity and support for the IRA, and I don’t fall for the spin that he was “seeking peace”.

[minigundiplomat]

I predict that if elected PM, Corbyn will quickly be assassinated by someone who can be visibly pinged as 'pro-Brexit' thus conveniently solving two establishment issues for the price of one.

[weemonkey]

I predict that if elected PM, Corbyn will quickly be assassinated by someone who can be visibly pinged as 'pro-Brexit' thus conveniently solving two establishment issues for the price of one.

better a volunteer than a pressed man. eh!

[chopper2004]

better a volunteer than a pressed man. eh!

Worth watchlng if your train of thoughts head that way lol :P The first film is made for 45 minute viewing...low budget, the second more well thought out.

Cheers

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/658x1000/most_wanted_c87895d39c3be286fd43aef492ff9fbe40f8f44b.jpg
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/673x1000/mark_wahlberg_shooter_0b17d0a1b6a1af2af9cf7294c3d002202f7914 71.jpg

[chopper2004]

etudiant,

I have heard Corbyn described as many things in recent times, excellent tactician isn’t however, one of them.

His approach is one of the student debating Society and is naive. His strength is in campaigning not leading or governing. Just look at the current outrage over the planned proroguation of Parliament. Corbyn has had how long to call a no confidence vote in Johnson, but he fluffed it. Not only did he fluff it, he telegraphed his intent ahead of time before then holding back for the perfect moment. Johnson’s circus must have been laughing all the way to Balmoral to speak to the Queen. They didn’t need intelligence, Corbyn told them what he was thinking and then waffled.

For me, Corbyn is the puppet. McDonnell and Momentum are the real puppet masters and the threat to Defence and the nation’s security. Should Corbyn ever be elected (and I’m with Vin Rouge here in thinking the Tories are currently in a hard right / populist echo chamber which may or may not reflect as much of he electorate as they imagine) I think we’ll find him being sidelined by his own people to press home the full extent of Marxist Government they want.

Laughingly describing his approach akin to student debating society reminded me of (if anyone who is on FB), few years ago a four photo montage of Obi-Wan Kenobi, Saruman and some other hero with JC's face on it. The caption read "It takes a white haired hero to save us ocne again" or something along those lines. Quite a few friends who support Labour were sharing that montage on their wall...

Safe to say the montage was laughable, and then the video of the Para's shooting range with photo of his goodself kind of upset him. The tabloids were up in arms as they played on the fear emerging from the murder of the female MP Jo with the shooting practice.

Cheers

[oldmansquipper]

Corbyn & Defence? What 4kin defence?

Mark these wise words from Melchett01

"For me, Corbyn is the puppet. McDonnell and Momentum are the real puppet masters and the threat to Defence and the nation’s security. Should Corbyn ever be elected (and I’m with Vin Rouge here in thinking the Tories are currently in a hard right / populist echo chamber which may or may not reflect as much of he electorate as they imagine) I think we’ll find him being sidelined by his own people to press home the full extent of Marxist Government they want."

[dook]

If you really want to see Corbyn in his element, then simply lift a manhole cover over a sewer in London and peer inside.

You will also see certain Tory MPs at the same time.

Hammond even looks like a rat.

[VinRouge]

If you really want to see Corbyn in his element, then simply lift a manhole cover over a sewer in London and peer inside.

You will also see certain Tory MPs at the same time.

Hammond even looks like a rat.
Your lot getting their backsides handed to them in the house tonight. The 0.3% who voted in Boris don’t represent us. His bully boy tactics, together with those of Gollum his senior adviser, are a disgrace. Gollum isn’t even a Tory party member. They are now paying the price.

[Mil-26Man]

Hammond even looks like a rat

Yep, that's the level of discourse this country needs right now. From childish personal insults like this through to middle-aged yellow-vested thugs screaming abuse at MPs and yobbish football-style hooligan behaviour at pro-Brexit rallies, I'm constantly reminded as to which side of this debate most of the decent and rational people seem to be.

To paraphrase Will Self, 'Not everyone who voted for Brexit is a racist deplorable malcontent, but every racist deplorable malcontent voted for Brexit'.

[PapaDolmio]

Corbyn & Defence? What 4kin defence?

Mark these wise words from Melchett01

"For me, Corbyn is the puppet. McDonnell and Momentum are the real puppet masters and the threat to Defence and the nation’s security. Should Corbyn ever be elected (and I’m with Vin Rouge here in thinking the Tories are currently in a hard right / populist echo chamber which may or may not reflect as much of he electorate as they imagine) I think we’ll find him being sidelined by his own people to press home the full extent of Marxist Government they want."
Absolutely correct- the real power is with McD and his cronies. They'll probably keep cuddly old JC on for a bit until his usefulness is over and then get rid of him.
I'm no fan of the Tories particularly but they are the best of a bad bunch at the moment.and what a lot of the electorate don't realise is that the slogan 'for the many, not the few' actually means destroying the middle class (the backbone of the country- you and me) and replacing the current elite with another smaller one- the party faithful and inner circle. The long term goal is to raid personal wealth, destroy ambition and to have the majority of the population totally dependent on the state for everything- jobs (through nationaisation or greater state control), housing (by deterring home ownership and controlling the housing market), health (ok we're already there with the NHS), controlling education, the police (I foresee the disbandment of regional constabularies and replacement with a national police force, think it can't happen? It already has in Scotland) and the welfare state. Marxist governments work on control, if the state controls everything then the population can be kept in line.
With regards to defence, with MCD's spending plans the country will be massively (even more) in debt very quickly, I would expect that there won't much money for defence in the pot but then with the aversion to foreign adventures and reliance on dialogue there won't be a perceived need, other than a semblance of home defence and to keep civpop in line.
Also bear in mind that a lot of the wealth generation in the country will disappear overseas or be nationalised (nationalised industries never make money- not business agile, not cost effective and no incentive). Add to that the increased trade unionism- JC, MCD and cronies are all backed by the more militant trade unions who will effectively run the country means its a very bleak picture.
Throughout the tenure of the Blair Govt they resisted nationalising the railways despite it being a permanent manifesto item and constant badgering from the RMT and ASLEF- ever wondered why? Because it would put the railway back 30 years overnight, cost billions and the railway would be run by the Unions- anyone want Mick Cash as SoS for transport?
What really annoys me is the hypocrisy of the JC loving celebs; JK Rowling, Ellie Goulding, Maxine Peake etc - happy to spout off but knowing that their millions are safely tucked away in overseas tax havens.

God.. I sound like Peter Hitchens and I'm now to read Orwell's Animal Farm again.

[insty66]

[QUOTE]Hammond even looks like a rat[QUOTE]

You start with

Yep, that's the level of discourse this country needs right now. From childish personal insults like this through to middle-aged yellow-vested thugs screaming abuse at MPs and yobbish football-style hooligan behaviour at pro-Brexit rallies, I'm constantly reminded as to which side of this debate most of the decent and rational people seem to be.

And finish with
To paraphrase Will Self, 'Not everyone who voted for Brexit is a racist deplorable malcontent, but every racist deplorable malcontent voted for Brexit'.

Nice, that's the level of debate we need!

[Chris Kebab]

From the moment this thread was started it was only ever going to go one way; nice one. :(

[Herod]

Military coup, anyone?

[NutLoose]

It will be interesting times if we get the Election to see what the Labour Party are planning to do to the forces, in my water I feel they will rob Peter to pay Paul and that is the military budget. The daft thing is if Labour remain in in the EU half of their plans etc will be blocked by the same EU. I watched Andrew Marr tonight and he caught the Shadow Minister out who said they would stand on remain, but also get a better leave deal from the EU, he was stumped when asked if the did get a better leave deal would they recommend it. He couldn't answer it.

[pr00ne]

Herod,

The military can't even manage themselves, let alone the country!

And you do realise that you are suggesting Treason?

[woptb]

Absolutely correct- the real power is with McD and his cronies. They'll probably keep cuddly old JC on for a bit until his usefulness is over and then get rid of him.
I'm no fan of the Tories particularly but they are the best of a bad bunch at the moment.and what a lot of the electorate don't realise is that the slogan 'for the many, not the few' actually means destroying the middle class (the backbone of the country- you and me) and replacing the current elite with another smaller one- the party faithful and inner circle. The long term goal is to raid personal wealth, destroy ambition and to have the majority of the population totally dependent on the state for everything- jobs (through nationaisation or greater state control), housing (by deterring home ownership and controlling the housing market), health (ok we're already there with the NHS), controlling education, the police (I foresee the disbandment of regional constabularies and replacement with a national police force, think it can't happen? It already has in Scotland) and the welfare state. Marxist governments work on control, if the state controls everything then the population can be kept in line.
With regards to defence, with MCD's spending plans the country will be massively (even more) in debt very quickly, I would expect that there won't much money for defence in the pot but then with the aversion to foreign adventures and reliance on dialogue there won't be a perceived need, other than a semblance of home defence and to keep civpop in line.
Also bear in mind that a lot of the wealth generation in the country will disappear overseas or be nationalised (nationalised industries never make money- not business agile, not cost effective and no incentive). Add to that the increased trade unionism- JC, MCD and cronies are all backed by the more militant trade unions who will effectively run the country means its a very bleak picture.
Throughout the tenure of the Blair Govt they resisted nationalising the railways despite it being a permanent manifesto item and constant badgering from the RMT and ASLEF- ever wondered why? Because it would put the railway back 30 years overnight, cost billions and the railway would be run by the Unions- anyone want Mick Cash as SoS for transport?
What really annoys me is the hypocrisy of the JC loving celebs; JK Rowling, Ellie Goulding, Maxine Peake etc - happy to spout off but knowing that their millions are safely tucked away in overseas tax havens.

God.. I sound like Peter Hitchens and I'm now to read Orwell's Animal Farm again.

Leader writer for the Mail?

[Nige321]

Leader writer for the Mail?

Which bit is wrong...?

[Mil-26Man]

[QUOTE=Mil-26Man;10561878][QUOTE]Hammond even looks like a rat
Quote:
You start with

Yep, that's the level of discourse this country needs right now. From childish personal insults like this through to middle-aged yellow-vested thugs screaming abuse at MPs and yobbish football-style hooligan behaviour at pro-Brexit rallies, I'm constantly reminded as to which side of this debate most of the decent and rational people seem to be.

