Corbin and CDS Squaring-Up
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England
Age: 65
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1.3VStall,
I posted the suggestion that under Corbyn those service personnel involved with the 'Nuclear deterrent' might question the point of the exercise.
I fail to see how this could not affect morale and I respect your right to disagree, what I don't respect is your tone and your haste which led you to accuse the wrong party.
Hope you like egg
I posted the suggestion that under Corbyn those service personnel involved with the 'Nuclear deterrent' might question the point of the exercise.
I fail to see how this could not affect morale and I respect your right to disagree, what I don't respect is your tone and your haste which led you to accuse the wrong party.
Hope you like egg
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by beardy
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.
His response made no reference to Corbyn's wish to scrap the UK's deterrent, which IS Corbyn's agenda and that IS political.
Am I being obtuse here or are you not reading what people write or are you just using this MILITARY forum to make a POLITICAL point?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Odiham
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney I think everyone can see what you are saying but I believe the point is this;
CDS went on a flagship political program on one of the (if not the) most important days in the military calendar and chose to comment on a subject that is currently highly political. It matters not that he was asked a question and answered it, we've all had 'media ops' training. That he was stating facts is also irrelevant, surely the fact that his interview caused much comment on social/print/televised media proves that he was interpreted as being political and so he was at best being foolish at worst in contravention of QRs?
CDS went on a flagship political program on one of the (if not the) most important days in the military calendar and chose to comment on a subject that is currently highly political. It matters not that he was asked a question and answered it, we've all had 'media ops' training. That he was stating facts is also irrelevant, surely the fact that his interview caused much comment on social/print/televised media proves that he was interpreted as being political and so he was at best being foolish at worst in contravention of QRs?
Last edited by Chinny Crewman; 12th Nov 2015 at 20:35.
CC, I'm pleased you can see it, Beardy seems not to see the difference between our military leader criticising politicians or policy and expressing his concern about a remark that undermines UK security as it stands.
Your point is well made, but I think you're also slightly trying to find ways to politicise Sir Nick's statements. Yes, it was on a Political programme and, yes, it is both a political and Defence issue. The media interest that followed his comment points more to the reasonable response of many newspapers, broadcasters and twitterazzi (made up term, but you know what I mean) to reflect anything that grabs the public interest; that doesn't define it as political.
I know QRs would have forbidden me to make public statements concerning Military Policy or about military matters in general. But the (somewhat poor) military PR machine is allowed to. If CDS sees himself as a part of that machine (I suspect he should) then QRs don't prohibit that. I have to admit that I've never read QRs end to end.
Your point is well made, but I think you're also slightly trying to find ways to politicise Sir Nick's statements. Yes, it was on a Political programme and, yes, it is both a political and Defence issue. The media interest that followed his comment points more to the reasonable response of many newspapers, broadcasters and twitterazzi (made up term, but you know what I mean) to reflect anything that grabs the public interest; that doesn't define it as political.
I know QRs would have forbidden me to make public statements concerning Military Policy or about military matters in general. But the (somewhat poor) military PR machine is allowed to. If CDS sees himself as a part of that machine (I suspect he should) then QRs don't prohibit that. I have to admit that I've never read QRs end to end.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Odiham
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure anyone has!
An interesting thread with differing opinions expressed largely in good humour. I suspect we will all have to agree to disagree and this will die a death.
Onto the SDSR announcement, I suspect that will throw up some interesting posts!
An interesting thread with differing opinions expressed largely in good humour. I suspect we will all have to agree to disagree and this will die a death.
Onto the SDSR announcement, I suspect that will throw up some interesting posts!
CM,
No need to shout 😉 The only political point I wanted to make is the defence of democracy. I really don't like Corbyn, but he has a right to free speech, unimpeded by involvement of the military. I happen to agree with CDS's comments. I just don't think he was wise to make them in a forum that could give anybody the chance or opportunity to attack him nor them.
