Corbyn and the Monarchy and Armed Forces.

What ever has that to do with people hoping and dreaming of better things rar? Attending Glastonbury, enjoying music, camping out do no-one any harm and may spread a little peace and love. If there has to be a day to celebrate anyone I'd like it to be the rescue services, the fire men and women, the lifeboat crews, the paramedics and those who put their own lives at risk to save others.
Armed Forces Day is an attempt to make militarism acceptable we should throw roses and sing peace songs- "All we are saying Is give peace a chance"

Oh dear Rigby. Now you have stirred up a few memories.

I'd never heard of Armed Forces Day and I didnt know we had to Do Things to respect our armed services.
What's wrong with remembrance day? I do donate to the British Legion and have members of the armed forces in family so
I am not a complete wilting snowflake, but can't see what's wrong with going to Glastonbury ( apart from the toilet facilities. )

Attending Glastonbury probably means that you are doing all right ( given the price of the tickets) and are happy ( so why are they striving?) I am all for people having a good time, and they can sing Give Peace A Chance if they like, or Tie Me Kangaroo Down or anything they want to.It will do feck all in advancing peace in this planet though.

norose do we have to show we support them because the government totally neglect them...men sent home mentally and physically disabled ,living on the streets ,depending on charities .I live in an area where the Nuclear base is.just last month ALL sailors and mariners have been barred from pubs and clubs because of the amount of sexual harrassemant and fighting they bring with them..it has take decades of theis unacceptable behaiour for the local businesses to decide to do that .But enough is enough...mayeb the government could get them support from pprofessionals ...but THAT would cost money and there isn't a money tree ! Only when your 10 MP 's from NI apparently!

The facts are easily established that Labour whilst under the leadership of Corbyn / McDonnell/Thornubury /Abbott has an agenda re defence that will chime with their views, known connections and what they have spouted not only since their rise to power but from their time as back benchers .

Corbyn et al have a totally different view on Trident to the Labour Party (not the new/returned Labour Members). Corbyn has for the purpose of being seen to be towing the Party line dropped temporarily his view to disband Trident and that is hypocrisy but none the less what he has to do 'for now'.

Corbyn is no admirer of NATO and has made some blatent remarks. Corbyn as PM could try and pull us out of NATO, refuse to defend NATO allies under attack etc.

Corbyn et al have over the years wanted our Security Services to be disbanded such as MI5. They are at odds with the Labour Party but again there seems to be an impasse ' for now' and the recent Labour Manifesto is at odds with their historic views. Again it is a case of 'towing the party line'.

If given more power they will impose their 'known' personal views on defence?. If ever they become Prime Minister, Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary then the Labour Party will have to possibly totally alter it's stance on defence.

So the OP question , 'Why hadn't he the guts to just come out with it?'

He and his closest circle have for years 'just come out with it' until he became Labour Leader. From that point he has given interview after interview, speech after speech that gives the electorate a knowledge of his personal view which is at odds with the Labour Party view (not the new/returned members).

Who would become the dominant voice for Labour if Corbyn / Momentum became the UK's elected party ? Who knows and thereby hangs a tale.

Thornberry not Thornbury for those who like to correct spelling.

Surely if he were PM and wanted to have any of these policies they would need eventually to get through Parliament?

Europe celebrates VE Day -8 May - if people want an armed services day what was wrong with using a date which has some meaning and is connected to the Services rather than what appears to be just a day out if the blue. In some European countries it is a Bank Holiday and services are again held at cenotaphs.

Excellent analysis Pogs thank you

It might be 'excellent' if any of POGS post was based on fact.

Here is an extract from the Labour Manifesto on Defence, which she obviously hasn't read, preferring instead on what she thinks is in it.

"We will ensure that our armed forces are properly equipped and resourced to respond to wide-ranging security challenges. Labour will commit to peacekeeping, including support for a UN Emergency Peace Service.
As the security threats and challenges we face are not bound by geographic borders, it is vital that as Britain leaves the EU, we maintain our close relationship with our European partners. Alongside our commitment to NATO, we will continue to work with the EU on a range of operational missions to promote and support global and regional security.

The last Labour government consistently spent above the NATO benchmark of 2 per cent of GDP. Conservative spending cuts have put Britain’s security at risk, shrinking the army to its smallest size since the Napoleonic wars. The scrapping of Nimrod, HMS Ark Royal and the Harrier jump-jets have weakened our defences and cost British taxpayers millions.

Labour’s commitment to spending at least 2 per cent of GDP on defence will guarantee that our Armed Forces have the necessary capabilities to fulfil the range of obligations, and ensure our conventional forces are versatile and able to deploy in a range of roles.

