Corbin and CDS Squaring-Up
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Odiham
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Is there any difference in what the current CDS has done currently than what Sir Michael and his fellow chiefs did then? I believe not, some may say otherwise."
Yes;
The chiefs back then were commenting on political decisions that were having a detrimental effect on the military. They did so after trying to make their point in private.
The current CDS did not speak to Corbyn about his "worries", Corbyn's stance currently has no bearing on the military (and in all probability never will).
Gen Houghton was playing politics and I question why?
Yes;
The chiefs back then were commenting on political decisions that were having a detrimental effect on the military. They did so after trying to make their point in private.
The current CDS did not speak to Corbyn about his "worries", Corbyn's stance currently has no bearing on the military (and in all probability never will).
Gen Houghton was playing politics and I question why?
"Most of the politicians I know understand that and I think that, dare I say, the responsibility of power is probably quite a sobering thing and you come to a realisation, 'I understand how this thing works'."
You may be right. Either way it enters the realm of judging his suitability as Prime Minister. Fine as a personal opinion, not fine as a public one from CDS in uniform on television.
Beardy, you are stating things that CDS never said. He made no mention of Corbyn's suitability to be a future PM.
Furthermore,
No, was an expression of fact that he would be concerned if Corbyn's opinion were to become government policy. He said nothing about any future government scrapping the nuclear deterrent. THAT may have been a political statement, but CDS chooses his words more carefully than you.
I don't believe Sir Nicholas cast any aspersions, he stated that Corbyn's stance would worry him if it were government policy.
Not once did Sir Nicholas mention or point to Corbyn's integrity, maturity or responsibility. If CDS has demonstrated the danger of Corbyn's statement then it is Corbyn that made himself look foolish.
Of course, it may well also be the case that Corbyn never expects to be PM and is simply using his new position to undermine a military capability as a prominent CND leader - rather cynical perhaps, some might say treasonous.
But the bottom line is that too many people have jumped on the outrage bus about a very straightforward answer to a straightforward question. He said he would be worried if a future PM were to state publicly that he would not use his nuclear deterrent. He made no statement about a future government's policy on maintaining a nuclear deterrent.
Furthermore,
Originally Posted by beardy
The expression of worry is that the politicians may undermine and withdraw the deterrent. That is a political comment.
Originally Posted by beardy
He should not cast aspersions on the integrity, maturity and responsibility of the politicians in public.
Not once did Sir Nicholas mention or point to Corbyn's integrity, maturity or responsibility. If CDS has demonstrated the danger of Corbyn's statement then it is Corbyn that made himself look foolish.
Of course, it may well also be the case that Corbyn never expects to be PM and is simply using his new position to undermine a military capability as a prominent CND leader - rather cynical perhaps, some might say treasonous.
But the bottom line is that too many people have jumped on the outrage bus about a very straightforward answer to a straightforward question. He said he would be worried if a future PM were to state publicly that he would not use his nuclear deterrent. He made no statement about a future government's policy on maintaining a nuclear deterrent.
melmothtw:-
Probably because they are not interested in the biased slant it puts on coverage of UK domestic politics, which are not a very high proportion of the content of the BBC World Service anyway. That, as a reminder, also now comes out of Licence Payers pockets.
As to the list of broadcasters that you pooh pooh, I couldn't agree more. Then again, like those foreigners that you say approve of the BBC, I don't have to pay for them either.
I'm not saying that the BBC should go, I'm not sure the Tories are either. I'm just saying that like every other broadcaster in this country (with the present exception of Channel 4), they should pay their own way. Then perhaps they would stop building Taj Mahal like palaces for themselves around the country and putting full salaried producers on extended home leave. They would then be forced to consider their audience as paramount instead of themselves.
despite all the BBC-bashing that goes on in this country, it is still the source of news most trusted by those outside of it.
As to the list of broadcasters that you pooh pooh, I couldn't agree more. Then again, like those foreigners that you say approve of the BBC, I don't have to pay for them either.
I'm not saying that the BBC should go, I'm not sure the Tories are either. I'm just saying that like every other broadcaster in this country (with the present exception of Channel 4), they should pay their own way. Then perhaps they would stop building Taj Mahal like palaces for themselves around the country and putting full salaried producers on extended home leave. They would then be forced to consider their audience as paramount instead of themselves.
^^^ I think you assume that some mythical group of people that you refer to as the BBC actually spend their time dictating to each and every presenter, programme maker and editor what questions to ask and what opinions to push. That is absolutely not the case.
Chinny Crewman,
Houghton being CJO for early HERRICKs puts his fingers slightly in the mangle, but remember that at that time the single-Service staffs (especially Army) had far more influence than they do now. You only have to read Lord Richards' autobiography to realise how much CGS and ACGS, and not PJHQ, were driving things. As for ELLAMY, the subsequent descent into failure of the Libyan state in no way changes the fact that the military efficiently did what it was tasked to do; I do not believe that it reflects poorly on Houghton at all that the wider structures of government failed to come up with a comprehensive strategy to exploit military success.
