Question. In six days time how many party leaders will have resigned and who? Nearest the pin wins a huge prize* *possibly

Zero

Nelson Mandela wouldnt condemn the Provos.  He was asked to, but he thought decommissioning was also wrong.  

Mandela is arguably going to be regarded as one of history's greatest figures he made mistakes but he was fighting a cause.

At his funeral Gerry Adams was part of the guard of honour, something he was actually very emotional about such was the esteem he was held in by Madiba.

I don't recall any British official being involved or any anti-apartheid campaigner being in that guard of honour.  

I know of many meetings that were held in Belfast, Glasgow, London and Birmingham to name but a few places were politicians spoke to former IRA prisoners, National Executive Members of Sinn Fein and activists from all those cities.  But somehow its only Corbyn and McDonnell who wanted the RA to win.  Come on, expand your minds.

Youre missing the point, you think hes being asked to condemn the IRA, hes being asked to condemn terrorists targeting the public to make their point, ring any bells.

On the nukes, it might be tactically more astute to pretend the answer is yes but it isn't actually yes. It really isn't. Somebody tell me a scenario where it's the right/correct thing to do.

Theres none, but you cant have a policy of trident and never use them. Its labours policy, if you want to take the highground dont be leader of a party that back it.

Do you think every member of he party supports every policy decision taken by the membership. 

Scottish Labour oppose Trident and it's on our soil.

Theresa May doesnt support leave, hes the leader its his job to represent the many not himself.

Big hypothetical, apologies if this upsets anyone or thinks it's redundant nonsense. Had the German's won WW2 and are occupying. How long are we allowed to keep fighting back? How long until when we fight back we are condemned as terrorists?

Hypothetical, is it fighting back to blow is city centres in britain or germany murdering people taking no part in the invasion/occupation.

See the IRA stuff do you honestly all believe that there were no other politicians engaging with the leadership of the republican movement in smoke filled rooms?

The attitude as well that the Provos were the only bad guys is troubling, it was a war.  A war brought on by the Brits.  You can't ride rough shod over oter peoples countries and not expect resistance.  

Sure there were things the Provies done that nobody could condone, but it was 2 ways.  

#Takeofftheblinkers

Not the question hes asked, thats the question he chooses to answer.

Seems incredible that we think he should compromise some of his principles to be more electable, literally the whole point is that he's spent his whole life with unshakeable principles that he believes are best for all people and that's what we on the left want in a politician. The alternative is people who will say or do literally anything to try and be electable. Their record suggests they'll change their mind on literally everything if the net result is a few more votes and approval from Dacre, Barclay, Murdoch.

Hes already compromised, he wont fire a nuke, we all know it but hes the front of a party who back trident.

Hes a breath of fresh air except this issue over security/terrorism where he answers like a politician.

Will you condemn act of violence by the IRA?

The answer is Yes, not I condemn all acts of terrorism. Thats a given man. Just answer the bloody question because when he answers like that we all know the answer is no he doesnt condemn the IRAs actions. He seems to be protecting his ability to go back to this shady world of meetings with undesirables if he loses instead of throwing the sink at getting in. Im not asking him to compromise Im asking him to answer the question as asked. Will you fire a nuke? Yes I will if its the people I trust to give me military advice say its right I will always act in my countries interest. Noone even cares about these issues hes making an issue by not just answering and getting on with it. Theres an issue because he wont answer and when he refuses he fuels tories putting a crowbar between him and labour policy.

Like loads of decent people, he instinctively identifies more with the oppressed than the oppressors, his only interest, just like his friend and mentor Tony Benn was/is peace. Anyone who thinks he was somehow in league with the IRA/Hamas is a proper tin foil hat nut job.

Thats the problem with the far left, all your representatives had the best intentions no matter their connections or past beliefs (true beliefs suppressed until they are in the back benches again), and anyone who questions them is worthy of abuse. Noone said hes in league with them, only that he wanted them to succeed and writes off their crimes as, both sides did wrong.

Not sure anybody mentioned in or taking part in the discussion is from the far left. His view of them succeeding was a peaceful end, he got his wish. Of course both sides did wrong.

Both sides did wrong no doubt but thats never what hes asked, hes asked to condemn the IRAs violent actions and he wont, he answers vague, I dont think he believes they were right, I believe he believes their cause was right and eases his conscience with platitudes of Britain being bigger and committing crimes and probably shouldnt be there.

BetFred are going 6/4 Laugh Out Loud - clean account can get £101 on. 

2:35 Epsom.

Won easy.  I'd the forecast as well and 2nd e/w.  Need to spin some of the winning in live casino or Fred will be closing me down. 

was it not, nice one.


Sovereign debts a lovely animal, love a proper genuine one.

On the nukes, it might be tactically more astute to pretend the answer is yes but it isn't actually yes. It really isn't. Somebody tell me a scenario where it's the right/correct thing to do.

Theres none, but you cant have a policy of trident and never use them. Its labours policy, if you want to take the highground dont be leader of a party that back it.

Seems incredible that we think he should compromise some of his principles to be more electable, literally the whole point is that he's spent his whole life with unshakeable principles that he believes are best for all people and that's what we on the left want in a politician. The alternative is people who will say or do literally anything to try and be electable. Their record suggests they'll change their mind on literally everything if the net result is a few more votes and approval from Dacre, Barclay, Murdoch.

Hes already compromised, he wont fire a nuke, we all know it but hes the front of a party who back trident.

Hes a breath of fresh air except this issue over security/terrorism where he answers like a politician.

Will you condemn act of violence by the IRA?

