Jeremy Corbyn becomes new Labour Leader

[Ironsided]

How about him telling the people like it is. A 100 quid in the pockets of a single mom nurse of five children will get 100 quid into the economy. 100 quid in the pockets of her private employer will do nothing for anyone but his worthless status and the GDP.

 

[ParkCungHee]

So, a military coup has been pre-emptively threatened in the event Corbyn wins the election and actually attempts to govern.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...byn-says-senior-serving-general-10509742.html

“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. You can’t put a maverick in charge of a country’s security.

“There would be mass resignations at all levels and you would face the very real prospect of an event which would effectively be a mutiny.”

Between this and General Dannatt, it seems quite a few British Generals seem to think their job is that of Turkish or Egyptian generals, to step in when democracy gets out of hand.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Hm, indeed those statements are quite bad. When did the british army return to ww1 mentality?

Anyway:


Link to video.

 

[PhroX]

So, a military coup has been pre-emptively threatened in the event Corbyn wins the election and actually attempts to govern.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...byn-says-senior-serving-general-10509742.html



Between this and General Dannatt, it seems quite a few British Generals seem to think their job is that of Turkish or Egyptian generals, to step in when democracy gets out of hand.

My reaction to a mass resignation from people like him would be "good riddance". Anyone who would act like that shouldn't be allowed to hold a senior position in our armed forces.

 

[ParkCungHee]

It's less the resignations than the "all methods fair and foul" and "mutiny" that stands out.

 

[Flying Pig]

So, a military coup has been pre-emptively threatened in the event Corbyn wins the election and actually attempts to govern.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...byn-says-senior-serving-general-10509742.html

Between this and General Dannatt, it seems quite a few British Generals seem to think their job is that of Turkish or Egyptian generals, to step in when democracy gets out of hand.

Unfortunately, a lot of senior officers are the sort of public-school and university people that, after spending most of their lives in a place that too often encourages senior people to believe that they walk on water, do end up thinking like that. Personally, I think making statements like that should be grounds for disciplinary action, since it's obviously trying to use rank and military status to sway votes - less kindly, you can call it intimidation. Unfortunately again, officers above major have a nasty habit of getting away with the sort of murder that tends to be weeded out by the (mostly) benevolent supervision of senior NCOs. One of our division commanders recently sent a quite infamous letter around his junior officers, indicative of both a terrifyingly outdated view of the world and a severe lack of people saying 'are you sure that's a good idea, sir?'.

 

[Mise]

Pretty scary. If any thing, it's a very good reason to clip the army's wings preemptively.

"You can't put a maverick in charge of this country's security" -- you mean like that kind that will mutiny if a democratically elected leader decides to act on its popular mandate?

 

[Flying Pig]

Not sure I agree, because the threat isn't that the men with guns will start shooting the wrong people, but that the men with guns will refuse to shoot anyone at all. In other words, it's based not on the army's strength but its importance. If anything, it's an argument that politicians should work towards a world in which they don't need military force, so don't have to worry about it threatening to weaken itself or withdraw its services.

I don't think they named the general in question, but now I would dearly love it to be Cowan.

 

[Mise]

Fair point.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Not sure I agree, because the threat isn't that the men with guns will start shooting the wrong people, but that the men with guns will refuse to shoot anyone at all.

In the world of military coups, the distinction is often fuzzy. Consider, for example the situation in 1914, where you have a paramilitary threatening to seize control of government institutions in defiance of parliament, and the army threatening to not shoot anyone.

I don't think they named the general in question, but now I would dearly love it to be Cowan.

That's the odd thing about British Media-Political culture. Say what you will about American media, but they know you make news by outing anonymous sources.

It couldn't be that hard for the other papers to find out who this is?

 

[Flying Pig]

In the world of military coups, the distinction is often fuzzy. Consider, for example the situation in 1914, where you have a paramilitary threatening to seize control of government institutions in defiance of parliament, and the army threatening to not shoot anyone.

Another fair point.

