UKC

I think Corbyn is a dangerous, incompetent ideologue, and his fan club worse. However, the Tories have a cohort of similar dangerous, incompetent, ideologues.

So, under what circumstance would it be best to support Corbyn if there were an election?  Right now I would vote Tory if I thought May could hang on as she has a very bad but not catastrophic plan that might just be implemented, whereas Corbyn doesn't.  However, if May falls and Mogg or Johnson or worse become PM, it would be Labour.

Corbyn would be a crap PM, but at least he'd have the support of his cabinet. I also think there's more talent in Corbyn's cabinet than the current Tory one, which is a terrifying statement.

If the current "teams" weren't so polarised I'd suggest a cross-party cabinet for the duration of the Brexit negotiations, but that's la la land.

I voted for Corbyn as Labour leader because I wanted our political debate to broaden. Frankly he's failed to do that, in large part because brexit has eaten up almost all our political bandwidth.

I'll be writing to my good pro-European Labour MP telling her I sadly cannot support her again until Labour gets off the fence and offers another path on brexit. Shame as it's effectively a vote for the conservatives which makes things no better but it's the only leverage I have.

No matter how good their social and economic policies (a mixed bag IMO at present with too much populist froth) they can't implement any of it during a post-brexit financial crisis.

He needs to either oppose brexit which he can't do or more realistically he needs to advocate for a final say (a referendum) on the negotiated deal while guaranteeing not to allow it to be railroaded through parliament at the 11th hour with Labour connivance. It's all moot anyway, the tories will hold together long enough to see brexit signed even if they have to nail May to her desk and barricade her office door. If there is a way out of this mess it comes from moderate conservatives who will need to show some exceptional statesmanship because they won't be thanked for their actions in the short run.

jk

Agreed.  If this cabinet can hold together, it may just manage this.  It has fewer loons in it than last week, and appears slightly more competent.  

If he reversed Brexit. It’s the single biggest danger to the country right now.

I think JRM is more dangerous than JC

I would hold my nose and vote Labour IF they had a policy on brexit I could support: namely we need to maintain access to the single market and customs union for a period of time, during which the government could plan for an ordered withdrawal from the SM/CU having developed workable solutions that don't screw the economy, peace in NI, security, scientific research, etc etc.

However in JC we have a long term dedicated europhobe and hence we are heading for a Tory crash landing.

There are moderates in both parties as well as the rump of Lib dems. Unfortunately they are utterly hamstrung at the moment. The centre ground has lost it's voice and debate is poisoned by brexit and increasing polarisation worldwide.

The idea of voting is very depressing at the moment.

There are of course many moderates but they hold no real sway over tory policy.Cross party support will ultimately be necessary if we're to avoid a bad brexit happening by default, likely leaving both big parties riven but sense cannot be forced upon the government from the outside especially while Corbyn clings to his ludicrous jobs first ambiguity hoping for the crumbs when the table is thrown over. Our MP's need to decide who they serve and fast.

Yes.

jk

I think it is so fortunate that we have a strong and stable government at this time...

(I'll be voting for whoever has the best chance of beating our useless tory MP, that probably means lib dem in Cornwall.)

If Corbyn is the answer I'm struggling to think of what the question might be.

If it relates to running a large pressure group then perhaps he's your man. If you want someone interested in leading a country, seizing the levers of power and executing an ambitious range of legislation that makes the UK a better place for most of its residents I am significantly less convinced.

We have very few credible political heavyweights from anywhere on the political spectrum at the moment.

It's a a worrying time in UK politics.

The question is: Would he result in a less catastrophically bad outcome than the alternative?

You've been reading the David Cameron tweet again haven't you...

"Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband"

I've been pondering the same question.

I was listening to Emily Thornberry yesterday and it was clear that the same factionalism is present in the Labour party.

The interesting dichotomy is the we have a Conservative leader tasked with executing Brexit who is instinctively a remainer and Labour leader who has been dragged towards a centrist position from an position of instinctive antipathy for the EU.

Got me thinking that we need a national unity government to actually 'deliver the will of the people' (whatever that may be following the fairly redundant question we were asked back in 2016).

Brexit is not a party political matter. I would like to some genuine and honest focus on doing the right thing for the country rather than the party.

I can't support Corbyn despite having voted Labour all my life (with reservations at times of course...). I won't go into the reasons why in full just now but I feel that his support for Brexit in itself rules out a vote for Labour. In various ways Brexit is likely to damage the very people the Labour Party is supposed to help, quite apart from its wider negative impacts, and his refusal to understand this rules him out as a worthwhile candidate for Prime Minister.

If there was an election tomorrow, I would vote Labour. I'm not a fan of Corbyn, and think Labour would have a far far better chance of enacting their policies with a different leader - not sure who, Keir Starmer I suppose. Rightly or wrongly, Corbyn is tainted by his association with the IRA, and his history as an agitator.

In the last election, I voted LibDem, but in my constituency this is now next to useless. At the moment we have Ken Clarke, who's hard to beat on Brexit, but he can't carry on for much longer. It's a real shame that Nick Clegg (a) over-promised to the students (b) got beaten by a very questionable character.

I agree with Andy, that Corbyn is far less dangerous to our current society than JRM, and I'm astonished that a serial failure like Johnson is even considered. I have some respect/sympathy for Theresa for at least treating politics in a grown up manner, but I think she will take us to a far worse Brexit than Corbyn would, because she has drawn her lines in the sand and she is notoriously stubborn.

More thinking of last election - the tories message was "strong and stable" - they really have delivered on that haven't they...

Yes, the best solution would be if Corbyn and May arranged to swap jobs.  May could lead a credible pro-EU opposition to victory, while the Tories imploded under Corbyn.

I'd support him unequivocally if he came out and said that Brexit, as currently envisaged, is an utter mess and that we should stay in the EU until we as a country have a clear idea about what's possible, what we want and how we go about getting it.

Other things, like deciding what we want, can be a job for the country led by the next Parliament.

T.

Except that's not true. She has recently and decisively shifted her red lines on free movement and customs union and changed the balance of her cabinet to favour soft Brexit. It's taken a long time to get there, but she is the only politician on either side of the debate to actually articulate a negotiating position (complete with compromises) instead of meaningless soundbites, of which she was once a prime source.

It's her job to take the lead of course and it's taken a bloody long time, but that's a product of the divisions over Europe that both main parties embody. Whether she'll be allowed to see it through is not certain however.

I can't support him because of his dishonest failure to support Remain while saying that was his position and because he is a Europhobe.  Someone needs to stand forward and take the helm in a more sensible direction

He was beyond feckless before the election (think PMQs), he has improved slowly since his gains in the election and given the PM’s job I think he would probably continue to grow into it. So as an individual I think he could make a stab at the job. My issue is his old Labour/socialist policies which I think are unlikely to work in the modern U.K. economy. I actually have warmed to him, doesn’t seem a bad bloke really (just a shame he can’t see his links to terrorists and his unwillingness to tackle anti Semitic labour members does him absolutely no favours with decent people).

I think the moderates hold the cards. Let us be clear it was the moderates who voted at Cabinet level in supportof the third way at Chequers so calling BJ and DD's bluff.

Also TM is now looking at cross party support which is exactly as it should be for Brexit.

I am not sure JC would be any use, because he is clearly anti EU and the Labour Party is clearly split.I also disagree with his economic ploicies

I would vote liberal even though it is a wasted vote locally.

Corbyn has got my full support. Honesty and integrity should be a given for our politicians not a rarity among a sea of self serving lying scumbags. 

How long do you think that "decisive" shift can last with a threat of a leadership challenge being mounted by disenchanted Brexiteers, though? It sounds like she avoided a no confidence vote by the skin of her teeth yesterday, and that partly just because some of the less headbangy headbangers are holding fire to see if she's willing to swing back the other way...

I'd be quite a lot happier with a Corbyn-led Labour government at the moment because while I'd rather have a government who were enthusiastically pro-Europe, I'd currently take one that's even politically capable of signing up to a pragmatic damage-limiting deal without being held to ransom by anti-EU fanatics.

Yes, laughable really. The overall approach seems to be based on the idea that if you say something enough times it will come true. "Strong and stable" and "Brexit dividend" are the magic words. Although I haven't seen 'strong and stable' for a bit now, funnily enough

It's a shame Corbyn has no integrity. Taking money from Iran's PressTV showed that.

Or honesty, given his behaviour during the referendum.

Despite having voted Labour for most of my adult life, nothing would possess me to vote for the person I hold responsible for Brexit and yes, I do mean Corbyn. True the internecine squabbles of the tory party are responsible for the  starting the whole mess but if that limp lettuce leaf of a so called party leader (corbyn) had actually campaigned for 'remain' then I suspect we would not be in the absolute sh*t storm we are in now.

He can take his principles and shove them where the sun don't shine, his inaction has screwed this country and he will never get my vote for that reason.

As I live in Scotland  I wouldn't vote for Labour/Corbyn if the Archangel Gabriel came to my door canvassing for them with a signed endorsement from God Almighty.

If I lived in England I'd calculate p = (probability of being elected) x (probability they would vote against Brexit) and choose the candidate in my constituency with the greatest value of p no matter what party they were in or how much of a dick they were.   

Pretty much my view to a tee.

But we are beyond that point (unless there is a second referendum).  The question is which party would lead to the least damaging brexit, which may indeed be the SNP in Scotland, I agree.

Sorry to break it to you but the conservatives are literally drowning in dirty money.

If there was an election tomorrow and I thought a vote for the Labour candidate would help prevent a Tory being elected then I would reluctantly (given Corbyn's unwillingness to do anything to head off the coming sh!tfest) vote for them. However, if we had a PR system in this country I would vote for a progressive, pro-European party that was prepared to put a stop to this nonsense, most probably Green.

Oh, and for the record, I have almost always voted Labour but dislike the factionalism that has come to the fore under Corbyn and Momentum.

By vote against Brexit I mean be completely implacably against everything to do with Brexit and try and thwart or neuter it at every possible opportunity using every method available. 

I don't accept we are beyond the point where resistance is futile.  I don't think the actual battle will start until we get past the point where things can't be fudged and companies and rich people start activating what have only been contingency plans.   The best analogy is with Greece and their debt problems: this can go on for a couple of years of total instability.

Ian Murray is my MP. The chances of ousting him are nil. The sizeable tory leaning demographic here always votes for him to keep the SNP out, and to be fair he is a very good constituency MP and a rabid remainer. I generally vote tactically against the tories, which in deepest EH10 is always Murray.

If it comes to a vote between Chequers(ish) and crashing out, which way do you think the SNP would go?

Sturgeon is clear the SNP would prefer to remain in the EU and if not they want the single market and customs union.  No way the SNP would vote for hard-Brexit.  

So you think they would support the Chequers agreement, and hence the Tory government?  I'm not convinced.

Nice tweet.

'BRITAIN is now officially a banana republic with constant sunshine, collapsing government, depreciating currency and a good football team.'

I think they will look at the arithmetic and try and block a hard Brexit.   That doesn't mean they have to endorse the Chequers agreement.

They're literally not.

Spot on tweet, but fails to mention the arrival of our new absentee ruler this coming weekend.

I don't think there is anything comparable between Corbyn and the Tory party - to talk of people being dangerous is interesting, given what the Tory party is doing to the country right now. Anyway, my answer would be that I'd support Corbyn now, even if I think his and Labour's official stance on Europe has been hugely disappointing for me. Labour still offer a much better future for me and my family, in my personal view.

I have to say that, personally, I'm more interested in the policies that the parties are putting forward, than I am the "he/she is dangerous" rhetoric that is designed specifically to divert attention from what's really important. It is interesting how many people repeat this stuff without really thinking it through. Is Corbyn a terrible, incompetent leader? Well, whatever he is, he's been the leader of his party longer than May and Cable have been of theirs... Just saying! 

Well I think Britain potentially leaving the EU with no agreement is dangerous (to many people's jobs and income, and the future well-being of the country), and it is the aim of many brexiteers in Tory party, so I don't really see the distinction you are making - it is both dangerous and important.  Similarly I think the policies Corbyn and his supporters espouse are dangerous for much the same reasons.

At what point would you support Corbyn for PM?

The point at which the vice tightened on my testicles!

i would have to give serious thought to voting to help put Corbyn into No 10 if the alternative was a BNP government, other than that i can't think of anything that i would consider more destructive and more irreversible than a Corbyn government.

Yes and no. 

The red lines are still there, which is why she is tying herself up in knots coming up with creative solutions. Not the single market, but a single market in goods. Not ‘the’ customs union but ‘a’ customs union. 

And the balance of the cabinet wasn’t exactly voluntary, though she has finally forced the issue. 

