UK General Election 2017

[Pannonian]

Someone should ask him if he condemns the murder of Lord Mountbatton.

I'd rather ask him what authority he had, as a no-name opposition backbencher, to talk to Republican terrorists to bring about peace. If he'd reached an agreement with them (and none has come to light), what concrete substance did it have, given his status as a political gnat.

[Beskar]

Looking at the debate, I'm reminded once again of Orwell's observation that there are sections of the British Left who will always oppose violence, but only where it's perpetuated by Anglo-Americans. Where it's perpetuated by the USSR and its puppets, these supposed pacifists are curiously silent.

It is the same processes between why people stick up "Pray for Paris" but neglect to show support for the other countries experiencing atrocities and bombings. It is usually because of the locally held higher standards, and infringement on these, opposed to them lot over there who are barbarians who lack the same enlightenment so it doesn't matter because "Nothing we can do about it".

You don't see amnesty international doing big campaigns due to inappropriate internment in North Korea due to the same mental logic that "well, nothing we can do in that crackpot country, lets highlight countries such as the USA for their misconduct". Though to be far, they do general coverage on countries like North Korea, Syria, etc but with despots, it is a case of "You have no power here!".

It is part of a more complex phenomena.

[Pannonian]

It is the same processes between why people stick up "Pray for Paris" but neglect to show support for the other countries experiencing atrocities and bombings. It is usually because of the locally held higher standards, and infringement on these, opposed to them lot over there who are barbarians who lack the same enlightenment so it doesn't matter because "Nothing we can do about it".

You don't see amnesty international doing big campaigns due to inappropriate internment in North Korea due to the same mental logic that "well, nothing we can do in that crackpot country, lets highlight countries such as the USA for their misconduct". Though to be far, they do general coverage on countries like North Korea, Syria, etc but with despots, it is a case of "You have no power here!".

It is part of a more complex phenomena.

Do these people with peace stickers try to claim credit for helping to bring about world peace, as Corbyn and McDonnell are doing with Northern Ireland? I recommend anyone trying to further peddle Corbyn's lies read his comments from the Commons debate. There's no MSM twisting or bias there. Just Corbyn's actual words.

Oh, and FYI, John Hume was the guy who brought Sinn Fein to the table. Not Jeremy Corbyn, who was a nobody. Corbyn's trying to whitewash his dodgy record by claiming credit, and his fans eagerly repeat the crap he's pushing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'd rather ask him what authority he had, as a no-name opposition backbencher, to talk to Republican terrorists to bring about peace. If he'd reached an agreement with them (and none has come to light), what concrete substance did it have, given his status as a political gnat.

Bo, no. I think my question would induce more squirming.

[Beskar]

No arguments from me. I would have preferred someone else to be leading to Labour party. Though I have to agree with some of his fans that the media can be unfairly biased against him, but then again, look at the reporting of Ed Miliband eating a bacon sandwich to see how rubbish they are. What is the biggest shame is that Labour have a few good policies I would love to see better credence given to and there is the saying 'dont throw the baby out with the bathwater' should be resaid as 'dont get rid of the water as you throw out the Corbyn'.

Random note in terms of well-being and happiness, the wage for happiness is £47,000. Above this amount, the money does not make you anymore happier overall as this is the sweet point where you income covers all your necessities and luxery. So for example, if you compare the difference of £18,000 to someone on £50,000 there is a significant difference, but not between £50,000 and £100,000. (Might be more expensive holiday, but they are both having holidays compared to not having one)

[Fragony]

Good for them if they have more, I'm not one of them but couldn'tcare less. Who knows, maybe he gets terminal cancerand everything is equal again and money means nothing

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Maybe its because behind most political and terrorist causes, there are some reasonable motivations tucked away amongst the craziness.

Likely true in the large majority of instances. Rarely is any human being motivated by some cause that is purely and clearly "evil." Even then, from their perspective, it is likely being viewed as some kind of "necessary evil" as were the shooting of Belgian civilians in War One or the bombing of Dresden in War Two. Is that simply rationalization? Perhaps. But the human mind is a complex thing and the logic of decisions is not necessarily rational in any conventional sense nor will it conform always to Occam's standard.

[Beskar]

[Pannonian]

You know what the Tory strategy will be from here until election time? They're just going on hammer on about Corbyn and the prospect of him as PM. Everything will be largely irrelevant compared with that salient point; electing Labour means Corbyn as PM.

[Beskar]

You know what the Tory strategy will be from here until election time? They're just going on hammer on about Corbyn and the prospect of him as PM. Everything will be largely irrelevant compared with that salient point; electing Labour means Corbyn as PM.

Corbyn is not going to win, don't need to be a pollster to know that. If Corbyn is able to maintain (or even gain seats), it would be a boon, but he won't be winning this election.

[Pannonian]

Corbyn is not going to win, don't need to be a pollster to know that. If Corbyn is able to maintain (or even gain seats), it would be a boon, but he won't be winning this election.