And finish with
To paraphrase Will Self, 'Not everyone who voted for Brexit is a racist deplorable malcontent, but every racist deplorable malcontent voted for Brexit'.
Nice, that's the level of debate we need!

Which bit is wrong...?

[Asturias56]

It doesn't matter - Social spending (NHS, Pensions, Care, Social security etc ) is forecast to rise to 45% of the UK budget by 2040 ish

The money has to come from somewhere and I'd guess the military will suffer as ever........... but that's only 2% of the whole - so either benefits (including pensions) are slashed or taxes go up... way up........

[woptb]

Which bit is wrong...?
Say again, everything after,“The long term goal.........”. And pretty much everything before!

[Nige321]

Say again, everything after,“The long term goal.........”. And pretty much everything before!

Sorry, can't fault the original post.
McD's policies will have exactly the effect noted.

During the last election campaign, Jerremy Vine intervied all of the main pary leaders live on his radio show.
Corbyn was brilliant at the social stuff, but that's where it all ended.
When asked about defence, business, foreign policy, and other non-social departments he was lost.
The only stock answer he could come up with was that he'd pay for eveything by taxing business.

The fact that nearly half the working population (ie. The 'Poor'...) don't actually pay any tax and the fact that over a quarter of the UK's tax take is paid by around 100,000 people (Many of whom will leave the UK under a Corbyn gov) was lost on him...

The poor, who have been voting Labour for the last century or so, are still poor...
It's in Corbyn and McD's interest to keep them that way...

[woptb]

Original post is complete conjecture,as is yours, based on zero evidence. Other than 1% of the populace, paying 27% of the tax. People will leave the country,yawn! The same old tropes from the right wing press!

Put this post in Jet Blast its crap!

[Nige321]

Original post is complete conjecture,as is yours, based on zero evidence. Other than 1% of the populace, paying 27% of the tax. People will leave the country,yawn! The same old tropes from the right wing press!

Put this post in Jet Blast its crap!

Have it your way... Yawn...
The rich will leave the country (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-04/u-k-s-super-rich-prepare-to-flee-from-corbyn-rule-not-brexit)
It is the threat of a wealth tax that is scaring wealthy individuals.

It is a theme to which shadow chancellor John McDonnell has returned several times. In 2012 he gave his endorsement to a proposal by University of Glasgow academic Greg Philo (sometimes mistakenly called an ‘economist’ but actually a professor in sociology) to subject wealthy individuals to a one-off wealth tax of 20 per cent in the hope of using it to pay off the government’s debts.

‘The wealthiest 10 per cent own £4,000 billion,’ said McDonnell. ‘If you took 20 per cent of that you would then have £800 billion and we could tackle our deficit — we could tackle our debt — four-fifths of our debt would then be wiped out.

So we’re saying just collect the money and make those who created the crisis pay for the crisis and that way you overcome it.’

[Imagegear]

I am sure that Defence would become a priority under Corbyn because the Services will need to be realigned with those more further to the East. One thing is for sure, the UK is extremely unlikely to remain a member of NATO, or any other Western defence agreement post an extreme leftist, Marxist/Trot, Government. Corbyn will be "re-educated" in a Gulag and McD etc, will be running the show.

Am I paranoid Orwellian? Absolutely!, and I suspect I am not alone.

IG

[Asturias56]

" because the Services will need to be realigned with those more further to the East"

OMG!! You're going to follow the Germans...............................

[woptb]

You’re making my point! Add this to the other rather fanciful ‘Colonel Blimp’ discussions on JB! Apparently the NRA has a British chapter if you’re interested?

[Imagegear]

You're going to follow the Germans.............................. Although I considered Belgium, I decided that it would not meet the ideological criteria. :ok:

WOPT

If you consider your point to be that a realignment of defence strategy and direction is "fanciful", then I must assume that you do not accept the necessity for the defense posture of the West over the last 70 years. The Western Powers did not continue their drive through Germany at the end of the war that resulted in a divided Germany. Equally the infamous wall did not need to be built to keep Western troops from invading East Germany, but rather for keeping millions of Germans trapped inside a communist cage. Poland resisted a German invasion but still crumbled under a later invasion from Russia, ditto Czechoslovakia, etc. "Liberation" is not a realistic interpretation of events.

Following on from the recent grab of Crimea, where do you suggest that the next "Liberation" will occur?: Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Finland?

I respectfully submit that you may wish to reconsider your proposal that these narratives be consigned to JB simply because they do not align with your alternate view of reality.

Further:

I have never owned a rifle so no requirement to join any organisation similar to the NRA .

IG

[insty66]

[QUOTE][QUOTE=Mil-26Man;10561878]

Which bit is wrong...?

Well I agree about the childish insults. But Mr Self's clever smear / not smear is equally as bad, by cleverly pretending to not paint leave voters as a "a racist deplorable malcontent" he manages to do just that. He's clearly much cleverer than wot I am.

In my opinion his sneering is a fine example of the kind of attitudes that harden Leavers positions and create divisions that are beginning to seem impossible to heal.

I'd also say it's a fairly safe bet that plenty of racist deplorable malcontents voted Remain

[Mil-26Man]

Doubtful. Racists not likely to vote to maintain free movement of foreigners into their towns. Malcontents not likely to vote for the status quo of which they are, well, malcontent. Deplorables? Well, that's a matter of opinion so perhaps, if you say so. The contrast of close to a million men, women and children marching peacefully through London with minimal police involvement to the thuggish and loutish counter-demonstration the following week told its own story.

[weemonkey]

Doubtful. Racists not likely to vote to maintain free movement of foreigners into their towns. Malcontents not likely to vote for the status quo of which they are, well, malcontent. Deplorables? Well, that's a matter of opinion so perhaps, if you say so. The contrast of close to a million men, women and children marching peacefully through London with minimal police involvement to the thuggish and loutish counter-demonstration the following week told its own story.

You should head up to Govan this weekend and have your eyes truly opened to foreigners, racists and thugs.

Begone.

[woptb]

Although I considered Belgium, I decided that it would not meet the ideological criteria. :ok:

WOPT

If you consider your point to be that a realignment of defence strategy and direction is "fanciful", then I must assume that you do not accept the necessity for the defense posture of the West over the last 70 years. The Western Powers did not continue their drive through Germany at the end of the war that resulted in a divided Germany. Equally the infamous wall did not need to be built to keep Western troops from invading East Germany, but rather for keeping millions of Germans trapped inside a communist cage. Poland resisted a German invasion but still crumbled under a later invasion from Russia, ditto Czechoslovakia, etc. "Liberation" is not a realistic interpretation of events.

Following on from the recent grab of Crimea, where do you suggest that the next "Liberation" will occur?: Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Finland?

I respectfully submit that you may wish to reconsider your proposal that these narratives be consigned to JB simply because they do not align with your alternate view of reality.

Further:

I have never owned a rifle so no requirement to join any organisation similar to the NRA .

IG
You're answering a question I didn't ask and responding to a point I didn't make,but other than that,BRAVO!

[Mil-26Man]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mil-26Man https://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/625161-defence-under-corbyn-government-5.html#post10562845)
Doubtful. Racists not likely to vote to maintain free movement of foreigners into their towns. Malcontents not likely to vote for the status quo of which they are, well, malcontent. Deplorables? Well, that's a matter of opinion so perhaps, if you say so. The contrast of close to a million men, women and children marching peacefully through London with minimal police involvement to the thuggish and loutish counter-demonstration the following week told its own story.

You should head up to Govan this weekend and have your eyes truly opened to foreigners, racists and thugs.

Begone.

With Tommy Robinson currently banged-up he wouldn't have been able to fill a guest speaker slot at Govan, so which right-wing racist thug did they get to whip up the crowd? None, you say?

[Nige321]

Back on thread, there's 2 pages on Defence in the current Labour manifesto. (https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/labour-manifesto-2017.pdf)
DEFENCE
The primary duty of any government is to protect and defend its citizens.
We live in a period of growing international tensions.
A strong, viable and sustainable defence and security policy must be strategic and evidence led.
As previous incoming governments have done, a Labour government will order a complete strategic defence and security review when it comes into office, to assess the emerging threats facing Britain, including hybrid and cyber warfare.

Cyber security will form an integral part of our defence and security strategy and we will introduce a cyber-security charter for companies working with the Ministry of Defence.
We will ensure that our armed forces are properly equipped and resourced to respond to wide-ranging security challenges.
Labour will commit to effective 8N peacekeeping, including support for a UN Emergency Peace Service.As the security threats and challenges we face are not bound by geographic borders, it is vital that as Britain leaves the EU, we maintain our close relationship with our European partners.

Alongside our commitment to NATO, we will continue to work with the EU on a range of operational missions to promote and support global and regional security.
The last Labour government consistently spent above the NATO benchmark of 2 per cent of GDP. Conservative spending cuts have put Britain’s security at risk, shrinking the army to its smallest size since the Napoleonic wars.
The scrapping of Nimrod, HMS Ark Royal and the Harrier jump-jets have weakened our defences and cost British taxpayers millions.
Labour’s commitment to spending at least 2 per cent of GDP on defence will guarantee that our Armed Forces have the necessary capabilities to fulfil the full range of obligations, and ensure our conventional forces are versatile and able to deploy in a range of roles.

Labour supports the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent. As a nuclear-armed power, our country has a responsibility to fulfil our obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Labour will lead multilateral efforts with international partners and the UN to create a nuclear-free world.
The defence industry is world-leading, and Labour will continue to support development and innovation in this sector and to ensure that it can continue to rely on a highly skilled workforce.
We are committed to a procurement process that supports the British steel industry and defence manufacturing industry, which in turn provide good jobs throughout the supply chain.
Labour will publish a Defence Industrial Strategy White Paper, including a National Shipbuilding Strategy to secure a long-term future for the industry, workers and defence.

