Paul Mason is right about Labour Foreign policy.

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Be Bevanite on defence. Trident will be renewed — so we should put it on the table in an active multilateral disarmament programme; in the meantime we should be prepared to unilaterally move back from continuous at-sea deterrence (CASD) — or conversely to ramp up both Britain’s nuclear and conventional deterrents, depending on global conditions. I accept unilateral nuclear disarmament is also a viable and logical policy, and has supporters way beyond Labour, but I do not support it.

    Whatever your principles, I urge you to understand practically what Syriza in Greece understood: if you are going to make serious inroads into the wealth and power of the elite, don’t try simultaneously to disrupt its military hierarchy and geopolitical stance. Even if Labour were to adopt unilateral nuclear disarmament as a policy, it’s should pledge a referendum before implementation.

    When it comes to conventional security, there are serious threats facing the UK, both from Islamist terrorism and from an autocratic regime in Russia that is playing a destabilisation game in Ukraine, Syria and East Europe. Labour should have a distinct, ethical foreign policy; it should ban arms sales to despots like Saudi Arabia; it should never again blindly support Israel’s wars against the Palestinians. It should disavow Cameron’s policy of a military with “global reach” in favour of one that defends us against terrorism and takes responsibility of stabilising Europe’s borders with Russia.

    But Labour should uphold the “military covenant”, remain in Nato, meet the 2% of GDP spending commitment; and remain a P5 power at the UN. Our national security strategy has to be serious, coherent and command a broad consensus across society.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Title of thread should probably be more defence policy)

    Source

    https://medium.com/mosquito-ridge/fi...t-dd566b812732

    Labour now needs to accept trident for practical reasons, regardless of how stupid it may or may not be.

    "Whatever your principles, I urge you to understand practically what Syriza in Greece understood: if you are going to make serious inroads into the wealth and power of the elite, don’t try simultaneously to disrupt its military hierarchy and geopolitical stance. Even if Labour were to adopt unilateral nuclear disarmament as a policy, it’s should pledge a referendum before implementation. "

    If you throw in how alienating it is to most of the population as well the above paragraph is spot on.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    X
    Edit: Having re-read his words, he is clearly wrong. He is essentially continuing to support unilateral disarmament and undermining Israel's security. That I cannot support
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Even if Labour were to adopt unilateral nuclear disarmament as a policy, it’s should pledge a referendum before implementation.
    I hope this part is a joke...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Mason says that the party needs to come together, and then attacks those 200,000 who voted for Smith in the most disgusting personal terms;

    the hedge funds, supermarket bosses and City types who thought the Labour Party was going to be a vehicle for a compassionate form of neoliberalism.
    Lisa Nandy's left-wing credentials are impeccable, she used to be one of Jeremy Corbyn's closest allies and was spoken of as his successor in Momentum circles. She was Owen Smith's deputy campaign chair.

    In my Labour branch, the people who favour Corbyn tend to be young, middle-class metropolitan lefties, whereas the people who support Owen Smith tend to be older, working-class people, some of whom have been voting Labour since the late 1950s and have been an incredible support to the party in getting out there and doorknocking and leafletting; rain, hail or shine.

    And there's this (referencing the new NEC rules on social media banning abuse);

    The great British plebiean tradition of ribald humour, naming traitors and ridiculing the powerful
    So those of us who don't support the Blessed Jeremy are traitors now? What a pathetic, extremist position.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Here Mason says Labour has to go into alliance with the nationalists and the Greens;

    Link to the wider progressive movement. Labour is a century-old party, with a rigid hierarchy, in a world that’s become fluid, and full of autonomous movements — both political and cultural. The Green Party has grown by tapping into the values of people mobilised through local and national activism to save the planet.
    Labour has the ability to be a party of government, to rule in its own right. But not if it starts partnering up with fringe organisations. Mason seems to be intent on chasing a million or so middle-class, metropolitan/urban votes that will lose Labour 2 million votes and any possibility of winning in the marginals.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    I hope this part is a joke...
    I'm not sure how I missed that part, absolutely it's a joke.

    Merely adopting the policy will lose Labour substantial votes. The GMB union, which represents the workers in the shipyards, voted to endorse Owen Smith. GMB has almost a million members, and in an electoral situation where Labour needs to keep all its votes and gain another 2 million or so from the Tories, that policy would be devastating to the party's chances.

    Labour would lose some of its own supporters, and those 2 million Tory voters Labour needs to convince would be very circumspect if Labour was adopting such an extreme fringe position.

    The Labour Party under Clement Attlee was the party that created the British independent deterrent. In 1964, the Labour Party went into election promising to dismantle the Polaris programme, but once they got into power they kept it. Every Labour government since then has stayed true to Attlee's initial decision to uphold the defence and the dignity of this kingdom with an independent nuclear deterrent capability.