Labour supports the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent. As a nuclear-armed power, our country has a responsibility to fulfil our obligations under the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. Labour will lead multilateral efforts with international partners and the UN to create a nuclear-free world."

Somewhat different from an 'excellent analysis' I'd suggest POGS ??

Labour may agree Nanny. Corbyn does not

From welshwife:

Surely if he were PM and wanted to have any of these policies they would need eventually to get through Parliament?

Exactly - so surely there would be a democratic vote which may or may not turn out how a particular individual wants, but that's too bad.

Ah....but you have to agree that POGS post was all opinion and not backed up by any evidence at all.

nanny?

Yep Nanny I agree with you

Labour may agree Nanny. Corbyn does not

I can see why some people swallow the Theresa May 'I am the Government' line. They really don't seem to understand that deciding on policy is a consensual affair and that the job of the leader is to ensure, as far as possible, that, if in government, the party achieves the aims set out in its manifesto.

The Labour manifesto is quite obviously, given what we know of Corbyn's personal views, built on consensus. If they got into government he has to lead toward the goals of the manifesto, not his own views.

It's May who was hell bent on Dictatorship. And still is with her dodgy deals to help her cling to power...

Corbyn is at odds with the Labour Party in general over several things, if he ever managed to get into power the next manifesto would be very different.
He is wedded to the idea of getting rid of Trident or any nuclear deterrent, and really only believes in using the armed forces for peacekeeping projects.
So, yes, POGS an excellent post from you.

NannyMcPhu

I said this:-

"Corbyn et al have over the years wanted our Security Services to be disbanded such as MI5. They are at odds with the Labour Party but again there seems to be an impasse ' for now' and the recent Labour Manifesto is at odds with their historic views. Again it is a case of 'towing the party line'."

I know what was in the Labour Manifesto.

My point is widely accepted that the PLP and the Corbyn/Momentum party are at odds on many defence aspects.

Why do you think the Shadow Defence Secretary Nia Griffith is at odds with the likes of Corbyn and Thornberry on occasion?

It is because Nia Griffith sticks to the Labour Party position but the gang of 4 go off piste and make their personal views known.

I was surprised she wasn't removed from the Shadow Cabinet to be honest. A sensible women in my opinion.

There is also the fact if Corbyn should be asked to form a government before the next General Election he would have to have a coalition or confidence and supply with the Greens, Plaid Cymru, the SNP who would ' all ' be only too willing partners to completely change the defence strategy of the UK.

The question is not what we feel as individuals but what the defence policy of the UK could look like under Corbyn. I don't think many will not understand where he stands on the matter.

My point is widely accepted that the PLP and the Corbyn/Momentum party are at odds on many defence aspects.

Widely accepted hey[rolls eyes] As far as I am aware the LP believes in this little thing called democracy - it may be a new concept to some Tories who think buying votes, etc., is OK, but whatever members of the PLP - after all they are individuals and will have differing opinions - or Jeremy Corbyn think or members of the party, whether they belong to momentum or not, think it is a vote in their Conference that makes policy - or am I wrong?

What no one should be expected to do is to suddenly tell the world that the views you have held for 50+ years have changed because the conference vote is different to your own view. I can imagine just what the likes of you, POGS would say if anyone did that.

I know the Cons like to keep these things under their hats and not make human-like comments but this Labour Party seems to appeal because we can see democracy isn't any easier for them than for us.

My opinion, and I repeat this is only my opinion POGS (though there is the evidence out there to suggest this might be the case) is that the PLP will unite behind Corbyn, with a few exceptions.

I accept that as a long-time pacifist (as I am too) and a member of CND (I marched in my time) and a holder of a prestigious peace award Corbyn has views which some might consider different. As a back bencher he upheld his views and principles.

Now, however, he is the leader of the Labour Party and has another strongly held principle to uphold, that of democracy. I genuinely feel that this man, while still having strong anti-nuclear and pacifist views, recognises that as Leader the will of the majority within his party, democratically elected, is reflected in The Labour manifesto. And as a man of principle he will bow to the god of democracy.

That is my take on him exactly Nanny

I'm wig Nanny on the issue of Corbyn's commttment to the democratic process in the Labour Party. its clear that the anxiety amongst MPs and many party members about his ability to lead, rather than simply campaign, has been lessened by his behaviour during and since the election.

True, now that they are scenting the Labour Party may win next time Labour MP's are not so noisy about getting rid of Corbyn ( and in any case they can't get rid of him.)That doesn't mean they agree with his hard left politics.
I think that Corbyns aim all along is to take the Labour Party in as far a left direction as he can, deselecting enemies if he can along the way ( not just him personally doing this, his team,Momentum advisors etc.)

But corbyn isn't a man of principle