Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:


Scrap Trident. Abolish the Monarchy. Print money to finance expenditure on housing etc; tax the rich and middle classes out of existence and create a Marxist-Leninist heaven on earth. Why not come clean at the outset?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:

Scrap Trident. Abolish the Monarchy. Print money to finance expenditure on housing etc; tax the rich and middle classes out of existence and create a Marxist-Leninist heaven on earth. Why not come clean at the outset?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
I see little difference between Mugabe and Corbyn in their tactical ploy to win power. Its window dressing to confuse the masses. Once in power all morality is ditched.

The story of Zimbabwe is a salutary lesson for us. Economic ineptitude dressed up in high-sounding moral platitudes and worthy sounbites added to an unacknowledged Marxist-Leninist philosophy is a recipe for disaster.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
May I elaborate on my point out of my own experience?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:

Scrap Trident. Abolish the Monarchy. Print money to finance expenditure on housing etc; tax the rich and middle classes out of existence and create a Marxist-Leninist heaven on earth. Why not come clean at the outset?

---

In what way has Mr Corbyn not 'come clean' about his views on Trident and the monarchy? If you mean why didn't he put them in his speech, Mr Corbyn has also been fairly clear that he wants a debate within his party before committing to a position on Trident, and he has also said numerous times that abolishing the monarchy is not a fight he wants to get into.

As for 'taxing the rich and middle classes out of existence', this is the sort of hysteria that The Daily Telegraph dole out to any left-wing leader, such as the revolutionary Communist 'Viva Cuba Libre' Lady Thatcher under whose premiership the top rate was 60p, or the radical far-left Trotskyist Mr Osborne whose first act as Chancellor was to put up VAT (is this right? - Ed.).

As for creating a Marxist-Leninist paradise, you are of course correct to highlight that there is no difference at all between Lenin, Keynes and Stiglitz; you could hardly slip a sheet of paper between them.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:

What I am saying is that both use moralistic soundbytes when out of power in an effort to persuade well meaning people to support them.

---

You could argue that the current Tory government did just that [and you are after all the one who introduced the Mugabe comparison].

.. and I'm far more concerned about some of the backers of Cameron, most of whom have their hands considerably nearer the levers of power than McCluskey etc.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
Typical. Responses suggest that I equate Corbyn with Mugabe in all respects.

---

quote:

---

I see little difference between Mugabe and Corbyn in their tactical ploy to win power. Its window dressing to confuse the masses. Once in power all morality is ditched.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Corbyn has put an interesting twist on the Trident renewal debate this morning, by stipulating that if he were Prime Minister, he would never push the button anyway.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Corbyn has put an interesting twist on the Trident renewal debate this morning, by stipulating that if he were Prime Minister, he would never push the button anyway.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I think is a pretty good summary of yesterday's speech from the Economist, which I'm tempted to file under "look, the media did get it" - but obviously will do for yours too?

Economist

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The possibility of a Prime Minister who understands that mass murder is a Bad Thing is, IMV, rather a promising sign.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The possibility of a Prime Minister who understands that mass murder is a Bad Thing is, IMV, rather a promising sign.

---

Is this merely facile rhetoric or are you suggesting there have been Prime Ministers who have thought mass murder was a Good Thing? If so, can you name them?

There have been political leaders who have thought this. I could name them, and so could you. But fortunately, they haven't been ours. It is something for which we should be grateful.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Mass killing. 'Mas murder' begs the question. You may think it'd be murder, and others might think it'd be murder, but rightly or wrongly quite a lot of established opinion doesn't think that killing lots of civilians by aerial bombing or missile attack in a war is mass murder.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Pressing the button is mass murder. If you're willing to do that, then by definition you're willing to commit mass murder. If you're willing to commit mass murder, presumably you don't consider it a bad thing, or you'd not be willing to do it.

Previous Prime Ministers have been, or claimed they have been, willing to commit mass murder in this way. Therefore, by simple logic, facile or otherwise, none of them thought mass murder was always a bad thing, because all of them have been willing to base a defence strategy on the willingness to do it.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Mass killing. 'Mas murder' begs the question. You may think it'd be murder, and others might think it'd be murder, but rightly or wrongly quite a lot of established opinion doesn't think that killing lots of civilians by aerial bombing or missile attack in a war is mass murder.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Pressing the button is mass murder. If you're willing to do that, then by definition you're willing to commit mass murder. If you're willing to commit mass murder, presumably you don't consider it a bad thing, or you'd not be willing to do it.

Previous Prime Ministers have been, or claimed they have been, willing to commit mass murder in this way. Therefore, by simple logic, facile or otherwise, none of them thought mass murder was always a bad thing, because all of them have been willing to base a defence strategy on the willingness to do it.

---

Big non sequitur alert

No. Sorry. That's a non sequitur on an almost heroic scale.

Virtually everyone who has had to commit their country to war, at least since 1918, and largely even before, has done so regretting it. Apparently even the Kaiser had qualms, and had to be persuaded that it was too late to change his mind.

On World at One about two hours ago, Labour multilateralists were unanimous in saying that one has deterrence in the abiding hope one will never have to use it. Unattractive though this may be to some people's simplistic world view, I'm fairly confident that is the unanimous visceral belief of the leading figures in all the other parties as well, and in virtually all the leaders in other countries. Almost everybody thinks that mass murder, whether done by the state or anyone else is a thorough bad thing. Virtually all leaders hope they will never be faced with a situation where they have to decide between mass murder of other people and mass murder of the people they are supposed to be protecting.

There are a few exceptions. There are leaders who have though that the eradication of undesirable racial groups (e.g. Jews, Armenians - though that was just before my 1918 cut off point), or undesirable social groups, kulaks, most of the population of Cambodia, are legitimate and desirable objectives. But fortunately, most of the time, they are unusual.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Virtually all leaders hope they will never be faced with a situation where they have to decide between mass murder of other people and mass murder of the people they are supposed to be protecting.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Mass killing. 'Mas murder' begs the question. You may think it'd be murder, and others might think it'd be murder, but rightly or wrongly quite a lot of established opinion doesn't think that killing lots of civilians by aerial bombing or missile attack in a war is mass murder.

---

I can understand why some people wouldn't want to call it murder but by any meaningful definition that makes sense and avoids political spin it is murder.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Corbyn has put an interesting twist on the Trident renewal debate this morning, by stipulating that if he were Prime Minister, he would never push the button anyway.

---

Neither would I. Yet another reason to support him.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
There is no "have to use it". There are no conceivable circumstances where using it could be justifiable, or even advantageous. It depends on a threat that cannot possibly be acted on. It's a colossal waste of money based on an immoral threat. The only way its proponents can argue they're not willing to commit mass murder (or mass killing of innocent civilians if you prefer) is to be lying when they say they'd use it. It's either directly immoral or dishonestly so.

Which is why approve Corbyn's unwillingness to do it, and his honesty in saying so.

You can insult me by calling that "simplistic" if you like - I call it "principled".

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

Otherwise, it's a bit like not only setting the following multiple choice question in a history exam about Neville Chamberlain in 1938, but only allowing the candidate to choose one of the choices:-
Was he:-
1. a mug?
2. a principled man who after his experience of the last one, was horrified by the thought of another World War?
3. a wuss?
4. sneakily really supporting Fascism?
5. shrewdly buying an extra year to re-arm?
6. someone with too limited an imagination to realise just how vicious his enemy was?
7. trying hard to preserve peace in Europe?
8. a man who believed he had to give Hitler the chance to show he could do the decent thing, even if he then showed he wasn't going to?, or
9. this was all 75+ years ago, and irrelevant to us now because we know better?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
I'd go with that, Sioni. My grandfather, who admittedly had no particular knowledge of it apart from having joined the Red Cross in 1938 to train against the war which he knew was coming, was of the view that Chamberlain was buying time.
Hard cheese on Czechoslovakia, of course, but which of us can say for sure that we would have made a better decision?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
When people argue for the nuclear deterrent, they always say it has kept the peace.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
When people argue for the nuclear deterrent, they always say it has kept the peace. Where ? When ? We have been at war for the majority of my lifetime. There were concentration camps in Europe when I was a teenager. Wars in central Europe lasting for years. There have been bombings intermittently in the UK all my life. A country was annexed this decade.

What, exactly, has been deterred ?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
When people argue for the nuclear deterrent, they always say it has kept the peace.

---

Do they? It may have kept a certain kind of peace but does anyone argue that it has averted all war?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
When people argue for the nuclear deterrent, they always say it has kept the peace. Where ? When ? We have been at war for the majority of my lifetime. There were concentration camps in Europe when I was a teenager. Wars in central Europe lasting for years. There have been bombings intermittently in the UK all my life. A country was annexed this decade.

What, exactly, has been deterred ?

---

This is really a devil's advocate position for me, but I think the answer is that it's stopped war from being worse. My mom would tell me that no one's dared to have a "serious" war--and by serious she means serious for the people in the powerful countries--because of the nuclear deterrent.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

I think the sticking point will be the economy, however. There is the Middle England Fear Factor here, which applies to anyone with a mortgage, or savings, or some kind of financial interest, which is a lot of people.

---