The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[TightEnd]

I dont think my post was awful at all

you can't gloss over this stuff

http://uk.businessinsider.com/jeremy-corbyn-links-to-the-ira-2015-10

Not a scooby that he will be elected by the British population after a general election campaign with a month focussing on all his foreign policy, terrorism and anti-west views

[TightEnd]

this exactly speaks to my point

"Jeremy Corbyn is massively out of step with the public on the issues that caused three resignations from his front bench, an exclusive poll reveals today.

By two to one, Britons think he should sever his links with the Left-wing  Stop the War pressure group, found pollsters BMG Research.

Just 14 per cent think terrorist attacks like the Paris shootings can be blamed on Western military action in the Middle East, which Stop the War has claimed.

More than three times as many —  47 per cent — agree with sacked ex-minister Pat McFadden, who was dismissed by Mr Corbyn for publicly condemning the Stop the War claims. "

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-fears-as-68-of-voters-want-corbyn-to-cut-links-with-antiwar-group-a3150811.html

to win elections you need to win the centre, the floating voter.

a small percentage of the population infiltrated the labour membership at £3 a pop, these people largely non-voters previously, and has made it massively out of step with public opinion and the PLP

[redsimon]

this exactly speaks to my point

"Jeremy Corbyn is massively out of step with the public on the issues that caused three resignations from his front bench, an exclusive poll reveals today.

By two to one, Britons think he should sever his links with the Left-wing  Stop the War pressure group, found pollsters BMG Research.

Just 14 per cent think terrorist attacks like the Paris shootings can be blamed on Western military action in the Middle East, which Stop the War has claimed.

More than three times as many —  47 per cent — agree with sacked ex-minister Pat McFadden, who was dismissed by Mr Corbyn for publicly condemning the Stop the War claims. "

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-fears-as-68-of-voters-want-corbyn-to-cut-links-with-antiwar-group-a3150811.html

to win elections you need to win the centre, the floating voter.

a small percentage of the population infiltrated the labour membership at £3 a pop, these people largely non-voters previously, and has made it massively out of step with public opinion and the PLP

If you disbarred all the votes from the £3 supporters who would have won the Leadership election?

[TightEnd]

this exactly speaks to my point

"Jeremy Corbyn is massively out of step with the public on the issues that caused three resignations from his front bench, an exclusive poll reveals today.

By two to one, Britons think he should sever his links with the Left-wing  Stop the War pressure group, found pollsters BMG Research.

Just 14 per cent think terrorist attacks like the Paris shootings can be blamed on Western military action in the Middle East, which Stop the War has claimed.

More than three times as many —  47 per cent — agree with sacked ex-minister Pat McFadden, who was dismissed by Mr Corbyn for publicly condemning the Stop the War claims. "

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-fears-as-68-of-voters-want-corbyn-to-cut-links-with-antiwar-group-a3150811.html

to win elections you need to win the centre, the floating voter.

a small percentage of the population infiltrated the labour membership at £3 a pop, these people largely non-voters previously, and has made it massively out of step with public opinion and the PLP

If you disbarred all the votes from the £3 supporters who would have won the Leadership election?

corbyn.

the total leadership vote was about 0.5% of the uk electorate

even beckett subsequently described herself as a "moron" for being part of the process for getting corbyn onto the ballot paper, in the interests of fairness and democracy. well done Margaret. 

[MintTrav]

Characterising someone who has done more than most to try to bring peace in various conflicts as a terrorist sympathiser is shameful, no better than the tabloids.

You all already know why he met with the groups mentioned and why he used the words 'friends'. Why pretend that you don't? Was William Whitelaw a terrorist sypathiser for meeting with the IRA? Thatcher knew about it - was she? The Major and Blair governments negotiated with terrorists. Were they sympathisers? Do you really think that Corbyn supports terrorism?

And, so far as I know, he has never done anything except condemn ISIS, so I have no idea why his name keeps being linked with them in this thread.

Let's move on to more relevant things, like the ridiculous situation Labour is in or the state of the country, rather than this tabloid character assassination.

[DungBeetle]

Characterising someone who has done more than most to try to bring peace in various conflicts as a terrorist sympathiser is shameful, no better than the tabloids.

You all already know why he met with the groups mentioned and why he used the words 'friends'. Why pretend that you don't? Was William Whitelaw a terrorist sypathiser for meeting with the IRA? Thatcher knew about it - was she? The Major and Blair governments negotiated with terrorists. Were they sympathisers? Do you really think that Corbyn supports terrorism?

Let's move on to more relevant things, like the ridiculous situation Labour is in or the state of the country, rather than this tabloid character assassination.

Nobody needs to characterise him.  They just need to quote what he has said over the years. 

If I was brokering a peace meeting with terrorists in the hope of finding a solution for the greater good, I would probably wouldn't kick off with "it's my pleasure and honour".  I'd probably go for something more neutral.

The bottom line is Corbyn has had a multitude of incidents over his career when he has looked to be sympathetic to terrorist organisations.  It isn't an isolated incident that can be written off by tabloid mischief.  He puts himself in the firing line again and again.

That's my view anyway - I think it makes him completely unelectable before we even look at a single one of his policies.

[RickBFA]

Characterising someone who has done more than most to try to bring peace in various conflicts as a terrorist sympathiser is shameful, no better than the tabloids.

You all already know why he met with the groups mentioned and why he used the words 'friends'. Why pretend that you don't? Was William Whitelaw a terrorist sypathiser for meeting with the IRA? Thatcher knew about it - was she? The Major and Blair governments negotiated with terrorists. Were they sympathisers? Do you really think that Corbyn supports terrorism?

