(British) Army top brass warn there will be a MUTINY if Jeremy Corbyn becomes Prime Minister

[Turborama]

Source: The Mail On Sunday

Military top brass will 'not stand for' Jeremy Corbyn becoming Prime Minister and could 'mutiny' if he does, a serving general has warned.

Labour's new shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn this morning insisted the party would not endanger national security by pulling out of Nato or voting to scrap Britain's nuclear deterrent – despite Mr Corbyn's hard-left opposition.

However, military chiefs have warned that they would be prepared to take 'direct action' to stop Mr Corbyn if he sees off Labour rebels and makes it into Number 10 in 2020.

The senior serving general, speaking anonymously to the Sunday Times, said Mr Corbyn's victory has been greeted with 'wholesale dismay' in the army.

He added: 'There would be mass resignations at all levels and you would face the very real prospect of an event which would effectively be a mutiny.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3241904/We-won-t-stand-Army-brass-warn-MUTINY-Jeremy-Corbyn-Prime-Minister.html

---

4 1/2 years away from the next election and the media are already using as a scare tactic the threat of a military coup if Jeremy Corbyn wins it.

Britain's corporatocracy is very very rattled...

The Guardian's take: Notions of a military revolt if Corbyn became PM are far-fetched

[HooptieWagon]

1. A military coup may be far fetched...

But the military chiefs suggesting it should be busted down to private.

[Enthusiast]

31. +100%!

[TubbersUK]

2. What a load of hysterical claptrap n/t

[gregcrawford]

3. "The senior serving general, speaking anonymously..."

... Sound a bit like Pox News' favorite vague reference, "Some people say..."

But then, when some general is hinting at treasonous acts, he would probably do well to remain anonymous. But they will find you, General Jerk-off, and there's sweet bugger-all you can do about it now! Oh, this going to be fun!

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. The rumour was started in the Murdoch-owned Sunday Times (nt)

[HassleCat]

5. We have the same thing here

The military has been highly politicized in favor of the Republicans, since they support the social and corporate welfare system for retired officers. Every time a Democrat gets elected we receive "dire warnings" about a wholesale revolt among the military. This is mainly from a few senior officers who see a threat to their cushy retirement deals threatened by a reduction in force or cancelling some bloated weapon system.

[stevenleser]

49. Senior officers don't worry about a reduction in force

They have over 20 years in and can retire.

[Zen Democrat]

79. I think we had a military/intelligence coup in 1963.

Even since then, Democrats have had a hard time. Nixon I believe was set up by the CIA as well, because they thought it in the best interests of the country to have a Chief Executive who wasn't blackmailing them over the "Bay of Pigs thing." As soon as Ford was in office, TPTB made him all fuzzy wuzzy for the country. But he still lost in 1976 to Jimmy Carter. The press all but crucified Jimmy Carter and played up the EMK challenge, the drumbeat of "Day 242" and just about anything they could to diminish him, and even make him a laughingstock, though he was probably the smartest man ever elected. Reagan was ushered in on a magic carpet and the media (btw, the CIA-controlled media) covered up the bad and embellished the good. They went easy on him over Iran Contra, and nary a word was spoken when his successor (GHWB) "pardoned" the whole bunch of Iran-Contra criminals, including Ollie North, General Richard Secord, Casper Weinberger, Admiral Poindexter, et al. After Bush, we had Clinton and the press/CIA went after every single tidbit of scandal, rumor and innuendo to smear Bill and Hillary over a land deal that lost them money! Then the Paula/Monica/Linda Tripp ugliness was aimed to ruin the Clintons. The Clintons were followed by Dimwit Bush who put our country in the toilet, without a single harsh word from the media for YEARS of it. As soon as Barack was inaugurated, the long knives were out for him. Yes, CIA-asset Bob Woodward wrote a scathing book about his administration before he even got going! It's been 7 years of nothing but bullshit being thrown at Obama and Family, and now the Democratic candidates are in the firing line. I guarantee you, if an establishment Republican is elected, the media will love everything that person would do to continue to destroy the middle class and foment foreign wars.

It's time to stop this sick game. The military/CIA holds sway over the President of the United States. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Danial Patrick-Moynihan begged that the CIA be demolished because they were only chartered to fight the Cold War. DPM said that without an enemy to fight, the military/CIA establishment would soon find one, and probably an even worse threat than before. He was right.

[Martin Eden]

6. What the general threatens would hurt UK national security more than anything Corbyn is likley to do

This calls into question whether his primary concern is the security of the country he serves.

[ReactFlux]

7. Conservatives are just like children!

If they don't get exactly what they want they will take their ball and go home.

They all need to be arrested and charged with treason.

[retrowire]

23. i constantly make this same comparison...

tantrum throwing government shutdowns. ughm

[smirkymonkey]

32. Exactly! It is the party of immaturity.

I have pretty much had it with all this right-wing childishness. People who act that way should never be in positions of power.

[meow2u3]

38. Immature people should never be given power

I shudder at the thought of a child with his finger on the nuke button. We should go on an all-out campaign to paint the GOP as the overgrown brats they are.
If those goddam conservatives want to act like children, we should treat them like children. If they keep throwing tantrums, they should have their privileges taken away from them--and political power is a privilege.

[joe_stampingbull]

8. bring back an old custom

These generals should be hanged, drawn and quartered. An old British tradition for traitors.

[Helen Borg]

9. Instead, they'll just shut up and do what they are ordered.

[Arkana]

10. I don't follow UK politics, so I'm guessing

that Corbyn never said anything about pulling out of NATO, yes?

[former9thward]

21. He certainly did.

He wants the UK out of NATO.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/nato-underwrites-the-stability-of-the-eu-corbyns-idea-to-take-the-uk-out-of-it-would-be-disastrous-10464310.html

[Arkana]

99. That'd be, uh, kinda bad.

[UpInArms]

11. heaven forbid that peace might break out

these fekkers should go to prison for their murderous and treacherous ways

[Oneironaut]

12. Absurd. It sounds like the salty losers here who claim there's going to be a "revolution" every 4

years. These are the same types who swore that the army would remove Obama from power if he won the Presidency.

[youceyec]

13. IF it happens, the queen will

stand with him in her balcony and declare "We will support this man". Mutiny over.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

14. I wonder how many retired generals FOX "News" is going to dig up.

[restorefreedom]

15. conservatives

petulant bullies in every country.

[erronis]

27. Perfect description. Add "undies in a wanker" and you'll probably cover 97.5%

Little people who somehow managed to achieve a level of opportunism.

Almost always someone who didn't deserve it through personal merit.

Always afraid that others will find out they don't know their fuck-hole from their mouth.

We have a few of these in the US running for nominative "president". We have a lot of these that have bent over to enjoy the wads shoved their way by other "petulant bullies".

[restorefreedom]

37. when i was little

i used to hear "dont get your bowels in an uproar"

seems like a lot of these brats need some pepto bismal, prep h, something.....

[Enthusiast]

30. +100%!

[Dont call me Shirley]

16. The nazis are at it again, trying to co-opt the people's choice/will.

[Enthusiast]

29. Huge +1!

[JDPriestly]

17. Muttering under the breath by a bunch of has-beens and would-bes who forget who they work

for. Not worth the print or the paper or even the broadband.

The military does what it is ordered to do, and that is as it should be and we thank them for it, but we will not be intimidated by them. They are our servants. We are not theirs.

[MisterP]

18. so the Fail thinks that the generals WANT to have their lives squandered in adventurism?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Very_British_Coup

[Crowman1979]

19. I highly doubt the lower ranks would participate in this coup.

[coolepairc]

20. Treason

I don't know the laws in the UK that would pertain to this, but in the US, the President is the Commander in Chief and our constitution specifies civilian authority over the military and this would constitute treason.

[MADem]

34. Corbyn is not the "commander in chief." He's not the PM. He never will be, either,

He's the leader of the opposition and half his party thinks he's "too much."

The equivalent of this in USA would be like some anonymous general, over a few drinks, crabbing about something that Mitch McConnell or John Bonehead Boehner said with regard to how they'd approach managing the US military, and some idiot reporter publishing it as "news."

No one would call that "treason" or even close to it--it's an anonymous miiltary individual griping about something that someone NOT in charge of forces in government has to say.

[MADem]

35. How can you threaten treason against someone who isn't in charge?

Corbyn is not the PM and he will never be the PM, either. His own party has major problems with him.

And you don't have to believe the Mail--the Guardian is saying the exact same thing:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/20/labour-could-back-syria-strikes-despite-corbyn-opposition-says-hilary-benn

[SwissTony]

22. Daily Fail (that's not a typo) : treat with caution n/t

[Wibly]

24. Is that treason?

As I understand it, under British Law, any person serving in the military who threatens mutiny for any reason is guilty of treason.
Whoever these "military chiefs" are, they should be brought in front of the courts to explain themselves.

[MADem]

36. No. How can it be treason if you're griping about someone who isn't running the show? nt

[ProfessorGAC]

63. If He Carries It Out, For The Reasons Stated. . .

. . .i think it becomes so. Right? I agree it isn't now. But if the hypothetical proffered by General Anonymous occurs, then it's treason.

[MADem]

68. If he is a general, he's gotten to where he is by the grace and favour

of conservative government. He's likely closing in on retirement, in any event. After two stars, it's all political in USA--it gets political even earlier over there, from all I've seen. No, I'm not joking. We don't even hold selection boards for three or four stars--it's all about your service chief talking it over with buddies as to who is the right sort, and of course, if the candidates are working in DOD or for POTUS, well, that's a HUGE leg-up, and it all gets worked out rather intimately, with bargaining, horse-trading, getting buddies to back "your" guy if you back "their" guy, and a lot of back and forth yammering. If you don't have mentors and sponsors, you don't get promoted. We've got X slots, and Y candidates, let the games begin!

Then after that all gets sorted out, the POTUS gets a little memo with a name or three, or more, on it, (and SECDEF does get a 'cut' on that, too) and he can draw a line through a name he doesn't like "Hmmmm--I remember that one, bad teeth...and he was rude to my kid..." and there ya have it. The POTUS asks the Senate to confirm the names, and they go get new braid for their uniforms.

That said, saying "John Boeher/Mitch McConnell/Name Your GOP Presidential Nominee is a fucking asshole, and I wouldn't follow him out of the men's room" isn't treasonous, either. It just isn't. It's expressing a political opinion, which is not done if you are a) In Uniform, Speaking Publicly or b) Named, and this is not the case with this guy.

I am sure that, should lightning strike and the opposition leader somehow become PM, the general would do what good military leaders do: STFU and do his job. If he couldn't bear it, he'd write the "I hearby submit my resignation and request that it be accepted" letter. And, if he was someone who moved up the ladder nicely under the conservative predeccessor, the resignation would be accepted and someone who was more malleable would be promoted into that guy's slot.

[ProfessorGAC]

71. No Doubt, You're Correct

Just was positing the thought that it would be treasonous should he attempt a coup if any of this really happens.

[MADem]

72. He's mouthing off under cover of anonymity. Lots of military professionals do it.

When the newspapers break a 'military' story, it's often because they've had an off-the-record chat with someone in senior leadership. The good reporters never tell, never make a thing of their relationships with uniformed leaders, and that's why they get the stories and the confirmations of rumors first. It's a trust thing.

If a military leader sees something going on that is flat-out wrong, he or she has to have that internal fight between following "The Rules" and following that bigger 'rule' about one's own personal integrity and that whole oath they took, to preserve and protect THE CONSTITUTION (not the civilian leaders, the founding document itself). Often, in the mix is one's career--i.e., telling the truth can cost one that.

But the INTEGRITY is the centerpiece of it all. Once you lose that, you never get it back. You can carry out that fight by directly confronting the bosses, but if they don't want to hear it, you end up being Shinseki'ed--out on your ass with a halfassed, slapped together retirement ceremony that says to everyone "This guy isn't COOL anymore--avoid him unless you want the stink on YOU, too." Alternatively, you can pick up the phone and have an off the record chat with an old friend/reporter. Get the same results, and avoid getting the blame. Sneaky? Hell yea. Survivable? Absolutely.

A lot of uniforms have done it--some are better than others at it, certainly.

[KelleyKramer]

25. "speaking anonymously" .. another rightwing coward who hates democracy

They should be tried for treason and get life in prison

[Yurovsky]

51. Can't we just throw all conservatives in jail...

and be done with it?

The U.S. would be far better off if the racist, sexist SOBs in the GOP were behind bars. Maybe we could swap them for all of the innocent people of color incarcerated by the prison-industrial complex.

The Tories in the UK should be tossed in the clink if they agree with this treasonous BS.

