A New Day has Dawned , Jeremy Corbyn New Labour Leader , Tom Watson his deputy

Details of the new shadow cabinet are starting to be released.
Andy Burnham has accepted the post of shadow home secretary , Hilary Benn will be shadow foreign secretary.

www.bbc.co.uk...

a reply to: gortex

Got to point out that I am posting this after only reading the OP, but.....

Sorry mate, I can not share your enthusiasm.

I feel the party political system has outlived its fit for purpose and this is simply further evidence of it.

Yet I am a realist and recognise that whilst we have the current system it is entirely necessary to engage with it.

I am a naturally 'leftist' leaning individual on most subjects.
My family are all 'traditional Labour voters' and I have voted Labour on the vast majority of my visits to the voting booth.
I very much doubt I could ever bring myself to vote for the Tories, or for that matter the LibDems after their sell out to the Conservatives.

But I will never, ever support or vote for a party led by a man who expresses support for murdering, IRA scum.
Or a man who seems to have a loathing for our own Armed Services and for many basic aspects of British heritage and culture.

I accept that I probably know less about the man than many on here.
But what I do know leads me to think that he stands for and represents everything I despise about the champagne socialists that seem to be so prevalent within the Labour Party - they neither know nor care about the genuine cares and concerns of the vast majority of the ordinary British population and have an arrogance and smugness that is at least as equal to that of Cameron and his set of twats.

Given the options I have a genuine and deep rooted fear for the future of this country.

Now to read the rest of the thread.

I really don't see Corbyn is suggesting anything other than what is already functional in Germany. Nationalisation, unions. So what's the big deal? People are talking about him like is Stalin with horns.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: gortex

Got to point out that I am posting this after only reading the OP, but.....

Sorry mate, I can not share your enthusiasm.

I feel the party political system has outlived its fit for purpose and this is simply further evidence of it.

Yet I am a realist and recognise that whilst we have the current system it is entirely necessary to engage with it.

I am a naturally 'leftist' leaning individual on most subjects.
My family are all 'traditional Labour voters' and I have voted Labour on the vast majority of my visits to the voting booth.
I very much doubt I could ever bring myself to vote for the Tories, or for that matter the LibDems after their sell out to the Conservatives.

But I will never, ever support or vote for a party led by a man who expresses support for murdering, IRA scum.
Or a man who seems to have a loathing for our own Armed Services and for many basic aspects of British heritage and culture.

I accept that I probably know less about the man than many on here.
But what I do know leads me to think that he stands for and represents everything I despise about the champagne socialists that seem to be so prevalent within the Labour Party - they neither know nor care about the genuine cares and concerns of the vast majority of the ordinary British population and have an arrogance and smugness that is at least as equal to that of Cameron and his set of twats.

Given the options I have a genuine and deep rooted fear for the future of this country.

Now to read the rest of the thread.

I understand why you are saying this, I really do, but unfortunately the media have spun what is really going on. I urge you to look at the primary evidence before forming your judgement.

Corbyn is a pacifist so doesn't support violence. He does however understand that there is always two sides to every story, and to make peace you have to talk and make an effort to understand the cause of your opponent's actions. I am not sure where the idea of his loathing for armed services stems from but I am pretty sure it's the orders from the top he is in disagreement with rather than the people who make up the armed services.

If you don't mind me asking, what are the concerns you are worried Corbyn doesn't know/care about?

a reply to: Scouse100

Corbyn is a pacifist so doesn't support violence.

As admirable and noble that pacifism is its not really an attribute I'd like to see in the nations leader.
Amongst the many responsibilities that a Prime Minister has includes the security and safety of the nation.

I don't blindly support the deployment of UK Armed Forces abroad and I certainly don't support any sort neo-colonialist agenda, however, I am a realist and I fully understand that at times the use of force is the ONLY option.
Its a bad world out there and there are some very bad people in it who wish to do some very bad things - sometimes wielding a big stick is the only thing these people understand.

And I find it rather hypocritical that a 'pacifist' refuses to condemn the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians that the IRA committed during The Troubles and shares a platform with some who were actively involved in terrorist activities against both the people and Armed Services of this country.
How on earth can such a man be entrusted with the security of this nation?

