UKC

Interesting stuff.

For me Corbyn was the clear "Winner" in terms of looking comfortable and relating to the public.

May maintained her standoff-ish persona, but did get full marks on the sound bite bingo.

May's argument still seems to be vote for me I'm not Corbyn, Corbyn seems to be relying on his policies more.

Difficult bits for both tho


What did the UK collective think?

In reply to balmybaldwin:

I don't understand why Corbyn, after he's made the point that nuclear weapons are a last resort and it's a disaster if you ever get to that point, won't just say yes he might use them.

I get that he's a pacifist and doesn't want to, and I agree wholeheartedly, but he managed to make a meal of it by saying he wouldn't fire first (nor would May, surely?) without saying he would consider firing second. Then at the end he kind of did say that. Odd

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Corbyn looked more at ease (apart from defence ). I think a May could have done better at the beginning to explain that you cannot always get it right, or avoid the impacts of events on policy...

In reply to balmybaldwin:

I thought that to put him in a corner over nuclear weapons, some of the audience were showing some rather disturbing keenness regards pressing the big red button.

Pretty impressed by Corbyn and I'm no Labour voter either.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

For me the crux was the Nuclear Button. He clearly will never push it, and his wriggling on this issue is unacceptable to me. Also why the hell is he being so hypocritical in continuing to support Trident? He is untrustworthy.

I will not be voting Labour.

In reply to minimike:

I can't understand why so many people in the audience had such a boner for nuclear war. It's f*cking weird.

In reply to Trangia:


His argument, and one that I agree with, is that it's Labour Party policy constructed through consultation and consensus.

In reply to minimike:

The audience was clearly chosen to be antagonistic and partisan against both candidates. I'm guessing equal numbers of supporters and the rest floaters. It did seem like it was audience vs candidates - as I suppose it had to be as May won't appear with Corbyn to debate directly.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


I think the BBC were so keen to avoid accusations of left wing bias they decided to fill the room with trigger happy genocidal maniacs..

In reply to balmybaldwin:
A win for Corbyn I think. From someone who previously didn't consider him PM material; he looked far more comfortable than May did. Her answers often felt scripted and stilted, and frequently evaded the point.

Worth watching news night- bo jo currently making total hash of defending her performance...

Edit good grief this is car crash tv!

In reply to minimike:



Personally, I don't get why this is such a big deal.

Firstly, just because he says something now, doesn't mean that in the crazily escalated situation in which it might become an issue, he won't have changed his mind, or the enemy might conceivably think he might have changed his mind - that is if he'd even still be in charge.

Secondly, he won't launch a pre-empetive strike. That's good. Should someone choose to launch a nuke in our direction and doom me, I don't want one being launched back at them and dooming hundreds of thousands of other innocents. Not in my name thank you very much.

Finally, we're still part of NATO and allies with America. We'd have to really cock things up to be in a corner, on our own, just us and our nukes, with an enemy hell bent on our annihilation. So instead of getting into that situation, how about we get a bit better at foreign policy? Although god knows May and Trump between them seem to be trying to bring about that eventually...

In reply to Trangia:


To be fair, they should ask May if she would press the button for a retaliatory strike too. Bearing in mind that, by that point deterrence has failed and it serves no purpose other than vengeance; the deliberate killing of tens of millions who are unlikely to have had much sway over their governments actions for no motive beyond 'an eye for an eye'

Would May really do that? Really? Really kill tens of millions for no military gain?

My guess is no, because whatever else I think of her she's not an inhuman monster. So their positions are almost certainly the same, as neither would support a first strike.

But the proportion of the audience with a disturbing interest in their use are unlikely to see it that way...

In reply to balmybaldwin:

In contrast to the the interviews the other night, in which I thought Corbyn came across as more assured, comfortable and competent, I thought Theresa May 'won' on Newsnight.

She seemed more confident and self assured and, more importantly, I thought she gave straighter, clearer answers to the questions than Corbyn who was wriggling the whole way through.

Both candidates will have to say things which are unpalatable to some people, that is the nature of politics. It's how you address those difficulties that matters and in this May made a good effort whereas Corbyn did his best to avoid it.

Just my two pence worth.

In reply to ClimberEd:
Really? You thought her replies on the 'cap' on contributions to social care were straight answers...?

She can't even admit that it was a u turn when it clearly was, and a panicked one to boot...

Corbyn explicitly condemned all acts of terrorism, which would include those conducted by the IRA, and left the necessary ambiguity regarding use of nuclear weapons in a retaliatory strike, when i doubt any PM would actually sanction their use. He also dealt directly with points re the effect of the minimum wage rises on small businesses and the abolition of zero hours contracts on students

And he managed not to sound like a robot...

In reply to ClimberEd:


She was certainly miles better tonight. I think she's had a software upgrade.

In reply to Trangia:


We'll give you a wave when you're sat on the opposition benches next week.
Just a few weeks ago, who'd've thought that some supposedly un-electable goof ball will be in No 10!

In reply to Trangia:


He minced his words on this, but why is it such an issue? See my earlier post...

I'd be far more concerned by a leader willing to launch a retaliatory strike, condemning hundreds of thousands of innocents to die for no reason other than revenge.

In reply to Lusk:
So we'll have a Prime Minister who won't be supported by his own MPs.
Or do they now, after trying to get rid of him for ages, suddenly think he's the best thing since sliced bread?

In reply to baron:


It's a fair question, but I suppose his winning of an election (from almost certain wipeout of the party) might cause some of them to reassess their opinions of him.

He said something very pertinent on Monday about constantly learning. To me he appears to have politically matured and learnt to compromise, which was a criticism I've made of him in past.

In reply to Trevers:

It's a strange game of bluff. I take your point , but if you publicly state that you're not willing to launch a retaliatory strike then you completely undermine the nuclear deterrent, then you make the pre-emptive strike (that kils millions of innocents) more likely.

In reply to baron:

I think during this campaign he has proved he can lead. Its a different style of leadership to what we are used to in politicians, but I think he is winning over some MPs as well as some pubic

In reply to balmybaldwin:


...but true though that may be, I anticipate more accusations aimed at the BBC for recruiting a left-wing audience.

Which they won't have done. It's just that right now, a large number of ordinary people think the Tory party have some hard questions to answer.

T.

In reply to Ridge:

See my first and third points in my first post on this thread. I don't see that what he says to a live audience during an election campaign in which he's seeking to differentiate himself from his opponent, would still hold true in the dramatically changed future in which we have enemies who have the capability and desire to utterly destroy us and have been abandoned by all our friends and allies. The bluff still stands.

Picture this - Putin about to order a first strike, one of his advisers warns him against it but Putin responds that Corbyn EXPLICITLY said he wouldn't on Question Time a week before the election so therefore it's safe. It's a ridiculous scenario.

In reply to Trevers:

Frankie Boyle: "All the average British punter wants is to be paid less than £10 an hour and be incinerated in a nuclear holocaust, and good luck to em."

In reply to Trangia: which countries would you be prepared to nuke, independent of US action? Russia?

