Shadow Foreign Secretary proposes radical change to military structure
 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...eat-power.html

Just seen this, it reminds me not of Corbyn or Foot, but the approach to a standing military structure by the Labour Leader George Lansbury back in 1935.

FB

There used to be just "trolls" on the internet, WTF did someone else them to parliment. :ugh:

This is in the Daily Mail. One shouldn't believe everything it says.

One shouldn't believe anything it says.

We have the armed forces to kill people on our behalf.

Ignoring the fact that this story is in the "Daily Right Wing Nutter" I am greatly amused by the pearl clutching and swooning of MPs at the concept that you might actually go to a conflict zone to "...protect human security and in cases of war to dampen down violence rather than intervene on one side or the other".

Gosh, what a terrible idea that we might actually go somewhere to calm things the fu*k down, instead of seeing it as a solution to all our munition expiry dates. If your Government lobbyists include people whose future depends on war and conflict, you can be sure this idea is appalling to them. We already have seen actions where "police, engineers, aid workers, or health workers" have been a key part of the mission, but the "Daily Agitated Loon" instead spews the vitriol about the focus being on "gender balanced and ethnically diverse" as if we have asked a gang of Pedo's to run an orphanage.

The Defence Industry is wholly dependent on us not learning from history and never daring to try a different approach. Plus Daily Fail readers of course...

Kaldor, the academic behind the pamphlet that the Shadow Foreign Secretary is inspired by is very respected in her field and lectures at/is widely read at U.S. War Colleges. Whilst the DM portrays her ideas (and the Shadow Foreign Secretary's interpretation of them) in a way that is difficult to support, (IMO) her work is very interesting and offers solutions to problems that we encounter time and again in warfare/history. Some of it however..(IMO)..is a little idealistic, and that's the bit the DM is trying to whip up into outrage. As always, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle between where we are now (in the UK armed forces) and what is purported to be a good idea here (and has given the Shadow Foreign Sec the oxygen of publicity).

Nor what we hear or see on BBC television either apparently, observing that Miss Nandy was peddling the same line when being grilled by Andrew Marr this morning.

Jack

The point is, assuming the story has been reported correctly, that the authors of the report are the ones trying to wind everyone up. The objectives and aims set out are indeed what ours and other countries armed forces have largely been engaged in for most of their existence, certainly through the 20th and 21st century. The report's authors are quoted after all, as well as the reaction from other Labour MPs. As Union Jack says, Nandy was confirming her position on the report on the Andrew Marr show. I'd say the thrust of the this report is dangerously subjective, plus, the Labour Party has form, they produced a similar report in 1977, "Sense about Defence", this was the effort of a number of the party's MPs to thrash out the best way to reduce what they claimed was excessive defence spending and put to simple good use. They were also exercised by the rise in tension regarding the nuclear stand off. Their solution was a number of heavy UK conventional defence cuts, one option being the cancellation of the MRCA/Tornado, including the air defence variant. Another was to reduce the BAOR's strength from 55,000 to 30,000.

FB

IIRC George Orwell said that that those who oppose violence can only do that because others are committing violence on their behalf. It was I think a reference to pacifists in WW2.
.

POLITICO:

WORRYING LABOUR THIS WEEK: Shadow Foreign Secretary Lisa Nandy is struggling to shake off a fifth day of difficulty that started when she hailed “woke” Joe Biden and accused the PM of “trying to start a culture war over a statue of Churchill” in an interview with the Guardian.

The Mail on Sunday found she’d praised a report that suggested the British Army should be replaced with a gender-balanced “human security service.”

When asked about it on Marr, Nandy denied the MoS story as “complete and utter rubbish,” only for Guido to awkwardly publish the video of her in fact calling the pamphlet in question “inspirational.”

You Tube

Did they get their inspiration from this lot?

Having red through the Mail item I scrolled down to the adverts at the end. The first one was an explanation on how to empty your bowels completely.
A wonderful juxtaposition methimk?

Mind you in the DM, the adverts before you even get to article comments usually involve funeral plans deals with either picture of flowers, a casket about to be placed into the Fire. Or sadly a photo from an Italian chapel from last year rows of caskets with a caption ‚did you know the costs of blah blah blah‘

Hey ho occasionally the DM has a quarter decent story with an one eighth factual exposure.

So back to thread, it is not going to happen like she says or wishes. if that’s the remotest case then May I suggest we offload our FJ cap across the Irish Sea lol as the are mulling about it

Cheers

"Damping down violence"? Don't they issue Blue Berets for that? Always works out well.....I think.