Against probably the most incompetent government in my lifetime. Blair circa 1997 would run up a 200 seat majority against the bunch of numpties that is the current Tory front bench. Yet their incompetence pales in comparison with Corbyn's front bench, including a shadow home secretary who can't even keep track of what she's said in an interview (and that's even disregarding her costing of policies that mean £300 buys a police officer).

[Sarmatian]

I get it that you don't like Corbyn, and you may very well be completely right about him, but you certainly know that there are a number of reasons why labour has lost seats.

[Beskar]

On the subject of the IRA. There is actually a serving Conservative who was a member of it during the 1970s.
Maria Gatland

She was accepted back into the fold after initially being suspended.

Are the Conservatives simply trying to point score on Corbyn whilst practising a policy of amnesty for their own?

[Pannonian]

I get it that you don't like Corbyn, and you may very well be completely right about him, but you certainly know that there are a number of reasons why labour has lost seats.

According to constituency canvassers, the most frequent reason canvassees gave for not supporting Labour is Corbyn. Note these set ups have detailed databases of canvassees and their previous record.

FYI, during the Copeland campaign (which they lost after having held it and its predecessor seat for 80+ years), one canvassee noted Corbyn and his IRA connections as why they wouldn't be voting Labour in the by-election.

[Pannonian]

On the subject of the IRA. There is actually a serving Conservative who was a member of it during the 1970s.
Maria Gatland

She was accepted back into the fold after initially being suspended.

Are the Conservatives simply trying to point score on Corbyn whilst practising a policy of amnesty for their own?

You've just got this from your Facebook friends? AFAIK Maria Gatland isn't in the running to become PM of the UK. Labour and whoever in the UK had heard of him were quite accepting of Corbyn's views when he was still a backbencher. Not so much in a GE when he's leader of the opposition.

BTW, are you going to back up his claims about contributing to the eventual peace, after having read through that Commons debate I linked to and quoted from? You have read through it, haven't you?

[Sarmatian]

According to constituency canvassers, the most frequent reason canvassees gave for not supporting Labour is Corbyn. Note these set ups have detailed databases of canvassees and their previous record.

FYI, during the Copeland campaign (which they lost after having held it and its predecessor seat for 80+ years), one canvassee noted Corbyn and his IRA connections as why they wouldn't be voting Labour in the by-election.

I would very much like to see a report. Where was it conducted, did it target only labour voters, how was the question phrased etc... That can have a huge influence on the answer. If a tory voter answers that the prime reason for not voting labour is Corbyn, it might mean Corbyn is actually doing his job right.

[Pannonian]

I would very much like to see a report. Where was it conducted, did it target only labour voters, how was the question phrased etc... That can have a huge influence on the answer. If a tory voter answers that the prime reason for not voting labour is Corbyn, it might mean Corbyn is actually doing his job right.

You're not thinking FPTP. Swing voters count double, as they're taken away from Labour, and added to the Tories. If someone decides not to vote Labour because of Corbyn, and votes Tory instead, then it's doubly damaging. As for these reports; I haven't seen them myself, only heard of them. However, one general study of Labour's situation noted that presumedly Labour safe seats are in danger because the canvassing set ups there have been neglected, and you have Tory canvassers out there but no Labour canvassing set up. From that, you can work out that these databases are concentrated in competitive seats or targeted seats, and what kind of information is in them. What I do know is that canvassees are divided into categories, depending on how red or blue they are. If you've read Terry Pratchett's Nigh Watch, then the scene at the party where Lady Meserole turns the guests red is a good description of the process.

[Beskar]

Sinn Féin Ireland President Gerry Adams TD defends the Labour leader’s record on the IRA.

He said his comments show Mr Corbyn is "on the right side of history", adding: "What he did was very modest, what he did was very fundamental. “He recognised the rights of the people who voted for Sinn Fein and I think he was vindicated by subsequent events. “Because where he led – others followed.”. -

[Pannonian]

Sinn Féin Ireland President Gerry Adams TD defends the Labour leader’s record on the IRA.

"Where he led"? Before the 2015 leadership election, who'd heard of Jeremy Corbyn? I've seen accounts of people who were in SWP circles in the 1980s, and they were looking forward to the likes of Tony Benn and Arthur Scargill. Not support acts like Corbyn.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

On the subject of the IRA. There is actually a serving Conservative who was a member of it during the 1970s.
Maria Gatland

She was accepted back into the fold after initially being suspended.

Are the Conservatives simply trying to point score on Corbyn whilst practising a policy of amnesty for their own?

Young woman joins IRA as idealist, leaves when she realises it's about killing innocent people. Hardly edifying, but unlike her Corbyn is claiming credit for the peace process, and unlike her he seems to think IRA activities, including bombings and murders, were justified.

Sinn Féin Ireland President Gerry Adams TD defends the Labour leader’s record on the IRA.

