The Biggest Hypocrite Ever?

[Medwayseagull]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...crous-new-Labour-leader-suggest-end-Nato.html

Corbyn's 'dangerously deluded' view on defence: Minister in Blair government says it is 'ludicrous' for new Labour leader to suggest an end to Nato

• George Robertson said it was ludicrous for Corbyn to suggest end to Nato
• Also attacked Mr Corbyn's plan to scrap Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent
• Mr Corbyn, chairman of Stop the War coalition and vice of Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, has indicated he will try to impose his pacifist views

By JASON GROVES FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 23:51, 15 September 2015 | UPDATED: 00:28, 16 September 2015
192shares

345View comments​

A former Labour defence secretary last night condemned Jeremy Corbyn's 'dangerously deluded' stance on national security.
George Robertson, who served as defence secretary under Tony Blair, said it was 'ludicrous' for Labour's new leader to suggest Nato should be wound up.
Lord Robertson, who later served as Nato's secretary-general, also attacked Mr Corbyn's campaign to scrap Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent, saying it was the 'crucial insurance policy that ensures our safety and way of life will be ultimately protected.'
Scroll down for video

+3


George Robertson, who served as defence secretary under Tony Blair, said it was 'ludicrous' for Labour's new leader to suggest Nato should be wound up

Mr Corbyn, chairman of the Stop the War coalition and vice-chairman of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, has alarmed Labour MPs this week by indicating he will try and impose his pacifist views.
Several senior figures have rejected offers to serve in his shadow defence team because of concerns about his stance.
RELATED ARTICLES

• Previous
• 1
• Next

• Labour confirms Corbyn DIDN'T sing national anthem at... Corbyn calls for UNLIMITED benefits after being cheered into... Revealed: Labour's hard-line shadow chancellor raged against... A flypast to remember the Few: Biggest display of wartime...

SHARE THIS ARTICLE

Share
192 shares



Labour's new shadow defence secretary Maria Eagle is understood to have warned Mr Corbyn that she will not support his policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament.
Miss Eagle has previously voted for the renewal of trident, something which Mr Corbyn opposes.
Mr Corbyn, a pacifist, has also said Nato should have been disbanded after the Cold war.
And he has even called for the army to be 'abolished', saying the UK should follow the lead of Costa Rica which disbanded its army after the 1948 civil war.

+3


Mr Corbyn, chairman of the Stop the War coalition and vice-chairman of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, has alarmed Labour MPs this week by indicating he will try and impose his pacifist views

+3


Corbyn has even called for the army to be 'abolished', saying the UK should follow the lead of Costa Rica which disbanded its army after the 1948 civil war

Writing on the website PoliticsHome yesterday, Lord Robertson said: 'There are some who believe that defence is an optional extra in a time of austerity. They are dangerously deluded.
'The world may be spared the kind of nation against nation conflict that disfigured the last century, but there are some new and potent threats out there and we cannot be complacent. Only the wildly optimistic or the politically misguided can think that our armed forces and membership of Nato are anything but absolutely essential.
'Our defences, from our national nuclear deterrent to the last reserve soldier, is the crucial insurance policy that our safety and way of life will be ultimately protected.
'Those who say that schools and hospitals are more important than our military capabilities have no knowledge of history. Cut your defences and everything else is at risk, so it's a false choice.
'And then there is the school of thought that says our nuclear deterrent is useless in the current world. The money, they claim, should be spent on welfare or social services. To them I say just look at the investment being made by Russia and China in their nuclear arsenals. They don't think it is money misspent -for them it is about national survival.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ur-leader-suggest-end-Nato.html#ixzz3qu6yXVPi
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Basing your rant on a Daily Mail article is your biggest mistake if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

I'd call Corbyn many things, an ideolog, a fool, an idealist, a socialist and much more but I don't think he's a hypocrite. He is clearly not a credible prime minister seeing as the UK remains one of the wealthiest and militarily handy countries on earth. But a hypocrite? No.

 

[mikeyjh]

And you should be applauding the Osbornes if they end up taking higher salaries because then the Treasury taxes the money at 45% plus 2% employees' NI plus 13.8% employer's NI as opposed to paying 20% in corporation tax.

Pointed out on another thread, it's pretty deluded to think they've engineered their payouts in such a way as to ensure Osborne senior actually increased his tax liability. Let's be honest, that didn't happen did it.