We have a duty to properly reward and remunerate our Armed Forces.
Under the Conservatives, our Armed Forces have been hit by rent rises, pay restraint, and changes to tax and benefits, putting real pressure on service personnel and their families.
We will ensure they get the pay and living conditions that their service merits.

Dedicated service personnel are at the heart of our defence policy.
Labour will immediately examine recruitment and retention policies in order to stem the exodus seen under the Conservatives.
We will publish new strategic equality objectives to ensure our personnel reȵect our diverse society.
We will drive up standards in Service Accommodation, and take action where private companies have failed to deliver.

We will consult with service personnel, giving them greater autonomy over their housing choices, and review and improve the Forces Help to Buy scheme.Personnel who are injured while serving should have prompt access to support and compensation.
We will resist any Conservative proposals to abolish the right to seek legal redress against the MoD where compensation claims cannot be otherwise settled.
We are fully committed to supporting our veterans.
We will promote greater awareness of the Armed Forces Covenant, seek greater consistency in its implementation by public authorities, and promote increased participation in the Corporate Covenant.
We will also roll out a Homes Fit for Heroes programme that will insulate the homes of disabled veterans for free.

[Imagegear]

Only one thing to say about that, words are easy before an election.

IG

[Asturias56]

Any Labour Govt would look to protect jobs in the manufacturing sector - so they'd be happy to spend (some) money on new ships (T26, River class for example), and maybe replace the Successor SSBN's with more Astutes. I'd suspect fewer F-35's or at least a minimum spend but maybe more helicopter's. More cash for tanks and armoured vehicles and less on drones. Probably a small pay raise for the troops as well

[etudiant]

Sorry, can't fault the original post.
McD's policies will have exactly the effect noted.

During the last election campaign, Jerremy Vine intervied all of the main pary leaders live on his radio show.
Corbyn was brilliant at the social stuff, but that's where it all ended.
When asked about defence, business, foreign policy, and other non-social departments he was lost.
The only stock answer he could come up with was that he'd pay for eveything by taxing business.

The fact that nearly half the working population (ie. The 'Poor'...) don't actually pay any tax and the fact that over a quarter of the UK's tax take is paid by around 100,000 people (Many of whom will leave the UK under a Corbyn gov) was lost on him...

The poor, who have been voting Labour for the last century or so, are still poor...
It's in Corbyn and McD's interest to keep them that way...

Imho, the 'social stuff' is the heart of government, it is what it takes to ensure 'the consent of the governed', so Corbin has the essentials right.
It is surely indicative of sustained bad policies if half the working population is not paying taxes and even worse if wealth distribution is so skewed that 100,000 people out of maybe 25 million working citizens account for 25% of government revenues.

[CyclicRick]

Has anyone read “The Fourth Protocol”? Corbyn?

[surely not]

Bizarre, The Tories have constantly run down the Armed Forces during their time in power, yet apparently they are still trusted by those in the Armed Forces?

A comment is made that 'words and promises 'are cheap' in the run up to the election. Well that at least is true. You only have to look at the sums Boris is allegedly going to splash around to see that. Only 6 months or so ago we were in Austerity measures. Suddenly we have loads of cash to splash, well at least until it actually has to be found.

Corbyn is not my cup of tea in any way shape or form, but to suggest that he is alone in using empty words is so far from the truth.

[Asturias56]

Both sides lie all the time

The problem is always that defence has a terrible record on delivery on costs and UK voters only care about their pensions and the NHS

[charliegolf]

Both sides lie all the time

... UK voters only care about their pensions and the NHS

Which is absolutely reasonable. For as long as it is the case that no foreign power is trying to march up Whitehall or there is no apparent Blitz going on, Joe Public leaves defence to the MOD and military to sort out. The bold bit is a posh translation of, 'they couldn't give a flying fudge'.

CG (pensioner, defence watcher)

[mahogany bob]

I ,like many thousands of others, spent most of our lives defending our hard won democracy against a threat which at the time was very real.

I am very surprised that on this military forum there are so many contributors who seem quite happy to risk installing a marxist in number 10. Have they short memories or are they just too young to remember?

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

"Labour supports the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent."

Yet has a leader who says he would NEVER use it, no matter what. Guess they don't understand how a "deterrent" works.

[woptb]

I ,like many thousands of others, spent most of our lives defending our hard won democracy against a threat which at the time was very real.

I am very surprised that on this military forum there are so many contributors who seem quite happy to risk installing a marxist in number 10. Have they short memories or are they just too young to remember?


Old enough, served. Now check the dictionary definition of Marxist!

[Not_a_boffin]

"Labour supports the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent."

Yet has a leader who says he would NEVER use it, no matter what. Guess they don't understand how anything works.

Fixed, FOC.

[Wander00]

Labour - defence policy - oxymoron.....

[Imagegear]

Based on the "Trot" philosophy of continuous revolution until capitalism is expunged, manufacturers will stagnate and evaporate followed by any defense funds being very quickly dissipated amongst the great have nots..

IG

[Asturias56]

depends who you are deterring

US no
France - unlikely
Israel - Unlikely
India - no
pakistan - no
N Korea - unlikely
Russia - yes - but I remember Mr. Khrushchev threatening to turn the UK Into a burnt cinder in 5 minutes way back ... so I don't think they 're terribly impressed TBH

[ORAC]

Old enough, served. Now check the dictionary definition of Marxist!

https://youtu.be/9lCcFjRhiaw

[Thereismore]

You tube video above

There is a very strong argument that MSV capitalism has not worked and that we are now suffering the consequences of that in all sorts of areas of economy and society; so in that sense his comments are valid. The financial crisis was one aspect of that and the desire ‘not to waste the opportunity’ is pretty universal.

I too fear that the ‘old’ Marxist solution is for a different era and we know (like we know vaccines work but some chose to look the other way) that Top- Down control of business does not work but regulatory reform can and does. I am thrilled to see the recent denouncement by CEOs of major US corporations of the MSV principle and the rise in ‘B’corp structures - which are a leap hugely popular with the younger workforce’s and entrepreneurs.

[pr00ne]

Just who does John McDonnell think he is, a disaster capitalist?

And what is a Marxist Training Camp beyond boys own fiction?

[Imagegear]

Marxist training camp? that'll be half of the House of Commons then :E

IG

[ShotOne]

A strong argument that capitalism has not worked....? Assuming you are serious, please name somewhere that Marxism has NOT resulted in dismal poverty for all but a tiny elite enforced by appalling human rights abuses...Corbyn himself lavishes praise on Cuba and Venezuela for instance.

[racedo]

I ,like many thousands of others, spent most of our lives defending our hard won democracy against a threat which at the time was very real.
And then a PM decides Parliment isn't that important as it refuses to allow him do what he wants. So much for Democracy.

[mahogany bob]

racedo


You can't be serious!

Loss of democracy to me means NO meaningful vote , murder,torture and people 'disappearing' in the night !
Have you NO sense of proportion?

wop

2 questions

1. Name any country with a hard left/ marxist government which has the equivalent of a 'speakers corner ' where you can openly 'slag off' your leaders without fear of arrest?

2. Have you read Animal Farm - if so what do you disagree with?

[Asturias56]

To be fair Bob the same thing happened/happens under right wing governments - Chile, Argentina, Brazil, ....................... and even Singapore can be a bit sticky..................

[racedo]

racedo
You can't be serious!

Loss of democracy to me means NO meaningful vote , murder,torture and people 'disappearing' in the night !
Have you NO sense of proportion?
Oh you mean like Northern Ireland used to be like.

As British as Kent, Paisley used to proclaim.

[Asturias56]

He's right - there are some seriously dangerous people living in Kent..............

[ShotOne]

Since you mentioned recent events in parliament, racedo maybe you could name any Marxist state where such dissent would not have resulted in the imprisonment or execution of all concerned?

[etudiant]

Since you mentioned recent events in parliament, racedo maybe you could name any Marxist state where such dissent would not have resulted in the imprisonment or execution of all concerned?
There was extensive imprisonment as well as extrajudicial execution in Northern Ireland, so does that make Britain a Marxist state?

[ShotOne]

No, I think you will find it’s the IRA which has Marxist ideology, enforced by murder, torture and intimidation. Lauded and hosted by Corbyn as they did so.

[woptb]

https://youtu.be/9lCcFjRhiaw
Last sentence in the video,”based on need and democratically controlled “. Hard core Marxist 😂. Guess we need more trickle down economics?

[Oldlae]

Karl Marx must be the biggest con-man ever!

[Asturias56]

No - he was a quite clever Economist (and a turgid writer) - it's the politicians who grab and pervert the ideas

Quite how a Labour Govt would play out under Corbyn is uncertain - but given the shambles visited on the UK by the opposition I think you may find out .

[Imagegear]

Oh Dear,

Not a very lovely boy then:JEREMY CORBYN could pass classified American intelligence on to Russia and Iran according to a report backed by former advisors to US President Donald Trump. The situation is so grave the Americans have been discussing reducing Britain's status in NATO.

This is an inevitable outcome.

Corbyn v NATO (https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1178139/Jeremy-Corbyn-news-Iran-Russia-intelligence-USA-Donald-Trump-warning)

IG

[Asturias56]

"a report backed by former advisors to US President Donald Trump."

Well it was in the Sunday Telegraph so let's say possibly a bit biased?

But TBH I suspect that most of the UK electorate wouldn't know NATO from a hole in the ground and care even less. For many people snuggling closer to the US is NOT something very they're happy with given the current incumbent anyway

[etudiant]

No - he was a quite clever Economist (and a turgid writer) - it's the politicians who grab and pervert the ideas

Quite how a Labour Govt would play out under Corbyn is uncertain - but given the shambles visited on the UK by the opposition I think you may find out .

That is the heart of the problem imho.
The Bible says: 'By their fruits you shall know them' and the fruits of the existing structure appear very unappealing to many or perhaps most people in Britain. That is the engine that drives Corbyn, just as its counterpart drove Trump in the US.
If Corbyn achieves power, any military opposition would have no legal basis, even if he institutes Marxian studies in the services.

[Fonsini]

Corbyn strikes me as the worst kind of gutless coward. I cannot imagine any use of arms he would be willing to sanction.