Gerry Adamas is an important man to the IRA and Sien Fein, he isn't all that important a man in Northern Ireland - it was McGuiness, not Adams, who led the party towards political engagement with Unionists, and ultimately peace.

Adams, meanwhile, denies ever being a member of the IRA.

He also said it was perfectly fine to murder the retired Lord Mountbatton whilst on holiday with his grandchildren. He feels Mountbatton would have done the same.

[Idaho]

How come strident right wing bollocks is so prevalent, so self defeating and so comprehensively shown to have been wrong in retrospect - and yet persists long after the event?

This daily mail headline rhetoric about only spouting "no surrender" and other nonsense. Grow up. Talk to anyone. Peace comes through negotiations. This gets proved again and again. Sadly only after long, pointless and bloody wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, ulster). And then the lesson gets forgotten! Back to the standard script "no surrender!" :facepalm:

[Pannonian]

How come strident right wing bollocks is so prevalent, so self defeating and so comprehensively shown to have been wrong in retrospect - and yet persists long after the event?

This daily mail headline rhetoric about only spouting "no surrender" and other nonsense. Grow up. Talk to anyone. Peace comes through negotiations. This gets proved again and again. Sadly only after long, pointless and bloody wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, ulster). And then the lesson gets forgotten! Back to the standard script "no surrender!" :facepalm:

Actually, in the IRA's case, peace came because the British had thoroughly infiltrated the IRA and rendered coordinated campaigns impossible. The conditions that they eventually arrived at, they could have got in the 1980s had they stopped then. Self determination for the people of Northern Ireland, self government for the people of Northern Ireland. Read the Commons debate I quoted from.

[Idaho]

So you are saying that the British state won and only gave concessions to the republican side as an act of beneficence?

[Pannonian]

So you are saying that the British state won and only gave concessions to the republican side as an act of beneficence?

Effectively. On the salient points, the British state hadn't budged from the 1980s: self determination, self government. When PIRA found they could no longer effectively function, they needed a way out, and the British and Irish governments offered them the face saving they needed.

Probably the one thing that did change since the 1980s that substantially made this possible was the greater intertwining of the British and Irish economies. With the free movement of peoples and greater prosperity they'd got used to, economically the UK and Ireland became almost a joined state, with the prospect of further good things to come. With that prospect in their sights, neither the British nor the Irish state saw any point in upsetting the applecart for the sake of irredentism.

With that in mind, I refer you back to Corbyn's comments in that Commons debate, on the agreement that started that process.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So you are saying that the British state won and only gave concessions to the republican side as an act of beneficence?

I'm not sure they even really gave them any concessions - the sectarian prejudice in NI and the lack of Civil Rights for Catholics was an acknowledged problem in the 1970's. I would say that, politically, the IRA's campaign achieved nothing that could not have been achieved much sooner through peaceful protest.

[Pannonian]

I'm not sure they even really gave them any concessions - the sectarian prejudice in NI and the lack of Civil Rights for Catholics was an acknowledged problem in the 1970's. I would say that, politically, the IRA's campaign achieved nothing that could not have been achieved much sooner through peaceful protest.

Or flagging up the problem to Westminster, making it clear it was unjust and unacceptable, and working with them to address the problem. Outside the armed struggle, Westminster's problem with Northern Ireland politics has been the reactionism of the Unionist side. If couched in liberal ideals rather than republican terms, the British government would happily take their side on civil rights and giving all Northern Irish, Catholics included, the same rights as enjoyed by any other British citizen.

[Montmorency]

Or flagging up the problem to Westminster, making it clear it was unjust and unacceptable, and working with them to address the problem. Outside the armed struggle, Westminster's problem with Northern Ireland politics has been the reactionism of the Unionist side. If couched in liberal ideals rather than republican terms, the British government would happily take their side on civil rights and giving all Northern Irish, Catholics included, the same rights as enjoyed by any other British citizen.

To what extent was the issue substantive inequality over specific rights?

[Pannonian]

To what extent was the issue substantive inequality over specific rights?

Goodness knows. But the solution was to tell the devolved Northern Ireland government to grow up and deal with things themselves, within the parameters of general British decency, with a healthy subsidy as an incentive. Whatever problems they have locally, Britain don't really want to care about, except that there shouldn't be any discrimination (as that falls within the realms of British decency). Before he stepped down, Martin McGuinness (the head man in the IRA before they ended their campaign) said that he preferred direct government by Westminster to the DUP-led Stormont government. That's Sinn Fein wanting the British government to be more involved than the British government want to be.

[Beskar]

I think chance of Theresa May getting a larger majority just rose significantly. People will be more conscious for a 'Strong and Stable' message.

[Pannonian]

I think chance of Theresa May getting a larger majority just rose significantly. People will be more conscious for a 'Strong and Stable' message.

Corbyn's history was known when he was elected in 2015. Labour can have no complaints about his image on that front being detrimental to the party's electoral chances. You vote for Corbyn, you get Corbyn.