We are extremely lucky to live in a country where the military keep out of politics. Well I do, you live in France where post war events in North Africa led to military inspired violence and bloodshed in the metropole. (At the time the Gendarmerie was also a part of the military.) They are still remembered, bitterly by some, fondly by others. The divisions they created are diminishing, but are still there. We should learn how to avoid that in the UK.
The whole thing is pretty academic, but there are important points of principle. It's not worth falling out over until there is direct action.
No need to shout 😉 The only political point I wanted to make is the defence of democracy. I really don't like Corbyn, but he has a right to free speech, unimpeded by involvement of the military. I happen to agree with CDS's comments. I just don't think he was wise to make them in a forum that could give anybody the chance or opportunity to attack him nor them.
We are extremely lucky to live in a country where the military keep out of politics. Well I do, you live in France where post war events in North Africa led to military inspired violence and bloodshed in the metropole. (At the time the Gendarmerie was also a part of the military.) They are still remembered, bitterly by some, fondly by others. The divisions they created are diminishing, but are still there. We should learn how to avoid that in the UK.
The whole thing is pretty academic, but there are important points of principle. It's not worth falling out over until there is direct action.
beardy:-
Well, they famously didn't in the last century, until the Queen Mother told them, "I don't think that would be a very good idea, dears". Uniquely a fine mess that Lord MB didn't manage to get us into...
We are extremely lucky to live in a country where the military keep out of politics
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Regarding QRs, which version would CDS read?
Is the light blue version still called QRs and ACIs, or has that been changed?
Thread drift warning:
CM, you missed a treat and possibly a load of dosh. I rarely opened QRs and didn't find an allowance or wrinkle. The one I liked best was the right of a living in officer to retain his room, appropriate to his rank, except where the station commander so ordered, in writing and with reason.
Is the light blue version still called QRs and ACIs, or has that been changed?
Thread drift warning:
CM, you missed a treat and possibly a load of dosh. I rarely opened QRs and didn't find an allowance or wrinkle. The one I liked best was the right of a living in officer to retain his room, appropriate to his rank, except where the station commander so ordered, in writing and with reason.
It is amazing that we get guys moaning that no-one in high places says anything about anything until they retire, then we get a CDS who answers a question whilst in post gets slagged off. Make your minds up, people, you can't have it both ways. CDS has every right, indeed the duty, to state THE FACTS. It was not political conjecture.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Odiham
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is amazing that we get guys moaning that no-one in high places says anything about anything until they retire, then we get a CDS who answers a question whilst in post gets slagged off. Make your minds up, people, you can't have it both ways. CDS has every right, indeed the duty, to state THE FACTS. It was not political conjecture.
I acknowledge the point made earlier regarding speeches at RUSI etc... however the Marr show v RUSI doesn't really compare.
OK, this is becoming a somewhat pointless discussion because one or two folk here are reading into others' statements that which they wish to read to support their own arguments rather than the writer's intent.
And that is particularly the case with Sir Nicholas Houghton's answer to a question that was a part of, not only of a much longer and wider-ranging interview, but also just one of very many interviews between Andrew Marr and many politicians, commentators and military people. CDS himself has featured many times in these interviews and has commentated openly and far more politically on numerous subjects without any of those currently riding the outrage bus ever remarking about it. That has only really happened after one somewhat extreme politician has made a fuss about it. Where were you all when CDS and others were commenting on important matters with a link to politics before Corbyn got all up himself about it?
By the way, the transcripts of all the very many similar interviews are available. If you can't be bothered to find them I can provide links.
Given the number of misquotes and adventurous interpretations of Sir Nick's response, here are the actual words:
Two points to note.
CDS only stated that he would be worried if the thought that a Prime Minister would not use the nuclear deterrent under any circumstances were publicly stated. He made no reference to Corbyn, simply the public announcement of such a thought. In fact, when Marr tried to tie CDS's response specifically to Corbyn, CDS dismissed the premise, quite rightly, by saying that "there’s a couple of hurdles to cross before we get to that." His reply referred to the thought declared publicly, nothing to do with Corbyn saying it.