[Doctor_J]

26. Ministry of Justice warns there will be large scale arrests in case of mutiny

[Enthusiast]

28. You can bet Britain's corporatocracy put the top brass up to this.

[MADem]

33. He has about as much chance of becoming PM as I do....so the whole notion is rather absurd.

A huge percentage of Corbyn's OWN PARTY don't support him. He's a representation of a protest against the status quo and an indication of a (perceived, at any rate) shortage of leadership talent, but he does not have a hope in hell of ever leading UK.

Labour civil war over Syria: HALF of Jeremy Corbyn's frontbench set to snub anti-war leader and back military strikes on ISIS
Half of Labour's shadow cabinet are now prepared to vote for military action against ISIS - despite Jeremy Corbyn's fierce opposition, it was claimed today.
A host of senior Labour figures including the shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn are reportedly ready to back the government in a vote to authorise aistrikes.
Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond has said the possibility of a fresh vote on British military action in Syria was under constant review following talks in London with US Secretary of State John Kerry.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3241904/We-won-t-stand-Army-brass-warn-MUTINY-Jeremy-Corbyn-Prime-Minister.html#ixzz3mJFPExWc

This senior serving general is some guy having gins at the club, running his mouth off the record. This is not real news at all.

I don't think anyone is at all rattled--I think the DM is doing what the DM does best--shit stir for page clicks. They love the drama, and we get all outraged/flummoxed/ired while we eat it up!

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. 60% of the party just elected him as the first choice for leader

with the next most popular getting under 20%. It's the party establishment who have a problem with him.

[MADem]

50. He'll become PM when pigs fly--you heard it here first! nt

[Blue_Adept]

67. Maybe he needs to do something different with the pig first

After all, that's how Cameron ascended to power.

[MADem]

70. I have a feeling that Cameron would be where he was with or without sticking his business in

the pig head.

That rumor is an answer to the "Corbyn had a fling with Abbott and ran naked through the fields" charge. There's no other valid explanation for this little tale getting an airing at this late date. It may not even have been him, but it did happen at a dining club where he was a member. Was it a rite of passage? It's all unclear--but it's typical of these stupid institutions--too much bullshit, too little actual learning.

The UK loves to play one-upmanship with politicians and their fiddly bits--and they actually have the nerve to point and giggle at US. Hell, we're still in Junior High compared to those varsity players on the 'randy' front.

[T_i_B]

60. No denying that there's a huge chasm between Labour MP's and everyone else in the party

But all the same, I wouldn't expect Corbyn to last that long either.

[Turborama]

54. Since the moment he was elected Labour leader there has been an unrelenting storm of fear mongering

...from the reich wing. Starting with David Cameron's infamous tweet & video that were sent out to welcome the new leader of the opposition after his historic landslide win of the leadership.

&feature=youtu.be


Tories launch attack advert against Jeremy Corbyn set to sinister music


It's not really about what happens in 2020. Anyone who looks at the way the Tories and their compliant media have reacted since the very moment Jeremy Corbyn became leader of the opposition will see that they really are rattled. Rattled by the fact there is finally a real opposition to austerity and the neoliberal narrative, which, due to there not being any real challenge to it from the Labour party until now, has been accepted as political orthodoxy and the establishment are concerned that finally the curtain is being pulled.

This article from The Irish Times is a good overview of what's been going on:
British media’s hostile treatment of Corbyn is undemocratic

[MADem]

55. Much of it a consequence of his failures to plan--but it's not the end of the world, in any event.

He didn't even have half an idea who he was going to put in his shadow cabinet, and no one responsible to him was getting any direction.

I think Cameron is a smug, overfed pompous ass, but I don't think he's REALLY worried about Labour. I think he's taking advantage to kick someone while they don't yet have their shit together. I do agree that the potential for "push back" is very real, but I also think it is likely that Corbyn isn't ever going to be living at Number 10.

Even this story is pretty much a big fake click bait, and much of it--and this is the friendlier GUARDIAN saying so--was self-inflicted:

Monday opened with a rash of headlines screaming that Corbyn wanted to abolish the army – a flimsy non-story that his team could have rebutted much more forcefully had they been answering their phones the day before. But the new leader went down well with party staff at Brewer’s Green (the champagne and cupcakes that had been laid on may have helped), giving a witty and warm speech.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/18/jeremy-corbyn-how-he-fared-in-his-first-week-as-labour-leader

[jeff47]

77. Don't support him via electing him with 60% of the vote.

Suuuuuuuuuuure.

[MADem]

85. 60 percent of HIS OWN PARTY's vote.

