Stig: Is Corbyn Really So Bad For Wanting To Avoid Bloodshed?
23 April 2017, 19:43 | Updated: 23 April 2017, 19:50
Corbyn has hinted that if he becomes PM, he would avoid killing the Isis leader and dropping a nuclear bomb. His views have prompted criticism - but Stig Abell asks, would this stance really be so bad?
Jeremy Corbyn today hinted that he would not support the nuclear deterrent system, and suggested he would think twice about backing a strike to kill the leader of Islamic State.
He made the comments on Andrew Marr's show - but Labour have since released a statement shutting down Corbyn's suggestion.
But Stig Abell asks, would this stance really be so bad?
On his Sunday afternoon LBC show, he said: "Does Corbyn have the sort of opinions that are inoffensive when spoken over a chai latte, sitting cross-legged on a gap year throne in Islington?
"They're not incoherent, they're idealistic, but we live in a world where they're dangerous for a leader."
He added: "He's a pacifist, he wants to avoid bloodshed, he doesn't believe in the nuclear immolation of innocent citizens. Does that make you somehow suspicious of him?
"Because again, on the face of it, do you honestly believe it's a good idea to causes nuclear war? Do you believe it's a good idea to support extra judicial killings, where a government official can press a button, and someone, somewhere dies as a result?
"As liberals, or as people who are concerned about the encroachment of the states, it's not wrong to question that as a notion is it?"