 

[Buzzer]

Pointed out on another thread, it's pretty deluded to think they've engineered their payouts in such a way as to ensure Osborne senior actually increased his tax liability. Let's be honest, that didn't happen did it.

I never said they did. I rather think they planned larger salaries as a way to ensure higher net pay. Higher tax liabilities are simply a consequence of that.

DiS was bemoaning the fact that the Osbornes were continuing to take large salaries from their own business whilst paying no Corporation Tax. I was just pointing out that if they reduced their salaries then the Treasury would be considerably worse off.

 

[El Presidente]

Does anyone "want" to get involved in wars?

George Bush?

 

[Peteinblack]

Basing your rant on a Daily Mail article is your biggest mistake if you want to be taken seriously.

THIS!

The Daily Mail is (and always has been) ultra-Right-wing propaganda; anti-Labour, anti-trade union, anti-public sector, anti-welfare, anti-foreigner (unless they're American), anti-human rights, etc. The Mail is just a sh*t-stirring, muck-raking, hate-fuelling, Leftie-baiting, misogynistic, Tory rag, so to base any opinion or arguments on something printed in the Mail is laughable.

The paper might just as well be written and published by Conservative Party HQ - although it thinks that even Cameron is too Left-wing or liberal.

It's mostly read by neurotic, narrow-minded, lower middle-class, sexually-frustrated, constantly-tut tutting, women 'of a certain age' who dislike or distrust anyone 'different' and who are shocked by their own shadows or reflection - they probably bath or shower with their clothes on!

Remember in the 1930s, the Mail thought Hitler was a decent bloke with the right ideas; not surprising, given that Hitler hated the same individuals, minorities and social groups that the Mail hates today.

 

[Buzzer]

George Bush?

And Fidel Castro.

 

[El Presidente]

And Fidel Castro.

and the Grand Old Duke of York...........and Hitler.............and Mussolini.

 

[FREDBINNEY]

He doesn't wish to disband the army. Even if he did, which he doesn't, it's still possible to respect the fallen and not want any more war.

Jeremy Corbyn is pretty big on respecting the fallen, usually IRA ones.

 

[Castello]

THIS!

The Daily Mail is (and always has been) ultra-Right-wing propaganda; anti-Labour, anti-trade union, anti-public sector, anti-welfare, anti-foreigner (unless they're American), anti-human rights, etc. The Mail is just a sh*t-stirring, muck-raking, hate-fuelling, Leftie-baiting, misogynistic, Tory rag, so to base any opinion or arguments on something printed in the Mail is laughable.

The paper might just as well be written and published by Conservative Party HQ - although it thinks that even Cameron is too Left-wing or liberal.

It's mostly read by neurotic, narrow-minded, lower middle-class, sexually-frustrated, constantly-tut tutting, women 'of a certain age' who dislike or distrust anyone 'different' and who are shocked by their own shadows or reflection - they probably bath or shower with their clothes on!

Remember in the 1930s, the Mail thought Hitler was a decent bloke with the right ideas; not surprising, given that Hitler hated the same individuals, minorities and social groups that the Mail hates today.

Im sure youve missed something, but that seems a pretty comprehensive summary of the Daily Mail

 

[GT49er]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...crous-new-Labour-leader-suggest-end-Nato.html

Corbyn's 'dangerously deluded' view on defence: Minister in Blair government says it is 'ludicrous' for new Labour leader to suggest an end to Nato .................................

[Reams of crap removed for the benefit of those who don't want to read the whole thing again]

...................................................Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ur-leader-suggest-end-Nato.html#ixzz3qu6yXVPi
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook[/FONT][/COLOR][/B]

Where is the thumbs down button when you need it!

 

[StonehamPark]

I think you'll find that he did.

Find me a direct quote in where he said this.

 

[Working class pride]

This thread really is not appropriate IMHO.

 

[drew]

Find me a direct quote in where he said this.

This. I don't agree with a lot of what Corbyn stands for but posting a load of Daily Mail stories with no direct quote fails to prove the OPs point!

 

[vegster]

It's quite funny seeing all this indignation and hatred thrown at Corbyn and everything that he allegedly stands for. If he had failed to turn up at the cenotaph he would have been pilloried, if he turns up he gets pilloried. Jeremy Corbyn has expressed different views compared to the rest of the political elite, a right fought for by those we commemorate today.
Maybe, just maybe,we should wait and see the extent of his views and the long term aims of the Labour Party he now steers and maybe have a vote on whether people agree with those views?