The British people will never vote for a man who has expressed support for murdering terrorists, plain and simple.

He does however understand that there is always two sides to every story, and to make peace you have to talk and make an effort to understand the cause of your opponent's actions.

I think most people recognise that there are two sides to every story and that every diplomatic effort possible should be sought before resorting to any type of military action. And I think its fair to say that many, if not most, people acknowledge that this most certainly hasn't been the case in recent years.

But at times Corbyn and his like seem more intent on appeasing those that would seek to do us ill rather than protecting this country, its people and their interests.

And its quite telling that Kirchner has reacted so positively to Corbyn's election given that he seems quite willing to ignore The Falkland Islanders Right to Self-Determination and is willing to surrender sovereignty of the Islands to Argentina despite them having no legal nor moral right to them.

And if he thinks giving up the UK's independent nuclear capability will make the UK a safer place well all I can say is that he's quite out of step with almost every single person I know.

I am not sure where the idea of his loathing for armed services stems from but I am pretty sure it's the orders from the top he is in disagreement with rather than the people who make up the armed services.

His refusal to condemn the IRA whilst expressing concerns about the conduct of UK military personnel, his stated intention to strip the Armed Services to the bone, (something The Tories seem intent on just in a rather more subtle manner), and the Trident issue all suggest a dislike of the military.

If you don't mind me asking, what are the concerns you are worried Corbyn doesn't know/care about?

Well there's the obvious one - a continuation or even expansion of the open door immigration policy.

And for many he just comes across as a typical champagne socialist more concerned with imposing his PC brand of over bearing, namby pamby policies rather than addressing core issues.

a reply to: gortex

It is about time we had someone who stood for real labour values and was not a closet tory whom only joined the party to seek a career in politics and go after there own ambitions.

Now we need to take back the rest of the party by electing unionists back into it in place of politics graduates straight out of university as was the norm under new labour.

I hope he gets in but the electorate are a shallow crowd, I do disagree over his defence stance and think the special agreement with the US need's to be safeguarded but we also need to get something back from it rather than it serving only the vested interests of the elite, the special relationship was supposed to be a relationship between the interests of the US and the UK not the interests of a group of rich fraudsters and oligarchs as has been for the last 30 years.

But whatever happens to the special relationship Jeremy is the right man for the country and we need him, lets hope the Tory's realise just how many of us are literally wanting there blood for what they have done to our own people and wake up from there cushy upper class attitudes before it is too late for them and they consign themselves to 30 years of oblivion by there wrong attitude, of course they control the media and even the so called public broadcaster the BBC is right wing and has been trying to pull Mr Corbynne apart on TV and blacken him to the electorate, I have really had my eye's opened these past few years to just how much a propaganda mouth piece they really are, were are the storys of the 50.000 who died as a result of Tory driven coalition benefit austerity cuts, these should be on documentary's as these are not foreign but our own people.

God willing Jeremy will become our prime minister and even if he does not the strength of the hunger of a left wing government in the UK should put the fear of God into the Tory scumbag's.

A threat to the family, economy and national security?

Well under Cameron only the elite have gotten better off, the poor are dying, the economy is on a knife edge and China may well lead us into another recession which oddly would serve us very well indeed as it would put the torys on the back foot and of course they are investing £30 billion on trident when our population are being forced into zero hours contracts.

Still they showed there true nature when he tried to rig the upcoming European membership referendum by changing the voting process (as they did before the last general election in an attempt to exclude the poorest from voting) and of course a lot of idiots whom voted for them on the strength of that alone have had egg on there faces, I want out of Europe but I would never vote for a hooray harry who has never really worked a day in his life and by that I mean like I did in factorys on the shop floor and not in some board room playing games with daddy's money.

The truth the Torys are out of touch and want to turn us into a nation of servile slaves and to coin there own political speech they want to kill of the excess population by starving us to death if we can not find work.