[The AvgasDinosaur]

Corbyn strikes me as the worst kind of gutless coward. I cannot imagine any use of arms he would be willing to sanction.
A big knife for application between unsuspecting shoulder blades, perhaps?
David

[etudiant]

A big knife for application between unsuspecting shoulder blades, perhaps?
David
Shades of the Libya exercise, anyone? Seems the incumbents also have experience in these tactics.

[ORAC]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/election-2019-australia-fears-jeremy-corbyn-security-risk-ngcz92szzElection 2019: Australia fears Jeremy Corbyn security riskAustralia’s former envoy to London has warned that Canberra would severely limit intelligence-sharing with the United Kingdom if Jeremy Corbyn (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/topic/jeremy-corbyn) wins the general election.

In a controversial intervention Alexander Downer, a former foreign minister and until 18 months ago Australia’s high commissioner to London, warned that a Corbyn government would force a reassessment of the security relationship between the two countries. Addressing the National Press Club in Canberra on Brexit, Australia’s longest-serving foreign minister said that Mr Corbyn and those around him were “unsympathetic to and hostile to western interests”.

He said if Mr Corbyn became prime minister, the sharing of intelligence with the UK through Five Eyes — the intelligence-gathering alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the United States — would be reduced. “We would substantially wind it back. We would have to be very careful what sort of intelligence we shared with the [UK] government, we would have to be very careful because of the foreign policy stance of Jeremy Corbyn and the cohorts around him,” Mr Downer said......

[Mil-26Man]

To be fair Bob the same thing happened/happens under right wing governments - Chile, Argentina, Brazil, ....................... and even Singapore can be a bit sticky..................

Just a different side of the same coin.

[Asturias56]

I see Lord Bramall has died - he was no supporter of Trident.

[Finningley Boy]

Lord Bramall like one of his predecessors, Lord Carver, may have been against the nuclear deterrent, but they both genuinely supported a strong conventional defence. I'm not sure where either stood on Tactical nuclear weapons? One of the problems with the defence debate today is the media obsession with the renewal of Trident. This is narrow and misleading, what is never looked at is what a Corbyn government would do regarding the current general military posture and the direction its headed in. What would be his response to any military threat recognised by the US, Germany and France? He and McDonnell have already stated they aim to end our relations with the US over such things as defence cooperation and seek stronger ties elsewhere. I think they are acting according to type and are extremely dangerous!

FB

[Cornish Jack]

FB - I hold no brief whatsoever for Corbyn but I find your conclusion as to his being 'extremely dangerous' a little puzzling in the context of 'military threat recognised by the US' Given recent military events in the Middle East, I would consider the US manoeuvring to be both extremely dangerous AND difficult to comprehend. Perhaps defining 'extremely dangerous' is more dependent on political leanings than logical assessment?

[Cornish Jack]

There really are some extraordinary memory dysfunctions demonstrated on this forum! Possibly age-related and certainly politically driven. We (the UK, that is) appear to have become a nation unable to think for itself and to rely more and more on repetitive hyperbole from the increasingly partisan media - with their latest 'bon mots' and bile spread to the unwitting by such as ORAC - not a single original thought or argument included. Is it really so difficult to analyse what is put before us and, reach conclusions based on actual experience rather than regurgitating the latest brain-wash output from wherever?
The memory dysfunction in relation to our impeccable and civilised behaviour in the world ? Well, start with a 'Day in Gibraltar' and proceed via NI and the 'odd' unacknowledged activities at a Scottish airport in support of our closest ally's investigation techniques ... which Government provided that support? Pure as the driven snow? Could be that someone left a yellow patch or two!!:yuk:

[Finningley Boy]

Cornish Jack,

I imagine it is all a matter of how things are relative, who would you have as a close ally other than the States? I fully appreciate the concerns about the USA and how it has behaved in recent years. Recent being the last 60 or more. As someone who would like your countrymen and your government to think for themselves, itself more, then you're likely opposed to any further handing over of thinking to the European Union. I simply point out that Corbyn and McDonnell have been reported to have stated their intention to distance themselves from the USA if they form a government, if the media are misreporting them then fair enough, but the only attack on the media is that they are picking on Corbyn, not quite the same thing as misreporting.
Macron and Verhofstadt are also openly seeking to hold the USA at arms length because of Trump. For a start, he won't be there forever, in fact there is a small chance he won't be president much after Christmas. However long he remains, it would be, indeed, extreme folly to burn bridges with the USA. Especially as once we leave the EU, 80% of NATO expenditure will come from outside of the EU. Just what the hell they think they're about with the 'EU Army' is interesting if nothing else. Something else Corbyn is opposed to, he's opposed to the EU army, in fact anything that goes bang, unless its in the hands of a terrorist group or opposed state. His words by the way, not the Daily Mail's.

FB

[Cornish Jack]

FB - Interesting take on the present situation and the differing political reactions to it - not least the dichotomy between your views of two of the major 'players' , Corbyn and Trump. One is the de facto Commander-in-Chief and the other , (if in a majority Government) would be dependent on advice from his Top Brass. We have had more than enough evidence of the total unreliability of one who holds office as against the strongly held views of the other. Actuality as against forecast ? Ingrained antipathy as against reasoned argument?
As regards attitude to the US, it is historical as far as the French are concerned, dating from the post WW2 Vietnam and the American's attempts to interfere in French Colonial affairs, culminating in Dien Bien Phu. Long time ago, long memories!!
The so-called EU army is the latest iteration of the French dislike of having to rely on an 'ally' they deeply distrust, as with nuclear weapons - again, memories of US 'interference in French 'areas of interest' in the ME and N Africa during and after WW2. The Brits dislike of the idea would have been better presented from inside the EU Parliament rather than whingeing from a position of no influence and even less importance.
'Burning bridges with the US' ? We are (so we are constantly harangued about) leaving the EU to become a 'Sovereign State' again - whatever that supposedly means. As such, our position of huge importance in the World will, undoubtedly, have our 'oldest ally' offering terms of trade and support which will ensure that even Corbyn will welcome them with open arms ... No???
This forum is a place where opinions can be expressed. The old Service 'saw' that "opinions are like fundamental orifices, everyone has one" is a truism with the possible rider that constipation (of reasoned, logical thought) can make the output unreliable - and unpleasant!

[teeteringhead]

France didn't seem to mind US "interference" in 1916 and 1944......

One is also reminded of Lyndon Johnson's alleged remark in 1966 when CdG asked that all US servicemen leave France...

LBJ: "Does that include the 60 000 buried there....?"

[Wander00]

Corbyn and defence in the same sentence - oxymoron,old boy!

[Finningley Boy]

Cornish Jack,

Your point about a reasoned argument from within the EU as opposed to whingeing from the side lines without any influence is a typical remain position. The whole point of leaving the EU, and for what its worth I'm not entirely sure its good idea or not, I can't determine who's an absolute fibber and who isn't. So I don't know if Tusk is right to forecast, with seeming certainty, our second rate status once we leave. I understand his native Poland is a third rate country within the EU, the largest net receiver, to our being the second largest net contributor in 2017. Or is their something in the dynamic of those figures which drives is enmity toward the UK leaving. What made me want to leave alas, was a remainer of good reputation.
Lord Heseltine said in 2015, it was inevitable we would join the Euro.. Now is it an example or feature of our strength and fortitude to submit to a foreign currency? I understand the EU can do what it likes with its titular 'Army' I trust meaning an EU Air Force and Navy as well, once we're out we should no longer be any more interested in their plans than the USA. But given the disparity, yes I know almost all US funded, between what the EU sets aside for defence budgeting, as a whole, and how much of NATO is currently funded and by who, leaves the EU with great big thumping headache of an expense, if their EU Army is going to relieve NATO.

FB

[Cornish Jack]

I can't determine who's an absolute fibber and who isn't.#
Precisely! - couldn't agree more!
The problem, as I see it, is simply commonsense as against unsupported optimism. Particularly in an aviation forum, I would not expect to find contributors advocating leaving a fully operating , if slightly costly, aircraft in order to experiment with a new, untried model which relies on untested component manufacturers and relying for major input (engines?) on the vagaries of a producer who has demonstrated a cavalier attitude to best practice! Today's news of another unasked-for visit does nothing to reassure me of the motives of one side of the campaign!
My major gripe about so much of the comment in these postings is the demonstrable lack of examination of the 'issues', presenting, instead, the unswerving devotion to the well-worn platitudes of our 'Leaders@

[Asturias56]

The problem with a deterrent force is that it's impossible to prove if it is working or if it ever worked.

Fact - the UK V-Bomber/Polaris/Trident has been in service for around 70 years.

Fact - the UK has never been invaded nor been in a major war in that time.

Theory - the two are 100% connected.

Problem - lots of other things have been in place defence -wise over the last 60 years - membership of NATO for example - which may also have stopped a serious war.

Dilemma - if the UK scraps its deterrent force does this mean it is more likely to be in a major war going forward? It could be that it WAS a major item. or it could be that it wasn't but MIGHT be if the USA decides to disengage going forward. Or maybe it is a total waste of time or money.

A college lecturer of mine used to compare this sort of debate to the Aztecs absolute belief that if they didn't sacrifice people the world would end. It's easy to say "stop it" but it's seen as a terminal risk by those involved in policy and they know who'll be held responsible if they are wrong.

It's a matter of judgement and balance - personally I believe it probably isn't a real deterrent and it is a major distorting factor in UK military finance and procurement - but I can see why so many people go for the status quo.

It's not a "flag-waving" or a "flag-burning" issue TBH - it's a honest difference in strategy and belief - that can only be solved in a democracy by the elected politicians - whoever they are.

[Ken Scott]

Cornish Jack:



At first glance I thought you were referring to that European collaborative abomination that is the A400M but then I realized it was just a metaphor!

[ORAC]

You couldn’t make it up if you were asked.......

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1196007278396235776?s=21

[somewhereout]

Perhaps the answer is more nuanced than a 1 line quip from a Murdoch lackey.

[Ken Scott]

But Corbyn’s measure of ‘successful’ would have been the UK being absorbed into the USSR so his response is not unexpected, NATO prevented that outcome.