Or, are the Tories worried that he may genuinely have an alternative to the much repeated slogan " we are all in this together "? Which most Tories at the top clearly aren't.

 

[kevo]

I think you'll find that he did.

You believe the Daily Mail?

 

[matski_98]

I think you'll find that he did.

Sorry I couldn't be bothered to read a whole Daily mail article. Can you point me to the bit in it where he clearly states that he wants to 'disband the army'?

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

As attempts to smear the Chancellor go, that has to rank as one of the most piss-poor I've ever seen.

If you had read the very jaundiced Private Eye article, the company reduced its tax bill through capital allowances of which every single limited company in the country does. And you only pay capital allowances because you've made large capital purchases that you need to account for over a number of years. So it appears that the Osborne family company have invested very heavily in new capital equipment. There doesn't appear, prima facie, to be any tax avoidance employed at all other than that, that all companies enjoy. All above board and standard accounting practice.

And you should be applauding the Osbornes if they end up taking higher salaries because then the Treasury taxes the money at 45% plus 2% employees' NI plus 13.8% employer's NI as opposed to paying 20% in corporation tax.

I take your point, but:
1. I happen to like the jaundiced view of Private Eye, and at least they seem to be consistently jaundiced against most people!
2. I appreciate the difference between Tax avoidance and tax evasion. He is criticising others, as far as i can see, for wholly legitimate schemes to minimise or eliminate their corporation tax, which are therefore tax avoidance, which is what he is doing.
3. And I would imagine they employ accountants who are able to keep the personal tax bill down as far as possible as well.

There are people (and companies) who happily pay tax and take their community responsibilities seriously. There are others who don't. I am not accusing the Osborne's of anything here. This is a far more general point.

 

[beorhthelm]

2. I appreciate the difference between Tax avoidance and tax evasion. He is criticising others, as far as i can see, for wholly legitimate schemes to minimise or eliminate their corporation tax, which are therefore tax avoidance, which is what he is doing.

there are a couple of problems, the first that one is not responsible for what one's parents do and secondly theres no evidence any tax is even avoided. just a small or no profit reported. the sort of tax avoidance that is being suggested is "aggressive" and under scrutiny, is where you have a profit and still manage to pay little or no tax. though you'd think he'd not hold shares to avoid this sort of muddying.

 

[Buzzer]

I take your point, but:
1. I happen to like the jaundiced view of Private Eye, and at least they seem to be consistently jaundiced against most people!
2. I appreciate the difference between Tax avoidance and tax evasion. He is criticising others, as far as i can see, for wholly legitimate schemes to minimise or eliminate their corporation tax, which are therefore tax avoidance, which is what he is doing.
3. And I would imagine they employ accountants who are able to keep the personal tax bill down as far as possible as well.

There are people (and companies) who happily pay tax and take their community responsibilities seriously. There are others who don't. I am not accusing the Osborne's of anything here. This is a far more general point.

Claiming capital allowances is not tax avoidance. It's just a way of spreading the cost of an asset over its useful life and only accounting for the portion that relates to that year. It's a fundamental principle in accounting of matching costs with revenues. If you want to say that claiming capital allowances is some sort of 'tax avoidance scheme' then you clearly don't understand even some of the basic principles involved (and I mean that with no malice or sneer - I repeat, claiming capital allowances is NOT a tax avoidance scheme).

I'd also add that I'm sure they employ accountants to keep their tax bills down. All chartered accountants in practice have a duty to minimise their clients' tax bills and once again it seems you are holding the Osborne family and their company to some higher and more restrictive standard than that the rest of the UK companies and that which people with accountants enjoy.

Finally, I reckon as a qualified accountant that paying yourself through PAYE (normal salaries) is just about the most tax-inefficient way of paying yourself. There's very little room for offsetting losses or extra allowances and also it's a tax that has to be paid up by the following month. It's the reason why the taxman spends so much time and money trying to restrict what is self-employment. IR35 is a classic case in point.

Anyone who tries to use this as a weapon to beat Osborne with is doing the whole issue of tax avoidance/evasion a grave misjustice. What Gary Barlow and Jimmy Carr did was creative tax avoidance. As far as I can tell, the Osbornes' corporate tax affairs are about as vanilla as could possibly be.