If you want the kingdom of the beast look no further than David Cameron and his ilk but if you want to live in a human society well Jeremy is honest and true to his word, lets hope they don't murder him before the next election as I suspect he will open a lot of investigations into there corruption and expose them for what they really are and that is criminal scum.

a reply to: gortex

It's pretty obvious why the child rape concealment specialist has been chosen as the 'Golden Boy'. He's here to attempt to protect the chid rape/murder entrapment political control system. A vote for Corbyn is a vote for child rape and controlled politicians.

Don't get fooled again.

It emerged, during that time, that paedophiles had been able to systematically rape and sexually abuse scores of vulnerable boys and girls in the borough throughout the Seventies and Eighties, infiltrating all 12 of its children’s homes in the process.

The Labour-run council had, meanwhile, both facilitated the abuse by employing known paedophiles and brazenly attempted to cover it up, shredding crucial documents and dismissing subsequent media reports about the scandal as ‘gutter journalism’.

Staff who raised concerns were accused of racism and homophobia, and often hounded out of their jobs. Some, including Liz Davies and Neville Mighty, received death threats.

Almost 30 council employees accused of child sex crimes were allowed to take early retirement (on generous pensions) instead of being subjected to formal investigations or referred to the police.

As this revolting saga unfolded, Davies and her colleagues expected Corbyn to begin demanding that something be done about it.

He was, after all, an outspoken Left-wing ‘firebrand’. And, thanks to their briefing, he had detailed knowledge of the scale of the scandal.

Surely, they thought, Corbyn would therefore stop at nothing to protect Islington’s vulnerable children, and to bring rapists, pornographers and possible murderers to justice

Or so they hoped. But, in the event, Davies and her fellow social workers would be sorely disappointed.

Corbyn never wrote to Davies, or telephoned, to acknowledge their meeting, or thank her for seeking to blow the whistle.

‘After that meeting, we never heard another thing,’ Davies recalls. ‘There was no letter. No phone call. I never, ever saw him speak about it.

‘In fact, whenever I saw Jeremy afterwards, sometimes years later at Stop The War marches and events like that, I’d always go up to him and say: “This scandal is still going on, Jeremy.” He’d be very polite, but he never seemed to do anything.’

Indeed, 23 years later, Liz Davies has yet to see Corbyn express what she regards as sufficient anger, or regret, over the Islington abuse scandal, or to publicly criticise the many local politicians, council workers and political allies who allowed it to happen in the first place.

This seems highly pertinent given that Corbyn is now standing for the Labour leadership, at a time when historic abuse allegations are to be the subject of a major public inquiry.

Indeed, the question of what Jeremy Corbyn did, or didn’t do, when the now notorious child sex scandal hit his Islington North constituency all those years ago, became a talking point in the current leadership election.

Fellow Labour MP John Mann published an open letter accusing him of ‘doing nothing’ to prevent the abuse. ‘Your inaction in the 1980s and 1990s says a lot — not about your personal character, which I admire, but about your politics, which I do not,’ Mann wrote, adding that the Left-winger’s track record on the issue made it ‘inappropriate’ for him to now become party leader.

Mann further pointed out that, in a separate 1986 incident, Corbyn had gone so far as to attack the Conservative MP Geoffrey Dickens for drawing public attention to the alleged existence of a child brothel on Islington’s Elthorne housing estate.

After Dickens — who was convinced there was a conspiracy to cover up widespread paedophilic abuse in political circles and the security services — had raised fears of a child prostitution racket operating there, Corbyn used a local newspaper to accuse the Tory backbencher of ‘getting cheap publicity at the expense of innocent children’.

Then he formally complained to the Commons Speaker about Dickens visiting the constituency without first informing him, calling those actions ‘irresponsible’.

butlincat.wordpress.com... eremy-corbyn-of-paedophiles-preying-on-boys-on-his-doorstep-but-claim-he-did-nothing/

...an outspoken Left-wing ‘firebrand’.

He's a traitor spook, isn't it obvious from his failure to protect children?

commonspace.scot...

what he really said vs what the papers say he said. Worth having a read to see how much of what Corbyn says gets distorted by our press.

I'm sure this will be ignored by those who've already made up their minds, but always interesting to see the distortion in the press

I am not sure Corbyn would be a fit PM. His politics of appeasement is problematic as these are anti-democratic.

