At 11.30 am today Jeremy Corbyn will give a landmark speech on his and Labour’s approach to international relations puts him streets ahead of Theresa May as the one Britons can trust not only with Brexit negotiations but with the UK’s relationships with the rest of the world.
Corbyn’s statesmanship stands in stark contrast to May’s default ‘cowardly bully’ style and will mean that this country can hold its head up among nations. It makes him and Labour the only choice for any voter who thinks sane, humane, thoughtful and rational are desirable qualities in a national leader to make the UK safer.
A Labour press release just de-embargoed (emphases by this blog) said:
Jeremy Corbyn, Leader of the Labour Party, will deliver a speech at Chatham House on Friday in which he is expected to say:
“If elected Prime Minister, I will do everything necessary to protect the safety and security of our people and our country. The best defence for Britain is a government actively engaged in seeking peaceful solutions to the world’s problems.
But I am not a pacifist. I accept that military action, under international law and as a genuine last resort, is in some circumstances necessary. But that is very far from the kind of unilateral wars and interventions that have almost become routine in recent times.
Waiting to see which way the wind blows in Washington isn’t strong leadership. And pandering to an erratic Trump administration will not deliver stability.
Britain deserves better than simply outsourcing our country’s security and prosperity to the whims of the Trump White House. So no more hand-holding with Donald Trump – a Labour government will conduct a robust and independent foreign policy made in London.
This is the fourth general election in a row to be held while Britain is at war and our armed forces are in action in the Middle East and beyond. The “war on terror” which lies behind these interventions has failed.
They have not increased our security at home – rather the opposite – and they have caused destabilisation and devastation abroad. The ‘bomb first, talk later’ approach to security has failed. To persist with it, as the Conservative Government has made clear it is determined to do, is a recipe for increasing not reducing threats and insecurity.
Corbyn’s thoughtful, measured, independent approach sets him apart not only from Theresa May but from former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair – and shows him far stronger in mind and character than either.
The event will be live-streamed by Chatham House and can be accessed here. The suggested hashtag for social media discussion is #CHCorbyn.
The SKWAWKBOX is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you found this information helpful and can afford to, please do click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your support so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.
Reblogged this on sdbast.
Barry Gardiner, Labour’s Secretary of State for International Trade, has just been interviewed by Nick Robinson on the BBC’s today programme.
Barry took Robinson apart, piece by piece. In colloquial terms, Barry ripped Robinson a new one.
Reblogged this on Perfectlyfadeddelusions.
Just finished watching the live feed, Is Jeremy Corbyn a man I would trust to keep us safe, an emphatic yes. I read an listened to so many saying he would be useless, doesn’t have a clue, he has made himself personally aware of what is going on in this world, not relied on reports from others, or bits of news feed, he has got up of his ass and visited them himself. I’ve been arguing for his entire time as leader he would increase the armed forces, Trident he as a true democratic person no matter how much he hates nuclear weapons will do as parliament decided. It’s a huge waste of valuable resources, would he press the button, if it came to that point then it would be to late.
Is he a true statesman hell yes & I would want him in my corner to protect me.
There is an interesting article in The New York Times about May’s campaign strategy, its scary how accurate it is.
“Theresa May’s Vapid Vision for a One-Party State”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/opinion/theresa-mays-vapid-vision-for-a-one-party-state.html
Brilliant speech, yet again! Here’s a video of Corbyn actually delivering the final draft of that speech: https://youtu.be/xj_Mmzaf-h4
Congratulations, Corbyn!
—-
Regarding the mainstream media, however – well, shame on the BBC for their disgraceful coverage! Having seen this article, I tuned into BBC Radio 4 at about 11:30 hoping to hear it live, but there was no mention of it till the 12 o’clock news broadcast which reported it in future tense. Afterwards, it wasn’t mentioned again till the 13 o’clock news broadcast which – disappointingly – began reporting it in /past/ tense! Okay, so no live broadcast, but at least they’re reporting it, right?
Well their reporting of it was shameful!! They chopped it up into dribs and drabs, broadcasting only a small fraction of it, maybe about a quarter, certainly less than half. If it was a long speech then perhaps it would be understandable to not broadcast its entirety, but it’s not long at all – that video’s only 2½ minutes! I think they broadcast less than a minute in total, but not contiguously.
Why describe what he said when you can literally just broadcast what he said? Surely a good way to reduce bias is to display the evidence and let people examine it themselves. When the question is ‘What did Corbyn say in his speech?’, the evidence alone is sufficient to answer that question! Answering it by describing what he says, without also providing the verbatim evidence of the speech, gives the commentator ample opportunity to omit points, take things out-of-context, and paraphrase to deliberately insert roughly synonymous terminology that has widespread misunderstanding, ambiguity with unrelated negative concepts, mythological associations with unrelated negative concepts, or other unjust negative connotations that distract from the original, very sensible speech.
And the BBC commentary was very clearly trying to put a negative tone on it! These tiny soundbites totalling less than a minute were then grossly outweighed by about /a quarter of an hour/ of discussion, which was obviously obsessed with trying to claim that this outstandingly rational and humane position is, somehow, some kind of magical departure from his usual – allegedly-nonsensical – position on international relations.
On the bright side, though, if the mainstream media are resorting to the narrative of ‘Oh no – this isn’t the /real/ Jeremy Corbyn!’ then I feel like their desperation is so intense that this battle for the truth is somehow reaching the endgame. Let’s hope so!
This is one of the many reasons that I became interested in politics once more. Jeremy Corbyn and his shadow cabinet are leading us into a safer future, and I just hope people realise this and vote accordingly on the 8th June.
If they do I will, at last, be able to sleep without constant worry at night!