That said, I don't think that's what he had in mind, nor do I think it's likely to happen in the time-frame that Jeremy Corbyn will be contesting elections. However, he's doing what our military leaders have always done, but particularly since the end of the Cold War - responding to politicians who don't play to their interests (ie, who threaten to cut defence) by saying that whatever is planned will cause us to be immediately invaded or nuked by the many foreign leaders who can't wait to get their hands on Buckingham Palace. Of course it's their job to look out for their own, and people in other branches of public service do it just as much, if not more - the NHS being a great example - but I do wish that people would look beyond their own little kingdoms a bit more.

That's the odd thing about British Media-Political culture. Say what you will about American media, but they know you make news by outing anonymous sources.

It couldn't be that hard for the other papers to find out who this is?

All they would need to do would be to find a disgruntled general who wishes that the world was more like the 1840s and had a knack for saying the profoundly stupid.

Outing anonymous sources might make good stories, but also guarantees a lack of the pretty-good stories that you get from anonymous sources for at least the near future. Do American papers (I've got the New York Times in mind, but I don't know much about them) that like to think of themselves as 'respectable' not respect anonymity? It's usually more the habit, I've found, for (say) the Sunday Times to report an anonymous source, and the Mail or the Sun to go and find out who it was.

 

[Kyriakos]

Link to video.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Outing anonymous sources might make good stories, but also guarantees a lack of the pretty-good stories that you get from anonymous sources for at least the near future. Do American papers (I've got the New York Times in mind, but I don't know much about them) that like to think of themselves as 'respectable' not respect anonymity? It's usually more the habit, I've found, for (say) the Sunday Times to report an anonymous source, and the Mail or the Sun to go and find out who it was.

Generally the rule is Anonymity applies to your sources, and your sources alone. A journalist can promise not to share your secrets, but he can't promise nobody else will dig them up.

I do think you're right that the General in question probably didn't realize the gravity of what he was saying.

 

[Takhisis]

Another fair point.

That said, I don't think that's what he had in mind, nor do I think it's likely to happen in the time-frame that Jeremy Corbyn will be contesting elections. However, he's doing what our military leaders have always done, but particularly since the end of the Cold War - responding to politicians who don't play to their interests (ie, who threaten to cut defence) by saying that whatever is planned will cause us to be immediately invaded or nuked by the many foreign leaders who can't wait to get their hands on Buckingham Palace. Of course it's their job to look out for their own, and people in other branches of public service do it just as much, if not more - the NHS being a great example - but I do wish that people would look beyond their own little kingdoms a bit more.

Hmmm yes, all branches of public service tend to take turns at being numpties, but it's nto the same when the armed forces and/or security services do this.

Also, does it strike anyone else as odd that the Army threatens not to fight if an unnecessarily pacifist person becomes their commander in chief?

 

[Antilogic]

I sorta expect that level of bombast and coup-threatening from the US south, but I'm surprised to see it in the UK. I don't know why this is.

 

[Takhisis]

Well, the classes from which the Army and Air Force officer cadres have been historically drawn have also been known -historically- for marrying cousins.

 

[Flying Pig]

It's worth saying that it's not 'the Army' making threats, and we have no reason to believe that it's anybody senior like CGS or CDS - my money is on 'general' here meaning a disgruntled minor division commander or staff officer.

 

[brennan]

Hopefully housing will come up again in PMQs this week. In a bold move to end a shortage caused by decades of insufficient building the Conservatives have announced that they will build a million houses by 2020.

A million houses is not even going to be enough to meet increased demand in this period, let alone address the deficit, which includes a shortfall of nearly half a million units in the five years these jokers have already been in power alone.

 

[Takhisis]

It's worth saying that it's not 'the Army' making threats, and we have no reason to believe that it's anybody senior like CGS or CDS - my money is on 'general' here meaning a disgruntled minor division commander or staff officer.

Well, the Army could issue a statement proclaiming all of this to be nonsense and at least engage in a token investigation of the

‘Did you do it, General?’
‘No, sir. I most assuredly did not.’ (rinse and repeat)​

type. The statements are quite a serious breach, in my view.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Hopefully housing will come up again in PMQs this week.

Unlikely - there are no PMQs until after the Party Conference season now!