1. The Argentine President Kirchner has congratulated him. Corbyn's views is that the Falkland Islander's views don't count.
2. The IRA fought a "just cause". Corbyn would look to a reunited Ireland over the views of the majority in Northern Ireland.

a reply to: yorkshirelad

Right wing press? There is (and always has been) a paper for whatever side of the fence you sit - I see your Daily Mail with the Daily Mirror, or the Guardian or the New Statesman just to name the big ones - there are plenty of smaller, even more radical publications.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: brancolinoxx

He's against interventionism which seeing the mess we've been left with thanks to our adventures is no bad thing , he favours talking above bombing civilians.

He wants to sit down and talk with IS, or Hamas or Hezbollah - all organisations that have no compunction over "bombing civilians". He's a lilly-livered left wing hypocrite.

originally posted by: gortex
He wants to scrap Trident which would save our country Billions from a system we don't even control , another good idea.

It's a total myth we don't "control" Trident - usually spouted by those who haven't actually got a clue about what they're talking about....

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
However, I would probably have a lot more respect for the Tories if they were truthful about the cuts to the welfare system, instead of hiding behind the B.S of austerity. It's their ideology, along with cuts to other public services, in order to reduce the Tax Burden of the rich.

It was Labout who increased the Tax burden on the lowest paid by removing the 10% bracket, forcing everyone into the 20% bracket with no increase in the personal allowance.

Under the current Chancellor, the personal allowance has increased year on year, actually lifting the lowest paid out of taxation.

Anyway, that's enough of picking up daft things people have been saying - and I only got to page 2... - lets deal with Corbyn himself:

1. The deficit should be paid off - but not through spending cuts and not to an "arbitrary" deadline. Instead Corbyn would fund its reduction via higher taxes for the rich and a crackdown on tax avoidance and evasion while tackling "corporate welfare" and tax breaks for companies.

So no actual plan then - just more taxation..

2. Britain's railways should be renationalised. He is also opposed to the HS2 rail scheme, saying it would turn northern cities into "dormitories for London businesses".

HS2 is something the nation needs - although I think it can be done quicker and cheaper. Nationalising the railways would also cost a fortune - how is this going to be paid for?

3. Far more allotments would be good for the UK. He has a plot near his constituency in north London and told the Commons in 2008 that councils and builders "should be doing their best to ensure that every new development includes some allotment space".

Really? With everything else that is going on, he wants to deal with allotments...

4. Talking to militant groups is necessary to win peace in the Middle East. Corbyn faced heavy criticism for using the word "friends" to describe Hamas and Hezbollah. He has responded by saying he had used the term in a "collective way" adding that while he does not agree with either organisation, a peace process means "you have to talk to people with whom you may profoundly disagree".

I think the above speaks for itself....

5. "Quantitative easing for people" could be used to invest in housing, energy, transport and digital projects. Unlike the £375bn issued electronically by the Bank of England between 2009 and 2012 to buy bonds, gilts and other debts, this would be "QE for people instead of banks", Corbyn says. Tax campaigner Richard Murphy argues these plans would stimulate the economy and boost employment. But Shadow Chancellor Chris Leslie attacked the proposal, saying it would lead to higher inflation and interest rates, hurting the poor most.

So, his answer is to simply print money.. I take it he hasn't heard of inflation, then?

6. Replacing Trident would be a costly mistake. Corbyn, a long-term CND member, says plans to replace the nuclear missile system should be ditched. He believes the project's £100bn price tag could be better spent "on our national well-being".

No surprises here - he is just continuing the long held Labour policy of gutting our national defences. You can bet he won't put the money into increasing our conventional forces instead, leaving us a minor power and totally reliant on foreign nations to protect us....

7. A National Education Service modelled on the NHS should be established. Under Corbyn, state-funded academies and free schools would be forced to return to local authority control while university tuition fees would be scrapped and replaced with grants. Corbyn would look at ending the charitable status of public schools, although he accepts this would be complicated and might not happen immediately. He reportedly split up with one of his former wives following a disagreement over whether to send their son to a grammar school or a comprehensive. Asked recently if the break-up was over an "an issue of principle", Corbyn told the Guardian newspaper: "I feel very strongly about comprehensive education, yes."

So, a centrally planned and controlled education system, with no flexibility or opportunities for the brightest? The guy is such a snob, he left his wife over what school to send his kid too!!

8. Labour should not support air strikes against Islamic State in Syria. Corbyn, who is national chair of the Stop the War Coalition, believes innocent Syrians would suffer and the supply of arms and funds to the Islamic State group should be cut off instead. He opposed military action against the Assad regime in 2013 and was a prominent critic of the invasion of Iraq. His website says he wants to see "illegal wars" replaced with a "foreign policy that prioritises justice and assistance". Asked during a Sky News hustings whether there were any circumstances in which he would deploy UK military forces, Corbyn said: "I'm sure there are some but I can't think of them at the moment."

So, despite their barbarity and the problems it is causing us directly, he'd sit on his hands and watch, all the time begging the monsters of IS to come and have a cup of teat and talk about their issues...

9. Rent controls should be re-introduced, linking private rents to local earnings, and more council houses should be built. He also believes that council tenants' right to buy their homes should be extended to private sector renters.

Would probably lead to a collapse in the house market. While lower prices would be a good thing in the long run, a lot of people will lose out big time.

10. The Chagos islanders evicted from Diego Garcia should be allowed to return. Some 2,000 people were displaced from the British Indian Ocean territory between 1967 and 1971 to make way for a US air base. Corbyn has been a long-standing supporter of their campaign to go back.

This will be a tough one - the Yanks won't like it one bit and they have a lease left to run, which means we'll probably have to buy them out of it.. More money to come from somewhere...

Cont....

Cont...

11. The immigration debate has been "quite unpleasant". In an interview with Channel 4 News, Corbyn said the current discourse around the issue "fails to recognise the huge contribution migrants have made to this country". He added: "We should let people into this country who are desperate to get somewhere safe to live".

So, he is totally ignoring the number one issue on people's minds at the moment and will simply carry on what Labour did last time around? Right, that will sell well, especially amongst the core Labour vote who are usually the lower paid, who suffer the most under immigration.

12. The dispute between the UK and Argentina over the Falkland Islands could be resolved with "some degree of joint administration". In an interview with the BBC in 2013 he said other territorial disputes had been settled in this way, and under such an arrangement the islanders' British nationality could be maintained. He added that during the 1982 Falklands conflict it had been in Margaret Thatcher's interests to "divert attention from her catastrophic economic issues". During the leadership campaign, a Corbyn spokesman said he supported "a long-term negotiated settlement" that took the islanders' views into account

He can take a long walk of a short pier over this one - the Islanders have spoken and Argentina can do one.

13. High property prices are leading to the closure of London pubs. In 2013, he said in the Commons that pub companies "make a great deal of money out of selling them" to developers.

What? This is an issue of national importance?

14. An arms embargo should be imposed on Israel. Corbyn, who is a patron of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, said in August that Palestinian refugees should be given a "right of return". He supported a boycott of goods produced in Israeli settlements and of Israeli universities that engage in arms research.

He's not going to make many friends with this policy, although I personally do think Israel could do with being put in it's place.

15. Corbyn is a committed republican, but he would not seek to end the monarchy. He told the New Statesman: "It's not the fight I'm going to fight - it's not the fight I'm interested in."

Because he knows he is out of step with most of the country on that one.

16. Remaining in the European Union but with changes. Corbyn says he is not content with the EU as it stands, but wants to stay to fight for a "better Europe". He had previously refused to rule out campaigning to leave. He also opposes the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) deal.

But he doesn't actually state what he means by a "better Europe". I suspect, being a committed Socialist, he is happy with surrendering the last vestiges of sovereign power to Brussels.

17. Corbyn backs cycling. He does not own a car and declined to share one with the BBC's Chris Mason for an interview, saying: "I cycle all the time. Actually I've got a confession to make, a rather naughty secret - I've got two bikes." He is also a member of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Cycling.