The answer is Yes, not I condemn all acts of terrorism. Thats a given man. Just answer the bloody question because when he answers like that we all know the answer is no he doesnt condemn the IRAs actions. He seems to be protecting his ability to go back to this shady world of meetings with undesirables if he loses instead of throwing the sink at getting in. Im not asking him to compromise Im asking him to answer the question as asked. Will you fire a nuke? Yes I will if its the people I trust to give me military advice say its right I will always act in my countries interest. Noone even cares about these issues hes making an issue by not just answering and getting on with it. Theres an issue because he wont answer and when he refuses he fuels tories putting a crowbar between him and labour policy.

Like loads of decent people, he instinctively identifies more with the oppressed than the oppressors, his only interest, just like his friend and mentor Tony Benn was/is peace. Anyone who thinks he was somehow in league with the IRA/Hamas is a proper tin foil hat nut job.

Thats the problem with the far left, all your representatives had the best intentions no matter their connections or past beliefs (true beliefs suppressed until they are in the back benches again), and anyone who questions them is worthy of abuse. Noone said hes in league with them, only that he wanted them to succeed and writes off their crimes as, both sides did wrong.

Seems incredible that we think he should compromise some of his principles to be more electable, literally the whole point is that he's spent his whole life with unshakeable principles that he believes are best for all people and that's what we on the left want in a politician. The alternative is people who will say or do literally anything to try and be electable. Their record suggests they'll change their mind on literally everything if the net result is a few more votes and approval from Dacre, Barclay, Murdoch.

Hes already compromised, he wont fire a nuke, we all know it but hes the front of a party who back trident.

Hes a breath of fresh air except this issue over security/terrorism where he answers like a politician.

Will you condemn act of violence by the IRA?

The answer is Yes, not I condemn all acts of terrorism. Thats a given man. Just answer the bloody question because when he answers like that we all know the answer is no he doesnt condemn the IRAs actions. He seems to be protecting his ability to go back to this shady world of meetings with undesirables if he loses instead of throwing the sink at getting in. Im not asking him to compromise Im asking him to answer the question as asked. Will you fire a nuke? Yes I will if its the people I trust to give me military advice say its right I will always act in my countries interest. Noone even cares about these issues hes making an issue by not just answering and getting on with it. Theres an issue because he wont answer and when he refuses he fuels tories putting a crowbar between him and labour policy.

Im guessing that people who thought she was awful are just setting the bar at horrendous now and because she was a bit better than the car crashes shes had during the week shes did well. Though she was really poor, Im in total disbelief that her speech coach hasnt ironed out the awful way she behaves when someones answering a question. She sounds like a GP when they arent listening and have already decided to tell you a vague story and write an anti-depressant prescription (never been there? give it 5 years).

Corbyn as said above has got to say he would pull the trigger if its in the best interests of the country. If I was him Id go all guns blazing tomorrow (excuse the pun) tell peoples hes sick of the miserable cycle of bombing eachother and people thinking its a path that ever gets us anywhere, then say he wants an army we can be proud of that helps where its needed, not bring more misery and fuel lunatics to encourage kids to blow up other kids. Why the hell is everyone so interested in firing off nuclear weapons anyway, if russian nuked britain I couldnt care a less as my skin melts from my body whether we just did the same thing to the equally innocent people of moscow.

We dont have our best politicians because the two views desperate to be represented are hard left and hard right, they have to pander to them all the time to get into power position now because they are the ones who really give a crap about politics and actively involve themselves outside elections. The majority of us by the time it comes to an election havent had time to protest fracking or march against foreigners. Unions were the only group where Ed beat his brother and since the only people who can prosper within are those highly thought of by the unions and for the torys they are dictated to by UKIPers in and out of the party because their centre right voters vote for them anywhere so need their hard right voters in check.

Will vote labour because the tories have no policies, they have become ukip. Think they will blow the brexit negotiation because May has zero social skills, she cant just call juncker a psshead when they start getting the best of her because she cant argue or think on their feet. Think we will walk away with no deal because they are deluded by their own ability. Having said that Im waiting on Abbott to come back with a piece of paper declaring we have offered them 100 billion dollars but its ok coz she has them spare from her trip to meet Mugabe.

Spencer please retire again....

Its amazing that both sides have managed to go a route which has totally alienated and removed their big hitters. Its like man city have got pardew and chelsea big sam, and stifled their talents ability to take the middle ground for them.

thought this was interesting

 Political Gambler‏ @paulmotty

Significance of today's Corbyn speech can't be overstated. Could either transform UK politics/Labour or go down as moment they blew election


Political Gambler‏ @paulmotty

History suggests the right-wing press will destroy him but old, predictable rules haven't applied of late.

 

I listened to quite a bit of it, and it wasn't nearly as controversial as flagged.  The controversial bits seemed to have been flagged by his side looking at twitter, but they were a small part of the bits I listened to.  Sorry, couldn't make it to the end, so may be wrong.   

No you are correct, I am particularly on the lookout for stuff with Corbyn and terrorism because defence is my main issue with him, but it was a pretty balanced speech that even if you disagreed was fairly made points.

He didn't kneejerk infer that the biggest problem in the aftermath was racism, which is a common lefty response. He did call out that regardless of militarily intervention, there is a theocratic element to this, which he has been shy about acknowledging before. I don't agree with him on the core issue of the causes of these attacks, but he was balanced and honest.

Didnt the manchester bombers sister say it was "revenge for the attack on syria" which would infer that our role as scrappy doo was the terrorists motive. I believe the reasoning in the guy committing the act tends to be motivated by our foreign policy, but the person radicalising him has motive in trying to cause a reaction in non-muslims against muslims, that forces more muslims to the radicals views. Changing our foreign policy would mean we are targeted less but others would probably be targeted more and more as they would now believe they can alter foreign policy.