The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[JohnCharver]

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.

[JohnCharver]

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.

[kukushkin88]

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.

[kukushkin88]

Oh, I guess PB might be "far left" talks plenty of sense though, mostly.

[PokerBroker]

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

[PokerBroker]

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.

[JohnCharver]

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.

[kukushkin88]

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?

[JohnCharver]

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.

[JohnCharver]

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.

[JohnCharver]

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.

[kukushkin88]

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.

What else do you have? You got bashed up in the war and don't even have a conventional army anymore.

[PokerBroker]

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.

[TightEnd]

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

[neeko]

To be honest if the UK replies with a few dozen nuclear weapons is rather irrelevant, if the the US and Russia have swapped a few thousand each, at least 50 of those will have landed on the UK, then the 8 people and a cat left living in London won't even know if our submarines fired back or not.