[hunterboy]

Just had a bottle of wine and a revelation came to me; under a Corbyn Government and the scrapping of Trident, etc means more money for the troops! Go on strike for a 50 % pay rise and t&c’s like Tube workers. A Labour government could be the best thing that happened for the armed forces! Best not to ask how the defence of the Realm pans out though.

[cynicalint]

Hunterboy, I think you have just unwittingly identified the Labour method of policy decision making!

[etudiant]

Corbyn sure gets a lot of people's goat, at least judging by the sentiments expressed on this thread.
Yet he has been a very successful leader of the Labor party, which was in total disarray when he was elected. Just his keeping that entity together in the face of determined efforts to split it is a remarkable achievement by all accounts.
So he may similarly prove much more capable than perhaps people expect if ever he achieves power. How that translates to defense is murky, deliberately so, but with his experiences the man cannot be naive. I'd expect him to be anything but a pushover internationally.

[Nige321]

Corbyn and defence... (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/25/jeremy-corbyn-backs-investigations-into-british-troops-and-calls/?fbclid=IwAR1X4aD523ETX7KxZPV-qmrEb9KjY3iw7t7o_a8oQxbTEUvJ2I_w1FoD-VM)

From 3 years ago.
Has he changed his mind...?

Jeremy Corbyn today backed investigations into British troops who served in Iraq and called (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/24/tony-blair-end-this-army-witch-hunt-into-britains-brave-soldiers/) for the Armed Forces and intelligence services to be scaled back, prompting a furious response from his own party.

MPs and former ministers sharply criticised the Labour leader after he backed the Government’s investigations into alleged abuses committed by British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been described as a “witch hunt”.

Speaking at Labour’s conference in Liverpool Mr Corby (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/25/labour-mps-branded-traitors-at-conference-and-told-they-face-des/)n also said that Britain should no longer have a “huge land-based defence force” and said that MI6 should not be allowed to recruit new spies, despite the growing threat to the country from terrorists.

[Ken Scott]

‘huge land-based defence force’?

The man is clearly deluded & unfit for office if he thinks our current armed forces match that description.

[pax britanica]

Corbyn isn't very appealing-but he doesn't lie every time he opens his mouth, hasn't deliberately deceived the Queen and hasn't allied himself to the worst president in US history. Great choice we have.

As for defence, it seems to me as a rank outsider we have invested far too much in strategic defence-Trident carriers etc to fight a war thats so last century. We need rapid response mixed arms teams for overseas firefighting and home defence, smart drone /robotic based weapons and bigger investment in protection of critical infrastructure starting with internet software and hardware and the power grid.
What we have now it seems is comparable to a force of 'wooden 'ships of the line' and musket toting redcoats to fight U boats and Bombers.;50 years out of date.
Its a good commercial decsion too as we are pretty good at making this smaller scale stuff and not very good at the large scale .

[jindabyne]

not very good at the large scale

You must have a very short term memory, pax

[Ken Scott]

Corbyn isn't very appealing-but he doesn't lie every time he opens his mouth, hasn't deliberately deceived the Queen and hasn't allied himself to the worst president in US history. Great choice we have.

Pax, wipe the spittle from your mouth! The PM doesn’t ‘lie every time he opens his mouth’, that’s just the cheap accusation thrown at him by rabid remainers & Mirror journos, and is clearly nonsense. As for ‘lying to the Queen’ he took legal advice which was then countermanded by a different bunch of lawyers, hardly a deliberate porky to her Majesty.

And as for allying himself to Trump, I think you’ll find the UK has been allied to the USA for considerably longer than Boris has been PM.

I find it hard to believe that any sane person is prepared to treat Corbyn as a reasonable politician and prospective PM for this country. Beneath that mild mannered exterior bats the heart of a raving Communist who, given the keys to No 10, will effect a Marxist revolution on this country. Some/ massive cuts to the armed forces will be the least of our problems. At the last election the Communist Party polled lower than the Monster Raving Loonys, now they’ve hijacked the Labour Party and like the Trojan Horse if they can just get inside the walls the country will fall.

[oldmansquipper]

The 'nightmare ticket' of Momentum & McDonnell is an even greater threat to democracy. Corbyn will be dumped.

[Video Mixdown]

The 'nightmare ticket' of Momentum & McDonnell is an even greater threat to democracy. Corbyn will be dumped.

Absolutely. I genuinely fear that if they were to achieve power they would never relinquish it peacefully.

[AnglianAV8R]

The 'nightmare ticket' of Momentum & McDonnell is an even greater threat to democracy. Corbyn will be dumped.


And that sums up the threat, precisely. Corbyn is their pathetic hapless puppet. It's not Labour, it is marxist.

[treadigraph]

Friend of mine has voted labour in General Elections all his life except last time and this. Last time he spoiled his vote and says he will certainly will not be voting for Corbyn this time.

[Cornish Jack]

Fascinating level of anti-Corbyn rant/rave frothing in the previous posts. As ever, the content is totally lacking in any thought-through assessment, just rehashes of the hatelines from their favourite gutter Press. On a personal level. I would not vote for Labour or the Tories - not because of their leaders but their being wedded to a corrupt voting system. There can be NO justification for a system which differentiates in the value placed on individual votes, no matter how often you repeat the magic, meaningless D word!
As to Corbyn being Communist inspired ... which Party receives large donations from Russian oligarchs and why is there so little (i.e. zero) complaint or, indeed, outrage? "Don't confuse me with FACTS, I've made my mind up!"

[Finningley Boy]

Ok what's being overlooked Jack? Just what kind of relation is he, as Prime Minister, going to have with HM Forces? Simply given his passed hinterland? That's enough, really, it is.
I just hope but don't expect that tonight's debate, if it should get onto the matter of National Security and Defence, that it isn't boiled down straight away to the usual boneheaded will you or won't you question over Trident. It is a element, an aspect, it is not all there is to any defence debate.

FB

[beardy]

Fascinating level of anti-Corbyn rant/rave frothing in the previous posts. As ever, the content is totally lacking in any thought-through assessment, just rehashes of the hatelines from their favourite gutter Press. On a personal level. I would not vote for Labour or the Tories - not because of their leaders but their being wedded to a corrupt voting system. There can be NO justification for a system which differentiates in the value placed on individual votes, no matter how often you repeat the magic, meaningless D word!
As to Corbyn being Communist inspired ... which Party receives large donations from Russian oligarchs and why is there so little (i.e. zero) complaint or, indeed, outrage? "Don't confuse me with FACTS, I've made my mind up!"
In a democracy NOBODY gets everything on their wishlist. Compromise is a keyword for a democratic outcome, as is acceptance of loss. But, we now live in a world where everybody's opinion is correct and everybody else's is wrong, hence compromise is unachievable and loss is unacceptable.

[Ken Scott]

As to Corbyn being Communist inspired ... which Party receives large donations from Russian oligarchs and why is there so little (i.e. zero) complaint or, indeed, outrage?

Cornish: I’m confused, what have Russian oligarchs to do with communism, other than they inhabit the same country as used to be in the USSR? The Russians have embraced capitalism while Corbyn & his associates remain wedded to their failed & outmoded Marxist principals which have failed in every state that tried them - evidently not ‘pure’ enough which is why their acolytes keep trying but are ultimately doomed to fail.

[oldmansquipper]

Matching Russia with Communism these days is a bit pointless. Russia is still 'socialist' of course - but, worryingly, with a more 'national' bent...and that went well for Europe last time.

We live in interesting times.

[bigsmelly]

At the risk of playing devil's advocate - surely any military organisation is communist?

Consider:

1) Central planning
2) Free dental and medical as required
2) Uniform provided to remove individual differences
4) Meritocracy (i.e. promotion on the basis of demonstrable skill)
5) Money is not the overriding concern - results are.
6) From each according to his ability (Trade/Rank) , to each according to his needs


I'll get flamed for this, but if you would prefer society to more reflect the military, then voting for the left would seem to be the way to make that happen.

Oh ,and you don't get to vote to change the leadership ;-)

[Finningley Boy]

Aaaaah, BS, you over simplify!

FB

[javelinfaw9]

It will no longer concern me, because if that filth gets in , I’m leaving on a jet plane .
I`, ll happily give you a lift to the Airport.Good riddance.See defence spending graphic above.;

[Asturias56]

BS - you also forgot the distribution of awards - those at the bottom get a GSM, those at the top :-

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/321x157/index_d00d698132c5639712a0daa828462fa34945469a.jpeg
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/640x800/640px_general_mark_a_milley_6dced6231928b95e7b42f535ec2d3a82 b59f49e3.jpg

[Mil-26Man]

I'll get flamed for this, but if you would prefer society to more reflect the military, then voting for the left would seem to be the way to make that happen.

How many left-wing military coups have there ever been, compared to right-wing military coups?

[racedo]

MPs and former ministers sharply criticised the Labour leader after he backed the Government’s investigations into alleged abuses committed by British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been described as a “witch hunt”.

So he backs the Govt of the day and gets abused. But it was the Govt doing the action was it not.

[racedo]

Pax, wipe the spittle from your mouth! The PM doesn’t ‘lie every time he opens his mouth’, that’s just the cheap accusation thrown at him by rabid remainers & Mirror journos, and is clearly nonsense. As for ‘lying to the Queen’ he took legal advice which was then countermanded by a different bunch of lawyers, hardly a deliberate porky to her Majesty.

And as for allying himself to Trump, I think you’ll find the UK has been allied to the USA for considerably longer than Boris has been PM.

I find it hard to believe that any sane person is prepared to treat Corbyn as a reasonable politician and prospective PM for this country. Beneath that mild mannered exterior bats the heart of a raving Communist who, given the keys to No 10, will effect a Marxist revolution on this country. Some/ massive cuts to the armed forces will be the least of our problems. At the last election the Communist Party polled lower than the Monster Raving Loonys, now they’ve hijacked the Labour Party and like the Trojan Horse if they can just get inside the walls the country will fall.

Bojo lies every time he opens his mouth, even his old bosses have been very clear he is not to be trusted. He is worse than Corbyn, Corbyn has some principles, odd ones but he has stuck to them and got abused for doing so.