That's not sixty percent of the nation's vote.


So yeah.... SUUUUUUUUUUURE. That's a real formula for success!!! Forty percent of his own people are waving him off.



He's incapable of even bringing in a coalition government, and the way he's been stumbling, he's lucky if he'll stay put for the long haul.

[jeff47]

90. So he's got no shot, despite doing better than previous PMs.

So, did better than Blair or Cameron with their own parties, but he's doomed, doomed I tell you.

[MADem]

91. He's NOT a "PM." You are apparently failing to understand that

he's the opposition leader, the Mitt Romney to our Barack Obama, in essence, if we ran our show like theirs. He's the LOSER.

Cough--"Blair's" party is his party.


The winner is the one who is able to pull together a coalition to run the government.

Perhaps someone else from "his party" might have done that. He didn't have a hope in hell of doing that--he's too easy to mock, he's a signal that the party has given up and needs to re-tool.

[jeff47]

92. They are examples of people who were successfully elected PM, yes.

Your claim is he can't possibly win because lots of his own party doesn't like him.

Yet these other two won with more of their own party not liking them.

You know, you can just post "I fucking hate liberals" and be done with it instead of desperately flailing around it.

[MADem]

93. He will not be so elected.

Politics has changed in recent years in UK. No party is an island--without coalition accomodations, it's harder to make it work.

What a nasty, childish thing for you to say--I think I'll memorialize your shitty comment so you can't pretend you didn't say it. Ugly, ugly, ugly stuff--you can't defend your assertions, so you resort to lashing out and calling me names. Did you learn debate at Internet Tough Guy School?

I don't think this guy is effective, so you resort to this shit:

jeff47
92. They are examples of people who were successfully elected PM, yes.
View profile
Your claim is he can't possibly win because lots of his own party doesn't like him.

Yet these other two won with more of their own party not liking them.

You know, you can just post "I fucking hate liberals" and be done with it instead of desperately flailing around it.

The desperate flailer here isn't me--it's you.

His popularity hasn't gotten any bounce in the wake of this event; in fact, he's on the down trend--he's making a bad situation worse, in fact:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-has-failed-to-gain-labour-supporters-among-the-wider-electorate-poll-reveals-10509394.html

In the first test of voting intention since Mr Corbyn’s election, Labour have increased their poll rating by just one point, up to 30 per cent. The Conservatives are up two points to 42 per cent, meaning their lead has stretched to 12 points in the ComRes poll....The findings will come as a blow to Mr Corbyn’s aides, who were hoping that his staggering victory on first-round preferences, in which he secured 60 per cent of the Labour vote, would trigger a rush in support among the voting public. The survey was conducted on Wednesday, when Mr Corbyn attempted a new kind of consensual PMQs, and Thursday.

....Out of a list of eight senior Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem politicians, Mr Corbyn ranks the lowest for favourability, with a net rating of minus 18 per cent. Boris Johnson is seen as the most favourable among voters with a net rating of plus 8 per cent. Mr Cameron is second with a net rating of minus 7 per cent. Labour’s new deputy leader Tom Watson is third with a net rating of minus 8 per cent. Theresa May is fourth most favourable, with a net rating of minus 11, while Mr Farron is fifth with a net rating of minus 12. George Osborne, the Chancellor and his opponent John McDonnell will be equally dismayed that they are joint sixth on minus 17.

Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne have better ratings when only those who are certain to vote are taken into account: the PM has a rating of plus 3, while the Chancellor is on minus 7. Mr Corbyn is on minus 22 among those certain to vote.

...Voters are divided over whether, at 70 years old, the Labour leader would be too old to be prime minister at the next general election – 40 per cent agree and 41 per cent disagree. Interestingly, older people are most likely to say Mr Corbyn will be too old in 2020: 49 per cent of people aged 65 and over agree, while 38 per cent disagree compared with 29 per cent of under 35s who agree, and 44 per cent disagree.

[jeff47]

94. Hey look! More flailing

Again, other PMs won with less of their party's backing. You keep utterly failing to address that. Instead, you keep talking about how evil a liberal is because...he won with a larger percentage than any other recent party election.

Doesn't it suck when reality keeps not conforming to your political desires?

[MADem]

95. Looking in your mirror are you?

Where have I said one word about "how evil a liberal is...?"

Now, not only are you name calling, but you're telling tales, AND making accusations about my connection with "reality."

