Corbyn and the Monarchy and Armed Forces.

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...

Yep Nanny I agree with you

nanny?

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

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.

Labour may agree Nanny. Corbyn does not

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 ??

Excellent analysis Pogs thank you

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.

Thornberry not Thornbury for those who like to correct spelling.

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.

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!

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.

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. )

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

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"

One could admire Corbyn's sentiment , but if you are the person in charge of national security ,surely they have to be practical & be prepared to defend the country even if that includes military action.? There is a time for talking & times when talking is not enough. Dammed if you do dammed if you don't!

internet says it is a day to hold events to show our support for our armed forces.

There's nothing to stop anybody hoping and striving is there?
People in many countries hope and strive to come to this country to live trisher
And further to that, many people are actually living the life they want and enjoying themselves living in the UK.

can I just say that I will not be "celebrating " our armed forces anytime soon...in fact anytime at all.I agree with Armistice day and remembrence Sunday but I dont think this is a good idea at all.I'm not even sure what we should BE celebrating them for .Patriotism is all very well but this is a step in the wrong direction.

In answer to your OP Luckylegs, it's because he is sneaky, & secretive under the pretence of being oh so caring Hidden agendas , he knows that if he wants to get anyone other than his devoted followers on side, he has to pretend & pay lip service to certain behaviours, situations etc , clever but very dangerous do not be fooled.

Oh why not emotional pleas rar? And why not hope? There's a saying we are all in the gutter but some of us are looking at the stars. If the younger generation do not have hope and do not strive for a better world we may as well give up now (but I suppose some already have)

Well well well rar now you're the thread police now are you?
Chill, chill

Rather a strident response to a question.

However, just looking at the belligerence even on here will show anyone that world peace is an unattainable dream

Sorry about the hiccough at the beginning but I think it's clear what it should be

As we go marching, marching
I find the lyrics of this song incredibly moving

In the beauty of the day
A million darkened kitchens
A thousand mill lofts grey
Are touched with all the radiance
That a sudden sun discloses
For the people hear us singing
Bread and roses, bread and roses
As we go marching, marching
We battle too for men
For they are women's children
And we mother them again
Our lives shall not be sweated
From birth until life closes
Hearts starve as well as bodies
Give us bread, but give us roses
As we go marching, marching
We bring the greater days
For the rising of the women
Means the rising of the race
No more the drudge and idler
Ten that toil where one reposes
But the sharing of life's glories
Bread and roses, bread and roses