Another unwitting supporter of Corbyn rolls up for a pop.
Gideon Osborne is warning that Corbyn is a national security risk, on account of him wanting to ditch the Trident nuclear weapons programme.
This is most of what he said:-
“For the new unilateralists of British politics are a threat to our future national security and to our economic security. We’re going to take on their dangerous arguments and defeat them.”
The only breakdown in agreement over the need for a nuclear deterrent was during the 1980s when Labour was dominated by the left, he said.
“Now that consensus, which is so important for our security and reliability as an ally, risks being shattered again by an unholy alliance of Labour’s leftwing insurgents and the Scottish nationalists.
“This isn’t an argument about the past – the return of the unilateralists to British politics threatens our nation’s future security. In a world that’s getting more dangerous it would be disastrous for Britain to throw away the ultimate insurance policy that keeps us free and safe.”
Now I may be missing something here, but apart from the insertion of a few poison words or phrases, “dangerous arguments”, “unholy alliance”, “disastrous”, etc, there is absolutely fuck all of substance here.
My clear favourite though, is “ultimate insurance policy”. What a fucking load of unqualified bollocks that is. Odd choice of language too. Can you imagine the nuclear principle in the world of car insurance?
“Yeah, I’m on the A34. I’ve just had another car hit me as I was joining the slip road. He went bang into the side of me and the fucker isn’t admitting fault”
“One moment, sir. It says you have ultimate cover”
Perhaps George needs to get busy diplomatically and make those two countries aware of the dangers of driving without insurance?
I guess NATO helps Germany, and that is a different argument, but from a distance they both sort of seem to be doing OK.
The totally gobsmacking premise upon which George’s argument is founded upon is that everything here is rosy and we simply need to protect it from other loons with nuclear weapons…
To my mind that is not the case, and my main problem with Trident is the enormous cost that could be put to better use across all areas of our society.
I’m not a dyed-in-the-wool “Nuclear=BAD” type, but even if I were rabidly pro-nuclear deterrent, I’d still listen to arguments to get rid of it - on the basis that the banks have fucked things up for most of us, and we could do with reducing the monthly insurance direct debit.
The other big Corbyn story doing the rounds is an attempted smear on his credibility based on prior claims that Osama bin Laden should have been tried in a court of law, instead of being executed. First off, I am alarmed that people find his statements so alarming. International Courts may not be as expedient, but they would have provided us with the perfect opportunity to belatedly state that these are our values. We put people on a stand, try them and convict them using a combination of evidence and human intuition. The denouement to this sorry episode should have been a trial, not a Kathryn Bigelow film.
I think we’re on extremely dangerous ground when people complain about someone suggesting that we follow due process, and when closure is found in a multiplex instead of an international court.
Julian Baggani has written a fascinating opinion piece in the Guardian. His big idea? Corbyn should remove the Labour whip as soon as he takes office.
If, as expected, Jeremy Corbyn wins the Labour leadership election, he will immediately have a historic opportunity to change political culture for the better, for good. What’s more, it’s an opportunity he will have no choice but to take.
The only way out of this is to perform some political judo, harnessing the force of his biggest disadvantage in his own favour. This he can do quite easily by announcing that under his leadership, there will be no whip. Necessity will be the murderer of convention.
Rather conveniently, this would not just be an expedient move but a necessary and principled one. The whip has had its day. The public is sick of party-line-toeing politicians and want independent people answerable to constituents, not apparatchiks. That is precisely why Corbyn is so popular in the first place. He is seen as his own man, not an identikit career politician trying to climb the greasy pole.
The only thing nuclear weapons would seem to buy you, assuming you’re not the sort of fucking madman to actually use them, is membership of the “Don’t Fuck With Us” club.
“Hoi! India! Pakistan! Don’t you make those nukes!”
“We’ve made the nukes. Don’t fuck with us”.
NATO’s original mission seems to have changed from countering the threat to world communist revolution, to simply containing Russia. Containment can cause as many problems as it solves. Many of the contributing factors the First World War were a result of Britain’s containment of the largest power on the continent, Germany. Germany responded by militarising, with the construction of the High Fleet being an open challenge to British naval supremacy.
The US seems to want to act as gatekeeper between Russia and its newly instituted missile and military base curtain.
I’ll think you’ll find the French tried to contain and humiliate them in the train carriage, the British tried to contain them in the 30’s. The French have a lot to say for over that document, the British were far more understanding and wanted Germany to rebuild as soon as possible as it saw the danger of having the void there.
Bazza does history lessons every week at the chippy.
