General Election June 8th

[The perfect fumble]

The Guardian is no lover of Corbyn, but this is an interesting piece....

 

[Chippy_boy]

The Guardian is no lover of Corbyn, but this is an interesting piece....

I liked the "Fuck off Labour" part best :-)

 

[jay_mcfc]

Not in this case it doesn't.

Dialogue consists of talking & listening to all sides of the argument. Show me one example of Corbyn talking to Unionist terrorists, sitting on a platform with them or inviting them to the House of Commons.



I've taken a look.

So he met with Ian Paisley. Good on him. Now I'll admit that Mr Paisley was a bit abrasive and pretty confrontational, but I'm fairly certain he was never a member of a terrorist organisation. Neither was Gary McMichael. David Ervine was, I'll give you that. However by the time he met Corbyn he had renounced violence and was following a career as politician with the PUP and was a leading figure in the peace process.

So, you've not been able to provide me with even one exampe of Corbyn talking to Unionist terrorists, sitting on a platform with them or inviting them to the House of Commons.

I'm still looking therefore for examples of Corbyn talking with Unionist terrorists.

You're just moving the goalposts now, so is there even any point continuing as you've clearly made your mind up? Whether you or anybody else likes it or not, when Corbyn met Adams and McGuiness they were already elected members of Sinn Fein. So in his eyes he wasn't meeting or discussing with the IRA but a political group that represented the Republican movement. He saw the opportunity for peace way before our own Govt, in fact had the witch decided to engage in discussion earlier then maybe hundreds if not thousands of lives would have been saved, who knows? But Corbyn has always condemned the actions of the IRA in killing innocent civilians, including in Westminster in 1994. Was he sympathetic to the Republican movement - sure, as should any human being in reality but that doesn't mean he ever accepted or condoned their actions. And he's absolutely on the money when he says sometimes in negotiations you have to talk to people whose actions you do not agree with. If others hadn't eventually come to that solution who knows what would be happening there now. As for who he met from the Unionists, well surely Paisley and and Ervine would be a damn good starting point if you were after one thing - peace!!

I wish people would clear up their position on Corbyn though. Either he's a terrorist supporter or he's too placid to protect his own civilians because being both is really difficult to comprehend.

Anyway, yet again we're talking about IRA instead of manifestos and policies, the Cons would be delighted with this thread.

 

[BlueHammer85]

The whole Abbot fiasco confuses me. If there's someone on here who is au fait with the workings of a party's relationship with the media, you might help me out. I presume that when a broadcaster/newspaper wants an interview with x or y they ask that party's ruling body. Therefore, Labour's hierarchy has presumably given Abbot permission to do these interviews (she would hardly go against the wishes if her party, would she?). Do they not realise that she is an electoral liability?

I think they do see that but it's been too late, they are trying to give her as little air time as possible - it's a shame, I don't like public ganging up but there isn't really a defence for her when she is potentially going to be shadow Home Secretary

 

[hilts]

You're just moving the goalposts now, so is there even any point continuing as you've clearly made your mind up? Whether you or anybody else likes it or not, when Corbyn met Adams and McGuiness they were already elected members of Sinn Fein. So in his eyes he wasn't meeting or discussing with the IRA but a political group that represented the Republican movement. He saw the opportunity for peace way before our own Govt, in fact had the witch decided to engage in discussion earlier then maybe hundreds if not thousands of lives would have been saved, who knows? But Corbyn has always condemned the actions of the IRA in killing innocent civilians, including in Westminster in 1994. Was he sympathetic to the Republican movement - sure, as should any human being in reality but that doesn't mean he ever accepted or condoned their actions. And he's absolutely on the money when he says sometimes in negotiations you have to talk to people whose actions you do not agree with. If others hadn't eventually come to that solution who knows what would be happening there now. As for who he met from the Unionists, well surely Paisley and and Ervine would be a damn good starting point if you were after one thing - peace!!

I wish people would clear up their position on Corbyn though. Either he's a terrorist supporter or he's too placid to protect his own civilians because being both is really difficult to comprehend.

Anyway, yet again we're talking about IRA instead of manifestos and policies, the Cons would be delighted with this thread.

I'll clear it up if you like he is a terrorist sympathiser and in a choice between his love of a freedom fighter and making sure we respect their human rights versus protecting innocent Brits we will be firmly second.

Hope that helps you on Thursday

 

[BlueHammer85]

Seriously, I question the term superb.

He's been OK in debates, and better than May certainly. But nothing spectacular, and not a patch on Blair in his prime, or Thatcher or even dare I say it Nick Clegg in the 2010 election, who was excellent.

But he's blatantly changed his 40 year tune on a number of topics, and he's blatantly trying to bribe what he thinks is an unsuspecting electorate with promises of days of wine and roses for all. It's all pretty shallow unless you're a left-wing supporter smelling a faint whiff of possible victory.

He's stronger out there on the road doing speeches - he comes across principled and caring, people are beginning to see, possibly too late and all the IRA, Hamas crap thrown at him just seems a bit desperate, even the 'magic money tree' and other tags thrown at him was silenced when he released a fully costed manifesto.

Blair and Clegg agree, very good but they come across as political actors - Corbyn doesn't, he is who he is.

Considering the fall out from half his cabinet wanting him to go, the Tories celebrating his appointment because 'he will give the Tories another 10 years!' .. 'no one wants socialism' etc it is a remarkable turnaround, yes May has helped bring utterly out of her depth in recent weeks but Corbyn deserves a lot of credit and hard for some to swallow but respect.

 

[mammutly]

Tangent = "a completely different line of thought or action..."

So are we all to assume that when the prospective UK's Home Secretary when commenting on N.I. has stated:

"...that Ireland “is our struggle — every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us......" and

"Though I was born here in London, I couldn’t identify as British."

That we should just consider this as OK and place her at the head of the Home Office and all its departments - because it is: "a completely different line of thought or action..." to the election

Do I have that right???????

In answer to your over punctuated question, no.

As for the rest, I am no fan of Diane Abbott. She's a liability to the labour party and if we do get the much needed change of government in this country, I doubt she'll be in a senior position for very long.

 

[CitizenTID]

Scots, please vote SNP and get the independence you deserve.

"Get tae fuck."

Don't listen to a Tory con merchant cosying up to you. Would sell out the head of his country to keep his lot in power :)

 

[SWP's back]

"Get tae fuck."

Don't listen to a Tory con merchant cosying up to you. Would sell out the head of his country to keep his lot in power :)

Happily :-)

 

[Damocles]

And if you want to put up a wall, or tow the country northwards towards Iceland, fine by me.

I was watching a video on the NorthWest Passage recently which highlighted how the effects of climate change, amongst other things, has started to allow very early commercial traffic to travel between the Atlantic and Pacific which is cutting thousands of miles off Chinese import journeys. The figure I saw was $80,000 less fuel and 25% more cargo between Shanghai and New York.

Anyway, in the same video they started looking at the possibility of a complete melting of Arctic ice and how it might create whole new trading routes. They theorise that Scotland would undergo an economic boom as sailing cargo from China or Russia over the pole would save tens of thousands of miles rather than across the Indian Ocean and through the Suez. Norway is a closer country but doesn't have the cargo moving infrastructure that the UK has.

They could potentially be a major trading port in 50 years.