Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Corbyn will end austerity and bring back loony left squandering which will very quickly feth our economy.

While Dave the pig man and his chums will continue on his road of ideologically driven austerity and me firstism; widening the social and economic gulf that had been closing since the war and enriching themselves and their cronies in the process like all good career politicians. Oh look I can also make inflammatory statements!

Too bad Camerons austerity involves starving disabled and other vulnerable people instead of getting rid of degenerate druggies like him. That whole so called elite of druggies, degenerates, manipulators. Engaging in drug-networking, secret cliques with degenerate rituals and mass manipulation. They should be the first to die, not the ones to be enriched.

:Blink:

Ah, sorry, forgot about cultural differences. You're right, keeping vulnerable people alive is squandering money and we all shall aspire to be degenerate fratboys and engage in drug-fuelled crony-ism and manipulation to earn wealth and power just like business magazines nowadays openly advice.

 Orlanth wrote:

I will reexplain because you are insistant on missing a simple plainly explained point.

Directly from the article

“The Army just wouldn’t stand for it. The general staff would not allow a prime minister to jeopardise the security of this country and I think people would use whatever means possible, fair or foul to prevent that.

Whatever means possible eh? Of course that means taking all of Friday off rather than knocking off after CO's PT like normal, that will show that filthy pinko.

Your "clearly explained point" isn't particularly valid for one very good reason. If the army goes on strike who would actually notice? The Armed forces do very little actual work in the usual meaning of the word; it makes nothing (aside from the occasional footbridge and the like) generates no income, provides no services (aside from specific national emergencies) and basically does nothing but train for deployments, deployments that will be extremely thin on the ground if Labour win the next election. A strike by the armed forces would absolutely cripple the country. If there was a genuine threat to national security (and I mean genuine) then there is simply no chance that the Armed Forces would stand by and let the country be bombed/invaded.

Your claim that a Labour government would "sell out Gibraltarians and Falkland Islanders" is farcical. It would be a massive blow to the governments credibility for no gain whatsoever; it would never, ever (ever) happen. The Ascension islanders on the other hand are a different story but their situation is completely different..

 Orlanth wrote:

The Russian government have been praising his appointment.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11881065/Russian-ambassador-lavishes-praise-on-Jeremy-Corbyn-over-foreign-policy.html

I rest my case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

Has he made similar statements regarding Russia's 8000 warheads?

Of course not. He isnt concerned about the Crimea either, or pressure on the Baltic states.

And your nation elected this guy to a position of power? Christ, does he also carry around a book by Chomsky that he quotes on occasion?

The idea that Labour Party leaders take their orders from Moscow is an old myth that has endured since the 1920s, but is just that: a myth.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Christ, does he also carry around a book by Chomsky that he quotes on occasion?

I would regard that as a plus.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

I will reexplain because you are insistant on missing a simple plainly explained point.

Directly from the article

“The Army just wouldn’t stand for it. The general staff would not allow a prime minister to jeopardise the security of this country and I think people would use whatever means possible, fair or foul to prevent that.

Whatever means possible eh? Of course that means taking all of Friday off rather than knocking off after CO's PT like normal, that will show that filthy pinko.

It worked for the miners, first time around.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

Your "clearly explained point" isn't particularly valid for one very good reason. If the army goes on strike who would actually notice?

Who would notice ? Everyone, it would ambarass the government internationally.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

The Armed forces do very little actual work in the usual meaning of the word;

Have to stop you there, the comment was ridiculous enough.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

Your claim that a Labour government would "sell out Gibraltarians and Falkland Islanders" is farcical. It would be a massive blow to the governments credibility for no gain whatsoever; it would never, ever (ever) happen. The Ascension islanders on the other hand are a different story but their situation is completely different..

Sa 'farcical' that Blair was halfway through doing exactly that, and believed he could have got away with it.

So farsical Corbyn has claimed to want to betray them, and the Argentine Government have made doplomatic noises praising his appointment for exactly that reason.