I’ll think you’ll find the French tried to contain and humiliate them in the train carriage, the British tried to contain them in the 30’s. The French have a lot to say for over that document, the British were far more understanding and wanted Germany to rebuild as soon as possible as it saw the danger of having the void there.
You’re talking about the signing of the Armistice. I’m talking about the conditions that led to the war. The train carriage has nowt to do with why the First World War started, but was propagandised (notably after the fall of France) afterward and is probably more meaningful in the Second World War context.
Hitler made the French sign their surrender there.
Bazza does history lessons every week at the chippy.
Fish and chips please. Yes, I’ll have salt and vinegar. Leave the history off though
Pap the humiliation was 1918 in the train carraige, the same carraige used in 1940. The Germans never forgave the vindictive French and they had a point in that, Bazza will learn you on history, Bazza is good at history.
Containment can cause as many problems as it solves. Many of the contributing factors [to] the First World War were a result of Britain’s containment of the largest power on the continent, Germany. Germany responded by militarising, with the construction of the High Fleet being an open challenge to British naval supremacy.
That’s what I wrote. Dunno where you got the idea of the 1918 armistice from.
Ok cool, I still don’t neccessarily agree with that either, you can’t blame Britain for what happened, those were very very different days and Empire building was the norm Nationlism was rampant and Britain was dragged into the war. Germany always thought Britain would remain neutral as so to protect her possesions, Germany was jealous of Britains Empire but that wasn’t Britain’s fault.
Many factors contributed but I have never seriously heard Britain was responsible for World War 1.
“I’m planning to vote for Andy Burnham, because he could singlehandedly bring about the end of the entire Labour movement through the sheer force of his lack of personality.
“Though I’m also impressed by Yvette Cooper’s record in making token criticisms of Tory austerity policies while voting for them at every opportunity. She might be the candidate to get us under that magical 30 per cent threshold.”
Labour voter Bill McKay, from Stockton, said: “I’m backing Jeremy Corbyn, because having yet another leader everybody thinks is an eccentric, out-of-touch socialist might be just the final nail we need.
“I might support Liz Kendall, though, just so the end can be swift.”
One thing I’ve found fascinating about this contest is public’s distrust of the media in relation to reporting on these matters. Private Eye has always been good at that, and I chortled at that piece when I read the first few pages today. I think that there is now an expectation, with some justification, that the press will go after figures that are perceived to be a threat to the establishment. A lot of papers went after Farage using some quite questionable tactics, such as dredging up the opinions of his 17-year old mind, as assessed by a teacher that had a clear beef with him.
In some senses, Corbyn has had it easier. His record of voting and political campaigning holds up with the benefit of hindsight, which let’s remember, he didn’t have at the time. This has shielded him from most of the attacks, as has the genuine sympathy accorded to him by some of the people he has supposed to have offended. Despite the threats of a coup, I think he’s much less likely to get embarrassed by members of his own party. Unless it’s one of his 20 MP backers being embroiled in a scandal, he’s got no problem. No-one will blame Corbyn for the actions of a Labour MP that has come out against him. If he keeps doing what he’s doing, the typical charges of hypocrisy can’t be as easily landed. I think your average Brit has a lot more respect for honest disagreement than being told what they want to hear. His long-term commitments and objections will stand him in good stead.
In others, he has had it much harder. Barring the Morning Star, there is no national newspaper fully behind him. Even the left wing papers have had trouble fully getting behind him. The Guardian is backing Cooper. The Mirror have gone for Burnham. They’ve both published opinion pieces that support Corbyn’s aims but institutionally, they’ve gone for Neo-Liberal Labour. We’ve only seen his own party have a sustained go at him so far. The Tories have mostly held back, thinking him beatable, although Osborne’s intervention suggests they now don’t want him winning it.
My take is that Corbyn is now a threat; not just to the neo-liberal incarnation of the Labour Party, but as a genuine contender in the 2020 general election. The other candidates are far too busy chasing a certain section of the electorate to be able to prove a genuinely effective opposition - too constrained. It may just coincide with a period of our history when an exhausted public start to question their press as much as their governments. especially when a simple box-out on Private Eye so readily demonstrates a collective desire to push an agenda.
Jeremy Corbyn scored an overwhelming lead over his rivals during the Sky News Labour debate, according to an unofficial poll of viewers using Sky Pulse.
About 80.7% of those surveyed immediately afterwards believed Mr Corbyn had won the final hustings.
Liz Kendall was a distant second on 8.5%, with Yvette Cooper on 6.1% and Andy Burnham on 4.7%.