    A Labour Party that is going to the electorate with a fairly radical economic plan needs to be trustworthy, reassuring and small-c conservative on defence matters to have any chance at all of winning government
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    I'm not sure how I missed that part, absolutely it's a joke.

    Merely adopting the policy will lose Labour substantial votes. The GMB union, which represents the workers in the shipyards, voted to endorse Owen Smith. GMB has almost a million members, and in an electoral situation where Labour needs to keep all its votes and gain another 2 million or so from the Tories, that policy would be devastating to the party's chances.

    Labour would lose some of its own supporters, and those 2 million Tory voters Labour needs to convince would be very circumspect if Labour was adopting such an extreme fringe position.

    The Labour Party under Clement Attlee was the party that created the British independent deterrent. In 1964, the Labour Party went into election promising to dismantle the Polaris programme, but once they got into power they kept it. Every Labour government since then has stayed true to Attlee's initial decision to uphold the defence and the dignity of this kingdom with an independent nuclear deterrent capability.

    A Labour Party that is going to the electorate with a fairly radical economic plan needs to be trustworthy, reassuring and small-c conservative on defence matters to have any chance at all of winning government
    I'm more than happy for Labour to have a policy of scrapping the 'deterrent', my problem is putting it to a referendum. To put an issue as technical as that to a referendum is even more absurd than the EU referendum, as if the average layperson will have the slightest clue about the arguments for and against.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Surely it is contradictory to support both keeping Trident as a bargaining chip in a multilateral negotiation and supporting unilateral disarmament. There are some good points in there, but his position seems ill thought out and confused.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Edit: Having re-read his words, he is clearly wrong. He is essentially continuing to support unilateral disarmament and undermining Israel's security. That I cannot support
    Yes because Israel having nukes stops Palestinians carrying out terror attacks.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Yes because Israel having nukes stops Palestinians carrying out terror attacks.
    I wasn't even talking about Israel's nuclear programme.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I actually agree more or less - apart from the part about Israel which I think needs to be more nuanced. I've long said there needs to be a referendum on trident- which I think is an outdated vanity project.

    That said if he's arguing this out of pragmatism rather than sincerity then he needs to do one.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Yes because Israel having nukes stops Palestinians carrying out terror attacks.
    You're talking about a country that has been attacked numerous times by other countries and coalitions of countries. That's not even taking into account Iran, who quite obviously would attempt to destroy Israel tomorrow if it had the opportunity and the ability to do so without simultaneously killing itself.

    There's a worrying myopia that some people have. Look at what a lot of these anti-Trident people say. It's always looking at the state of the world in 2016, hardly ever taking into account how much the world changes. What is not a threat today could well be a threat in one, five, ten, fifteen years. We simply don't know, that's the point.

    But I digress. Israel has been attacked militarily by other countries and a handful of other countries would love nothing more than to obliterate Israel. That's more than enough reason for Israel to be fully-armed and capable of self-defense in any scenario - be it terrorist attacks against its civilians by Hamas and Hezbollah or a Six Day War or Yom Kippur War. If you are unaware of these wars, I'd suggest reading about them so that you can understand the nature of the threats Israel has faced and indeed will continue to face. Now you may not like Israel or even support its right to exist, but don't deny with a straight face its need for a range of defense capabilities.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    You're talking about a country that has been attacked numerous times by other countries and coalitions of countries. That's not even taking into account Iran, who quite obviously would attempt to destroy Israel tomorrow if it had the opportunity and the ability to do so without simultaneously killing itself.
    What is the point in having nuclear deterrents if you can't nuke those that attack you?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    That said if he's arguing this out of pragmatism rather than sincerity then he needs to do one.
    Why? Politics of gaining power is all about being practical. Personally I'm on the fence on trident but practically I can see how Labour do really need to support it.

    On foreign policy I think Mason is genuinely at odds with Corbyn. He seems to have a kind of internationalist leftism about him reminiscence of international anti fascism of the 30s.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I actually agree more or less - apart from the part about Israel which I think needs to be more nuanced. I've long said there needs to be a referendum on trident- which I think is an outdated vanity project.
    Not sure if you've noticed - but the cold war has started again... hardly outdated given this.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    What is the point in having nuclear deterrents if you can't nuke those that attack you?
    The example of Iran is in the text that you quoted.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JuliusDS92)
    The example of Iran is in the text that you quoted.
    Does Iran have nuclear weapons?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Does Iran have nuclear weapons?
    Th world and their dog knows Iran has been doing it's damndest to get/create them. Not being obtuse.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Th world and their dog knows Iran has been doing it's damndest to get/create them. Not being obtuse.
    But it doesn't have them. Why doesn't Israel just nuke them?

    Why doesn't Israel just nuke Palistein? What good are nuclear weapons as a deterrent if you wont use them when attacked? Isreal is a pussy.

    Iran should have nukes. If every country had nukes no country would ever attack each other. Cos deterrence. World peace. Noble peace prize please.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: September 30, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Would you ever go to a non Russell Group uni?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.