The rest of that part of the interview was explaining why declaring the thought publicly negates the deterrent effect of being a nuclear power and noting that politicians generally get that.
Nowhere in his careful response did CDS ever say, express or hint at any of the following:
As to continuing conspiracy theories about a mythical BBC agenda, to those that still think the Board push people out for political reasons, just look at the very wide (political and social) range of programmes the Corporation airs, many not actually made by the BBC and many that are totally opposed to your supposed BBC stance.
And that is particularly the case with Sir Nicholas Houghton's answer to a question that was a part of, not only of a much longer and wider-ranging interview, but also just one of very many interviews between Andrew Marr and many politicians, commentators and military people. CDS himself has featured many times in these interviews and has commentated openly and far more politically on numerous subjects without any of those currently riding the outrage bus ever remarking about it. That has only really happened after one somewhat extreme politician has made a fuss about it. Where were you all when CDS and others were commenting on important matters with a link to politics before Corbyn got all up himself about it?
By the way, the transcripts of all the very many similar interviews are available. If you can't be bothered to find them I can provide links.
Given the number of misquotes and adventurous interpretations of Sir Nick's response, here are the actual words:
ANDREW MARR: Of course we now have the leader of the opposition who says quite openly he would never press the nuclear button. Does that worry you?
GENERAL SIR NICHOLAS HOUGHTON: Well it ... it would worry me if that, er, thought was translated into power as it were because ...
ANDREW MARR: So if he wins, he’s a problem?
GENERAL SIR NICHOLAS HOUGHTON: Well there’s a couple of hurdles to cross before we get to that.
ANDREW MARR: Of course.
GENERAL SIR NICHOLAS HOUGHTON: But the reason I say this – and it’s not based on a personal thing at all, it’s purely based on the credibility of deterrence. The whole thing about deterrence rests on the credibility of its use. When people say you’re never going to use the deterrent, what I say is you use the deterrent you know every second of every minute of every day and the purpose of the deterrent is that you don’t have to use it because you successfully deter.
ANDREW MARR: So no point at all in spending billions and billions of pounds if our enemies think we’d never use it?
GENERAL SIR NICHOLAS HOUGHTON: Yeah because deterrence is then completely undermined. And I think people have got to ... You know politic... 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’.
GENERAL SIR NICHOLAS HOUGHTON: Well it ... it would worry me if that, er, thought was translated into power as it were because ...
ANDREW MARR: So if he wins, he’s a problem?
GENERAL SIR NICHOLAS HOUGHTON: Well there’s a couple of hurdles to cross before we get to that.
ANDREW MARR: Of course.
GENERAL SIR NICHOLAS HOUGHTON: But the reason I say this – and it’s not based on a personal thing at all, it’s purely based on the credibility of deterrence. The whole thing about deterrence rests on the credibility of its use. When people say you’re never going to use the deterrent, what I say is you use the deterrent you know every second of every minute of every day and the purpose of the deterrent is that you don’t have to use it because you successfully deter.
ANDREW MARR: So no point at all in spending billions and billions of pounds if our enemies think we’d never use it?
GENERAL SIR NICHOLAS HOUGHTON: Yeah because deterrence is then completely undermined. And I think people have got to ... You know politic... 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’.
Two points to note.
CDS only stated that he would be worried if the thought that a Prime Minister would not use the nuclear deterrent under any circumstances were publicly stated. He made no reference to Corbyn, simply the public announcement of such a thought. In fact, when Marr tried to tie CDS's response specifically to Corbyn, CDS dismissed the premise, quite rightly, by saying that "there’s a couple of hurdles to cross before we get to that." His reply referred to the thought declared publicly, nothing to do with Corbyn saying it.