Bojo is an opportunist who would sell anything to get what he wants, always has and always will. One has not sold on their principles, one has never had any principles and sell out to whomever, every chance he gets.

[racedo]

Just had a bottle of wine and a revelation came to me; under a Corbyn Government and the scrapping of Trident, etc means more money for the troops! Go on strike for a 50 % pay rise and t&c’s like Tube workers. A Labour government could be the best thing that happened for the armed forces! Best not to ask how the defence of the Realm pans out though.

Defence of Realm............... get real as that is non existent.

Mass migration has ensured in any war that armed forces will be spending time here not abroad.

[Asturias56]

Looking at the Armistice Day events a very substantial proportion of the modern armed forces in the Uk seem to be sourced from relatively recent immigrant communities Racedo.

Not many officers (yet) but I guess it's another case of immigrants doing the hard jobs that Brits no longer seem to want to do.

[Bob Viking]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/05/police-military-and-courts-lagging-decades-behind-on-ethnic-diversity

According to the reasonably recent article linked above, the UK Armed Forces currently have approximately 7.56% of their number of minority ethnic backgrounds.

Maybe what you saw at Armistice Day was a slight over representation in terms of ethnic minorities. In the same way that virtually every advert I see on any social media platform would have you believe that the military are currently only interested in female recruits.

Public demonstrations of the gender and ethnically diverse nature of our military are grasped at every opportunity. I don’t think you can then use that as a stick to beat people with in this particular thread.

Our military is still largely made up of young (and old!), white men. I am not saying that is right or wrong but it is a fact.

BV

[Nige321]

Just published...

An incoming Labour government will undertake a Strategic Defence and Security Review to assess
the security challenges facing Britain, including new forms of hybrid, cyber and remote warfare.
This review will also take account of the climate emergency, and associated threats of resource competition, involuntary migration and violent conflict.

Under the Conservatives:Boris Johnson refuses to publish the report into possible foreign interference by Russia in UK democracy.
Trained army personnel have been cut from 102,000 to just over 74,000.
Armed forces and their families have been forced to live in sub-standard accommodation.
Failing outsourced contracts have not been terminated.
• Our Armed Forces personnel received below-inflation pay rises for seven years.
The security challenges we face know no borders.
Labour will increase funding for UN peacekeeping operations to £100 million.
We will maintain our commitment to NATO and our close relationship with our European partners, and we will use our influence at the United Nations to support peace and security worldwide.
Labour supports the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent.
Labour will also actively lead multilateral efforts under our obligations to the Non-Proliferation Treaty to create a nuclear-free world.

Labour’s commitment to spend at least 2% of GDP on defence will guarantee that our armed forces are versatile and capable of fulfilling the full range of roles and obligations.
We will scrap the public sector pay cap, which resulted in a real-terms
pay cut for our armed forces, ensure decent housing for forces members and their families, and guarantee better access for all forces children to good quality local schools.

We will consult on creating a representative body for the armed forces, akin to the Police Federation.
Labour will improve opportunities for veterans through access to lifelong learning and training, housing and mental and physical health services, and will seek greater consistency in the implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant by public authorities.
We will pay a lump sum of £50,000 to each surviving British nuclear-test veteran to support them and their families with the health conditions they have suffered as a result of exposure to radiation.
We will also ensure that black and Asian soldiers who fought in Britain’s colonial armies receive a full apology and explore ways to compensate them for the discriminatory demob payments they received compared to their white counterparts serving at the same rank in the same regiments.

The UK defence industry is world- leading and Labour will continue to work with manufacturers, unions and export partners in line with Labour’s foreign policy to support innovation
in this sector to ensure it maintains its highly skilled workforce and world- class apprenticeship programme.
We are committed to procurement that supports UK defence manufacturing including our aerospace and shipbuilding, alongside a vibrant supply chain that includes the British steel industry and other component manufacturing companies providing good jobs throughout supply chains.
Labour will publish a Defence Industrial Strategy White Paper, including a National Shipbuilding Strategy, that keeps all Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary shipbuilding contracts in theUK, to secure a long-term future for the industry and its workers.

Reducing our carbon footprint can
only happen with ambitious emissions reduction targets at the Ministry of Defence, one of government’s biggest energy users.
So as part of our Green Industrial Revolution, we will create a Climate Change Sustainability Committee within the department to review the feasibility of increasing the use of sustainable energy in defence, and publish a strategy to accelerate the safe and sustainable recycling of our old nuclear submarines.

[oldmansquipper]

BV. Your point on adverts for recruitment being female biased is noted and is understood. However, at the risk of being trolled....look at current Christmas adverts. They suggest there are no 'straight white families' left. Nonetheless they are still more entertaining than the mainstream meejah.



.

[Ken Scott]

The Labour manifesto seems to tick a number of boxes although remaining in NATO & renewing Trident are both counter to Corbyn’s beliefs which he is sometimes (on these pages) praised for sticking to so resolutely. It’s all preceded by ‘we will hold a SDSR’ so they might just ‘inadvertently’ discover that most of the armed forces aren’t needed so can actually be scrapped including Trident.

Besides, what they publish in their manifesto & would actually do in government are not necessarily the same thing (as with all governments).

[pr00ne]

Commitment to spending at least 2% of GDP on defence, which beats the current mob who can only manage 1.8% despite their commitment to 2%. Commitment to scrap the Public Sector Pay Cap, which will mean a pay rise for all in the forces. Immediate 50k payment to all nuclear test veterans, commitment to stay in NATO and to work closely with European partners, commitment to support the UK defence industry and supply chain with ships being built in the UK.

How Marxist!

[Ken Scott]

How Marxist

Just possibility this set of ‘faux-policies’ has been written to ward off the expected accusations of being a security risk & weak on defence? Once in power he can ditch Trident & NATO, giveaway the Falklands etc.

This is after all a man who supported the right-wing military Junta who invaded the Falklands on the basis that they were oppposed to Thatcher (‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’), the IRA against the British Army & was very active in the ‘Stop the War’ Coalition - do you really think that he will be a friend to the Armed Forces? Even if you get a 5% pay rise that will be more than cancelled by the rise in taxes. As the IFS has made clear, he can’t just Tax the top 5% to achieve his aims even if the wealthy didn’t depart the UK on 13 Dec.

And the rest of the manifesto? Mass renationalisations, asset stealing of company shares, right to buy rental property at 80% of market value, confiscation of inheritances - that’s pretty Marxist.

[Finningley Boy]

I'm sorry pr00ne, I just can't see it. Especially with Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbot, Thawnberry and Butler in charge, I do not see the above manifesto pledge as one which can be taken at face value. There are already hidden hints which might not bode well. Climate change sustainability committee? I'll bet the Armed Forces staff will find their helpful advice most advantageous. Further, the amount of money they are going to spend everywhere else means we're headed for a massive economic crash again.

FB

[racedo]

Looking at the Armistice Day events a very substantial proportion of the modern armed forces in the Uk seem to be sourced from relatively recent immigrant communities Racedo.

Not many officers (yet) but I guess it's another case of immigrants doing the hard jobs that Brits no longer seem to want to do.

Look how Empires fell through history, the local population get too comfortable and expect others to do the work. It is the disconnect between the people and the state.

If a war started next week and Govt indicated conscription on Jan 1, how many would just disappear.

[etudiant]

The problem is that the UK military do not have a convincing war scenario of any kind, so Corbyn is rightfully skeptical of their planning.
Europe has an aging and declining population, as does Russia, so there is little conflict potential there. China is trying to secure its borders while coopting its neighbors with their $8 trillion Belt and Road initiative, they will not change the rules while they are doing so well.
That leaves the poor and wretched in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America, whose principal weapon is their children, desperately pressing to get into the rich enclaves.
Those problems don't have military solutions, as the US and others are discovering. Until there is a more coherent plan to deal with the world as is, as opposed to trying to recreate the cold war, the military will continue to get marginalized.

[dctyke]

I see they are promising 5% pay rises to all the public sector except armed forces, surely a typo.

[Asturias56]

The Manifesto says 5% for public sector workers - doesn't say if the armed forces are included but does say the pay cap will be lifted.

"Our most valuable assets are the dedicated people who work in our public services, but under this government their pay has been cut in real terms. Labour will restore public sector pay to at least pre-financial crisis levels (in real terms), by delivering year-on-year above-inflation pay rises, starting with a 5% increase, to reward and retain the people who do so much for us all"

"Armed forces and their families have been forced to live in sub-standard accommodation.• Failing outsourced contracts have not been terminated.Our Armed Forces personnel received below-inflation pay rises for seven years"

"Labour’s commitment to spend at least 2% of GDP on defence will guarantee that our armed forces are versatile and capable of fulfilling the full range of roles and obligations. We will scrap the public sector pay cap, which resulted in a real-terms pay cut for our armed forces, ensure decent housing for forces members and their families, and guarantee better access for all forces children to good quality local schools. We will consult on creating a representative body for the armed forces, akin to the Police Federation. Labour will improve opportunities for veterans through access to lifelong learning and training, housing and mental and physical health services, and will seek greater consistency in the implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant by public authorities"

[dctyke]

“Labour will give our nurses, teachers, doctors, firefighters, police and others a pay rise to begin to undo the damage caused by the Tories and Lib Dems and reward the people who do so much for us all.”

my mistake, I guess we come under ‘others’.

[Video Mixdown]

“Labour will give our nurses, teachers, doctors, firefighters, police and others a pay rise to begin to undo the damage caused by the Tories and Lib Dems and reward the people who do so much for us all.”
What would these 'promised' pay rises actually be worth when their mad tax-and-spend policies cause hyper-inflation and massive price rises? I for one will never vote for self-confessed marxists/communists.

[Asturias56]

well all parties seem to going on a vast spending spree - maybe none of them expect to have to deliver?

[Imagegear]

As you are all well aware, any party's manifesto/contract will not survive voting day whether elected or not.

I have never felt the urge to debate the merits of such short lived examples of smoke and mirrors.

