Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Don't worry - Corbyn can't stop Labour destroying the world

I'm a tad baffled by the criticisms of Jeremy Corbyn for confirming the bleedin' obvious - that there is no way that he, as a lifelong unilateralist, would ever push the nuclear button and mass-murder millions of innocent men, women and children in foreign lands.  The argument seems to be that he must submit to the collective will of the Labour party, which at present is pro-Trident, thus requiring the maintenance of the fiction that British nuclear weapons might one day be used, in order to make the 'deterrent' effect credible.  But the decision to launch a nuclear attack is not, and can never be, a decision by committee.  It won't be remitted back to the Labour conference, and then resolved by a tortuous GMB/Unite composite motion.  It's at the total discretion of the Prime Minister, and Labour members have effectively delegated that role to Corbyn, subject to a general election victory.  If they wanted a leader who was willing to push the button, they should have voted for someone else.  Nobody was pulling the wool over their eyes.

In any case, it isn't actually true (unfortunately) that Corbyn's refusal to use Trident renders Labour's support for it redundant.  Even his most fervent admirers don't expect him to be Prime Minister for more than a few years, which leaves plenty of time for a bloodthirsty Labour PM to succeed him and get back to the serious business of destroying humanity. The only thing the 'moderates' have to do in the meantime is stop disarmament taking place, which in Yookay Okay ought to be an absolute doddle.  So please stop worrying.

33 comments:

  1. A favoured tactic of those who favour it is to scream 'pacifist' because he refuses to use Trident. This is utter nonsense and should be turned back on these people in this manner: yer I.S. types don't use Tridents but you wouldn't go around calling them pacifists now, would you? Many ways to wage war, if you're so desperate to do so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " yer I.S. types don't use Tridents but you wouldn't go around calling them pacifists now, would you?"

      Ehm. They don't *have* Trident. If they did they'd use it. Strange argument.

      Delete
    2. "They don't *have* Trident. If they did they'd use it."

      Evidence for that claim? It seems wildly speculative. They might just as plausibly keep it in reserve as a "deterrent", and use the breathing space to consolidate their rule.

      Delete
    3. Not strange at all. We have it and (thankfully) haven't used it.

      And my point was that being anti-nuclear weapon does not necessarily make you a pacifist, as hard as pro-nuclear weapon people wish it was so. You are only a pacifist if you oppose all war altogether, I was urging against the conflation of the two, as if using nuclear weapons was the only possible military tactic.

      Delete
  2. Labour's in a right mess.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I cannot see Corbyn lasting 5 years as Labour leader, let alone that he could win a general election. Watching events since he got elected, I would actually be surprised if he lasts longer than after next May's results. I hope I am wrong, but I can see Corbyn and McDonnell doing massive damage to left wing and progressive politics in the UK. I suspect that they are already well under the thumb of the PLP. The number of things Corbyn has already done U-turns on is worrying, from nationalisation of the utilities, Trident, Nato, their austerity policy seems to have been watered down as well. I think Corbyn and co are going to end up supporting a neo-Liberal/Red Tory agenda at the behest of the right wing in the British Labour Party and the MSM. You can just sense that the New Labour/Prospect faction are biding their time, waiting for Corbyn to discredit the left wing/progressive agenda in the UK by being co-opted and prodded. When Corbyn has disillusioned enough of his supporters and voters then they will move in and remove him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Muttley,

      It is certainly interesting to see how many commentators are keen to paint the Holyrood elections as his 'first real test' (and look likely to ignore the win they will inevitably have in Wales at the same time, for these purposes).

      In fact, this risks falling into a similar trap as Labour did in 2011.....people here are aware that they are not electing a PM (last time, of course, the failure was sending Miliband up a lot and pretending the Holyrood election was about 'defeating the Tories'!).

      In fact, Holyrood is, and really should be, Kezia Dugdale's watch and it is her whose 'first real test' this is. But that's not how it's being spun, and you can only imagine it's because those spinning it that way see it as a chance to damage Corbyn.

      Delete
    2. It is clear to be Johnny that Corbyn has very few real political skills. He is one of those UK lefty types who get all misty eyed over the IRA and a united Ireland, but who knows next to nothing about Scottish politics. I believe there is people who will be actively looking to undermine Corbyn at every opportunity. Corbyn is almost certainly already being undermined by the New Labour faction in Scotland, he was bullshitting about the SNP over privatisation and Cal Mac. As Corbyn appears to know very little about Scotland then somebody must have briefed him, and they have fed him bullshit and lies. If even the Scottish Labour branch office are already taking the piss out of Corbyn, you wonder what is going down at Westminster!..

      Delete
    3. They are already undermining him every day with the willing help of the MSM. I hope he's playing a waiting game and when the dust settles and the right wing PLP realise they need to go along with the 60% of their more left wing party who supported him, he'll slowly reintegrate his core values - and basically Keynesianism makes him about as much of a Commie as FDR and he got 4 terms. However, I may be totally wrong and the self destructive urge of the Labour Party combined with its blood lust when in internecine strife mode and it will just eat itself. People like Chuka Umunna, whose total commitment to his own career is inviolable, will be the enemy within. The real red Tories, that is.

      Delete
  4. This whole affair reveals that Corbyn is unfit to be PM. You don't show your hand on such an issue. You may be absolutely against it - but as far as this country's enemies and potential enemies are concerned it has to be a case of "we may one day use it, depending on the circumstances and threat we are faced with". Would a robber with no bullets in his gun tell the cashier? If the bully lays off you at school because he's heard some tasty stories about your 'older brother', do you walk up to him and tell him you are, in fact, an only child?

    It's amateur night in the UK's opposition parties North and South of the border. Fortunately they are an irrelevance and are likely to remain so.

