Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Corbyn & Cabinet in the Media

Idris2002 said:
Suppose the generals did decide to go Pinochet on Jezza's ass - would the squaddies follow them?

A genuine question for kebabking , Sasaferrato , likesfish , ViolentPanda
Click to expand...

i saw the article - its a load of crap. the idea that any serving, or retired in the last 100 years general, said whats alleged was said, is utter bollocks.

people might well leave - or grab redundancy with both hands - but no, if Corby, (or anyone else) won an election and decided to reduce the defence budget by 99.999999999999%, or scrap whatever programmes they didn't like, it would be accepted with bad grace, but no one is going to start fighting an elected government.

Generals least of all.
 
I don't think that there is anything in this coup stuff, it's just more unattributed nonsense, but as far as violence goes the saturation of propaganda is so constant that I have wondered several times whether there wasn't a chance of some individual on the far-right taking it at face value and deciding to physcally attack Jeremy Corbyn.
 
kebabking said:
i saw the article - its a load of crap. the idea that any serving, or retired in the last 100 years general, said whats alleged was said, is utter bollocks.

people might well leave - or grab redundancy with both hands - but no, if Corby, (or anyone else) won an election and decided to reduce the defence budget by 99.999999999999%, or scrap whatever programmes they didn't like, it would be accepted with bad grace, but no one is going to start fighting an elected government.

Generals least of all.
Click to expand...

The current threat is silly but I don't think you should be giving every single retired general of the last 100 years that much benefit of the doubt.

Take for example the likes of Walter Walker and Alexander Greenwood during the Wilson period. I'm not suggesting they actually had the capability and backing to carry out the coup plans, but they certainly made noise and preparations, however deluded. So I think the question of whether a retired general would ever come out with this shit is a lot easier to answer than anything beyond that, such as actually acting on it.
 
brogdale said:
Some of those chaps have argued long and hard against my posting that the duty to disobey illegal orders trumps their oath.
Click to expand...

Not me. I see both Queens' Regs and the duty to disobey legal orders as somewhat more valid than an oath to a set of hereditary parasites.
 
ViolentPanda said:
Unlikely. Any order to do so would be illegal, besides which the "political" generals are on the General Staff, and are disliked by real soldiers. ;)
Click to expand...

Well, indeed.

The general officer who'd order such idiocy simply wouldn't get near generals stars - not because generals are moral giants, but because such testicular fortitude is not a quality prized by the selection board, not least because such an officer might say or do nasty things about their fellow generals...
 
If the Mail on Sunday is to be believed*, Diane Abbott made advances which broke up Corbyn's first marriage.






*It's not.
 
This is great Guardian’s terrible dilemma over Corbyn | Jonathan Cook's Blog

The reality is that Corbyn poses a very serious challenge to supposedly liberal-left media like the Guardian and the Observer, which is why they hoped to ensure his candidacy was still-born and why, now he is leader, they are caught in a terrible dilemma.
While the Guardian and Observer market themselves as caring about justice and equality, but do nothing to bring them about apart from promoting tinkering with the present, hugely unjust, global neoliberal order, Corbyn’s rhetoric suggests that the apple cart needs upending.
If it achieves nothing else, Corbyn’s campaign has highlighted a truth about the existing British political system: that, at least since the time of Tony Blair, the country’s two major parliamentary parties have been equally committed to upholding neoliberalism. The Blue Neoliberal Party (the Conservatives) and the Red Neoliberal Party (Labour) mark the short horizon of current British politics. You can have either hardcore neoliberalism or slightly more softcore neoliberalism.
Corbyn shows that there should be more to politics than this false choice, which is why hundreds of thousands of leftists flocked back to Labour in the hope of getting him elected. In doing so, they overwhelmed the parliamentary Labour party (PLP), which vigorously opposed him becoming leader.
But where does this leave the Guardian and Observer, both of which have consistently backed “moderate” elements in the PLP? If Corbyn is exposing the PLP as the Red Neoliberal Party, what does that mean for the Guardian, the parliamentary party’s house paper?
Corbyn is not just threatening to expose the sham of the PLP as an alternative to the Conservatives, but the sham of Britain’s liberal-left media as a real alternative to the press barons. Which is why the Freedlands and Toynbees, who are the keepers of the Guardian flame, of its undeserved reputation as the left’s moral compass, demonstrated such instant antipathy to his sudden rise to prominence.
They and the paper followed the rightwing media in keeping the focus resolutely on Corbyn rather than recognising the obvious truth: this was about much more than one individual. The sudden outpouring of support for Corbyn reflected both an embrace of his authenticity and principles and a much more general anger at the injustices, inequalities and debasement of public life brought about by neoliberalism. Corbyn captured a mood, one that demands real, not illusory change. He is riding a wave, and to discredit Corbyn is to discredit the wave.
Click to expand...
 
The BAs priority is defence of the realm . If they judge corbyn to be a threat to the realm the he's an enemy , simple as . That most likely won't translate into tanks on the streets and lefties being rounded up in Wembley stadium . But it does mean a lot of other options . Such as mass disobedience and all sorts of other forms of skull duggery, in common cause with others .
 
magneze said:
Court martial that general. A coup if the people vote Labour? Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Apparently MoD not capable of finding the 'general'...
....a Ministry of Defence source said it was unacceptable for serving officers to make political statements about a potential future government, the MoD has ruled out a leak inquiry on the basis that it would be almost impossible to identify who gave the quotes as there are around 100 serving generals.
Click to expand...
Impressive 'military intelligence'!
 
the source was 'un-named', what are they going to do ask 100 career officers 'did you say this'? Because they'd all say no the journo made it up.' Which he could well have
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rob Ray
The collapsing media landscape
2
Replies
47
Views
2K
hitmouse
hitmouse
frogwoman
  • Poll
What is the first serious Labour scandal gonna be?
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
188
Views
8K
hash tag
hash tag
tim
Anyone worried about the UK becoming a one party state?
2
Replies
54
Views
2K
Kid_Eternity
Kid_Eternity
Fez909
Positives about the next Labour government
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
178
Views
8K
Silas Loom
Silas Loom
P
In Blackpool South, did people vote because they are head over heals with Labour
Replies
27
Views
995
A380
A380
Back
Top Bottom