In reply to Ridge:


Yes, but NATO and article 5

In reply to Trevers:
Certainly preferable to Michael Fallon, who is happy to launch nuclear warheads at anyone. First strike it seems, his words. Expenses thieving to boot.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


What? A policy to spend £billions on a weapons system which you are publically telling the world you have no intention of using if attacked? You agree with that?

In reply to Trangia:


I can't recall he did say he wouldn't use it if attacked, although I agree that he was less than equivocal. They are after all a deterrent, although I accept an overt willingness to use them is crucial to that deterrence. It does worry me you seem to have taken someone's unwillingness to cause nuclear Armageddon as a reason not to vote for them. There are a myriad issues that are very real and happen every day that I base my voting decisions on.

If you read your history you'll find that Gorbachev and, I think I'm right in saying, Reagan had no intention of ever using nuclear weapons.

Whether Trident is a good use of public money I'm really not sure, but that's another debate.

In reply to balmybaldwin:


I'm not sure whether the Labour MPs that have opposed him have done so on principle, or on self-interest I.e. They thought his policies would make them unelectable and would rather bend on principle and have power.

In reply to Trangia:


You're just looking for reasons to justify a vote for the tories to yourself.

In reply to Trangia:

He's not going to be pm for ever, they'll proably still be building the new one before he's gone.

The chances of him being less likely to push the button making a difference to anything are vanishingly small.

As above your looking for reasons to justify a Tory vote to yourself!

In reply to balmybaldwin:

I thought this was the best of the three TV showcases. There was more room for the protagonists to state their case without audience jeering or interruption and the questions persistently attacked the vulnerabilities of each. It was a proper grilling for each.

I thought that Corbyn performed more comfortably than May when offered a question that he could spin to his advantage but less happy in addressing questions on his weaker ground. May is less adept on the soapbox but confronted the difficult questions more directly and with more honesty.

A close contest for a third time in three events although I note the media has given this one to May (cue boos from the gallery) having favoured Corbyn in round one.

I'm not a great fan however of the format and I wish the genie had never been let out of the bottle. Running the country isn't about being likeable. It's bloody difficult trying to reconcile multiple interests on multifarious issues while being blown off course by the events of the day.

The debates threaten to turn the West Wing into Designated Survivor*



* it's on Netflix

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

You are countering your own arguments in those statements


Yes there are a myriad issues at stake here. Corbyn is a pacifist and I respect him for his views, but he is not being open and honest in this matter, and rather than standing by them, he is dishonestly going along with Party policy to keep his job as Leader and at the same time trying to fudge the issue with the voting public. He is also intending to waste £Billions of public money to go along with his charade. Other issues become insignificant when we are talking about something so fundamental as this.


As you have admitted yourself an overt willingness to use them is critical to deterrence. Corbyn has already failed that hurdle.I believe neither Gorbachev nor Reagan made such announcements until AFTER they had left office. Kruschev clearly believed Kennedy would go the whole way which is why he climbed down at the 11th hour.

I should like to add that I am 100% with Corbyn in his desire to rid the world of these awful weapons through dialogue, but that isn't just the preserve of the Labour Party. It's the desire of all decent thinking people. In the meantime we live in the real world.

In reply to edwardgrundy:


Where did I write that I was going to vote Tory?

In reply to Trangia:

I wasn't so much countering my argument as being balanced. It's an electoral weakness for Corbyn. Where I disagree with you is over its importance relative to other issues.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Yes, REALLY.

You are clearly not impartial on this. Personally I don't care, I dislike both of them and in my opinion May was far better this time round.

In reply to Trangia:

No where - but I thought from earlier discussion you had considered voting tactically against tories and decided not to

In reply to BnB:

** it's well worth seeking out

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Having been born during the Second World War and watched all the Wars and conflicts the UK has been involved in since, not to mention being a keen student of military history, defence to me is a critical issue. If I don't agree with a party's policy on defence, then all their other proposals, no matter how attractive, become insignificant.

We will have to agree to disagree.

In reply to edwardgrundy:

No I'm still undecided.

In reply to Tyler:


It's a guilty pleasure. Although god knows why I persevere. From Kiefer S solving every problem with his puppy dog "trust me" schtick to Maggie Q's anorexic FBI agent in a push up bra it's as far from real government as a TV debate!!

In reply to Trangia:


There is no "nuclear button". Our nukes are completely independent and controlled by the commander of the submarine. There are no secret codes or big red buttons that the pm can press. The submarine commander is in control of the weapons and can actually fire them without any orders from government.

In reply to Andypeak:

Feel free to insert the word "metaphorical" in front of my use of the word "button"

In reply to ClimberEd:


Perhaps not any more; but see my post of 09:36 on the 'tories throwing the election ' thread. I'm not a natural Corbyn supporter at all; and my views on their performance last night were formed by their performance last night, and changed the way I evaluated both of them.

One of the reasons I was put off may was precisely because she continually failed to address the point, on most of the questions, or answered in non sequiturs. The only time she didn't was on international aid. I'm genuinely struggling to see how anyone that was not already biased towards her could think that her replies on the cap on contributions to social care costs was 'straight ', or even coherent to be honest.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

It was also interesting to hear her partly justify maintaining the foreign aid budget because positive interventions abroad can be beneficial to security domestically, along with other benefits. Which is fair enough, I don't disagree, but she was making a direct link with a foreign policy and domestic security. Now who else did that quite recently...

In reply to Trangia:

Fair enough!

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I expect that they don't know what the cap will be in the end and doesn't want to give a number that they will be held to. That sounds reasonable to me.

Which is different from Corbyn avoiding answering a question to which everyone knows the answer.

In reply to ClimberEd:

I expect they made up the cap when they panicked that their poll lead went from 20% to 10% pretty much over night.

Policy on the hoof in response to opinion polls. Strong, and stable, apparently.

You seem remarkably willing to let May off with stuff.

In reply to Trangia:

Corbyn isn't a pacifist!

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I believe in firm concepts and ideas, the details can sort themselves out in the wash.

I dislike both May and Corbyn, but I dislike his concepts and ideas more and believe that he tries to wriggle out of articulating them when it makes him uncomfortable, whereas May is quite clear about hers.

In reply to ClimberEd:
Ah, ok so you are a May supporter, at last we've got that clear...



Which concepts and ideas of mays do you like, and which of Corbyns don't you like?

In reply to balmybaldwin:

I don't see how you can like anything May as she makes it up on the fly. Tax rises - yes or no? Who can tell? Fallon guarantees there won't be, May says maybe?

I think as a negotiator you need a flexibility, but this silly

In reply to balmybaldwin: meanwhile on the homepage of the Torygraph BoJo is guaranteed to keep his job , and high earners guaranteed no tax rises.

Hurrah all round!

In reply to wbo:

Yes, exactly

And add, everyone will have to contribute to social care costs and can only keep 100000 pounds of their house's value. Oh, except there will be a cap, which we somehow forgot to mention, so that very rich people can keep more of their assets. But we can't say what the cap will be, mostly because we just made it up and have no idea. But anyway, look at Corbyn. Just look at him! he won't say he'd vaporise millions of people. That means he doesn't believe in Britain, whatever that actually means. He's pretty much an enemy of the people, to be honest. Strong and stable. Strong and stable. Strong and stable....

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I don't get how this cap can affect anything. Very few people are going to have to spend more than a couple of hundred thousand, tops, on end of life care. A cap set above that will affect hardly anybody and if you are properly wealthy then you'll have some left over even after meeting said costs.

So who will this cap affect?

In reply to Ridge:


While I agree, most nations live without nuclear weapons or under any form of nuclear umbrella.

They exist perfectly adequately and securely without the need for some pretext, no matter how phony, of a willingness to unleash a nuclear arsenal.

That the concept of doing so, or threatening to do so, seems so natural and desirable to such a large proportion of the UK public does point to a slightly twisted global view.

In reply to The New NickB:

I've never seen him fight. Prescott threw punches a few times though!

In reply to Ridge:

Surely if we are contemplating a retaliatory nuclear strike, deterrence has by definition failed.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

I tried to make this not 'about politics' but clearly not possible as people are very impassioned.

Lot's of dislikes for stating my observations of what has been going on, rather than any political affiliation or agreement/disagreement with actual policies.

So, as they say, I'm out.

In reply to ClimberEd:


Her answer about social care was actually misrepresenting her policy. She mentioned that the floor has been raised from £23,000 to £100,000, therefore suggesting it would benefit people. This is only the case for people in residential care, for whom the value of their property is already included in the valuation of their assets. For everyone else, the value of property is currently excluded, so for them this vastly reduces the floor and, given the uncertainty over the cap, raises the fear of their children losing their home to the state upon death.

In reply to ClimberEd:

I thought you did rather well and came across as thoroughly level headed in the face of UKC's outright hatred for the PM and her party. Thanks for making the thread a more balanced place while you were here and for helping to reflect a broader and more representative electorate that is going to produce a close contest on Thursday.

In reply to BnB:

People's views are their views.

In reply to ClimberEd:

Well, lots of dislikes, it's true. Not sure your analysis of why is particularly persuasive i.e. They're being driven by partisanship. Could be your points aren't as persuasive as you think, and that your pretence of impartiality hasn't won anyone over....

In reply to ClimberEd:


It's a politics thread, it's very difficult to comment on a politics thread in anything but the most abstract way without exposing at least some political bias. Which you clearly did. There is nothing wrong with that, but please don't pretend that you are above the politics and merely an impartial and objective observer.

In reply to BnB:

Nonsense. I can't speak for anyone else, but I've voted Tory in the past as often as I've voted labour. It's the current behaviour and policies of the party that I find off putting.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I share that frustration along with a lot of people who are probably still going to vote Tory on Thursday.

The problem for us is that Labour isn't providing a coherent alternative. Spraying flowers without grasping any nettles. Yet the world is full of tough choices. Last night's QT rather encapsulated that difference between the policies.

I think that's what Ed was trying to get across.

In reply to Trangia:


I'm not quite sure I follow your reasoning. Essentially from what you've said: Corbyn thinks a nuclear war would be a global catastrophe and wants to avoid it all costs. Yet he understands that many of the public and people in his party want to keep Trident as a nuclear deterrent and has decided that the pragmatic approach is to commit to renewing it until a fuller discussion and/or change of public opinion is reached.
And this makes him untrustworthy as a leader.

This is a genuine question btw, would you care to elaborate?

In reply to:

A question about the so called 'Robin Hood' taxes that Labour are going to implement to fund all their proposals.
If they are all implemented fully and the minimum wage is increased, then ultimately, that will lead to lower profits for virtually all private businesses in the UK. If that is the case, what do these businesses do to get back those profits?
Do they: -

Take the hit and accept lower profits?
Increase prices? This will lead to an inflation increase and might well make those businesses less competitive with their foreign counterparts. The latter one is hardly going to be welcome midst Brexit...
Move their business, if possible, abroad?
Something else?

In reply to Aly:

I've already given my reasoning in the thread.

In reply to Trangia: to an extent you have.

My core question remains - where are we going to use Trident or whatever. Russia seems the only possible target. Would we not be better off buying weapons we might actually use?

In reply to wbo:


The whole point of trident is you don't use it! If you do, the system has failed.

In reply to wbo:

MG has answered your question for me

In reply to MG:

Isn't the point of a deterrent is the threat that if pushed hard enoug, you will. If you never will, there is no point to having one surely.

Ps, the best discussion of this is the early Yes PM where Jim Hacker wrestles with the purchase of trident 1.

In reply to MG:

I know the nuclear deterrent is important but despite the state of the world at the moment I think it is very unlikely we will be put in a position to use them.
So, I think we shouldn't be spending some a large amount of time debating a scenario which is highly unlikely to happen, (lets face it if nukes start getting thrown around then we are all screwed anyway). and more time debating the really pressing issues of the NHS, social care, education etc.

In reply to kipper12:


No, the point is that any adversery thinks there is a possibility you will if pushed hard enough, and therefore doesn't attack, meaning you never need to,meaning the weapons are never used.


Yes

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Could be your points aren't as persuasive as you think,


But that was part of what I was saying - I wasn't trying to win anyone over, I was simply stating my view as a contribution.

Maybe I misunderstand the 'dislike' but I only dislike a post if think the person is being unreasonable, not because I disagree with the view put across.

In reply to The New NickB:

There is nothing wrong with that, but please don't pretend that you are above the politics and merely an impartial and objective observer.

Between May and Corbyn I am impartial, I don't think either of them (or the Conservatives or Labour) are fit to run the country.

In reply to Ridge:


And who is it you see launching that pre-emptive strike against poor defenceless us. Its a short list of candidates. Eight? Whereas the rest of the planet (188 countries?) are obviously just going to get nuked whenever because they have no means of retaliation. Bet they're all bricking it.......

In reply to Trangia:


Theresa May supported the Remain campaign and is now hell bent on taking us out of Europe. Why? 'Standing by her principles', or accepting an uncomfortable reality?

In reply to Trangia:

I watched the debate in its entirety. I thought Corbyn developed his ideas and aspirations for Britain's future well and coherently, far better than my low expectations based on what we are constantly told by the media. I'm beginning to seriously question whether the BBC has been reporting a true picture of him for the last years under the plotical , there's a Freudian slip, editorship of La Kuenssberg.

I listened very carefully to his responses to the Nuclear question. He made his opposition to the existence and use of nuclear weapons very clear, together with his wish for multilateral (word repeatedly used by him) nuclear disarmanent. At every question during that section he said there would be no "first use" (repeated several times) under his leadership.
I expected him to let us all down by denying he'd ever use such weapons at all but he did not, ever, as he did not ever say that he would certainly use them. This was missreported on the following BBC bulletin, by Laura Guesswhoenberg.

I watched that bulletin with disbelief, for anyone watching that bulletin without seeing the debate would have got a wholly dishonest and misleading "chatty girly, bubbly brightplausibly nice young thing" summary that differed entirely from what really happened.

The footage of May showed her speaking long enough to expound some ideas and intentions. The footage of Corbyn omitted any of his development of coherent picture of his view of Britain as it could be. Undue emphasis was given to the antitank questioners themselves with only fragmentary responses picked for any where he hesitated for thought - this happened sometimes during the programme but very little of the time really. There were some jumpy bits of editing that might have showed undue haste in Guesswhoenberg's team's suite, and they obviously spent a lot more care on May's sequences.

The misrepresentation has pretty well sickened me actually as with La Guesswhoenberg in charge of editiorial she seems permitted to spin the news her way rather than report.

In reply to ClimberEd:


So.... Nick is not to pretend he is impartial. You on the other hand are completely impartial! Okay pal

(Disliking both doesn't make you impartial btw)

In reply to wercat:


She's got form for misrepresenting Corbyn, of course.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/18/bbc-trust-says-laura-kuenssbe...

In reply to wercat:

Kuenssberg should have been fired after it emerged she'd deliberately stitched up Corbyn over the Shoot-To-Kill interview.

In reply to Trevers:

Supported from the top:

"The broadcaster’s regulator concluded that a Laura Kuenssberg report for the News at Six in November 2015 breached the broadcaster’s impartiality and accuracy guidelines, in a ruling that triggered an angry response from the corporation’s director of news."

In reply to ClimberEd:


That is fair comment- and I don't think anything you've said is actually unreasonable

In reply to wercat:

I'd agree with every word of that- as someone who has until now formed my impression of Corbyn largely through the filter of the supposedly impartial BBC news, i was struck by how coherent and persuasive his position was. And by his much greater ease in responding to the difficult questions- I think your analysis of the careful way he phrased his response to the nuclear question, and the misrepresentation of this on the news later, is spot on

In reply to ClimberEd:


Id take issue with this though- you may think you are, but your posts show a willingness to give May the benefit of the doubt which you don't extend to Corbyn. Have a look back at what's you've posted; for example your excusing the lack of detail on the social care contributions cap, when the whole concept was in reality added in a panic after the 'dementia tax' allegations we're clearly starting to bite, shows a degree of charity absent from your comments on Corbyn

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

What he did was dodge the question and waffle. Everyone wants no nuclear war, everyone wants reduction worldwide, everyone thinks that using them would be awful. All he did was in a flowery way say that. He'd try for peace, as we all would (no idea why you give him kudos for that). And if that failed? He'd try again, and again, and again, no matter what happens. On the relevant point, whether he'd use them if pressed, he's effectively saying he wouldn't. If he'd said he'd never use them and so he was scrapping them that would at least be honest and consistent.

Similarly on terrorism, he refused to specifically condemn IRA bombings. Why? It was an easy 'yes' answer and instead he waffled. Even Diane Abbott answered that issue better than he did.

In reply to thomasadixon:

I heard him say repeatedly that he would not use them as a first strike. I heard nothing about whether he would use them as a retaliatiory strike, and i certainly didn't hear him explicitly state he would never use them.

His previous comments on the subject suggest he wouldn't; but then he's never been this close to being in a position where it could potentially be a real issue. Perhaps the realities of what government may mean have started to hit home.

So I thought he did a reasonable job of creating constructive ambiguity on the subject. Would Putin take the chance and call his bluff? Well no, because we are still covered by article 5 of the NATO treaty, so the whole issue is an irrelevance for the short to medium term, covering any likely Corbyn premiership.

As to re ordering Trident; he's respecting the due process of his party, and recognising that it's a decision with consequences longer and than he could be in power- I see nothing inconsistent about this

And re terrorism- he condemned all acts of terror, from any source- I agree it would have been better if he had explicitly included a reference to republican groups in n Ireland.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
More here, looks as if others noticed, more prominently than my post:

https://www.thecanary.co/2017/06/03/theres-something-wrong-laura-kuenssberg...

How do the BBC get away with a political Editior/presenter who lies - During an Election Campaign? It verges on criminal interference with democracy. As well as the BBC failing to fulfill its primary duty - To report the facts impartially. She failed to report correctly and is not impartial.

In reply to wercat:

Thanks for posting that- yes, I watched her on the news immediately following the debate and wondered if she had been watching the same thing I had. I've never believed allegations of BBC bias until now, but this is clear cut. I'm genuinely trouble by this, when the bbcs chief political editor engages in Fake News then we are in really worrying times

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Good post.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Well that's incredibly generous. He's a man of principle (apparently) who doesn't change, and yet without him saying so you're making the assumption he'd change his mind on this issue when it's important. Saying he wouldn't use a first strike is easy, it's reiterating his already known position.


He was asked the question because it's known what his previous comments are. You could reword it as, given your clear opposition to nuclear weapons, and your wish to unilaterally disarm we'd like some assurances. We understand that you've said you'll follow the party position, can you underscore that? His response - nuclear weapons are awful, and it would be horrifying to use them. The party position is that we'll pay for the weapons, and when elected I'll conduct a defense review with my new government composed of new MPs and likely with the (anti-nuclear) SNP in tow. What will I actually do? I'll keep that answer ambiguous. That's not a response, it's a dodge.


Given the question to not refer to the IRA is to deliberately not answer. As before, the question was asked because of his known history, and the question is essentially, we've heard you are, or at least were, an IRA supporter, can you say something that would counter that? It would appear not.

In reply to thomasadixon:

His actual words, quoted in the link wercat posted, were "it would depend on the circumstances". That clearly indicates there are circumstances he would consider a retaliatory strike, else it wouldn't depend. He didn't clarify what these might be; but that would be getting into such hypothetical territory that it would add little value in my view

And the whole issue is a non-issue to me; to be clear, I support the principle of an independent nuclear deterrent and consider that the certainty of mutually assured destruction has kept the major powers from direct conflict for 70 years. But I can envisage no turn of events by which we will end up in a nuclear confrontation during the period Corbyn is potentially prime minister, and given our membership of NATO, no circumstances where we would be militarily defeated for want of one.

I also think its doubtful any PM genuinely would conduct a retaliatory strike, whatever they say in public. By that point, it's Armageddon, and everyone has lost. Would you be able to kill tens of millions, for no useful purpose in military terms? I know I couldn't. A pretence has to be kept up that a leader would; and Corbyn is closer than most to that pretence not being credible. But to my mind- not a supporter before the debate- he kept it plausible enough.

For the reasons above, it's not going to sway me either way though as in the end I don't see it as being a relevant concern over the next 10 years.

On terrorism, can you link to his actual words supporting the IRA? I think his problem there is more that he considers the British state to be complicit in loyalist terror and that both sides are morally compromised, and so can't bring himself to condemn one without the other, but realises that openly equating uk actions to the IRA is not a vote winner- hence the 'condemn all acts of terror' formulation

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

At least no Tory would ever have supported the IRA:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/tompride.wordpress.com/2017/05/21/former-act...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

He could, if he chooses and the new Parliament supports him, scrap nuclear weapons in his term. He's giving himself that option. If you support a nuclear deterrent that's an issue, no? I'm not really that sure on having Trident either way, although if I had to choose I'd keep it. We agree he's kept it ambiguous, I think you're being pretty generous in thinking that's because he wants to ensure it's deterrent effect works, and that he's done so to avoid saying he'd use it - because he never would.

On NI I think given the things he's said over the years that he supported and supports their objective, against the wishes of the majority of the people in NI. His refusal over the years to specifically condemn them is part of that. I don't think your assessment of his thoughts is wrong. He really, honestly, thinks that the IRA were, and presumably are, part of a legitimate defense against a colonial state (us). I don't think he really agrees with terrorist methods, but I don't think he thinks they're completely unacceptable either. Were the bombings of soldiers ok? Probably, in principle they would be against a coloniser, right? Murder of a high ranking colonial official (Mountbatten), probably ok too. Civilians, no.

A real issue that will come up, in leaving the EU, is Gibraltar. Will he ask the people living there what they want and support them (what I would think is the principled thing to do) or will he see it as a colonial holding and seek to pass it to the Spanish (the principle he thinks is right)?

In reply to Ridge:
Really? There's a Tory Councillor who left the IRA, under special branch protection, 45 years ago? Well I never. I guess that means that the current views of a potential leader of the country on the IRA are entirely irrelevant.

In reply to Ridge:


So on one side we have a councillor who nobody has ever heard of and on the other, a man standing to be Prime Minister. You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel here.

In reply to thomasadixon:

In this post you seem to have started conflating support for the trident replacement with whether he would use the deterrent tomorrow, despite the fact that up the thread you clearly understand the difference.
I think he has been very clear that Trident will be replaced, to the point of intervening in that direction when two of his shadow cabinet said contradictory things about it. This is a big development in his attitude since a year or more ago and is one reason I'm willing to vote for him.
If we had a Labour majority there would be absolutely no danger to Trident, given both Corbyn's statements and the rest of his party's position. They (the plp) have had a democratic vote on the policy, so you can be fairly sure they'd vote the same way again even if a change was suggested.
The only danger to Trident replacement in my eyes would be if there was a hung parliament with enough SNP seats to support a labour government, and if they then said they would refuse to support any labour motions unless scrapping trident came first. This would put him under immense pressure to change tack. However, Sturgeon has said that they would support Labour on a case-by-case basis, so this scenario seems very unlikely.

In reply to Si dH:

If there was a Labour majority, trident would be gone after his first defence review. He is still deputy chair of cnd, leopards don't change their spots. He is the king of ending every sentence with a but, clause or caveat.

In reply to thomasadixon:

But my point on a nuclear retaliatory strike is that for all except a bona fide psychopath, no one can really say whether they would actually use it if the situation arose, whatever they may say for public consumption now. But the chance they would is there, which keeps everyone behaving sensibly. To my mind Corbyn has done (just) enough to keep the possibility of their use in the mind of any potential aggressor; my own reading of his words, yes, but not an obtuse or fanciful reading.

Re the IRA- can you back up your views that he considered them legitimate resistance with a link to any source documents? It's just that when this came up when he was first elected leader, and there were threads on the topic, no one could actually give such a link; I'd be inclined to take his word that he believed you had to talk to those involved to get a peace process moving- which was in fact what happened. I do think he probably considers some uk govt actions from the period de facto terrorist acts, and understands this isn't an electable view, whatever its merits; and I'm open to persuasion on this if you have anything more substantial in his own words. But even then; people go on a journey, and I'd find whatever he thought about the situation 35 years ago less compelling than what he says now. If Ian paisley could work with Martin mcguiness, then excluding Corbyn on the basis he was prepared to talk to mcguiness in the 80s doesn't make sense to me.

I agree that Gibraltar's status is less certain; also the Falklands, which I would have more concern about- but the pressure not to cede ground, especially on the latter, would be intense.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


I find it rather surprising that you're the only person who's mentioned the key concept of MAD in this discussion. That is what the whole concept of a nuclear deterrent is based upon, i.e. a kind of deliberate stalemate, because no sane strategist would ever use these weapons preemptively or in retaliation, for the reasons you give.

I don't think everyone who talks about Trident fully grasps what it is: a missile carrying a MIRV containing between 5-8 independently targetable warheads, each one with a 'yield' about six times greater than the one that was dropped on Hiroshima (and the next day on Nagasaki). I.e. a single nuclear missile strike on England could, for example, knock out Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool, Southampton etc. Many people still seem to talk about a nuclear missile of this type as if it's just one 'very big bomb', when it's actually a number of colossal bombs, combined with (in effect) chemical/germ warfare that leaves the devastated terrain uninhabitable for many decades.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Hansard - http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1985/nov/27/anglo-irish-agreemen...

JC supports a united Ireland, and disagreed with the Anglo Irish agreement on that basis. No time for a long reply atm!

In reply to minimike:


Maybe he's too honest?

I he knows he wouldn't fire them why should he say he would?

There doesn't seem to be any point, especially if you think it's a futile act of retribution, which only kills more innocent people.

In reply to summo:



Hurrah!!! Good f*cking riddance to an expensive white elephant.

In reply to krikoman:


So that the deterrent remains. If he or any other leader categorically and believably says they wouldn't use them, they serve no purpose.


It's the possibility of the act that matters, not actually doing it. If strategic nuclear weapons are ever used, they have already failed. Personally I am undecided on the wisdom of renewing Trident, and increasingly against the idea. However, it is frustrating that people continue to see the system as just
another weapon that only has any effect when used. The whole point is it has an effect when it *isn't* used.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Would Russia have invaded the Crimea in 2014 if Ukraine had retained it's nuclear weapons?

Of course we will never know the answer, but there was a strong belief in Ukraine at the time that it would have deterred Putin.

In reply to krikoman:


So it's acceptable to u turn on a implied election manifesto promise? But only if it's a Labour u turn?

In reply to thomasadixon:

He supported a united ireland, and I expect probably still does; it's quite a jump from that to the contention that he won't condemn the IRA by name as he considered their tactics legitimate. I'd need to see something where he says more about that before I'd accept he is a tacit supporter of terrorism, as has been implied by some quarters

In reply to MG:



^
this

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


But then, presumably, would have had to go on to specifically condemn the UVF, the PLO, the ANC, the bombers of Dresden, ETA, the Mau-Mau, the crew of the Enola Gay, Al Quaida, Hamas, the Black and Tans, Hezbollah, the 2nd Crusade, the Wehrmacht in Eastern Europe, SWAPO, Genghis Khan......

Maybe it is simpler to just condemn all acts of terror?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


More than that, he argued *against* a peace agreement as he thought it would reduce the chances of a united Ireland in the future. Personally I don't see it as a jump. It is not wrong to fight against colonial oppression, so it's just logical to say that attacks on British soldiers in NI are not wrong. He refuses, again and again, to specifically condemn them. Why do you think he won't condemn the IRA by name? Why do you think he didn't just say "yes" to the question?

Another point is that, just like Gibraltar, NI is a live issue when leaving the EU, which Corbyn will have to negotiate. The IRA are not gone, they're still around. What will he do in that negotiation? What's his position? We have no idea, but we know his principles say that he should work towards a united Ireland, irrespective of the wishes of the people of NI.

In reply to Si dH:

I specifically referred to the SNP! The most likely result (in labour's favour) is a hung parliament with Corbyn relying on them. As you say, the SNP could put huge pressure on them. I do not trust Sturgeon not to take full advantage of that fact, whatever she says - the referendum was once in a generation, remember? More than that, I do not trust Corbyn not to use that - he wants them rid just as much as she does.

In reply to summo:


You're now commenting on a supposition YOU'VE created from an "implied" manifesto promise, and called it a Labour U-Turn!

At least lets deal in reality FFS!!

In reply to thomasadixon:


I thought he was quite clear that he opposed the agreement for several reasons. It legitimised the border and the activites ongoing in the North, made the Republic partly complicit in these activities, reduced the likelihood of a united 32, and was unlikely to be effective given the widespread opposition from both Republican and Loyalist sides. He may have been right as well, perhaps the increased cooperation between governments helped form the Good Friday agreement but it had little effect on the situation on the ground at the time, and had the agreement not been signed it may have forced something like the Good Friday agreement to be signed a decade earlier than it was, who knows?

Hasn't he said he condemns all terrorist activites throughout the troubles. Either you have a working knowledge of what happened and understand that he is condeming Republican paramilitaries (including the IRA), Loyalist paramilitaries, the RUC and the Army for doing very nasty things. Or you don't know who the IRA are so it doesn't matter anyway. And if he does condemn the (presumably Provisional) IRA by name, does that then mean that he condones the RIRA, the CIRA, INLA, IPLO, the Official IRA, or all the other paramilitaries? I haven't noticed Theresa May being pressed to explicitly condemn the previous conservative government for their part in the troubles when she is known to be a sympathiser with the military during the troubes, it's all a bit bizarre.


The IRA on the scale they were 30 years ago, when the discussion you are quoting, do not exist. People's opinions change. As Corbyn says in the transcript in 1985 there was Internment/Diplock courts, occupation, the representation of the people act, and a police force and a military which had entirely alienated an entire community. Many people at that time desired a united Ireland due to the perceived injustice that was going on, but with many of those issues now addressed in the Good Friday agreement most people don't want to rock the boat and go back to the old days. To assume that Corbyn's principles and opinions will not have similarly changed despite 20 years of relative peace seems to be deliberately belittling.

In reply to thomasadixon:


Well, you accept that this is your personal view, which is fair enough. My view is that there is a big jump in there and you are ascribing a lot of views to him which the written record doesn't seem to back up.

I'm not saying he doesn't have difficulties with his views on this- I think he does, as I said earlier, I think it's more likely that he considers some uk actions were morally comparable to those of the 'actual' terrorists, and he can't bring himself to condemn the IRA without also condemning the UK govt, but knows that's not an option if he actually wants to preserve the small chance he has of causing an upset. I think that's more likely than him considering soldiers were 'fair game', though I accept this is also a personal view.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

No that was Gatland view, in fact so put it a little more strongly than fair game, I think.

If it OK for her to change her mind in the past 30+ years, why not anyone else. Since he's being accused of saying things he didn't say, why not stop repeating the mantra "‘[Do you] want an IRA supporter in charge of our country?’"

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/03/mum-absolutely-loses-it-at-tory-campaigner-wh...


Can they not fight this election on policies?

In reply to krikoman:
Is that reply to me...?

Ah- read the link. Disgusting, I don't often use the word scum, but anything milder wouldn't seem to fit that particular Tory

In reply to Aly:

To some extent agreed, he was against the peace initiative because it didn't work towards the goal he wanted. It strengthened the border, it made a united Ireland less likely. He was not working from the same side as the government, ie for the end of the violence, he was working towards the same goal as the IRA - hence the IRA supporter claim.

Otherwise, you are being, as others are, incredibly generous. It's not just an assumption that Corbyn's views haven't changed - he has been asked, again and again on the subject, and he's declined to comment. Diane Abbot, who was part of the same set at the time, said her views have changed. Fine, I'll take her word for it. Corbyn refuses to. Why do you think he does that, when he knows the inferences people will draw? Why doesn't he set us straight? The obvious answer is that it's because his views haven't changed, and that he still thinks as he thought then.

As for Theresa May's views on the subject, you know perfectly well that's just whataboutery. As above, Corbyn is being asked because of his history. May isn't being asked because she doesn't have the same history.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

All of this is personal views. Seems to me it's the obvious logical view. He thinks NI is a colony, he thinks that armed resistance against colonising forces is okay (don't you?) therefore killing soldiers in NI is okay. Can you tell me what's wrong with the logic?


I'm really not quite sure where we're disagreeing here. He doesn't want to state his honest view as he thinks it'll cause an upset. He's therefore avoiding the question. Agreed?

In reply to thomasadixon:

All of this would be more persuasive if it was in his own words, rather than you putting words in his mouth....

But yes, we are mostly agreeing- it's just the reason his views would cause an upset we're not agreed on. And like i said, if paisley could work with mcguiness then Corbyn thinking some of what the British government got up to in the 70s and 80s was tantamount to terrorism (my guess on his coyness) isn't a deal breaker for me.

In reply to thomasadixon:

Maybe he just likes the idea of peace.

https://gandhifoundation.org/2014/01/09/the-gandhi-foundation-international...

Not sure this is real, as it hasn't been on the BBC.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

If his words were available we'd not be having the discussion...

Working with your enemies in pursuit of peace is noble, I don't see that Corbyn has done that. The evil tories did, Paisley and McGuinness too.

I will say he/his party are being clever on this, if he gave his views then you and others like you couldn't give him such a generous reading, as it is people can give him the benefit of the doubt (if they want to for other reasons, that is). On the other hand if he said he'd changed his mind it'd damage his principled man persona. It works.

In reply to thomasadixon:


I guess you could take his words from 21st May this year:

"I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA."

Or is that not acceptable because he refuses to minimise muderous acts on one side of the conflict?

In reply to Aly:

It is not acceptable because he refuses to directly criticise the IRA who were by far the worst perpetrators of murder and violence in the UK in my lifetime. His weasel words can't hide the fact he was and is an apologist for terrorists.

In reply to Gone for good:


We're the f*ck has he apologised for terrorists?

Why aren't you condemning the Tory party for Gatland?

In reply to Aly:
So this - http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/05/21/corbyn-fails-six-times-to-condem...

I hadn't seen it, and it is a little better, but it doesn't counter what I think he thinks already. Against killing civilians. He doesn't approve of some of the IRAs methods, but he will not condemn them directly, cause he supports them. As the questioner says: Diane Abbot and another has said that she renounces what she did/said at the time. Do you? No, says Corbyn, I stick by my principles. So much for the very generous claims above that he's changed since then.

In reply to thomasadixon:

Thomas, there you have him, in his own words, condemning the IRA... yet you still prefer your own view of what you think he thinks , despite bringing no evidence to support it.... not sure what else there is to add; if you can find some on the record comments he's made where he says attacks on U.K. Soldiers was a legitimate tactic, then I'll have a look. Otherwise, we've covered this pretty thoroughly, cheers for the civilised debate, and let's see what Friday morning brings...

In reply to krikoman:


Why dont you look up the meaning of apologist?

Why aren't you condemning the Tory party for Gatland?

What? Warren Gatland? I dont think you can blame the Tory party for the Lions performance on Saturday.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

No, he refuses to condemn the IRA and instead condemns all bombing. He's quite specific. Can you see any answers to the questions I've asked above? What will he do re NI, Gibraltar, etc? It's very similar to his answers on the QT special, waffle, and as I thought his principles have not changed, he still thinks NI should be part of Eire. Agree there's nothing more to say though, good talk.

In reply to thomasadixon:


The IRA in their various guises engaged in bombing. Condemning all who engaged in bombing is a condemnation of the IRA.

You clearly don't struggle with basic reasoning in discussion of other subjects so it's worth considering whether you might be suffering some cognitive bias on this one.


Ultimately he doesn't have much say over that, the people of NI and the republic do, likewise in Gibraltar. This is ostensibly the principal we fought a war for in the Falklands, the right of people to self determination, an absolute right, not just when it suits 'us'. I suspect he is at least more aware of this than you appear to be.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

But on the Falkland Islands he is in favour of an arrangement not supported by the population. Overall he seems very happy to get rather close to, if not outright support, a whole range of organisations that object in some way to the British state. It leaves at best an unpleasant taste, and sometimes could be argued as being sympathetic to violent groups.

In reply to jkarran:
Essentially see Bruce Hooker. Are NI, Gibraltar, and the Falklands separate regions with that right (in JCs mind), or are they just pieces of a greater whole stolen by the British (Ireland, Spain, Argentina)? I don't know, but re NI, and as above, he had a united Ireland as a goal despite knowing the majority of people in NI were against it. That indicates that they're not, to him, regions that get that right.

In reply to thomasadixon:

I don't understand the relevance of Hooker and his views, he hasn't posted here for years has he? Also we're discussing Jeremy Corbyn, not Bruce.


The people of NI and the Republic do have the right to decide by referendum, it's enshrined in the Good Friday agreement. A Corbyn government couldn't change that if they tried and there is no reason why they would, removing the right would restart the war and if the goal is reunification patience is all that's needed. Brexit (you're a supporter, right?) has done far more for the cause of Irish reunification in one year than the IRA achieved in decades of conflict. Possibly one of the few good things to come of it.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

I reckon you do get the relevance really, and just like JC, you've dodged the question. Does he think that if Gibraltans say that they want to remain free of Spanish influence that's important, or does he think that they're colonists and Gibraltar should be "returned" to the Spanish? I reckon the latter, and given that we are leaving the EU that's pretty important right now. The NI border situation is also going to change, how it changes will be up to our government - ie Corbyn if he wins.

I'd be perfectly happy with a united Ireland if that's what the people of NI want, same with Gibraltar joining Spain. It's up to them. I don't believe Corbyn thinks like that.

In reply to thomasadixon:


It's possible to think both. I do while also recognising its strategic value but I'd favour their right to self determination over other arguments, I believe he would to.


I don't really care what you believe any more than you care what I believe. I care about what you can evidence. Show me evidence that a Corbyn government plans to unilaterally cede NI, Gib and the Falklands.
jk

In reply to balmybaldwin:
To the recent thread.

Does it really, really, matter? I, personally don't give a toss what JC thought of the IRA. Equally I don't really get wound up that TM has a history of involvement in banking.

I AM concerned about the type of country I will be living in next year. The state of schools, hospitals, social care and a shared social prosperity. It is not a presidential election. You will be voting for the policies of a party NOT a person. Weigh up the policies. Ignore the 'he said; she said', 'look at him / her' mudslinging. Its a cheap tactic, a smokescreen that, unfortunately. far too many people are falling for.

In reply to thomasadixon:

>...Does he think that if Gibraltans say that they want to remain free of Spanish influence that's important, or does he think that they're colonists and Gibraltar should be "returned" to the Spanish? I reckon the latter,...

Has he said that ?, on what basis do you imagine he thinks that ?

In reply to jkarran:

I'm interested in others arguments, and logic, not just evidence. Sometimes the evidence just isn't available either way, and you're left with what you've got - like with Corbyn and the IRA.

The thread is/was about how convincing Corbyn and May were, about whether they answered the questions well enough - and the people they need to convince aren't those who are already going to vote for them, they're those who are concerned. I expect anyone who was concerned about Corbyn's IRA links were not satisfied with the answer, those already unconcerned aren't an issue. Could be that those concerned wouldn't be satisfied with anything, to be fair.

Andy Say - it's not the most important thing in the election, no. But policies without the organisation to put them in, or policies that won't be fulfilled as there's no intention to do so, etc, are meaningless. You've got to look at everything.

In reply to Doug:

As above really, I'd just be repeating myself, his principles. I do agree with NMSE that there'd be huge pressure on him to act against those principles (like there is with nuclear weapons).

In reply to thomasadixon:


If there's no evidence we usually presume that the accused is innocent until proven guilty, a bit old fashioned I know. There seems to be a lot of rather dangerous assumptions going on.

You don't seem to have been able to provide any evidence to back up your opinions on what is going on inside Corbyn's head. As far as I can see he openly tried to engage with both sides of the conflict, supported their civil rights and tried to find a non military solution to the problem, which few others in Westminster were doing at the time. I think that makes him a credit to the term politician. Yes, a united Ireland was part of that plan but one needs to contextualise what was happening in the 70s and 80s before assuming his first job as PM would be to tear up the Good Friday agreement.

I understand that historical lack of commitment to a militarised solution in Northern Ireland in the 1980's may just be a deal-breaker for you. Everybody has their own pet issues and so be it.

I had assumed that you had mistakenly linked to Brietbart further up the thread just to get a copy of the video but I'm struggling to follow your reasoning just as much as I struggled to follow their interpretation of the interview in the article. As somebody just above has said, this election needs to be based on policies and the future of this country. If the Torys had managed to put forward a coherent argument against what is actually in Labour's manifesto we probably wouldn't even be having this conversation.

In reply to thomasadixon:


If there's no evidence we usually presume that the accused is innocent until proven guilty, a bit old fashioned I know. There seems to be a lot of rather dangerous assumptions going on.

You don't seem to have been able to provide any evidence to back up your opinions on what is going on inside Corbyn's head. As far as I can see he openly tried to engage with both sides of the conflict, supported their civil rights and tried to find a non military solution to the problem, which few others in Westminster were doing at the time. I think that makes him a credit to the term politician. Yes, a united Ireland was part of that plan but one needs to contextualise what was happening in the 70s and 80s before assuming his first job as PM would be to tear up the Good Friday agreement.

I understand that historical lack of commitment to a militarised solution in Northern Ireland in the 1980's may just be a deal-breaker for you. Everybody has their own pet issues and so be it.

I had assumed that you had mistakenly linked to Breitbart further up the thread just to get a copy of the video but I'm struggling to follow your reasoning just as much as I struggled to follow their interpretation of the interview in the article. As somebody just above has said, this election needs to be based on policies and the future of this country. If the Torys had managed to put forward a coherent argument against what is actually in Labour's manifesto we probably wouldn't even be having this conversation.

edit - spelling

In reply to Aly:

This isn't a court case. Thinking that Ireland ought to be united isn't a crime, it's just an opinion. I think that self determination trumps that, Corbyn doesn't/didn't. The evidence for that is that he said that he wants a united Ireland in the knowledge that the people of NI didn't. It's in Hansard, quoted above. The evidence that he still thinks it is that he's a principled man, and adding in the Sky interview it's his own words - he sticks to his principles. The link wasn't a mistake, it's the interview you'd taken one line from, quoted for context.


You what? I've not said anything like that.

In reply to thomasadixon:


So he hasn't said it, you just made it up

In reply to thomasadixon:



Neither has Corbyn said what you're accusing him of, but it hasn't stopped you asserting things.

In reply to Aly:

So good it's posted twice

In reply to thomasadixon:


I really, really don't understand what you are trying to say here. What is the relevance of the IRA?
You seem to be suggesting that manifestos (i.e. political policies) are meaningless because they may simply be vote grabbing lies? (I know where I personally stand on that one ) 'But policies without the organisation to put them in' is, if you will pardon me, slightly incoherent. We DO have an organisation, called the civil service, whose responsibility is to implement the policies of the ruling party.

In reply to thomasadixon:

The Ganhdi Foundation, tend to be disagreeing with you though.

https://gandhifoundation.org/2014/01/09/the-gandhi-foundation-international...


That well know supporter of terrorist supporters.

In reply to Andy Say:

I missed a word - in place.

You don't vote for a manifesto, you vote for individuals who are part of a party, on the basis that they'll implement it. If you don't trust them to do it or don't believe they will then you won't vote for them. You've also got to trust they won't make bad decisions on things not in the manifesto.

The civil service follow instructions from MPs (not manifestos) they can't make up for bad orders.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

She wins hands down on these quotes;

Speaking after the London attack, Mrs May said "enough is enough" and that "things need to change" in the terror fight. "I mean longer prison sentences for those convicted of terrorist offences. I mean making it easier for the authorities to deport foreign terrorist suspects back to their own countries.And I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they are a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court. And if our human rights laws get in the way of doing it, we will change the law so we can do it" In an interview with The Sun, Mrs May said she would also consider extending the time suspects can be held without charge to 28 days, after it was reduced to 14 days in 2011 under the coalition."



Labour said it was "not the message that we should be sending".

In reply to Big Ger:

Remind me, who was in charge of the Home Office for most of the last 7 years ? Is it just me but much of that sounds like the rantings of Turkey's Erdogan.

In reply to Doug:
Recently there have been few Islamic terrorist attacks on UK soil, the last major one was in 2005 (7/7) In fact in the last seven years there was but the murder of poor Lee Rigby, until the current batch of murderous scum emerged.

In reply to Big Ger:


So are you claiming they were all waiting until we Brexited and May left the home office to pounce?

In reply to Trevers:

Yes, that's why I specified our Brex..... Oh I give up.... how FFS are you suppose to have a rational debate with someone who can so unashamedly put words in your mouth?

In reply to Big Ger:


She must be doing something wrong, then?

In reply to Andy Say:

Sure, she didn't bring these laws in earlier, and enforced them harder, that would have saved the UK a great deal of heartache, agreed?

In reply to Trevers:


No. I think he is claiming that Theresa May has presided over seven years of relative inactivity on the part of attackers. You could interpret that as complacence leading to a false sense of security of course.

In reply to Andy Say:

I wouldn't disagree with that Andy, and, I presume, warnings were missed or downplayed.

In reply to Big Ger:


So why did she not do that then, if she believed that it is the right thing to do? Is it just a recent, Damascene conversion*, or is she just doing a bit of knee-jerking?

*A bit like her sudden personal volte-face on leaving the EU.

In reply to Big Ger:


Surely you realise that repression is no 'cure' for terrorism? In fact you could argue that the more repressive the regime the more extreme its attackers become.

In reply to Andy Say:


We don't know if she thought it "the right thing to do" prior to the recent spate of attacks, do we?


Could be either, however, I don't think there's much doubt that the recent spate of atrocities by murdering scum are responsible for her change of mind.

In reply to Andy Say:


Think UK politics are irrelevant here, it is probably has more to do with Isis being on the back foot a little in Syria, Iraq etc.. All those brits who were fighting out there have come home and are trying to influence vulnerable Muslims in their local communities etc.. the solution as some see it could be extradition or internment, two steps that TM might do if desperate, but would never happen under Labour or Libdem. Time will tell.

In reply to Andy Say:


So let's give them free range to run about killing people and we'll all be safe?

Balance Andy, balance. The balance between security and freedom, not an easy slackline to waltz down.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Maybe because a deterrent is only a deterrent if the country's enemies believe it will be used, that applies whether you have a conventional force ( an aircraft carrier with no planes perhaps) or Nuclear arms.

IF we are going to have a deterrent then the taxpayers that are paying to maintain the deterrent ( whatever it is) are entitled to have someone in power who will at least maintain it's credibility.

In reply to summo:


The Manchester bomber had actually been trained and fought in Libya against the Gaddafi forces. With the knowledge of the British authorities; movement restrictions had been removed to allow he and his mates to go and fight. There's a good article by John Pilger - 'when Theresa May was Home Secretary, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group jihadists were allowed to travel unhindered across Europe and encouraged to engage in "battle": first to remove Mu'ammar Gaddafi in Libya, then to join al-Qaida affiliated groups in Syria.'
http://johnpilger.com/articles/terror-in-britain-what-did-the-prime-ministe... Worth a read.

In reply to Big Ger:


The balance is wrong though since we obsess about 'who' and 'what'. Then we get into the 'how'. We seldom get anywhere near an understanding of 'why'. The usual 'Well it's religion, innit' doesn't really come close to understanding the motivation for suicidal acts of terror. That understanding is crucial to preventing the attacks rather than focussing on stopping them once they have started.

In reply to Big Ger:


Why? What if when people were investigated they were not found to be engaged in criminal activity including acts preparatory to terrorism which themselves are now criminal and rather loosely defined allowing authorities a fair bit of freedom to disrupt plans. People and their activities change, our attention cannot be everywhere all the time. Even the most oppressive surveillance states (which we should not fetishise) were never completely effective at detecting and quelling subversion.
jk

In reply to Big Ger:

Thanks for bringing The Sun into this because I genuinely consider a bigger threat to our democracy than Jihadi terrorism, the right wing dominated press, owned by non-domiciled billionaires and operated as propaganda for their own ends. The cover of The Sun today, with a picture of one of the London victims in the top corner and the headline Jezza's Jihadi Comrades nothing short of putrid and a stain on not only them, but on British journalism in general. The Mail, disgusting as their mischaracterisations are, at least didn't use any of the victims in their usual smear.

F*cking disgusting.

In reply to Andy Say:
That's the story of western history in general. Training and equipping groups of people for one cause, then 20 years later returning to fight them for a different reason. Standard joke in some circles about the training phase of such groups that you don't teach them to duck when shot at, as the UK will be back fighting them in the future.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Despite having no faith in any of the parties, and a deep distrust of Corbyn, Mcdonnell, Abbott and Thornberry, that Sun headline has decided it.

I'm voting Labour.

In reply to Big Ger:

Well I wasn't clear on what point you were making. Were you saying that Theresa May's tenure in the home office was holding back a tide of violence?

EDIT- I shouldn't have mentioned Brexit, I wasn't specifically trying to link it to that.

In reply to Big Ger:


She was quite ropey on her resistance to human rights legislation when she was Home Secretary. Very keen on the role of big brother