Houghton being CJO for early HERRICKs puts his fingers slightly in the mangle, but remember that at that time the single-Service staffs (especially Army) had far more influence than they do now. You only have to read Lord Richards' autobiography to realise how much CGS and ACGS, and not PJHQ, were driving things. As for ELLAMY, the subsequent descent into failure of the Libyan state in no way changes the fact that the military efficiently did what it was tasked to do; I do not believe that it reflects poorly on Houghton at all that the wider structures of government failed to come up with a comprehensive strategy to exploit military success.
^^^ I think you assume that some mythical group of people that you refer to as the BBC actually spend their time dictating to each and every presenter, programme maker and editor what questions to ask and what opinions to push. That is absolutely not the case.
Speaking as 'media' I can assure the more conspiratorial of folks on this forum that in the BBC at least there is no 'they' and there is no 'agenda'. That both sides of the political spectrum often call out the Beeb for not being impartial at times, probably indicates that they are getting the balance about right.
Last edited by melmothtw; 12th Nov 2015 at 08:44.
Beardy, you are stating things that CDS never said. He made no mention of Corbyn's suitability to be a future PM.
Furthermore,..........
.......... He made no statement about a future government's policy on maintaining a nuclear deterrent.
Furthermore,..........
.......... He made no statement about a future government's policy on maintaining a nuclear deterrent.
Coutrney Mil
Spot on. This is a comment about Corbyn's political agenda (which Corbyn would like to see become Government policy), which is outside the remit of his position.
No, was an expression of fact that he would be concerned if Corbyn's opinion were to become government policy.
QUOTE
Speaking as 'media' I can assure the more conspiratorial of folks on this forum that in the BBC at least there is no 'they' and there is no 'agenda'. That both sides of the political spectrum often call out the Beeb for not being impartial at times, probably indicates that they are getting the balance about right.
As media you will be aware that this is not the view of the customer. The BBC is a service industry. The informed customer is always right.
Speaking as 'media' I can assure the more conspiratorial of folks on this forum that in the BBC at least there is no 'they' and there is no 'agenda'. That both sides of the political spectrum often call out the Beeb for not being impartial at times, probably indicates that they are getting the balance about right.
As media you will be aware that this is not the view of the customer. The BBC is a service industry. The informed customer is always right.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the thing with being in Opposition. It's easy. You can rubbish the Government, you can come up with unrealistic policy options - no one ever holds you to account.
Being in Government is hard. People see what you do, they hear what you say, they can make you answer questions, and worst of all you have to make decisions which can come back and bite you on the a£se............. (whether the responsible individuals care or are capable is a different question
)
As Government history crucifies you - but the Opposition rarely gets a mention.....
Lets see whether Corbyn changes his position WRT the deterrent if he ever gets into power ............. suddenly you realise the aspects that you never did when you were sitting on the opposition benches - the spin offs of economic impact, technology impacts, geography, world position and so on............ decision to be made that are far bigger than the single question of 'would I really use the deterrent ?' - the question is more likely to be 'Would I shaft the country and myself if I drop this deterrent ?'
The real issue is Corbyn is old school 'left wing'. They never align with the views of what they perceive to be right wing militarists. The clash with CDS was/is inevitable - it's just a matter of timing.
Arc
*Perhaps we should call ourselves 'Freedom Fighters' rather than militarists - he'd probably think it was an OK occupation then..............
Being in Government is hard. People see what you do, they hear what you say, they can make you answer questions, and worst of all you have to make decisions which can come back and bite you on the a£se............. (whether the responsible individuals care or are capable is a different question
)As Government history crucifies you - but the Opposition rarely gets a mention.....
Lets see whether Corbyn changes his position WRT the deterrent if he ever gets into power ............. suddenly you realise the aspects that you never did when you were sitting on the opposition benches - the spin offs of economic impact, technology impacts, geography, world position and so on............ decision to be made that are far bigger than the single question of 'would I really use the deterrent ?' - the question is more likely to be 'Would I shaft the country and myself if I drop this deterrent ?'
The real issue is Corbyn is old school 'left wing'. They never align with the views of what they perceive to be right wing militarists. The clash with CDS was/is inevitable - it's just a matter of timing.
Arc
*Perhaps we should call ourselves 'Freedom Fighters' rather than militarists - he'd probably think it was an OK occupation then..............
Last edited by Arclite01; 12th Nov 2015 at 09:38. Reason: Government
CM:-
Nothing so crude. It is more a case of only recruiting "people like us", and divesting yourself of those who clearly aren't. The message then gets round quickly to "encourage les autres". If they were an independent profitable company they could try retaining that same business case, but I think it would prove very unsuccessful. Successful independent broadcasters have to look to serving their audience rather more.
melmothtw:-
Both sides of the spectrum are often pleased with their stance. This Marr interview is a case in point. By pointing up Corbyn's limitations as a prospective Prime Minister (courtesy of CDS), they please both the Tories and the Parliamentary Labour Party. So that makes their intervention into party politics alright? Not in my view. That privilege is for the electorate alone which the BBC then records, not the other way around. The BBC is the elephant in the UK media room. People in that room need to be careful lest they be trampled under. People like you melmoth?