As far as blows to credibility is concerned, Corbyn is already that. If he gets in betraying the Gibraltarians and Falkland Islanders is not any great step beyond the nightmare he will already generate. Corbyn will only get in if he sufficiently mobilises the politically correct set that couldnt give a flying feth about Gibraltarians rights because they aren't ethnic or known to them.

AFAIK no foreign government is trying to claim the Ascension islands.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:


And your nation elected this guy to a position of power? Christ, does he also carry around a book by Chomsky that he quotes on occasion?

Dont blame us! So far 250,000 loony left supporters made him leader of the Labour party out of an actual electorate of forty million.
I wouldn't worry the chances of the actual nation voting him into office is very low, most people including many in the Labour party believe Corbyn's party leadership will result in the loss of the 2020 and 2025 elections.

http://www.cityam.com/224256/jeremy-corbyn-odds
Bookies are taking bets on how long until Corbyn is replaced.

Think of it as if the Republicans placed all their hopes for the presidency on Sarah Palin (except Palin is sane compared to this guy). The entire threat resolves around a big IF, Corbyn likely will not get into power. Though he might, you can never write off Labour and there are plenty of idiots who will vote Labour regardless of circumstances, sort of flip side to those who say they would vote Republican if a 'dawg' was standing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The idea that Labour Party leaders take their orders from Moscow is an old myth that has endured since the 1920s, but is just that: a myth.

It wasn't even a myth, it wasn't an allegation at all with one exception, a hoax letter supposedly written to Ramsey McDonald, and that didnt lose him the election, he lost because the Liberals (who he was partnered with) lost seats to the Conservatives in the 1935 election.

Now there may have been a left wing hysteria that they assumed everyone thopught they were taking orders from Moscow, but it was not true.

What was true was that Wilson was on the KGB payroll, it's a matter of historical record, and the Soviets also funded the CND and NUM. CND became a spend force after the fall of the Soviet Union, despite that fact that since then many unstable countries now have the bomb and we are in a worse position in terms of nuclear threat than any time since the 1960's. CND are has beens because they aren't getting the financial backing they used to.

Your Crobyn reminds me of my national "Jean Luc Melanchon" and all the left party.
It seems that everywhere in the world left means: stop to look oustside of the nation, let everything happens and the rest of the world will be better, no enemy, no terrorsit will ever come. They seem so noddy and so hateful of their own homeland...
I mean, why to stop you nuclear program ??? What can it get for UK to do that, in his mind ?
What are his argument to abandon some parts of his country ?

A little history of France:
During the 20th century, algeria was part of France (since 1830). But the algerian wanted to be independant.
So, there was a long war (1954-1962).
But in the end, president De Gaulle decided to put an end to the war, which was really expensive, and let the algerians vote for their independance.
However, part of the army didn't want to obey, and tried a putsch. But only a few followed their orders, and they were quickly arrested.

If it happens in UK, I think it will be the same: just a few guys who try a putsch, but the majority will remains loyal.

 Orlanth wrote:

Have to stop you there, the comment was ridiculous enough.

Its 100% factually accurate actually. As a serving solider I am well aware of just how much quantifiable work the average soldier does when ops and training are removed from the equation. If you were to then remove the pointless and repetitive tasks designed to fill time the Army could come into work at 0800 on a Monday and knock off for the week at 0830.

 Orlanth wrote:
[
What was true was that Wilson was on the KGB payroll, it's a matter of historical record,

Not according to MI5.

MI5 repeatedly investigated Wilson over the course of several years before conclusively deciding that he had no relationship with the KGB

Link

As for the rest of your post well......

Corbyn has been friends with terrorists for years, his shadow chancellor has praised their bravery and has just in the last few days been forced into giving one of the worst and most unbelievable apologies your could ever ask to hear. If I was a military commander I wouldn't be too happy with corbyn becoming PM. But yes I agree the military are there to serve and should respect election results. Even if Mr Corbyn and his cronies are nasty characters. I just hope the British public never give him a chance.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Christ, does he also carry around a book by Chomsky that he quotes on occasion?

I would regard that as a plus.

Really? Chomsky?