Fill your boots,,,

IG

[racedo]

The problem is that the UK military do not have a convincing war scenario of any kind, so Corbyn is rightfully skeptical of their planning.
Europe has an aging and declining population, as does Russia, so there is little conflict potential there. China is trying to secure its borders while coopting its neighbors with their $8 trillion Belt and Road initiative, they will not change the rules while they are doing so well.
That leaves the poor and wretched in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America, whose principal weapon is their children, desperately pressing to get into the rich enclaves.
Those problems don't have military solutions, as the US and others are discovering. Until there is a more coherent plan to deal with the world as is, as opposed to trying to recreate the cold war, the military will continue to get marginalized.

That is pretty much history repeating itself but at a breakneck pace.

US was land of the free and home of the braves until 1492 when someone landed there.

US grew from the work of the landless poor / persecuted people of Europe be it Highland clearances, persecution of Presbetyrians in Ireland who are the Scots Irish who made up the backbone of Washingstons army, followed later by the Irish famine survivors or the various wars and pogroms around Europe. This took place over centuries but now mass media showing what US is supposed like encourage people to leave but media ignores the dead and dying living on the streets in the US.

US is on the verge of collapse as Debt, migration and a divided people fight verbally among themselves, with a desire to oust anybody who doesn't agree with a particular viewpoint, it doesn't take much to move it from it from verbal to a bit more. The swamp are out in force telling the people they decide what elected people should do and at their bidding.

Uk is pretty similar but it kept all the trappings of power to the gilded rich, the poor can live in Grenfell tower and other places.

Media spin one narrative but that comes undone so now they want control.

Politicians need to be brave to stand up for their country, there are few I see capable of this.

Most will think short term and for personal enrichment only, a nigerian friend, well educated family said in Africa the issue always was that leaders sought personal power and wealth because they knew once out of power it could be taken from them. The viewpoint was there was never enough money so they would grab more and more, sadly in 20 odd years I see UK politicians using every means possible to do the same where Salary is not enough so use of expenses and fiddles is the means to enrich onself.

[Asturias56]

Pardon me saying so Racedo but that's a bit of a Marxist analysis.

Is the US less likely to collapse than Russia? or China??

[Nige321]

That is pretty much history repeating itself but at a breakneck pace.

US was land of the free and home of the braves until 1492 when someone landed there.

US grew from the work of the landless poor / persecuted people of Europe be it Highland clearances, persecution of Presbetyrians in Ireland who are the Scots Irish who made up the backbone of Washingstons army, followed later by the Irish famine survivors or the various wars and pogroms around Europe. This took place over centuries but now mass media showing what US is supposed like encourage people to leave but media ignores the dead and dying living on the streets in the US.

US is on the verge of collapse as Debt, migration and a divided people fight verbally among themselves, with a desire to oust anybody who doesn't agree with a particular viewpoint, it doesn't take much to move it from it from verbal to a bit more. The swamp are out in force telling the people they decide what elected people should do and at their bidding.

Uk is pretty similar but it kept all the trappings of power to the gilded rich, the poor can live in Grenfell tower and other places.

Media spin one narrative but that comes undone so now they want control.

Politicians need to be brave to stand up for their country, there are few I see capable of this.

Most will think short term and for personal enrichment only, a nigerian friend, well educated family said in Africa the issue always was that leaders sought personal power and wealth because they knew once out of power it could be taken from them. The viewpoint was there was never enough money so they would grab more and more, sadly in 20 odd years I see UK politicians using every means possible to do the same where Salary is not enough so use of expenses and fiddles is the means to enrich onself.

Christ, do you actually believe what you just wrote...??:yuk:

[racedo]

Pardon me saying so Racedo but that's a bit of a Marxist analysis.

Is the US less likely to collapse than Russia? or China??

Yes because US congress seem to want to spend more time getting rid of elected president while aided by elements within intelligence industry than actually governing.
The methods used don't stand up to scruitiny but media are not interested in that, they hate the incumbent so any end justifes the means.

IF they succeed then any future elected President is in for same. Then you have people believing that their vote no longer counts if they vote for a candidate that an unelected group don't like.

Julius Caeser was removed from within, not in a battle. But Rome fell because it imported cheap labour, Romans became too comfortable, they lost the will to fight and spent more time arguing about trivialities than governing while putting on entertainment to keep the masses happy while their treaury was empty.

Russia and China would use raw military power to crush an uprising from within, US would not as too many lawyers would be involved.

[Asturias56]

Rome lasted for a good 500 years after the death of Caesar. The "fall of the Roman Empire" as described has some elements of truth but actually sounds more like Asimov's "Foundation" analysis to me

[racedo]

Rome lasted for a good 500 years after the death of Caesar. The "fall of the Roman Empire" as described has some elements of truth but actually sounds more like Asimov's "Foundation" analysis to me

Timelines move now massively quicker than in Roman and pre Jet age times. The Black Death originated in Asia and wound its war with armies / traders over the Steppes before reaching Europe and then tranmitted by people. This took decade or two from China to UK, armies and their entourage moved slowly. These days an outbreak of something in Asia could be in London in 1 day. News of wars would take years to filter each way. Today it is couple of minutes.

A collapse could be in 100 years or less than 10, I would hope for way longer than the former but fear the latter as people break away into smaller governable areas with like minded people. The more urbanised the world becomes the more easier it is to control / destroy.

In Roman times, North Africa was the breadbasket of the empire for growing things, now it is no chance. Climate change has been around for a long time.

There is an abscence of leadership in the west, that is not going to change.

[ShotOne]

Thanks to the SNP, Corbyn doesn’t even have to be elected to remove our nuclear deterrent. Ms Sturgeon has stated removing Trident is a red line for SNP support in a hung parliament. Any election outcome other than a Tory majority ensures the end of UK nuclear deterrent.

[BVRAAM]

The thread's title is an oxymoron.

There would be no Defence under a Corbyn government.

Any current or aspiring Service person who votes for Labour this election, is a turkey who is voting for Christmas.

He is popular among those who don't know how economies work, and his shopping list would make Brown's spending deficit in 2010 look like pennies.
Defence will be the first department that gets cut when the Tories are elected again to sort the mess out, because Defence doesn't win elections in this country.

If you want our country to be defended, vote for a Party that is led by a patriot. Not a little cretin who gets in to bed with your enemies and would happily send you to prison for pulling the trigger.
Corbyn isn't even the worst - John McDonnell is a whole new level of evil.

[pr00ne]

BVRAAM,

False or fake news! You are posting an opinion as a fact, a fact simply not backed up by the evidence. There is precious little difference in the defence commitments of the main parties. All promise to spend at least 2% on defence as a minimum (though the current mob only actually managed 1.8%) all promise to remain on NATO and all promise to maintain the nuclear deterrent, although Lib Dems would shrink the fleet from 4 to 3 new vessels.
Precious little difference in all of them.

Service personnel will benefit from a Labour Govt in having the public sector pay cap lifted and an immediate pay rise. The Tories have committed to increase the 2% annually over and above inflation by 0.5%, no other party has promised that, though they failed last time round to even manage 2%.

The rest of your post is emotive Tory propaganda.

[Timelord]

True, the manifesto commitments are similar, but Mr Corbyn’s support of terrorist organisations, including the IRA, over the course of his career are a matter of record. I do not accept the “he was seeking an agreement / peace” line; various ministers, civil servants and agencies were doing that- he was supporting those who were engaged in killing British soldiers in Ireland and civilians on the streets of English cities. No party that includes him will ever get my vote, whatever his manifesto says.

[pr00ne]

Timelord,

Oh come on! You go and Trump BVRAAM's fake news with even worse examples! There is not ONE single jot of evidence that Corbyn supported terrorism, the man is a pacifist for goodness sake! Sure he met Adams and McGuinness, but he also met Paisley and Trimble, in an attempt to find a peaceful solution to the troubles. He has condemned terrorism of all kinds, and has specifically condemned major terrorism atrocities by the IRA, INLA, PIRA etc etc etc.
He met these people openly at the exact same time that the Conservative Government was meeting them covertly.
He supports a United Ireland, as do many people, but he does NOT support terrorism.

I am sure he will miss your vote, and I am no Corbyn fan, but please do not peddle these untruths as your reason, you must be better than that.

[jindabyne]

BV &Timelord,
I share your opinions.
Whilst Corbyn has not openly supported terrorism, he has habitually sided with those who engage in terrorism. Entertaining the IRA in London soon after the Brighton bombing by the IRA is one example; rather akin to having tea with the SS whilst our own troops were dying elsewhere.
And Corbyn's views on NATO, expressed in a recent BBC interview, were most certainly (IMO) not those of someone that I would entrust with our Defence.

[Corporal Clott]

pr00ne

Oh, come on. It is impossible to deny that he is a PIRA fan.

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/572x976/a5fe9e0c_1284_4a27_a9ee_ffc99d33ea51_5fd0df2bc39f5a99783c878 2ea09abd0e6ffc09f.jpeg

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/512x768/cc4fc067_2b17_4337_aa76_0ed28a0d11da_f20b500ff2563ef6f37fc73 b5a6695d56a0d1ac6.jpeg

[Timelord]

And my recollection of his “condemnation” of terrorist actions is that it is always couched in language that equates the atrocity to the actions of UK govt or forces. Ie “ I condemn all acts of violence including those by UK forces” or ‘ this act is caused by UK or US foreign policy.” If Pr00ne can find one statement by him supporting or defending UK armed forces in action I will happily delete my post.

If he becomes Prime Minister though, the ultimate judgement will by by our (former?) allies in the 5 eyes agreement.

[Corporal Clott]

And another...
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/650x617/5c30ebf7_a482_408d_83c4_f4bd99aa090a_e7b1b1889175feee52838e3 cfd27fe0848e2667b.jpeg

[Cornish Jack]

It really should come as no surprise that the quality of our MPs is predominantly rubbish when the electorate, as represented in some of the above posts, can do no better than parrot such glib, unsubstantiated nonsense . Typically, the 'cut-and-pastes' don't even carry attribution ... (I wonder why?) Original thought, a little research into FACTS - nah, can't be arsed with all that poncy stuff - 's wot it says in the Mirror/ Sun/Torygraph, innit? It is no surprise that the likes of Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Francois et al can be elected into positions of influence when all they need is to appeal to this sort of unthinking 'opinion'! Possibly more worrying is the quote from a retiring CONSERVATIVE MP (a military historian, no less!) assessing his latest Leader - "The one thing you can rely on with Boris is that he will always let you down "(my emphasis).
Well isn't that nice? ... just unfortunate that, like so many of the Tory Party 'Faithful', he couldn't manage to air his viewpoint while relying on his colleagues to support him in his sinecure! SUCH nice people!

