Whether Corbyn is right or wrong with his obvious annoyance at the General for getting involved in 'political matters', I'm afraid I have to agree with the latter's opinion. Corbyn to complain to MoD about ‘political interference’ from army chief | Politics | The Guardian Why on earth would you ever elect somebody in this day and age who is clearly not made of the right stuff required to at least act like you'd make extremely difficult decisions? Jeremy Corbyn had some good ideas, but he's also far too much of an idealist and frankly I'm gobsmacked he's still a main party leader. What a knob
General Houghton has clearly demonstrated he is unsuited for his job which is to do as he's told by the Government of the day, he has absolutely no place sticking his nose into politics and if he is incapable of keeping his views to himself then he should resign to allow himself to spout forth with no potential conflict of interest.
The Chief of the General Staff (unlike junior officers and officials) is entitled and expected to express his views on defence topics, especially when asked a direct question in an interview. And especially when what he says is a statement of the bleedin' obvious. Complaining about this is utterly ridiculous.
Whether I agree or not with Corbyn is irrelevant. He is the democratically elected of Her Majesty's Opposition and as such is an important member of our government. We have a long tradition of the Armed Services being non-political in this country, for a number of good reasons, not least their subservience to our parliamentary system which is there to represent all of the citizens not just the ones the Head of the Army agrees with. There is a chance (slim I'll admit) that Corbyn could become our Prime Minister and as such the Military have no place in commenting on his policies or suitability to serve as such. For the record I voted Conservative last time and Lib Dem the time before that and would not want to see Corbyn in number 10.
This was not political interference, it was comment upon the effectiveness of a weapons system, with deterrence at it's core, which is undermined if some half baked politician says he cannot imagine a situation in which he would authorise it's use. Fortunately the probability of Jeremy Corbyn ever getting into that situation is virtually nil.
The General has more to offer on this subject than the bearded Trotskyist. I know who I trust more on the matter.
Why would an Army General know the details of firing Trident missiles which have never been anywhere near his command.
I have no idea. Trident is not a truly independent system as it relies upon the US for servicing of the missiles, it is only the warheads that are British. No doubt there are targeting safeguards built in by the US but we are led to believe that it can be fired on the say so of the PM, assuming a legal order is issued, and therein lies it's deterrence value.
The difference between being a member of the government and part of the opposition is a lot more than semantics. It would be seriously wrong and a big problem if a service chief contradicted the Secretary of State for Defence in public about an important defence issue, of course. But supporting government policies, and thereby contradicting opposition policies, is perfectly normal and commonplace. As it happens, in this instance it is Jeremy Corbyn who is contradicting the policy of his own party - as he has been doing for the past 30 years. General Houghton was supporting the policy of not only the present government but every government since the 1940s and of the opposition too. It is extraordinary that he should be criticised for doing so. As far as Parliament is concerned, MPs continually express a wide variety of opinions on many topics. These are frequently contradicted by public officials and officers. So what?
Not when you consider who is doing the criticising. Corbyn, with Momentum (a resurgent Militant), is taking the Labour Party back to the 80's.