Lets be honest here, there are far better self avowed "leftist" and "materialist" theorists out there. I mean you can't really get more Marxist than Slavoj Zizek (in this case distinguishing Marxism from Bolshevism, which is "problematic" as they say...) and he's not exactly a fan. Foucault also had a few things to say about Chomsky.

Chomsky's only dedication is to "anti-imperialism" as an ideology. Everything else is secondary to that, and as such any analysis he offers is inherently flawed. I mean the guy openly supported the Khmer Rouge and then retconned his statements. Basically, Noam shoulda been named Ivan.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/19/noam-chomsky-slavoj-zizek-ding-dong

This is a ludicrous thread.

A single unnamed military person has mentioned that if Corbyn came in, and tried to do much of what he's pledged, there'd be mass resignations.

Okay. Not quite a mutiny/coup really, is it? I mean, I suppose we could all jump around and say, 'But he said "whatever means, fair or foul!" What else could he mean but the military rising up to dethrone the monarch/impose martial law?!' But that would be a bit daft.

The answer is, he's referring to the Armed Forces attempting to pressure the Government through various somewhat underhanded political methods that they normally eschew. AKA, mass public resignations (usually joined with public statements as to why), and leaking of Government defence reformation proposals to the press to generate outrage ahead of enactment. That sort of thing.

It's also happened several times in the past, historically speaking, where the armed forces have done the above, and influenced changes in policy as a result. See the 'We want eight and we won't wait!' pre-WW1 for a good example, or Fisher's leaking of documents to W.T. Stead in 1884 for publication in the Pall Mall Gazette. There are far more than just those, though.

So yes. Pointless story, nothing to froth about. Everyone can move on.

 Ketara wrote:

The answer is, he's referring to the Armed Forces attempting to pressure the Government through various somewhat underhanded political methods that they normally eschew. AKA, mass public resignations (usually joined with public statements as to why), and leaking of Government defence reformation proposals to the press to generate outrage ahead of enactment. That sort of thing.

Which is exactly the problem. The Armed Forces are meant to be resolutely apolitical, quite apart from the ramifications of this 'leak' the individual responsible should face disciplinary action if he is ever discovered, or indeed exists.

If there is a collective chucking of teddys should Labour win in 2020 I wonder just how effective it would be? I suspect not very.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:


Which is exactly the problem. The Armed Forces are meant to be resolutely apolitical, quite apart from the ramifications of this 'leak' the individual responsible should face disciplinary action if he is ever discovered, or indeed exists.

What on earth gave you the idea the Armed Forces are apolitical? Besides, the individual responsible hasn't actually done anything except give an interview in which he's said what he feels, and that in his (empirical) experience, having chatted about things around the (metaphorical) office, he's found some other chaps feel the same way as him.

And quite frankly, I agree with them. If the senior officers feel that political decisions being taken threaten the nation's security to the point that they're willing to resign rather than continue to serve under them, then of course they should have that right. Nobody else gets stood against the wall and shot when they leave because they dislike the actions taken by the new boss, or forced to sign gagging orders, why should the military be any different? Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell haven't exactly been subtle about their time in power, have they? And they had considerably more involvement/authority in top level decisions!

Plus, let's face it, every politician leaks everything they can get their hands on to their political advantage. As do senior civil servants, the Judiciary, and the Royal family. Whatever makes you think that the Armed Forces don't? It's been a grand old tradition of anyone who's in any kind of power to leak documents relating to things they disagree with that they reckon are unpopular for as long as our system has existed. It's not exactly a new thing.

If public pressure forces a bad policy to change, then quite frankly, it probably wasn't a policy anyone wanted to begin with. Likewise, if it's something that embarasses the Government, it probably wasn't something they should have been saying/doing anyway.

 Ketara wrote:

What on earth gave you the idea the Armed Forces are apolitical?

Because that's what the Queen's regulations say. A politicised armed forces in very much in Banana Republic territory and no one wants that.

 Ketara wrote:
If the senior officers feel that political decisions being taken threaten the nation's security to the point that they're willing to resign rather than continue to serve under them, then of course they should have that right.