[jindabyne]

Claptrap CJ
Like most, I form my opinions after researching and considering relevant facts. I don't find the need to regurgitate them each time I make an expression. Go easy with that tar brush.

[Cornish Jack]

Claptrap CJ
Interesting choice of terminology - 'Claptrap' - defined as a form of words contrived to elicit applause ... really? I fancy I'd be on pretty short commons if that was the aim in this forum!
- and your relevant FACT consideration on my previous quote from a 'loyal Tory MP' re the trustworthiness/reliability of your 'Leader' would lead to what sort of opinion?

[woptb]

Those who are virulently anti Labour/ JC ,would require an adjustment,akin to deprograming to deny Boris ‘the anointed one’. Socialism isn’t a dirty word, which some of the bloviating, swivel eyed Tory politicians might have you believe!
Tories are still blaming the Labour Party for the crash of 2008,obvs they had control of the sub-prime con & Lehmans in the US!

Johnson is despised by more people in his own party than JC in his! They aren’t warm & fuzzy one nation Tories anymore, they are further right than they have ever been. Johnson is a philanderer,proven liar,racist & gaff prone ;Piccaninies,water melon smiles, reciting the road to Mandalay in Myanmar,to the absolute dispair of the ambassador; His stupidity as foreign secretary is legend & cost a British citizen in Iran,her liberty.

His foreign secretary, a disgraced former cabinet member involved in secret meetings in Israel. To say Johnson’s character is beyond suspect, is beyond doubt!There is room for debate about whether he is a scoundrel or mere rogue, but not much about his moral bankruptcy, rooted in a contempt for truth.
Max Hastings,His former boss said,

“I’ve known Johnson since the 1980s, when I edited the Daily Telegraph and he was our flamboyant Brussels correspondent. I have argued for a decade that, while he is a brilliant entertainer who made a popular maître d’ for London as its mayor, he is unfit (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/10/boris-johnson-unfit-to-be-prime-minister)
for national office (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/10/boris-johnson-unfit-to-be-prime-minister) ,because it seems he cares for no interest save his own fame and gratification.”

His worse vice is cowardice, reflected in a willingness to tell any audience, whatever he thinks is most likely to please,not caring that an hour later he will contradict himself!

[Corporal Clott]

Johnson is not racist, he has made some clumsy gaffs (as ever) but there has been some remorse to those gaffs. Whereas Corbyn has made little attempt to apologise for anti-semitism in his party, or act on it and is the only other party, other than the BNP, to be investigated for such behaviour. He has called Hamas and Hezbollah “friends” - something that he has apologised for recently (there are some things that you knowingly do, with intent, that an apology just will not do). His latest ‘neutral’ stance on Brexit is another shambolic way of trying to win votes rather than lead for a cause. His stance on NATO and the IND is equally wishy-washy (for his own means too). It just shows that you cannot trust Corbyn whereas you might be able to trust Johnson. So the choice is obvious to many.

PS. Then there is this bombshell in the news today (good timing): General election 2019: Chief Rabbi attacks Labour anti-Semitism record https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50552068

[Timelord]

I am no fan of Johnson or the current Conservative party and I agree with much of what woptb posts above, although I believe the “disgraced former cabinet minister involved in secret meetings.........” is actually the Home Secretary. My beef with JC is this: Disagreeing with your nations policy is fine, supporting its enemies is not.
During the Vietnam war millions of Americans opposed the war, They organised, demonstrated, protested and refused to serve. All perfectly honourable. Jane Fonda, on the other hand, went to Hanoi and was photographed smiling and supporting N Vietnamese troops. That is not fine, and it earned her the undying contempt of US servicemen who served there. JC is the same, believing in a United Ireland and peace is fine but entertaining IRA in the Houses of Parliament and demonstrating in favour of the terrorists conspiring to kill British soldiers is not.

I accept that that can be a narrow distinction, but perhaps Pr00ne and CJ can respect my point of view as I do theirs without impugning my intelligence or gullibility .

[woptb]

I am no fan of Johnson or the current Conservative party and I agree with much of what woptb posts above, although I believe the “disgraced former cabinet minister involved in secret meetings.........” is actually the Home Secretary. My beef with JC is this: Disagreeing with your nations policy is fine, supporting its enemies is not.
During the Vietnam war millions of Americans opposed the war, They organised, demonstrated, protested and refused to serve. All perfectly honourable. Jane Fonda, on the other hand, went to Hanoi and was photographed smiling and supporting N Vietnamese troops. That is not fine, and it earned her the undying contempt of US servicemen who served there. JC is the same, believing in a United Ireland and peace is fine but entertaining IRA in the Houses of Parliament and demonstrating in favour of the terrorists conspiring to kill British soldiers is not.

I accept that that can be a narrow distinction, but perhaps Pr00ne and CJ can respect my point of view as I do theirs without impugning my intelligence or gullibility .

Seems reasonable, but shall be popping along to arrange your stoning later, what time would suit?

[Cornish Jack]

Thank you, Timelord - at last an attempt to 'reason' through a viewpoint! Unsurprisingly, I can't agree with the general thrust for one simple reason - WW2 experience. That war, and the disastrous consequences it unleashed, was predicated on a simple principle (which you appear to endorse) 'My country, right or wrong'. Its accompanying traits of Chauvinism, Jingoism, Yah-Boo, we are the greatest, politics are morally unsupportable, leaving no avenue for examination and/or criticism of National policy. Hitler and his henchmen (and women) thrived because of it.
"Those who fail to learn the lessons of history will be DOOMED to repeat them" ...aphorism?- maybe ... accurate? - most definitely!

[beardy]

"Those who fail to learn the lessons of history will be DOOMED to repeat them" ...aphorism?- maybe ... accurate? - most definitely!

This is so often misquoted to support an opinion. The full quote in its context is :

"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana


Nothing to do with learning lessons, all to do with progress.

[Video Mixdown]

'My country, right or wrong'. Its accompanying traits of Chauvinism, Jingoism, Yah-Boo, we are the greatest, politics are morally unsupportable, leaving no avenue for examination and/or criticism of National policy. Hitler and his henchmen (and women) thrived because of it.

You just can’t help yourself can you. Timelord simply suggested that we politely agree to disagree with each others' political opinions, and you come back with an insulting diatribe accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being a closet Nazi!

[jindabyne]

CJ

Try using the English dictionary - not American English!

[Cornish Jack]

Timelord simply suggested that we politely agree to disagree with each others' political opinions,
It may well be possible to interpret it so. It could also be taken as a belief that holding and displaying an opinion contrary to a temporary political stance as part of personal moral values is somehow treasonous.- the WW2 correlation may not be 'comfortable' but it is apt. Unless, that is, you find the actions of the Maquis and others similar to be equally treasonous? You may feel that ANY action taken by your own National Government is inarguably blameless ..."My country, right or wrong" ?
AL 1. To satisfy Jindabyne ... for 'maybe' read 'possibly'. As a similar life-long pedant, I feel your pain !

[beardy]

Did the Maquis represent a National Government or a resistance movement to a National Government?

​​​

[Timelord]

I think that someone has a theory that the first person to invoke Hitler in an argument looses it.

(Googled it : Goodwin’s law)

[Video Mixdown]

Unless, that is, you find the actions of the Maquis and others similar to be equally treasonous?
A ridiculous analogy.
The Maquis were resisting an amoral totalitarian occupying force who did not offer any form of democratic expression to the subjugated population - indeed they would happily murder individuals, groups or whole villages who they suspected of resisting.
We are extremely fortunate that our ancestors campaigned and fought for the right to choose a Government whom the majority believe best matches their own hopes, beliefs and aspirations. Regardless of spin and media manipulation, if they fail they will face retribution at the ballot box.
We may all wish to be governed by paragons of virtue, but they do not exist. Politics is a dirty game and always has been. To climb the greasy pole politicians of all hues need sharp elbows, a ruthless streak and powerful friends, so a free press is essential to drag their skeletons out of the cupboard for us all to examine and criticise before we decide whether or not to vote for them.
Only in places like N.Korea, China, Russia and many other African, Middle Eastern and Asian countries are the political elite free from criticism because to do so invites arrest and imprisonment - possibly torture and murder.
To quote Churchill, “No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time…”

[etudiant]

A ridiculous analogy.
The Maquis were resisting an amoral totalitarian occupying force who did not offer any form of democratic expression to the subjugated population - indeed they would happily murder individuals, groups or whole villages who they suspected of resisting.
We are extremely fortunate that our ancestors campaigned and fought for the right to choose a Government whom the majority believe best matches their own hopes, beliefs and aspirations. Regardless of spin and media manipulation, if they fail they will face retribution at the ballot box.
We may all wish to be governed by paragons of virtue, but they do not exist. Politics is a dirty game and always has been. To climb the greasy pole politicians of all hues need sharp elbows, a ruthless streak and powerful friends, so a free press is essential to drag their skeletons out of the cupboard for us all to examine and criticise before we decide whether or not to vote for them.
Only in places like N.Korea, China, Russia and many other African, Middle Eastern and Asian countries are the political elite free from criticism because to do so invites arrest and imprisonment - possibly torture and murder.
To quote Churchill, “No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time…”

That is a dangerous argument to make imho.
Ireland was forcibly held by England for several centuries, more gently in recent years admittedly, but coercion was always there.
So perhaps Corbyn is more consistent in his position than he is given credit for.

[beardy]

That is a dangerous argument to make imho.
Ireland was forcibly held by England for several centuries, more gently in recent years admittedly, but coercion was always there.
So perhaps Corbyn is more consistent in his position than he is given credit for.
That's an ingenuous comparison. The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there.

[Senior Pilot]

Having lost the thread title plot utterly and gone past anything to do with Mil Aviation it’s time to close this thread :hmm: