Sandydragon wrote:Puja wrote:Sandydragon wrote:
Would Corbyn have made it public that the letter of last resort to British nuclear submarine commanders would not have allowed for a retaliatory strike? Of course he would, he made his intention clear plenty of times. Putin could only have been encouraged by a Corbyn government that pushed Nato away, hobbled the strategic nuclear forces and would have swallowed his propaganda (based on Corbyns support for the stop the war folks).
Are you seriously suggesting that Corbyn would have deterred anyone?*
*Except to vote for him.
Fair points on the NATO and nuclear deterrent. I'm just mildly entertained that Russia is proposed an an area where Boris would be better than Corbyn, considering Corbyn was treated like a bit of a xenophobic weirdo for making noise about Russian money in British politics back in 2018 and has been protesting Putin's human rights outrages as far back as 2000 when Blair was granting him a royal visit. For someone who's turned out to be very right on the subject, it's odd that it's seen as a weakness.
Mind, I guess this is one area where Boris's mendaciousness and lack of any loyalty or shame has played in the UK's favour - I'd imagine the Kremlin possibly regarded him at one point as bought and paid for, in the same way Trump was, only to discover that Boris hasn't met a deal that he wouldn't welch on if it was populist enough to do so.
Puja
Corbyn would have made noises about any nationality of money. But given that he was warning about Russian abuses etc two decades ago, why is he hanging out with the Stop the War folks who are doing their best to make the situation as muddied as possible. Either Corbyn is failing to grasp details or he is in agreement. Eithet way it doesn’t demonstrate that he is fit to be a PM or that he would be handling this any better than Boris. Boris’ desire to be Churchillian is the right approach for this one (fortunately) as he doesn’t really go in for detailed strategy either.
You raise valid points - Corbyn is an ardent, intractable pacifist and, while that's highly laudable and has been proven right more than wrong over the past 25 years (Iraq and Libya springing immediately to mind), that kind of dogmatic inflexibility is not a good character trait in a Prime Minister, especially when facing a dedicated aggressive dickhead like Putin for whom peace was never an option. He would've been terrible in this situation and Johnson's Churchill tribute act is definitely better.
Having said that, I'm pretty sure that Corbyn would've done better on COVID, given that furlough pay was something he pushed for and the Tories were leaning more towards the Tim Martin model initially. Plus I would've trusted Corbyn to turn up to the COBRA meetings early in the crisis, that Johnson didn't feel like going to. And there would've been a significant amount less corruption in PPE and contracts, if only because all of the people who are into that have many more contacts in the Conservative party.
I'd also rate him better on the cost of living crisis, as the 2019 manifesto had a fairly significant Green New Deal bit in it which would've ameliorated the energy issue, and I don't doubt there would've been a windfall tax on the energy companies, assuming they were even still in private ownership by this point. That's not to mention that his premiership wouldn't have gone for the hardest of all possible Brexits to appease Steve Baker (even assuming they'd Brexited at all, given they'd be reliant on SNP and Lib Dem votes).
Corbyn had many, many faults, but I still hold to my opinion that he would've been better than Johnson. Mind, the very fact that you, someone who detests Corbyn, are at the stage where you're picking Johnson through gritted teeth is a condemnation of our current government. I don't see how Starmer can lose the next election from here, although I'm sure the British electorate are ready to disappoint me again.
Puja