Not a bad thing, but not everyone can cycle everywhere and it's hardly practical if you have children or live some distance from your workplace.

18. Energy companies should be under public ownership. He says he would be "much happier" with a "regulated, publicly run service delivering energy supplies". He is "totally opposed" to fracking. However, he says deep-mine coal pits in the north of England could be reopened.

Not a bad thing either, publicly owned Energy firms and something I agree with - but I think we shouldn't be so quick to rule out fracking.

19. Ireland should be united. Corbyn has long supported British withdrawal from Northern Ireland and invited Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams to the House of Commons as far back as 1984. He was criticised for observing a minute's silence for eight IRA members killed by the SAS in 1987 and once employed Irish Republican Ronan Bennett as a member of staff at Westminster.

What a cowardly piece of crap... I have little time for people who sympathise for the IRA and uniting Ireland? They don't want to be united, they've had votes on it before!

20. A national maximum wage should be introduced to cap the salaries of high earners. He would also introduce a windfall tax on former state assets such as the Royal Bank of Scotland, which he says were privatised too cheaply.

Just watch the wealth fly away......

21. Every child should have the chance to learn a musical instrument or act on stage. Corbyn's arts policy also includes directing a greater proportion of funding to local projects, widening access and protecting the BBC.

Ah yes, because that is something of critical national importance too...

22. Private Finance Initiative deals with the NHS should be ended by using government funds to buy them out. Writing in the Guardian, Corbyn said they were a "mess" that were costing the health service billions.

A good idea, but again, how much will this cost and where is the money coming from?

23. A "serious debate about the powers of Nato" is needed, but Corbyn has said there is not "an appetite as a whole for people to leave". Corbyn has previously supported withdrawal and believes it should have been wound up in 1990 at the same time as the Warsaw Pact. He also said open eastward expansion of Nato would lead the Russian military to conclude that it had "to expand to counteract Nato".

But hang on, leave NATO, get rid of Nuclear weapons and negotiate with terrorists? Jeebus wept - we'd be the laughing stock of the world with no influence to use and no-one to protect us.

24. The arms trade should be restricted. Corbyn would like to see the "brilliance and skill of those in the arms industry be converted for peaceful purposes".

A major employer in the UK - what about all those jobs?

a reply to: LABTECH767

Oh, it's 50,000 dead now because of benefit cuts? Because only a few weeks ago it was 2,500 dead because of benefit cuts and that was shown to be a crock of crap as well.....

originally posted by: crazyewok
Well least labour lead by someone with abit of integrity, even if I do fundamentally disagree with all most everything thats comes out of corbyns mouth.

Least there is a choice now between the parties, even if that choice is a bad one.

That's exactly the problem with him, he seems sincere and honest and with integrity, but his socialist policies and beliefs are from half a century or more ago and bordering on Communism.

It's already been tried and failed, why would we want a 2nd bit of that cherry?

He seems more anti establishment (the British establishment) more than anything else.

a reply to: Freeborn

See this is the problem with taking the media spin as gospel.

I hope I am right in thinking you refer to the Nolan interview with your IRA comments. Corbyn actually condemns both sides twice in that interview but Nolan was pressing him to single out the IRA for his soundbite. Recognising that there were 2 sides to the story was an integral part of the peace process, and still is to a peace that is evidently still fragile.

JC: I condemn all bombing, it is not a good idea, and it is terrible what happened.

(From the interview)

And re the Falklands...

During the leadership campaign a spokesman for Corbyn told The Telegraph: “Jeremy has long urged a long term negotiated settlement. During the leadership campaign a spokesman for Corbyn told The Telegraph: “Jeremy has long urged a long term negotiated settlement which of course should take into consideration the views of the islanders themselves.

www.independent.co.uk... america-following-leadership-win-10498662.html

They are twisting, editing, spinning his words to instil fear.

a reply to: stumason

Not got the time at present to go through all your points, due to other commitments. Just pulled this one out of the list:-

6. Replacing Trident would be a costly mistake. Corbyn, a long-term CND member, says plans to replace the nuclear missile system should be ditched. He believes the project's £100bn price tag could be better spent "on our national well-being".

