Corbyn’s stance on defence? Read James Hirst on ForcesTV website

forces tv logo

Like people on the Civilisation 3000 mailing list, Jeremy Corbyn believes in defence – not attack.

His proposed Defence Diversification Agency will redeploy defence workers and diversify their skills in accordance with the Vision For Britain 2020 – rebalancing the economy and promoting growth, not austerity and cuts.

jeremy corbyn (2)The closest external agency found which reflected his thinking comes – pleasingly – from the Forces TV website in an article headed by a larger version of this picture of the Labour leader.

Forces TV is an independent news organisation, owned and operated by the Services Sound and Vision Corporation. It was launched in the U.K. on June 10th 2014 and may be viewed here:

  • Sky Channel 264
  • Virgin 277
  • Freesat 652

James Hirst opens:

“Going to war creates a legacy of bitterness and problems. Let us be a force for change in the world, a force for humanity in the world, a force for peace in the world”. It was classic Jeremy Corbyn.

“These words came in the victory speech of the most important figure in Parliament’s second largest party.

“The Party which sent British troops into long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has just chosen its most outspoken opponent of those wars as its new leader.

“Mr Corbyn’s election gives the Government an immediate headache. It leaves their hopes of getting cross-party agreement to extend airstrikes against IS into Syria looking forlorn.

“Among his friends he counts the Conservative chairman of the Commons Defence Committee. Dr Julian Lewis, who supports replacing Trident, told Forces TV this week how he has worked with Mr Corbyn to secure debates on the nuclear deterrent because they are both driven by strong beliefs, even though their beliefs are polar opposites.

“On his website the new Labour leader says he argues for “a different type of foreign policy based on political not military solutions; on genuine internationalism that recognises that all human life is precious, no matter what nationality.”

james hirst

Hirst (above, left) ends: “For the first time in years there is a significant gulf between the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition on how Britain should relate to the rest of the world. David Cameron will now have to face Jeremy Corbyn’s alternative ideology head on at the despatch box, not from a far corner of the Commons”.


One Response to Corbyn’s stance on defence? Read James Hirst on ForcesTV website

  1. ldocksey says:

    As a one-time editor of Abolish War (now sadly reduced in content), I addressed the question of having military forces many times. I often felt that many of those who were recruited into the army were done so under false pretences. There is a particular problem with how Army, rather than Navy or Airforce, recruits sign up in ignorance, being too young, too uninformed and many of them (due to the way society as a whole has let them down) very lacking in literacy and numeracy. And they are always sent to the infantry (cannon fodder) rather than their wish list of Engineers (hoping to have the training that will allow them to become a car mechanic on civvy street) or Signals, as David Gee wrote in his wonderful study on recruitment Informed Choice. See
    I do not blame the soldiers at the bottom of the heap for all the deaths they’ve caused. I do blame the people who sent them to war, people who have no personal knowledge of the real and horrific damage of any war.
    I blame those who refuse to recognise that, under international law, no country can legally take military action against any other state unless that state has PHYSICALY attacked the said country. It is also illegal under international law for any country to invade or attack another state with the purpose of removing the leader of that state. That is only the prerogative of the citizens of that state. Yet this country, following the lead of the US, has constantly invaded, bombed and interfered with countries where we had no business to be.
    Do I want to simply get rid of the military? No. I have talked to several soldiers, from privates to brigadiers. All of them would value two things, two directions that they would be happy for the military to follow.
    Being a force that defended this country if it came under attack. That does not include ‘our interests’ in another state being attacked.
    Being part of an international ‘rescue’ force in any physical disaster – many are really proud of their logistical ability to throw up a refugee camp overnight, build bridges, deliver aid and so on.
    It would be good to follow in the path of places like Costa Rica and have no military at all. But having a defence force and being part of an international rescue force or peace-making force (quite different from the UN peace-keeping force – see the Barcelona Report ) would be a good step on the way. As I have pointed out to hard-line abolishers of the military – do you really want to see the streets full of unemployed and angry men who have been trained to kill? I think not. Step by step is the way, and one I think that Jeremy Corbyn would follow.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: