“Sunday Times quoted an Army general, saying Corbyn’s military policies, would face a “mutiny” from the army if he became PM. Democracy eh.” This is what I posted yesterday.
It reminded me of the work of fiction by Chris Mullins – A Very British Coup. A story of how a left wing prime minister was kicked out by a coup organised by the establishment.
If this General is right and the army “mutiny” is to be believed, fiction will become fact. Corbyn will be deposed even though the British people will have voted him as their prime minister.
In comments on my contribution yesterday the retired Member of Parliament for the Rhondda Allan Rogers said the General “Should be charged with treason. Incidentally 80 percent of officers come from public schools.” It’s hard to disagree for a serving officer to talk glibly of overturning the wishes of the voters it is nothing less than treason.
Another that commentated was Tim Saunders. He said “if there is anything in this, then as disturbing as it could be.” Too true. Threatening “direct action” against an elected prime minister by a senior serving officer shows that democracy is only allowed on the terms set by the “Establishment.”
True to form the General concerned remains anonymous. But if any other group or individual threatened to overturn the government of the land the whole panoply of the state would be spent to discover the individual(s) and bring them to book.
Guardians of out liberty have been unusually quiet about the matter. Where were the calls for an inquiry? Where was the condemnation?
Corbyn – a man of peace is a threat to the military. Clearly if the media sneers and character assassination don’t work “direct action” will be attempted.
The killing of Cardiff man Reyaad Khan who left Britain to join Isis in a drone attack has been questioned by Tory MP David Davis.
Whilst chairing the cross-party parliamentary group on drones Davis said that the absence of any known arrests over the plots alleged to be organized by Reyaad Khan threatens to “drive a coach and horses” through the government’s justification for the drone killing.
Although not at war with Syria the government killed two British citizens on the dubious premise of an imminent threat of a terrosit attack in the UK. It is this that Davis is questioning
Davis said: “As far as I’m aware there have been no arrests in relation to this in the UK … That does rather drive a coach and horses through that argument.”
Former director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmernow a Labour MP also told the meeting that the strike took place in an “accountability vacuum.” He was referring to the lack of independent scrutiny of the decision to kill and no detail provided on the legal basis on which the strike took place.
The UK has always said that the use of armed drones to target their enemies, has to be within a clear legal framework based on British and International law. The strike against Welshman Reyaad Khan, is a significant departure from this long standing approach.
UN charter allows it – claims Cameron
Cameron asserted that under Article 51 of the UN Charter the strike against Khan had a clear legal basis in international law.
The article in question upholds the right of states to respond when an armed attack occurs on their soil. However, this strike was not undertaken after an attack against the UK. At best it was a preemptive self defence since the attack had not yet happened.
If there was an imminent threat, the government is justified in acting to defend the country. What Davis seems to be questioning was there an ‘imminent threat.’
In a democracy there should be a system of checks and balances for overseeing government decisions. There seems to be little evidence presented to justify this preemptive strike on the Welshman.
Cameron’s action endanger’s the country’s standing as a responsible power that abides by international law, both in letter and in spirit.
Labour lost the election because like the government it supported an austerity programme. Many pundits didn’t see it coming.
Only Corbyn offered an alternative to austerity, the other three leadership candidates were still singing from the austerity hymn sheet. Corbyn won, they lost. Again pundits, academics and even the bookies got it wrong.
Now those very same pundits are predicting Labour under Corbyn haven’t got a snowball’s chance in hell of winning power. Well, if it’s the meek that inherit the earth, pundits aren’t going to do very well. Humility has never been their strong point.
Barely had Jeremy Corbyn got the job than the media started their sneers and scaremongering.
But what ordinary members of the Labour party seem to have realized and their parliamentary representatives have failed to understand that the free market economics of Thatcher, Blair and Brown was discredited by the bankers’ crash.
By offering a public investment strategy to rebuild the UK’s economic capacity Corbyn offered an alternative that many in his party found attractive and offered them that increasingly rare commodity – hope.
All Corbyn is doing is following in the footsteps not of Marx but Liberal John Maynard Keynes in arguing for a strong investment role for government as a condition for private investment to flourish.
Who’s to say that if Corbyn has won the confidence of a majority of half a million voters in his own party the wider public can’t be won over with the same appeal?
Thirty thousand people have joined Labour in the three days since he was elected. For a no-hoper, as the media would say, it’s quite an achievement.