My "reality" is conforming with what's happening in UK, which includes a desertion of labour by voters because they aren't responding to their needs. Pity yours isn't, but that's your issue, not mine. Instead of seeing things as they are, your response is to blame a complete stranger on DU for the disaster happening across the pond.

Let's memorialize this bit of nastiness as well:

jeff47
94. Hey look! More flailing
View profile
Again, other PMs won with less of their party's backing. You keep utterly failing to address that. Instead, you keep talking about how evil a liberal is because...he won with a larger percentage than any other recent party election.

Doesn't it suck when reality keeps not conforming to your political desires?

When a party's voting universe is SHRINKING, and people are running AWAY from the party, it doesn't matter how much of a declining share they get. What matters is how effectively they are able to build a coalition--and labour has failed at doing that. Miserably.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/23/labour-cannon-fodder-desert-to-snp-in-glasgow-east-general-election

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/apr/24/localgovernment.localelections2007

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

40. They're better off without anyone who would resign.

Maybe if we're lucky, some of our own warmongers in the military will resign when Bernie wins the White House.

[villager]

41. Sounds like we're due for a British remake of "Seven Days in May"

[brooklynite]

44. UNREC

A "mutiny" and mass resignations does not equal a coup attempt.

[villager]

66. RE-REC

But your benefit of the doubt for far-right elements in the military is noted. And appreciated.

By them.

[brooklynite]

73. My benefit of the doubt comes from a benefit of the facts...

...nothing in the story indicates that a coup is considered remotely possible.

[villager]

75. Sure. Militaries in the west have never done *anything* to undercut democracies!

Got it.

Faith restored, etc.

[brooklynite]

76. Name an instance of a coup (or attempt) in the UK

there have been two mutinies in the last 100 years; neither resulted in anything approaching a coup attempt.

[villager]

80. Harold Wilson thought one might be brewing in 1974

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Wilson_conspiracy_theories#Alleged_1974_military_coup_plot

[brooklynite]

81. I stopped read when I reached "conspiracy theories"

[villager]

82. You generally stop reading anything that contradicts your opinions-in-advance

Have a good one!

[MohRokTah]

84. No, he wisely disregards nutball conspiracy theories. eom

[villager]

87. Somehow, I will take Harold Wilson's comments on these things over his. Or yours.

Thanks for weighing in from center/right, though...

[MohRokTah]

88. Anybody who disagrees with you is now "center/right" eh?

I should alert for your unfounded ad hominem attack on me.

[villager]

89. Guardian: Wilson plot was our Watergate

<snip>

Such talk stoked up an establishment already trembling at what it saw as Britain's inexorable slide towards anarchy, if not communist rule. Institutions were collapsing, inflation was rising, tax was at a near-mythic top rate of 98%, and Britain was losing the last outposts of empire. Above all, the trade unions, riddled with leftists and Soviet sympathisers, seemed to have the nation under their thumb. "It was no longer a green and pleasant land, England," recalls retired Major Alexander Greenwood, Colonel Blimp made flesh.

The great and the good feared that the country was out of control, and that Wilson lacked either the will or the desire to stand firm. Retired intelligence officers gathered with military brass and plotted a coup d'etat. They would seize Heathrow airport, the BBC and Buckingham Palace. Lord Mountbatten would be the strongman, acting as interim prime minister. The Queen would read a statement urging the public to support the armed forces, because the government was no longer able to keep order.

It sounds fantastic, almost comic. But watch Greenwood talk of setting up his own private army in 1974-75. Listen to the former intelligence officer Brian Crozier admit his lobbying of the army, how they "seriously considered the possibility of a military takeover". Watch the archive footage of troop manoeuvres at Heathrow, billed as a routine exercise but about which Wilson was never informed - and which he interpreted as a show of strength, a warning, even a rehearsal for a coup. Listen to the voice of Wilson, who five weeks after resigning summoned two BBC journalists to tell them, secretly, of the plot.

<snip>

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/mar/15/comment.labour1

[kimbutgar]

42. I'm in London now on vacation and the newspapers are all doom and gloom about him

The letters to the editors are positive for Corbyn. The powers to be are afraid of him. I read a nasty Article about his previous marriages.

[MADem]

53. He's apparently quite the busy fellow--not all the reports have been nasty, some are more

'amused.'