Of course. Threating to take " whatever means possible" in a national newspaper goes way, way beyond that.

 Ketara wrote:
If public pressure forces a bad policy to change, then quite frankly, it probably wasn't a policy anyone wanted to begin with.

Even if it was in the winning Party's manifesto?

I'm not suggesting that there will be a coup, even if one was attempted it would almost certainly fail, and the rest of the rabblerousing would probably have little to no effect in the real world. 'Leaking' such a document is unprofessional behaviour of the highest order however.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Have to stop you there, the comment was ridiculous enough.

Its 100% factually accurate actually. As a serving solider I am well aware...

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

What on earth gave you the idea the Armed Forces are apolitical?

Because that's what the Queen's regulations say.

Stop that! Your using simple, clear facts and real knowledge in the face of opinion! Thats not how the Internet works!

Good work

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

Because that's what the Queen's regulations say. A politicised armed forces in very much in Banana Republic territory and no one wants that.

No it doesn't. It says that they can't take an active part in the affairs of a party, no military bases or equipment are to be used to further any political goals/interests, and they're generally not allowed to be appointed to any sort of political position.

There is nothing in there saying they are banned from having their own political opinions, playing a passive part in the affairs of a party, or using their positions to express their own political opinions in what way they feel is best for the nation. Which they do quite frequently (see the current First Lord of the Admiralty's piece in the Telegraph on Scottish Independence recently http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10766384/Scottish-independence-would-damage-Britains-defence.html).

The general key is that they are not generally permitted to combine into official political organisation, but personal political acts are permitted.

 Ketara wrote:

Of course. Threating to take " whatever means possible" in a national newspaper goes way, way beyond that.

Christ, talk about overstating an anonymous interview.

 Ketara wrote:

Even if it was in the winning Party's manifesto?

Then no-one would get upset by it, and it would be common knowledge (as opposed to 'leaked'). Leaking documents isn't generally necessary if what's occurring is already in the public eye. I mean, you can't really 'leak' a budget the day after it's been announced, can you?

I'm not suggesting that there will be a coup, even if one was attempted it would almost certainly fail, and the rest of the rabblerousing would probably have little to no effect in the real world. 'Leaking' such a document is unprofessional behaviour of the highest order however.

I contest that this is regular behaviour used by practically every military historically (including all the professional ones), and this is simply the first time it's come to your attention. But because it's shattered your illusions on the matter, you regard it as 'unprofessional'. Even though every other agency in the land does it.

Ketara, you're overlooking the fact that not every government agency in the land has 100,000 heavily armed men and women backing it up!

I also think you're overlooking the seriousness of these comments. This is not some junior minister in the culture and sport department leaking news about council football pitches being sold to a housing developer. This is a high ranking army officer talking about unconstitutional methods, simply because he doesn't like the idea of a Labour government being elected!

Alarm bells should be ringing, regardless of political affiliation.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Ketara, you're overlooking the fact that not every government agency in the land has 100,000 heavily armed men and women backing it up!

They alternatively have the law courts, the House of Commons, and various alternative bases of power. That's the whole purpose of separation of powers. The Army would find it quite difficult to rule this country in a coup, and what's being suggested here is far from that.

I also think you're overlooking the seriousness of these comments. This is not some junior minister in the culture and sport department leaking news about council football pitches being sold to a housing developer. This is a high ranking army officer talking about unconstitutional methods, simply because he doesn't like the idea of a Labour government being elected!

Not quite.

Firstly, the British constitution is unwritten, and mostly based off of historical events, individual court judgements, current laws, etc. As I've already demonstrated (with three examples now, old and new), this happens quite frequently, it's not an unheard of event.

Secondly, it's nothing to do with Corbyn personally or his party affiliation, it's more to do with his intentions. Namely, to abolish Trident, eliminate the defence industry, and leave NATO. Also known as removing every single military strength/defence we possess as a nation. Considering it's their job to consider these things, I'm not at all surprised they're horrified by such extreme ideas. I know they make me personally raise more of an eyebrow than the prospect of a few press leaks.