No surprises here - he is just continuing the long held Labour policy of gutting our national defences. You can bet he won't put the money into increasing our conventional forces instead, leaving us a minor power and totally reliant on foreign nations to protect us..

The U.K. and France are the ONLY E.U. Countries with a nuclear weapons. More an ego thing than anything else.

So my question to you. Are countries such as Italy, Spain, The Netherlands, The Republic Of Ireland, Belgium, Greece, Malta, Cyprus, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, etc etc more likely to be nuked or attacked than The U.K., because they have no nuclear deterrent?

My answer to that question would be no they wouldn't. As i have stated, The U.K. having nuclear weapons is all about ego.

originally posted by: alldaylong
The U.K. and France are the ONLY E.U. Countries with a nuclear weapons. More an ego thing than anything else.

So my question to you. Are countries such as Italy, Spain, The Netherlands, The Republic Of Ireland, Belgium, Greece, Malta, Cyprus, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, etc etc more likely to be nuked or attacked than The U.K., because they have no nuclear deterrent?

My answer to that question would be no they wouldn't. As i have stated, The U.K. having nuclear weapons is all about ego.

That is simply because they are all protected by the NATO umbrella. Corbyn is not only talking about scrapping Trident, but also withdrawing from NATO itself.

On the flip side - the only reason why the world runs scared of Russia is not because of their dilapidated and frankly useless Army, but because of their huge nuclear weapons stockpile.

EDIT: Also, all those nations have enjoyed decades of stability and protection from NATO while at the same time under investing in their own defence while expecting the likes of France, the US and the UK to provide the muscle.

a reply to: Scouse100

That's not strictly true.

Corbyn outright refuses to condemn the IRA and their actions whilst specifically criticising the British Army.
So it's ok to condemn our military but not the IRA? - that is completely unacceptable.

Surely this comes as no surprise given his belief in breaking apart the Union.

The fact that he is willing to ignore the wishes and desires of the clear majority of people in Northern Ireland and force them to become a part of The Republic shows a clear disregard for them and the Right to Self-Determination.

This again evident in his attitude to The Falkland Islands.
The islanders clearly showed that they wish to remain a part of the UK yet he states that their wishes will only be 'taken into consideration' - bollocks to that, they are British and it is their wishes and interests that should be the primary, if not only, consideration of the British government.

He aspires to be the leader of that self same government yet openly states he would put the interests and desires of other nations and leaders before British people.

Yet he openly supports the rights of Chagos Islanders in their desire to return to Diego Garcia.
Admirable as that may be you do however see the contradiction - respect the Right to Self-Determination when it has a slightly anti-UK slant yet oppose it when it is pro-UK.

Corbyn states that he is sure there would be times when he would support the use of our Armed Forces but can't think of any.....well I can think of plenty.

Believe it or not I applaud some of his stated policies - some I actively support, some I think are admirable yet naïve, some are simply stupid - but whilst he expresses those opinions on Northern Ireland / Argentina etc I will never, ever vote for a party that he leads.....and neither will the vast majority of British people.

a reply to: stumason

That is simply because they are all protected by the NATO umbrella

No they are not.

Finland ( right on the doorstep of Russia), Sweden, The Republic Of Ireland, Cyprus and Malta are not NATO members.
Neither do they have nuclear weapons.

a reply to: Scouse100

Any mp that even wants compromise one iota on the falklands has ZERO support from me and never will.

Falkland are ours, the argies need to get over it and move on!

a reply to: alldaylong

Sweden, who regularly does exercises with NATO, has close relations with NATO and is a European nation.

Ireland, who's attack would be in noubt answered by the UK at least as a threat to our own nation.

Cyprus, were there are two very strategic UK sovereign bases.

Malta, as a member of the Commonwealth and an EU member would be in noubt over its protection.

Finland, who while not being in NATO actually does participate in NATO missions and is an EU member, so would be defended.

See, you tried to catch me out but failed, because you forgot your question was not just about conventional defence but specifically about nuclear weapons. Any nuclear attack on any of these nations would be responded to in kind by either the UK and/ or the French or Americans.