I think you assume that some mythical group of people that you refer to as the BBC actually spend their time dictating to each and every presenter, programme maker and editor what questions to ask and what opinions to push. That is absolutely not the case.
melmothtw:-
That both sides of the political spectrum often call out the Beeb for not being impartial at times, probably indicates that they are getting the balance about right.
Surely any broadcaster is going to be too left for some and too right for others? Surely it is just a part of life that this is inevitably so? I think the idea that there is any such thing as absolute neutrality is very hard to imagine starting, for example, with what one considers newsworthy, what aspects to concentrate limited time on and so on.
In any case where is the public supposed to get "neutral" information about how their defence system works so that they have at least the opportunity to make logical decisions? Do the professionals have to avoid explaining how it works now and why in case that steps on the toes of some odd politician out there that is selling some wierd alternative idea?
In any case where is the public supposed to get "neutral" information about how their defence system works so that they have at least the opportunity to make logical decisions? Do the professionals have to avoid explaining how it works now and why in case that steps on the toes of some odd politician out there that is selling some wierd alternative idea?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England
Age: 65
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinny crewman,
The vast majority of the service personnel involved in the nuclear deterrent perform the endless drills despite hoping that it never happens, they remain focussed and committed knowing this.
Are you saying that a politician making a statement that he wouldn't use the deterrent under any circumstances because of his stance on nuclear weapons isn't demoralizing to the service personnel? (Assuming that said politician is in a position to exercise that option).
The vast majority of the service personnel involved in the nuclear deterrent perform the endless drills despite hoping that it never happens, they remain focussed and committed knowing this.
Are you saying that a politician making a statement that he wouldn't use the deterrent under any circumstances because of his stance on nuclear weapons isn't demoralizing to the service personnel? (Assuming that said politician is in a position to exercise that option).
t43562:-
Of course, you are absolutely correct. The problem is that the BBC presents itself continually as being both balanced and neutral, which as you so rightly say it can't be. No doubt it does so because it is funded by a compulsory tax, but that merely points up the contradictory nature of its existence.
I know it is one of our holy cows, along with the Archers and the NHS, but in these days of streaming via the internet and countless channels accessible via Cable and Satellite, the Beeb is no longer the monolith that it once was. The fact that it is so much admired around the world should give hope that it can indeed survive, nay flourish, on its own.
It isn't the Beeb per se that is admired so much as the products of all the creative people that it employs. They will still be around and in demand if it is privatised, and then the BBC can if it so wishes openly display its own political allegiances (probably of a Social Democratic nature I presume, so no doubt the Lib Dems would welcome that ;-). Even so they might well be advised to then curtail the number of women with U.S. accents that populate Radio4, and who are forever haranguing us about how we should behave as a society. That might pose problems for them, as I presume they are here because the U.S. doesn't want to hear from them either...
Surely any broadcaster is going to be too left for some and too right for others?
I know it is one of our holy cows, along with the Archers and the NHS, but in these days of streaming via the internet and countless channels accessible via Cable and Satellite, the Beeb is no longer the monolith that it once was. The fact that it is so much admired around the world should give hope that it can indeed survive, nay flourish, on its own.
It isn't the Beeb per se that is admired so much as the products of all the creative people that it employs. They will still be around and in demand if it is privatised, and then the BBC can if it so wishes openly display its own political allegiances (probably of a Social Democratic nature I presume, so no doubt the Lib Dems would welcome that ;-). Even so they might well be advised to then curtail the number of women with U.S. accents that populate Radio4, and who are forever haranguing us about how we should behave as a society. That might pose problems for them, as I presume they are here because the U.S. doesn't want to hear from them either...
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Odiham
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinny crewman,
The vast majority of the service personnel involved in the nuclear deterrent perform the endless drills despite hoping that it never happens, they remain focussed and committed knowing this.
Are you saying that a politician making a statement that he wouldn't use the deterrent under any circumstances because of his stance on nuclear weapons isn't demoralizing to the service personnel? (Assuming that said politician is in a position to exercise that option).
The vast majority of the service personnel involved in the nuclear deterrent perform the endless drills despite hoping that it never happens, they remain focussed and committed knowing this.
Are you saying that a politician making a statement that he wouldn't use the deterrent under any circumstances because of his stance on nuclear weapons isn't demoralizing to the service personnel? (Assuming that said politician is in a position to exercise that option).
CC,
And when, pray, did CDS express the opinion that Corbyn's position was affecting morale?
He didn't!
Like many on this thread you are attributing to CDS words that he did not use and opinions he did not express. In short you are talking bolleaux.
And if you don't believe me then either read the transcript of the interview, or watch it again before you post any more tripe!
And when, pray, did CDS express the opinion that Corbyn's position was affecting morale?
He didn't!
Like many on this thread you are attributing to CDS words that he did not use and opinions he did not express. In short you are talking bolleaux.
And if you don't believe me then either read the transcript of the interview, or watch it again before you post any more tripe!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Odiham
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suggest you read things properly before resorting to name calling!