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Ketara, you're overlooking the fact that not every government agency in the land has 100,000 heavily armed men and women backing it up!

They alternatively have the law courts, the House of Commons, and various alternative bases of power. That's the whole purpose of separation of powers. The Army would find it quite difficult to rule this country in a coup, and what's being suggested here is far from that.

I also think you're overlooking the seriousness of these comments. This is not some junior minister in the culture and sport department leaking news about council football pitches being sold to a housing developer. This is a high ranking army officer talking about unconstitutional methods, simply because he doesn't like the idea of a Labour government being elected!

Not quite.

Firstly, the British constitution is unwritten, and mostly based off of historical events, individual court judgements, current laws, etc. As I've already demonstrated (with three examples now, old and new), this happens quite frequently, it's not an unheard of event.

Secondly, it's nothing to do with Corbyn personally or his party affiliation, it's more to do with his intentions. Namely, to abolish Trident, eliminate the defence industry, and leave NATO. Also known as removing every single military strength/defence we possess as a nation. Considering it's their job to consider these things, I'm not at all surprised they're horrified by such extreme ideas. I know they make me personally raise more of an eyebrow than the prospect of a few press leaks.

And if Corbyn goes before the nation in 2020 and says vote for Labour and I'll scrap Trident and pull us out of NATO, and the nation votes him in...

What then?

Then that's what will happen. We'll probably see most of the upper echelon of the military resign en-masse though, and Corbyn will take a heavy black political eye. It's come close to happening once or twice before, where cuts have been so extreme in nature that not only have the men at the top have threatened to resign, but their immediate subordinates, and their immediate subordinates as well. With such extreme measures, I would expect to see it again.

And quite frankly, if every senior man in the military considers your military vision a bloody stupid idea, it probably is.

 Ketara wrote:
Then that's what will happen. We'll probably see most of the upper echelon of the military resign en-masse though, and Corbyn will take a heavy black political eye. It's come close to happening once or twice before, where cuts have been so extreme in nature that not only have the men at the top have threatened to resign, but their immediate subordinates, and their immediate subordinates as well. With such extreme measures, I would expect to see it again.

And quite frankly, if every senior man in the military considers your military vision a bloody stupid idea, it probably is.

The voting public might see that as throwing your toys out of the pram on an epic scale. Corbyn's support might actually grow in such a situation.

But that's all hypothetical. I'd be surprised if Corbyn lasts until next summer, the Blairites will probably have stabbed him in the back by then.

Still, I'm no Corbyn fan, or Labour voter these days, but I'm left feeling uncomfortable by these comments from senior military personnel.

I've despised every Tory government I've ever had the misfortune to live under, but I've never felt the need to march on 10 Downing street and start a revolution whenever Thatcher, Major, Or Cameron, got elected.

If we take the perspective that the primary role of the military is to defend our nation from threats, both external and internal, then opposing a virtual destruction of our military capabilities is actually the logical move for them to make. Silent Puffin might regard it as unprofessional, but I'm of the opinion that doing nothing in such a circumstance would be the unprofessional thing to do (assuming that doing something 'professional' is doing something in line with your job role).

If it's the will of the country, than yes, you are correct, their resignations will seem petulant, and will affect nothing. Therefore no harm will be done, so it isn't an issue. But if it is not? Then they're actually safeguarding the country, and handing tools to the public with which to pressure Corbyn into following the democratic will. In which case, it still isn't an issue, because they're doing the right thing.

And frankly, when all is said and done, I trust their opinions on military affairs far more than I do an ideologist such as Corbyn.

It's also worth considering the hypothetical situation in which Corbyn is voted in. The Conservative manifesto could be a steaming pile of gak, in which they promise to slaughter the weak and give money to the rich. The Labour manifesto may be a wonderful vision for the country, apart from removing the military, and would result in them being voted into power. However, just because overall Labour were more popular, they don't necessarily have public support for scrapping the military.