    Aldo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why do Conservatives always think it's the solemn duty of everyone else to think and act like Conservatives at all times? If you think nuclear weapons shouldn't exist, you don't pretend you'd use them - that would be an insult to people's intelligence. And if you're an anti-monarchist atheist, you certainly don't beg God to save the monarchy through the medium of song - that really would be silly.

      Delete
    2. Oh, the playground analysis as 'realpolitik', is it? I bet you think there really is a big red button. And that only PMs and Presidents have the launch codes? I suspect Corbyn knows that no UK PM has anything to do with when our nukes launch (except maybe getting 5 minutes instead of 3 to duck and cover). Which makes him a well-informed realist. You are in no position to criticize, having demonstrated the utter absence of awareness that strategy itself exists, never mind specific military strategizing relating to nuclear exchanges. Pffft, with this class of 'patriots'...

      Delete
    3. "It's amateur night in the UK's opposition parties North.... of the border. Fortunately they are an irrelevance and are likely to remain so. "

      Certainly polling evidence continues to back that up.

      Delete
    4. Glasgow Working ClassSeptember 30, 2015 at 7:32 PM

      James. Corbyn is not making proposals to put in the Labour manifesto the abolishment of the Monarchy. Until such time he should pay respect to his head of state. Wee Nicola did it recently at the Waverley Line opening. Personnally I think there should be a referendum on the Monarchy.

      Delete
    5. It's personally not personnally. Also, most people use the term abolition not abolishment. Spelling AND inadequate vocabulary, you just can't help displaying your low IQ, can you, Glasgow WC, you old thicko.

      Delete
    6. Glasgow Working ClassSeptember 30, 2015 at 10:04 PM

      How dare you your very rude my IQ was measured at when I was at school in 1932 and it was nearly 90 which is less than 10 points below the average which is 100 so whose tha thickoe now?

      Delete
    7. Glasgow Working ClassSeptember 30, 2015 at 10:34 PM

      Anon. You must have been the school bully. A good old spanking for spelling mistakes.

      Delete
  5. "But the decision to launch a nuclear attack is ...... at the total discretion of the Prime Minister"

    Don't they have to ask the US to push the button for them?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As far as I am aware that is the case. The UK does not have an independent nuclear deterrent in any real sense. It is effectively the American state's nuclear weapons base in Europe.

      Delete
    2. Actually, the UK nuclear deterrent is operationally independent. Obviously, given that they use the same technology, the nuclear deterrents of both the UK and the US are intertwined, but there's nothing that could theoretically stop the UK from nuking New York. SLBMs use inertial guidance, so there's no way of jamming them.

      Delete
  6. On a related subject, a wonderful letter in today's Guardain from the Lithuanian amabassador regarding Corbyn's foreign policy:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/29/lithuania-is-safer-with-nato-mr-corbyn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whatever prevents a war between Russia and the West is what makes Lithuania safer. If eastwards expansion of NATO makes a war more likely, it's ultimately bad for the Baltic states.

      Delete
  7. "Whatever prevents a war between Russia and the West is what makes Lithuania safer...."

    Appeasing a bully nation like Russia will not make Lithuania and its neighbours safer in the long-run - Russia will just see that as a sign of weakness.

    If a sovereign country like Lithunania wishes to join NATO, which is hardly suprising given its history, then Russia needs to respect that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whether Russia respects it is not the issue. The question is whether eastern European countries should ever have been invited to join NATO. It's a geographically-based organisation and the majority of countries around the world are not even eligible for membership. It would have been perfectly reasonable at the end of the Cold War to say "this is a western European and North American alliance, and for the stability of Europe that's the way it should stay".

      Delete
    2. Glasgow Working ClassOctober 1, 2015 at 1:03 AM

      I thought you were a nationalist James. Surely independent nations should choose their alliance like Scotland did 1707 and voted to remain 2014.

      Delete
    3. Scotland didn't choose its alliance in 1707.

      The point is that entering into an alliance is a two-way process. Australia can't join NATO (or NATSISO as we should really call it).

      Delete
    4. Glasgow Working ClassOctober 1, 2015 at 10:35 AM

      The ruling did choose to join and Ausralia has a deal with the USA.

      Delete
    5. Translation : the Scottish people didn't want the union, and Australia is specifically barred from NATO membership.

      Delete
  8. The problem with Corbyn is that he doesn't lead as soon as there is any signs of dissent he backs down. All the hope that was generated with his election has turned to dust already he has U turned with remarkable speed on everything I just hope that my fellow Scots don't fall for all this hollow claptrap.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The problem is that as soon as the situation arose where the PM could have to press the button then JC would be removed and a new PM installed who would incinerate millions of innocent people. There's no getting around the fact that Labour supports genocide.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glasgow Working ClassSeptember 30, 2015 at 10:46 PM

      The situation could arise where the representatives of the innocent millions knowing they could press the button and incinerate millions of other innocent people will take the chance knowing the other lot are weak, stupid and docile.

      Delete
  10. In a sense I sympathise with Corbyn - it must be so confusing, coming to Scotland. You're leading a party on life-support and yet (if you can get past Kez and the spin doctors) out there you can just about discern the very kind of progressive, energetic and radical force you've always believed in and which helped you get your new job, In terms of England's politics at least.

    The logical step would be to join with the indy movement or the very minimum go for broke for full home rule and build alliances with the SNP here (at also at Westminster as more natural political allies to beat your own right wing etc).

    But, like stopping Trident and so many other progressive ideas, the party and system are such that you just can't begin to make the moves you sense are necessary to give Labour even a smidgin of hope.

    What a missed opperchancity - ach well, we'll just have to do without and against Labour...

    ReplyDelete