The Guardian, who should be cutting him some slack, had this to say:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/18/jeremy-corbyn-how-he-fared-in-his-first-week-as-labour-leader

Then it was back to the Commons for his first appearance on the Labour frontbench during a debate on the trade union bill – flanked by Eagle, shadow international development secretary Diane Abbott, and McDonnell, his controversial choice as shadow chancellor – and a bumpy first meeting with his fellow Labour MPs. He was greeted respectfully but not entirely warmly by a group who, in large part, had wanted anyone but him to win. For a man who had spent the summer being cheered by hundreds of supporters at campaign events all over the country, it was a rude awakening.

[brooklynite]

43. As a sidebar, the Liberal Democratic Party sees a window of opportunity...

....picking up moderate voters if Labour fractures.

[BillZBubb]

86. The "Liberal" Democratic party is pathetic.

Anyone who supports them is an ignorant ass.

[T_i_B]

98. The Lib Dems were a very good party prior to Clegg

Clegg wrecked the Lib Dems for a shot at power for himself, which he totally ballsed up.

After being smashed in the general election this year, the Lib Dems have been totally anonymous. With Jeremy Corbyn taking Labour so far to the left their only real option is to go back to being the "centre party" (and maybe rediscover the joys of standing for something other than grabbing power at any cost) in the hope of picking up moderates from the Tories, and especially from Labour.

[Diclotican]

45. Turborama

Turborama

Then - if Corbyn became PM - in an legal election - the military brass who claimed this - should be fired as one of the first actions the prime minister would have to do - and to make an example of him for everyone else who might think in the same lines.... As it is NOT inside the envelope of any General - or officer, or for that matter private soldiers, to make national policy about civilian rule - the Military is in the hands of the civilian oversight - as it should be - and any treath to that rule should be swift and clear - something to be made a example of - for everyone else who might adhere to the idea military might have a part of policy making...

Diclotican

[Cal33]

46. Too many right-wingers among the British military brass (probably ours, too). Let them go. Good

riddance to bad rubbish.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

47. Those generals never had it so good over the last few years

Well they'd better watch out Jeremy will take their expensive cocktail receptions away!

[jmowreader]

48. What's the British equivalent of a Relief for Cause Officer Evaluation Report?

[MADem]

56. On what basis?

If an American general said "I think that assclown Mitch McConnell is an idiot shit, and if he ever became President there'd be a mutiny," that would be, in essence, equivalent to this gin-soaked general's ruminations about what the future just might hold.

Corbyn is NOT running the UK. He's the OPPOSITION.

[cantbeserious]

52. The British MIC Must Be Cowering In Fear At The Prospect Of Reduced Funding

eom

[nsd]

57. When Donald Rumsfeld resigned nine years ago, ...

there were rumors that he had been forced out by a "generals' revolt." High-ranking officers would no longer work with him and were prepared to resign, and Rumsfeld's continuing as secretary of defense was thereby untenable.

I thought Rumsfeld was terrible and I think GWB was the worst president since Nixon, but I still was appalled by these rumors.

Civilian control is a bedrock principle of American governance. Nobody elected any of these generals or admirals; they're not accountable to the people. Any authority they possess derives entirely from the civilians (president, secretary of defense) higher up in the chain of command. Their duty, as officers and as Americans, is to respect the offices (president, secretary of defense) and the chain of command.

If the rumors were true, I thought any general officer who threatened to resign if Rumsfeld was not removed should have been immediately cashiered, retired at a lower rank and thrown out in disgrace.

And I say that as someone who thinks Rumsfeld harmed America. I think, through his arrogance and his stupidity, he hurt Americans in uniform and Iraqi children, women, and men. Still, he was the secretary of defense appointed by the president. Calling for him to be thrown out was the job of senators and representatives, not generals and admirals.

Britain is not America. But I have a similar reaction to this story (if it's true). Anybody in uniform who thinks they can counteract the will of the electorate is not fit to wear a uniform.

[MADem]

58. Resignation is an entirely HONORABLE way to express dissatisfaction.

What, they should have kept working for that maniac, as he told them to shovel more and more cannon fodder....errrr...I mean young soldiers...into the grinder?

Now, if they tried to off the guy, or give him the permanent trots via his personal chef, or incited riots and mayhem within the ranks, or something evil on those lines, that would be dreadfully wrong, but to simply tell your service chief or secretary "I can't work with this asshole, please forward my resignation to the President" is an entirely HONORABLE way of dealing with a difference of viewpoint.