It's actually true of almost every political victory here, such as the SNP in the last election, simply being more popular than the other (often poor) choices doesn't necessarily mean you have overwhelming public support for every single one of your policies.

 -Shrike- wrote:
It's also worth considering the hypothetical situation in which Corbyn is voted in. The Conservative manifesto could be a steaming pile of gak, in which they promise to slaughter the weak and give money to the rich. The Labour manifesto may be a wonderful vision for the country, apart from removing the military, and would result in them being voted into power. However, just because overall Labour were more popular, they don't necessarily have public support for scrapping the military.

It's actually true of almost every political victory here, such as the SNP in the last election, simply being more popular than the other (often poor) choices doesn't necessarily mean you have overwhelming public support for every single one of your policies.

It's what we're left with on both sides of the pond, voting for whichever we perceive to be the lesser of two evils.

Personally, given the choice between Trident dismantling or the NHS being strip-mined, it's bye bye subs...

 Ketara wrote:
If we take the perspective that the primary role of the military is to defend our nation from threats, both external and internal, then opposing a virtual destruction of our military capabilities is actually the logical move for them to make. Silent Puffin might regard it as unprofessional, but I'm of the opinion that doing nothing in such a circumstance would be the unprofessional thing to do (assuming that doing something 'professional' is doing something in line with your job role).

If it's the will of the country, than yes, you are correct, their resignations will seem petulant, and will affect nothing. Therefore no harm will be done, so it isn't an issue. But if it is not? Then they're actually safeguarding the country, and handing tools to the public with which to pressure Corbyn into following the democratic will. In which case, it still isn't an issue, because they're doing the right thing.

And frankly, when all is said and done, I trust their opinions on military affairs far more than I do an ideologist such as Corbyn.

If Corbyn were elected with a small majority, say anything up too 20 seats, then yes, scrapping Trident or pulling us out of NATO could be a contentious decision, given the level of opposition.

But if Corbyn does a Blair and wins with a 3 figure majority, say 150+ seats, then that's as clear a democratic mandate as you're likely to see.

Personally, I think that such a momentous decision on the nation's security, if ever it arose, should be put before the British public as a referendum. If Corbyn did that, he would pull the rug from underneath his opponents' feet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Shrike- wrote:
It's also worth considering the hypothetical situation in which Corbyn is voted in. The Conservative manifesto could be a steaming pile of gak, in which they promise to slaughter the weak and give money to the rich. The Labour manifesto may be a wonderful vision for the country, apart from removing the military, and would result in them being voted into power. However, just because overall Labour were more popular, they don't necessarily have public support for scrapping the military.

It's actually true of almost every political victory here, such as the SNP in the last election, simply being more popular than the other (often poor) choices doesn't necessarily mean you have overwhelming public support for every single one of your policies.

The Tories are already implementing that manifesto


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:
It's also worth considering the hypothetical situation in which Corbyn is voted in. The Conservative manifesto could be a steaming pile of gak, in which they promise to slaughter the weak and give money to the rich. The Labour manifesto may be a wonderful vision for the country, apart from removing the military, and would result in them being voted into power. However, just because overall Labour were more popular, they don't necessarily have public support for scrapping the military.

It's actually true of almost every political victory here, such as the SNP in the last election, simply being more popular than the other (often poor) choices doesn't necessarily mean you have overwhelming public support for every single one of your policies.

It's what we're left with on both sides of the pond, voting for whichever we perceive to be the lesser of two evils.

Personally, given the choice between Trident dismantling or the NHS being strip-mined, it's bye bye subs...

You and me both. Leaving aside the moral issue of nuclear weapons, the price tag is obscene and would be better spent on conventional weapons.

Britain has no maritime patrol craft to watch over the North Sea/Atlantic coastlines

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Britain has no maritime patrol craft to watch over the North Sea/Atlantic coastlines

Out of curiosity, why do we need them?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:
It's also worth considering the hypothetical situation in which Corbyn is voted in. The Conservative manifesto could be a steaming pile of gak, in which they promise to slaughter the weak and give money to the rich. The Labour manifesto may be a wonderful vision for the country, apart from removing the military, and would result in them being voted into power. However, just because overall Labour were more popular, they don't necessarily have public support for scrapping the military.

It's actually true of almost every political victory here, such as the SNP in the last election, simply being more popular than the other (often poor) choices doesn't necessarily mean you have overwhelming public support for every single one of your policies.

It's what we're left with on both sides of the pond, voting for whichever we perceive to be the lesser of two evils.

Personally, given the choice between Trident dismantling or the NHS being strip-mined, it's bye bye subs...

I feel exactly the same way.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

But if Corbyn does a Blair and wins with a 3 figure majority, say 150+ seats, then that's as clear a democratic mandate as you're likely to see.

Thats a big if.
.....If Robert Mugabe suddens discovers the mathematical formula for fiscal success and turns Zimbabwe into the cornerstone of the world economy.
.....If Kim Jong-Un convinces South Korea to deman a referendum and flock to vote to unite under his Glorious Leadership and live in peaceful utopian united Korea.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Personally, I think that such a momentous decision on the nation's security, if ever it arose, should be put before the British public as a referendum. If Corbyn did that, he would pull the rug from underneath his opponents' feet.

Because left wing demagogues are always about the will of the people. Yeah, right.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Personally, given the choice between Trident dismantling or the NHS being strip-mined, it's bye bye subs...

Actually money doesn't exist purely as a binary choice. Why look at the price of a nuclear sub in terms of number of nurses you could buy, why not in number of footballers, or MP's salaries.
There is so much squandering going on that it is hard to say that must go so this must stay. The big trouble is that no one is looking at the real issues with regards to fiscal balance, tax avoidance, accrued interest from short termist decisions and above all the gross inefficiency in the civil service. The UK armed forces have been cut and cut again yet there are the same number of pen pushers in protected jobs in the MoD. The NHS uis similarly overstaffed with middle management bureaucrats who don't do any real work.
Trident is affordable, so is the NHS, but no one of any party including the SNP are willing to cross the civil service. It isn't one or other.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

You and me both. Leaving aside the moral issue of nuclear weapons, the price tag is obscene and would be better spent on conventional weapons.

Nuclear weapons have their value by remaining unused, the benefit is indirect political and hard to see from a bar stool. Its very very big in international politics, which translates into economic and political clout worldwide.
Ask yourself why so many nations envy the UK's official nuclear status as part of one of the five declared powers. And how only a small number of nations have managed to get away with being unofficial nuclear powers.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Britain has no maritime patrol craft to watch over the North Sea/Atlantic coastlines

Actually we do. Coastal protection is quite good actually.

 Ketara wrote:
but personal political acts are permitted.

Not when the individual associates the Armed Forces with their personal political views. The Armed Forces as a body is apolitical, at least in theory.

I am well aware that this sort of thing has happened in the past, and it will doubtless happen in the future, that does not mean that it is professional in anyway, shape or form.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
but personal political acts are permitted.

Not when the individual associates the Armed Forces with their personal political views. The Armed Forces as a body is apolitical, at least in theory.

As far as I'm aware, the relevant extract says that current members of the Forces are not permitted to bring the Services into 'disrepute'. That's about the only limit in place with regards to expressing their personal/professional opinions in public.

Otherwise, we'd have to arrest lots of people for giving press briefings. Like the current RAF Chief, Sir Andrew Pulford:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2687781/Royal-Air-Force-chief-launches-blistering-attack-penny-pinching-politicians-making-along.html

Or the previous Army head, General Peter Wall and the current Army head, Nick Carter:- http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/53607/army-wont-be-able-win-wars-if-cuts-continue-general-warns

I believe I also already pointed out an extract by the current First Sea Lord on Scottish independence. I could go on with more links, but I won't.

I am well aware that this sort of thing has happened in the past, and it will doubtless happen in the future, that does not mean that it is professional in anyway, shape or form.

I am surprised to find that you believe the actions of every current service head, and many others before that in every service over the last two centuries to be unprofessional. Perhaps you should write them all a letter telling them that.