Having said that; I do think the balance of the new cabinet is encouraging, but they will need cross party support to deliver anything ‘soft’

I do know that. This whataboutery has nothing to do with the point I made. You could try a reasoned response, if you have one.

As a former Labour supporter I would not vote for a Labour Party led byJC. I've given my reasons in previous threads on this subject, but he has shown himself to be totally untrustworthy. 

If Corbyn were to commit the Labour party to an actively anti-Brexit policy I would be happy to accept that they would be by far the most beneficial use of a vote. Failing that, I really don't see why voting Labour to pursue a Tory Brexit and inevitably ending up with a Tory government would be in anyone's interest, except for the vanishingly few folk who would personally gain, politically or financially, from a collapse of UK competitiveness.

I'd immediately quit the SNP and join Labour just for that. I'm still pro-independence, but Brexit is a much bigger deal for me at the moment. 

The centre ground has lost popularity because they pursued policies that appeared to work but when stressed failed miserably. 

Labours pursuing of Thatcher light market driven policies disenfranchised lots of people especially in the regions.

The received wisdom that Corbyn is going to ruin the country is predominantly bullshit but it also means he will never effectively be able to govern

The centrists within in Labour need to own their mistakes with regards market dogma and become a centre left party rather than a centre party

this means addressing 

BREXIT

the housing crisis

Roll back on market dogma within NHS, Transport, education, utilities and government departments. PFI and it bastardised offspring.

Effective support and representation for the low paid.

effective corporate taxation without being overly heavy handed

financial regulation 

"At what point would you support Corbyn for PM?"

at the point he's elected leader of the party,......

oh! wait a minute.

Jerthro has made some excellent points, many economists have looked at Labours plans and said it's a reasonable approach, yet people are choosing to believe the rhetoric instead. (back to the 70's and all that shite).

Portugal has steered a course through austerity, similar to the Labour suggestions and have come through better than we have, while starting from a poorer position. So it's not like it doesn't work, or we have no evidence.

The only way I could ever bring myself to vote for the odious little man is if he stood on a promise to not implement Brexit.

And, even then, I'd have to think long and hard.

Portugal.20% youth unemployment rate.8% general unemployment rate.

Yes- let us follow what Portugal does- looks really good.

Slightly off topic - is this your doing?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-44777938

Busted

At what point would I support Corbyn for PM?  Gunpoint 

I voted Labour in 1997 as a callow student. I would support Corbyn for PM when hell freezes over.

It always seems to me that while Corbynism is sometimes derided as a personality cult, a lot of the opposition to him seems to be equally based in a visceral dislike of the man himself rather than a rational evaluation of his policies. People always seem to be saying "I could never vote for Corbyn" or "I couldn't bring myself to vote for Corbyn" or "Corbyn is totally useless" rather than "I don't want to vote Labour because I don't want them to do X Y and Z". Jacob Rees-Mogg could win a Conservative leadership election, reveal his true demonic form, call a flash election and promise to feast on the blood of the nation's first-born if he wins, and still people would be saying "yeah, but I just can't bring myself to vote for Labour while Jeremy Corbyn's in charge."

Am I being unfair?

I think you are a bit.  Like it or not, political leaders do have a strong effect on government as well as policies. Also the OP was in a sense asking how people would choose in a Corbyn/Ress-Mogg contest, or if you prefer between hard right and hard left government.  Also, also, Corbyn does indeed seem to be something of a cult leader - look at Twitter to get a feel for this.

No I couldn't vote for him or what he promises. I seriously fear him winning a large majority and with a cabinet of like minded the damage they might inflict on the country over 5-10 years in power (JC himself would have stepped down and handed the reins over to another). 

It is easy to promise people what they want and remain popular and in power, for a while, but eventually the bucket is empty and all the wise money has moved elsewhere.

When did you study callow? I take it you got a first?

And where did they start from FFS!!! Look at their debt.

It hasn't got any worse than it was, and they've not pissed away tons (or should that be tonnes) of money supporting the banks with nothing to show for it, they've sidestepped the ravages of austerity, which we're being told is the only way. It's obviously not, but you're welcome to ignore all of that if you wish.

Are you saying thinking of Jeremy gets you long and hard?

That's a little too extreme.

That's juvenile for a grown man, but Corbyn's middle aged teenagers aren't grown men.

Yes, and this is a major problem for the labour party. There are a large number of people who would vote for Labour policies, but will not for Corbyn, MCDonnell or Abbott as leader. In the whole shadow cabinet it is only Keir Starmer and very possibly Tom Watson who would be viewed positively. Maybe Andy Burnham etc. jumped ship at the wrong time.

Obviously, irony wasn't part of the course.

'At what point would you support Corbyn for PM?'

Just called Beelzebub, still no ice forming so, in answer to your question, not yet.

I do not think anything of Portugal’s so called economic success if youth unemployment is even now at 20%.

they still have a very long way to go.

Have you ever seen Jacob Rees-Mogg and Peter Mandelson in the room together? 

Thought not, they are both demons of the night.

Personally I will be voting Corbyn. As I genuinely believe that he gives a shit. Unlike the vast array of sound-bite politicians who only want to catch the way the wind is blowing.

I have seen nothing, bar sensationalist media bollocks, to justify any claims of dangerous incompetancy

Obviously, they still have a long way to go, but so do we. that fact is they've done it without austerity, which we were and still are being told is the only way.

In 2012 youth unemployment was around 40%, while general unemployment was around 18%, now it's under 10% and the rates are the fastest falling in Europe.

I'm not saying everything is rosy, or that we should follow them, simply austerity isn't the only route, and Labour's policies aren't shite, because they don't profess austerity. The similarity of Labour's economic policies to some of Portugal's shows what's possible, and we're starting from a much better position, so to dismiss them out of hand as "going back to the 70s" is simply daft.

It doesn't appear that dangerous incompetency disqualifies anyone from leadership these days!

That's not really the problem with Corbyn. He hasn't actually proved his competence in any sphere apart from Labour Party machinations, and by being consistently oppositional he hasn't been in a position to show any incompetence in a serious governmental position. The real questions are, as noted above, about his honesty and integrity. As far as honesty is concerned, his approach to Brexit has been continually dishonest. Where integrity is concerned, I recognise that he 'gives a shit' and that that is an improvement on many politicians, but his attachment is to causes, not principles, and that leads him to support for people he just shouldn't be associating with. 

Good points re Brexit, I believe that JC is anti-brexit but doesn't want to upset party members who are. Infact the whole problem with Brexit is that it created a split across party lines. I believe that May herself was very much anti-Brexit in the run up to the vote. Not quite sure what you mean by "Causes not principles" surely the two are synonymous?

One of his principles is anti war. But he would ignore that if the cause justifies it, like Hezbollah suicide bombers on Israeli buses, or the ira blowing up kids out shopping. You won't hear a word of criticism from him whilst he cosys up to the terrorist leaders. I think this is because his over arching principle is any enemy of a capitalist government is a friend of his. 

In my view that is total media bollocks with as much validity as the tooth fairy.

Just because you read it on Facebook it doesn't mean its true.

Everytime I have looked into one of those claims I haven't found a shread of evidence to suggest that JC supports bombing of anything.

Facebook... it didn't exist when he was(still is) all best friends with known terrorists, so all the photographs of him at events with them are not media hype or internet lies. 

He is careful with his words, he won't publically support  but he won't ever condemn their actions, no matter how horrendous they are or innocents are killed. 

Except "IRA's actions were "completely wrong"", but you can carry on believing bullshit stories if you have too.

"bombing is wrong, all bombing is wrong" do you need something more obvious, or is this not enough?

He didn't meet with the IRA, he met with Sinn Fein (in the same way the British government did), but don't let facts get in the way, eh?

Sorry I forgot the first rule of ukc, don't knock the messiah. Let's sing together; "Oh Jeremy, oh Jeremy, all hail jeremy"

Sticking to reality would suffice. There's plenty Corbyn can be knocked with without demeaning yourself, the 'jobs first' nonsense for starters.

jk

What doesn't make sense to me is that double standards of people who would not vote for Corbyn for economic reasons but they are happy to risk everything over a hard brexit. Similarly those who call him racist by association - despite having campaigned against racism his whole career  -  but are happy with the torys institutional and overt racism.

The various shades of Thatcherism we have had for the last 30 years has resulted in the catastrophic mess we are in now. I'm prepared to give a Corbyn led Labour government the benefit of the doubt. I was impressed by their recent GE manifesto and it certainly didn't look anything like the policies from the 70s.  Post brexit UK is going to be a political free for all. Who would you rather benefit from that? Personally I think that a left wing govenrment at that point would be better for more people and would lead to a fairer UK.

The idea that he hasn't been socialising with terrorists is a joke. He won't directly ever condemn their actions either. He has consistently dodged it and always turns his reply into general anti violence statement.  

Promises of free everything, jobs a priority etc are pretty insignificant compared to keeping company with people who are convicted murders themselves, fund raising and leading an organisation which thinks blowing up innocent people is justified. Even if Corbyn switched allegiance and joined another party and changed his economic view, my opinion of him wouldn't change. 

I thought the first rule was, "let's try and post some truth", obviously you don't seem interested in facts, and would rather post false accusations, which is of course, as Bobby Brown would say,  "your prerogative".

As for the messiah, it's got nothing to do with that, except that honesty and integrity seem to be apparitions we could all look to.

I wish I could change the font for you to be able to read it, "bombing is wrong, all bombing is wrong"

I guess if the messiah failed with the attributes of honesty and integrity when declaring if he was pro Brexit or remain, or when he made his film sitting on the train floor.... then we can accept no one is perfect. 

Would it change if he narrowly "won" a GE, then entered into a supply and confidence agreement with the political wing of a terrorist organisation in exchange for £1bn for their pet projects* in order to give his party a workable majority......

* the citizens of NI deserve this expenditure, but by normal funding means not linked to one of their extremist religious parties supporting a mainland party........

The problem with that is that he said it in 2017 when he was trying to garner support for the General Election and knew that anything but a direct Yes/No to any such questions would have effectively killed his election chances.  Up until then, he's been repeatedly ambiguous and vague about his condemnation of violence from the likes of the IRA.  
Corbyn haters think he directly supports bombing and his supporters think that he was instrumental in the peace process.  The truth is probably somewhere in-between.  I personally think that he was sympathetic to the aims of the IRA and accepted some of their tactics as being acceptable - bombing of civilians bad, killing squaddies on 'Active Service' not so bad... . I also think think this idea that he was working towards a peaceful solution as being risible and insulting - If he was, why didn't he say so at the time by soapboxing it like he did with all the other things he was vehemently passionate about?
 

This doesn't negate the fact he denounced violence, which you're saying he didn't!!

"Look over there", doesn't prove he's a supporter of the IRA, Hezbollah, or their methods.

As a life long pacifist, I find this hard to believe. I think you might be right about him generally supporting the IRA aims, and they were different times, having actors voicing their speech was simply ludicrous.

I've changed my mind somewhat about the IRA too, since the 70s I've learned more about it, I don't hold with their methods, and still believe, as I did in 1977 when arguing with a staunch Fenian, "there are many causes worth dying for, but not many worth killing for".

Except that he isn't actually a pacifist though is he?
Or, is that dependent on which audience he is talking too...
If he indeed a pacifist, then that's another reason why I wouldn't vote for Labour whilst he's leader and potentially PM! 

Well if you can show me a quote saying "we should bomb such and such", then I'll agree he's not a pacifist.

He might not be a pacifist in the strictest sense of the term, but he's not one to go rushing to bomb or kill others, which is a great reason to vote for him, in my books.

Obviously not, but with perhaps the exception of the Second Gulf War, what PM has been?
The problem that Corbyn will have as PM is that he will have to make decisions that will go against the very core of his personal lifetime ethics i.e. he will personally have to say Yes/No to giving the go ahead for people being killed on his direct orders.  No time to discuss it in Parliament - it will be down to him to authorise actions that will result in the deaths of foreign nationals, British service personnel and quite possibly British civilians.
Is he capable of that?  I don't think so, which is an admirable quality in some respects, but not one that a PM should have.

From what I understand none of the DUP MPs are convicted terrorists bombers, unless you have evidence otherwise?

Ps. I didn't vote for May or the DUP and think the DUPs medieval religion based policies are dire. 

I guess it's a bit glib to say he's attached to causes not principles - as ever it's a bit more complicated than that. Causes and principles often overlap. I would say they're not the same though. You can support a cause and be an absolutely unprincipled bastard. My point was that he is prepared to ignore wider principles in his support for particular causes, for instance he is quite prepared to ignore human rights abuses and homophobia in Iran because they (the Iranians) happen to be anti-American. He is too attached to the notion of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'. He's by no means the only politician to do this of course but he seems to make a habit of it. 

Indeed not - where did I say they were? However there is little doubt that the DUP - intentionally - have blood on their hands.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/27/troubled-past-the-paramili...

You were trying to compare May and the dup, to Corbyn and the ira. 

He isn't a pacifist, as he's said. He's just anti-West.

No, but he is slippery and evasive when it comes to condemning bombing campaigns from groups he supports. 

Exactly.

It's also pretty easy to try and sound like Peter perfect, when he has spent his entire life as a back bench complainer, never having stepped forward and led anything, where his actions would have been held to account. I'd rather not give him the chance too either. 

The few things he has led his party on, such as the Brexit referendum, we still don't know his stance. Or the nerve agent poisoning, where he'd rather believe it was some global conspiracy than defend the UK police and intelligences services viewpoint. 

Here's my two posts from above;

and

Let me know which bits compare May and the DUP, and Corbyn and the IRA.

What I was trying to do was point out your utter crass hypocrisy in calling out Corbyn for past associations, whilst completely ignoring May's similar current ssociations. And yes, I am fully aware that Paisley / McGuinness / Adams et al turned away from a lifetime of hatred to play a major part in the Good Friday agreement, both development and implementation. As someone else posted upthread, just pointing and shouting "over there! Look over there!" doesn't make Mays behaviour / associations any more acceptable. 

Let me try again "bombing is wrong, all bombing is wrong" No ifs or buts, a simple statement that cover ALL occasions, why is that so hard for people to understand?

Why do you want to try and pick holes in that and say, "Well he doesn't really mean that, if it's someone he might support"? It pretty unambiguous.

 another Tory brexit paradox. Furious with Corbyn for associating with the IRA but happy to shit all over the good Friday agreement and risk a return to sectarian trouble for the sake of brexit

As I said earlier, that was in the run up to a General Election when he knew that he had to give such an answer to secure/win votes.
It could be argued that he's changed his rhetoric to suit the situation, which sort of contradicts his 'I'm am honest Politician/You can trust me', etc. statements which some have put so much emphasis on.

To me its not for the sake of brexit, but purely for the sake of the tories clinging on to power at all costs, which is even worse. The fact that brexit is front centre of their attention is coincidental. 

Paradox is a very polite word compared to some I could come up with.......

It's kicking off in NI now, of their own doing, just because it's marching season and nothing to do with Brexit. It's convenient to blame something else, but it only flares up because people on both sides want it to. The choice is theirs. 

The problem is he is never unequivocal. He has to introduce an element of whataboutery and refuses to condemn the IRA specifically. It's slippery and evasive, not unambiguous.

I dont think anyone is blaming anything other than stupidity on the part of those who just want to fight for the current flare up. Maybe if Stormont was sitting, things would be better? Who knows. It does appear that some in NI will want to fight no matter what. But agree this has absolutely zero to do with brexit. 

I've taken to calling him Jemealy on account of this mealy mouthed tendency  on virtually any subject. 

Any examples of his rhetoric saying that he's totally okay with blowing people up under particular circumstances?

It's not his support, it's his unwillingness to condemn the individual actions. It's the same with Russians. He dodged around the topic with vague statements and but won't ever directly say yes that particular incident was wrong etc.. honest and open, he's a sly fox who can't be trusted. 

If it wasn't for the unions and momentum taking him on as their puppet leader, he would just be another George Galloway type figure. 

I'm still calling bollocks on this one

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40111329

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/jeremy-corbyn-says-ira-were-terror...

That's the whole point, up until recently he was deliberately vague when asked similar questions and could get away with it because he was a backbencher renowned for his questionable associations and voting against virtually everything that could be deemed pro-imperial. 
However, during his stint as Labour leader and in particular in the election campaign it was noticeable that his answers to similar questions became more and more forthright and less ambiguous as he knew that people wouldn't vote for him unless he did so.
Man of principle?  I think not, because as far as I can tell he just says things and changes his position for the sole intent of winning votes.

Very interesting point.

Though I am having difficulty in seeing how this differs from any other major politician

I think he was really asking for evidence of Russian involvement, before pointing any fingers, this was a long time before there was any evidence, and it's still a little weak to be honest, at least in my opinion. Even weaker for state involvement.

Nice links

Which incident with the Russians?

You mean two overwhelming votes by the party membership under one member: one vote? You think the old block union note system was better?