You're not required to suspend your own personal INTEGRITY because you've been granted a military commission, and if you're working with a maniac you aren't required to submit to abuse of authority without any recourse. And you are entitled to submit a letter of resignation if you can't "deal." The President can--and sometimes does--refuse to accept that resignation, but it's an odd occurrence when the reason for the request to resign isn't taken into consideration when resolving the matter that led to the resignation request.

The ultimate "civilian control of the military" rests with POTUS--if you are a commissioned officer, you serve at the pleasure of the President--not the service secretary or the SecDef.

[jeff47]

78. Actually, they were doing the right thing.

If a general/admiral thinks the Secretary of Defense is terrible, resigning is the appropriate response.

If your story was correct, it was Team W that made the political decision to dump Rumsfeld. Not the generals. If Team W loved Rumsfeld, then they would have made the political decision to ignore the resignations.

[Truprogressive85]

59. PM Corbyn has a nice ring to it

I would rather have a leader that fought against injustice than some Elitist Pig fornicator

[roamer65]

61. "A Very British Coup"

It would probably play out like that BBC miniseries.

The banksters will dig for dirt on Corbyn...anything they can find to smear and compromise him.

[Nitram]

62. So much for the British rule of law.

Except that I don't believe a word of it. This is just the kind of fear-mongering conservatives in this country engaged in before and after Obama was elected.

[hedgehog]

64. It wouldn't be the first time........

The Curragh Incident of 20 March 1914, also known as the Curragh Mutiny, occurred in the Curragh, County Kildare, Ireland. The Curragh Camp was then the main base for the British Army in Ireland, which at the time formed part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Ireland was about to receive a measure of devolved government, which included Ulster.

With Irish Home Rule due to become law in 1914, the British Cabinet contemplated some kind of military action against the Ulster Volunteers who threatened to rebel against it. Many officers, especially those with Irish Protestant connections, of whom the most prominent was Hubert Gough, threatened to resign rather than obey, privately encouraged from London by senior officers including Henry Wilson. Although the Cabinet issued a document claiming that the issue had been a misunderstanding, the Secretary of State for War J.E.B. Seely and the CIGS (professional head of the Army) Sir John French were forced to resign after amending it to promise that the British Army would not be used against the Ulster loyalists.

The event contributed both to unionist confidence, and to the growing Irish separatist movement, convincing Irish nationalists that they could not expect support from the British army in Ireland. In turn, this increased renewed nationalist support for paramilitary forces. The Home Rule Bill was passed but postponed, and the growing fear of civil war in Ireland led on to the British government considering some form of partition of Ireland instead, which eventually took place.

The event is also notable in being one of the few incidents since the English Civil Wars in which elements of the British military openly intervened, as it turned out successfully, in politics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curragh_incident


http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/easterrising/prelude/pr06.shtml

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

65. Codswallop!

The right-wing tabloid Daily Mail quotes some unnamed source about a prediction of something that might happen if some left-wing individual succeeds?

Mutiny? Bullshit.

[Octafish]

69. Here it is, where democracy meets the hobnailed boot.

Mutiny is treason, or, if the mutineers win, patriotism.

[LeftishBrit]

74. Daily Fail strikes again...

Last edited Tue Sep 22, 2015, 04:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Apparently it was ONE individual who opened his fat mouth, and Army spokesmen condemned the statement.

I doubt that Corbyn is the top choice of most of our military; but I am sure that mutiny, for most of them, is down there well below having sex with a dead pig in perceived desirability.

[Nye Bevan]

83. UK DUers: is the Prime Minister considered to be the Commander in Chief?

If not, who is?

[MADem]

96. Not technically, but in actuality, yes.

The Commander-in-Chief of the British Armed Forces is a position vested in the British monarch,[1][2] currently Queen Elizabeth II, who as Sovereign and head of state is the "Head of the Armed Forces".[3] Long-standing constitutional convention, however, has vested de facto executive authority, by the exercise of Royal Prerogative powers, in the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence, and the Prime Minister (acting with the support of the Cabinet) makes the key decisions on the use of the armed forces. The Queen, however, remains the "ultimate authority" of the military, with officers and personnel swearing allegiance only to the monarch.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-chief_of_the_British_Armed_Forces

[Nye Bevan]

97. Thanks! (nt)