The rest of that part of the interview was explaining why declaring the thought publicly negates the deterrent effect of being a nuclear power and noting that politicians generally get that.
Nowhere in his careful response did CDS ever say, express or hint at any of the following:
Disrespect to the Leader of the Opposition,
Disagreement or disapproval of the Leader of the Opposition's political views nor his intention to scrap or undermine the UK's nuclear deterrent,
Morale in the Armed Forces,
Judge Corbyn's suitability to become Prime Minister,
"Answer a specific question relating to the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition's previously expressed distaste of a nuclear deterrent" (he commented ONLY about his worry about the public expression of such a thought,
Use the Andrew Marr programme as any kind of platform.
I highly recommend to those that are so outraged by your own perception that this is a military leader making political comment that you go and find the transcripts of more of Marr's programmes and then think a little more. You may just find that you have been induced to react by Corbyn's embarrassment at his own folly and by some press sensationalism that followed.Disagreement or disapproval of the Leader of the Opposition's political views nor his intention to scrap or undermine the UK's nuclear deterrent,
Morale in the Armed Forces,
Judge Corbyn's suitability to become Prime Minister,
"Answer a specific question relating to the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition's previously expressed distaste of a nuclear deterrent" (he commented ONLY about his worry about the public expression of such a thought,
Use the Andrew Marr programme as any kind of platform.
As to continuing conspiracy theories about a mythical BBC agenda, to those that still think the Board push people out for political reasons, just look at the very wide (political and social) range of programmes the Corporation airs, many not actually made by the BBC and many that are totally opposed to your supposed BBC stance.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney Mil,
A very well reasoned post, thank you. The line between military openly answering such important questions and treading on politicians' vegetable patches is very fuzzy. In this case, CDS has trod very carefully and skilfully, as he always does - you should try speaking at one of his meetings without thinking it through very carefully.
I see your point and fully concur. I hope the hard of thinking will actually take the time to read it all.
A very well reasoned post, thank you. The line between military openly answering such important questions and treading on politicians' vegetable patches is very fuzzy. In this case, CDS has trod very carefully and skilfully, as he always does - you should try speaking at one of his meetings without thinking it through very carefully.
I see your point and fully concur. I hope the hard of thinking will actually take the time to read it all.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..and it is exactly this predictive statement which shows Corbyn's judgement in such a poor light. I defend his right to be a unilateralist, to campaign on the subject and even his right not to press the button in the final event. But to make the public pronouncements about what he would do at this stage shows the most galloping self -indulgence and lack of judgement.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,923
Received 2,847 Likes
on
1,217 Posts
Never fear they have the top team now on the shadow defence side..... errr Ken Livingstone..
He ( the Shadow Defence Minister) should fit right in
Now PC'ness aside, is that really a person you want deciding Military policies ?
Ken Livingstone refuses to apologise for 'mental health' comment about shadow minister - BBC News
Ken Livingstone has refused to apologise for comments about a shadow defence minister despite Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn urging him to do so.
Mr Livingstone told the Mirror Kevan Jones - who has suffered with depression - needed "psychiatric help".
Mr Livingstone told the Mirror Kevan Jones - who has suffered with depression - needed "psychiatric help".
Mr Corbyn's spokesman said he was "incredibly concerned that people with mental health problems shouldn't be stigmatised".
He added: "He has worked with Kevan in the past on this issue and is impressed by his bravery in speaking out on his own mental health issues. Ken should apologise to him straight away."
He added: "He has worked with Kevan in the past on this issue and is impressed by his bravery in speaking out on his own mental health issues. Ken should apologise to him straight away."
Ken Livingstone refuses to apologise for 'mental health' comment about shadow minister - BBC News
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The trouble is, for OUR democracy to work properly you need an effective and viable opposition.....
What a bunch of twunts the current opposition [liarbour] are indeed.
What a bunch of twunts the current opposition [liarbour] are indeed.