And, so far as I know, he has never done anything except condemn ISIS, so I have no idea why his name keeps being linked with them in this thread.

Let's move on to more relevant things, like the ridiculous situation Labour is in or the state of the country, rather than this tabloid character assassination.

Mint, you know the general public is never going to buy that. As has been said on here, there are way too many quotes from him that brand him untrustworthy and apparently sympathetic towards extremists. Whatever you say, however well argued here, he is totally unelectable.

He never thought he'd have to worry about such issues as a back bencher, but now he's playing a political game where he can't win.

[MintTrav]

People in this thread are conflating separate issues. I am objecting to Corbyn being painted as a terrorist sympathiser. Whether he can or will win a general election is a totally separate matter. You can say that one leads to the other to some extent, but that is not what I have been posting about.

[TightEnd]

People in this thread are conflating separate issues. I am objecting to Corbyn being painted as a terrorist sympathiser. Whether he can or will win a general election is a totally separate matter. You can say that one leads to the other to some extent, but that is not what I have been posting about.

fair enough

it is what i am posting about though

one, attitudes to terrorism leads directly to the other, electability


by all means post about the government vulnerabilities on the NHS, the economy, flood defence, housing policy, the BREXIT free vote and all the rest of it. all ultimately much more important than someone who won't be prime minister, but ultimately the big issue in uk politics at the moment is corbyn and the labour party

just look at the volume of posts on here about that compared to any other subject

[RickBFA]

People in this thread are conflating separate issues. I am objecting to Corbyn being painted as a terrorist sympathiser. Whether he can or will win a general election is a totally separate matter. You can say that one leads to the other to some extent, but that is not what I have been posting about.

I understand what you are saying, he hasn't helped himself though, has he?

There are definitely linked - no trust means no votes. Terrorism is a highly emotive topic. Look weak and you are dead politically.

Do you think Corbyn could have be more robust in his condemnation of the likes of ISIS?

[DaveShoelace]

People in this thread are conflating separate issues. I am objecting to Corbyn being painted as a terrorist sympathiser. Whether he can or will win a general election is a totally separate matter. You can say that one leads to the other to some extent, but that is not what I have been posting about.

I can understand why you think I may have come across a 'bit Tabloid' and I accept I might have been overly condemning of the man in my post.

However, what is your view on him firing Pat McFadden because he refused to blame the west on the Paris terror attacks? I could respect him firing someone for wanting to bomb Syria, god knows I am conflicted about that one. However, this action seems to me like he is absolving the attackers and condemning the west, which Britain is part of. That does not sound like someone I want charged with protecting this country, and it feels like an insult to the victims.

I may be wrong, I am open to having my mind changed about these topics as I have hundreds of times in these threads, but is that really an 'awful' viewpoint?

[DungBeetle]

People in this thread are conflating separate issues. I am objecting to Corbyn being painted as a terrorist sympathiser. Whether he can or will win a general election is a totally separate matter. You can say that one leads to the other to some extent, but that is not what I have been posting about.

Fair point.  I'll rephrase.  If you post Corbyn's comments/actions down the years with no spin, then I think a significant majority of the population would consider him a person who finds it hard to publicly condemn various terrorist groups.  As a separate point I personally think that this has already sealed Labour's fate in 2020 if he remains leader.

[rfgqqabc]

How much power would the secretary of the editorial board actually have?  The points about the Labour Committee on Ireland seem like a huge stretch. I'm sure you could make many politicians look bad if you stretch things this far. He seems to understand that aggressive military action will lead to unrest and potential further problems unlike many of our politicians who simply serve to grab votes. It appears to me that he is simply more vocal in expressing his actual beliefs, whereas it feels like Cameron would tell me my house was fine whilst it was burning down if it meant I'd vote for him.

"In a telephone interview during the recent leadership campaign, Mr Corbyn was repeatedly asked by a BBC interviewer whether he condemned the murders by the IRA.
He five times refused to answer the question directly, saying: “I condemn what was done by the British Army as well as the other sides” before the line went dead."

I'm not sure why he wouldn't just condemn the IRA actions and then qualify this by saying any unlawful murder instead of putting himself in the firing line. It is much more scary to me that MPs have denied that Western foreign policy is even a contributing factor to the growth of ISIS. Why aren't people move bothered by this?

This could just be a Daily Mail thing but
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3381612/Terror-group-Al-Shabaab-uses-clip-Donald-Trump-calling-Muslims-banned-U-S-new-propaganda-video-aimed-exploiting-racial-tensions.html

It amazes me to see this sort of thing go on.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35244484

Corbyn brings up "And he called for a cross-party approach which would back "properly funded" flood protection schemes and upland management to make homes more resilient." and asked for a statutory duty for Fire and Rescue services regarding floods. Cameron then replies with a dig about party co-ordination before replying by backing up the work already done by the emergency services and complimenting them, and by saying the strong government and economy will continue to increase the funding for flood defenses.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35244484

Is it all just nonsense/point scoring?


Just an interesting clip I found, it does bother me that she thinks he should leave https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7enlyLdUesk

[TightEnd]

adam here is a transcript of the nolan interview with corbyn

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/jeremy-corbyn-the-artful-dodger-a-transcript-of-his-nolan-interview-31430884.html

leaving aside everything else, i just can't understand the bad politics of how he phrases things, if that makes sense

as you say condemn it and then qualify if necessary, but not to condemn? how is this possibly a view that will see him win an election?

[DungBeetle]

Leaving aside Corbyn, I think Cameron is getting worse at PMQs.  Might be complacency but this week like he had pre-prepared gags to stick to Corbyn and it came across badly and wooden in my opinion.