General Election, June 8th

[Guest]

Honestly, the fact that not far off 50% almost could vote tory, despite what an abject failure the last 7 years have been according to their own standards/maifestos, is really shocking for the other parties. 

[Rincewind]

15 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Honestly, the fact that not far off 50% almost could vote tory, despite what an abject failure the last 7 years have been according to their own standards/maifestos, is really shocking for the other parties. 

What would you say was the biggest source of information for a % of that %50%?

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Rincewind said:

What would you say was the biggest source of information for a % of that %50%?

I said not far off and plenty of polls have shown high 40s.

Hopefully it is dwindling down but it doesn't appear clear which way the wind will blow at all

[Rincewind]

18 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I said not far off and plenty of polls have shown high 40s.

Hopefully it is dwindling down but it doesn't appear clear which way the wind will blow at all

I was not clear. I meant information ire decisions for voting Tory.

[LiberalFox]

I would have thought a decent but losing performance would be the perfect opportunity for Jezza to bow out gracefully on his own terms. He could rightfully point to having put together a well received manifesto, championed socialist policy and increased the Labour vote share despite huge opposition from the media. A "moderate left" or Brownite candidate with an unblemished record on supporting Corbyn could then take on the mantle, promising to adopt several of Corbyn's most popular manifesto aims. They could then reunify the PLP with its membership.

[Guest MattP]

7 hours ago, Bryn said:

The debt has grown under Tory government. You can tart around bigging them up all you want, they promised they'd reduced the deficit and it's grown, how can you excuse that? Every single aspect of public life is worse and they haven't even managed to improve the economy, it's lose lose under further Tory rule.

I'll reply to others in time but for this.....

 

How can you expect to be taken remotely serious when you claim the deficit has grown? 

 

Learn the basics before posting things so stupid it's embarrassing. 

[Dr The Singh]

If chuck the coont unama, are whatever his name is would have killed this and May would be shitting her pants

[Facecloth]

19 minutes ago, MattP said:

I'll reply to others in time but for this.....

 

How can you expect to be taken remotely serious when you claim the deficit has grown? 

 

Learn the basics before posting things so stupid it's embarrassing. 

This is why people are saying you're a bit of a **** these days. Could you not have just told him why he's wrong, without being such a **** about it?

[Rincewind]

2 hours ago, Facecloth said:

This is why people are saying you're a bit of a **** these days. Could you not have just told him why he's wrong, without being such a **** about it?

I would say how can you expect to be taken serious whe n you say there is no crisis in the NHS, the schools are doing fine, austerity is working and I won't change my mind. She's on HIGNFY being asked about the NHS

What we have is a strong and stable

Andrew N I ask agai where is the extra billion coming from

TM what we have done in the last fine is strong and stable

Repeat until convinced or brainwashed whichever happens first.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Rincewind said:

I would say how can you expect to be taken serious whe n you say there is no crisis in the NHS, the schools are doing fine, austerity is working and I won't change my mind. She's on HIGNFY being asked about the NHS

What we have is a strong and stable

Andrew N I ask agai where is the extra billion coming from

TM what we have done in the last fine is strong and stable

Repeat until convinced or brainwashed whichever happens first.

Usually the first few years of a government are their best years.  This government did one good thing - increasing income tax threshold, initially  when I'm coalition - and has then been an unmitigated disaster ever since. It had no solutions just soundbites and false claims to be shocked by their opponents.

[Guest MattP]

9 hours ago, Facecloth said:

This is why people are saying you're a bit of a **** these days. Could you not have just told him why he's wrong, without being such a **** about it?

When you are accused of "tarting around bigging them up" and then get something as ridiculous as that thrown in as evidence against them what sort of response do you really expect? Sure I'd get the same if I made a ridiculous and untrue claim about Labour in office.

 

Politics is serious, it isn't a joke.

[Guest MattP]

17 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I'd mark Corbyn at 5/10, compared to 3/10 for May.

 

I reckon the Trident issue is the one that will continue to cause him problems during the campaign. It's fine to be honest about his personal disagreement with the policy, but choosing to mention the defence review and saying that it would consider "the role of nuclear weapons" is just inviting the media to keep quizzing him about this (which the Tories will love).

 

I thought he handled questioning about Islamist terrorism quite well and got some good points in about services and investment. He got a bit wobbly about bonds to fund nationalisation (not sure he fully understood his own policy there). Claiming that he "left the public no doubt he supports the IRA" is overstating it. He was "content to share a platform with IRA people to support the Republican cause" is more like it, I'd say. That makes me queasy enough, though. However, knowing how the Hard Left operated in those days, it wouldn't have been a commitment to terrorism. It was more like they had a list of causes that you should support to be in their gang - Anti-Apartheid, CND, Palestine, Chile Solidarity, Troops Out/United Ireland etc. Him claiming that he was just promoting peace is disingenuous, though. He might not have been supporting the IRA, but he was supporting the Republican side - a very particular way of "promoting peace", though similar could be said of the "Conservative and Unionist Party".....anyway, I reckon Corbyn's past is already well-known in this regard, and well-publicised by the press.

 

Neil interviews people like a boxer with an opponent cornered on the ropes - not wild, blustering aggression like Paxman, just occasional, repeated sharp jabs to bring their guard down. Corbyn just about survived. If the other interviews are rescheduled, I reckon Farron will look punch-drunk by the end and I can see Nuttall getting counted out after 10 minutes. Sturgeon will probably be his toughest opponent.

Probably have to agree to disagree on that - I think with the list of evidence provided no one except a Corbynista or a Labour loyalist would genuinely believe he didn't support them.

 

The weirdest response for me was that he had never met the IRA - after the line from his fans for two years that he met them to help the peace process, surprised Neil didn't go further on that point.

 

Regards to Trident, he needs to clarify very quickly whether policy could change were they under the proposed defence review.

 

17 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I still reckon that an increased Tory majority is the most likely outcome - just not increased by as much as May hoped.

If Corbyn continues to perform better than expected and the Tories don't get a landslide, that presumably secures his position in the short-term. Where that leaves Labour is another matter.

Maybe the Tories will then ruin their reputation by failing to negotiate a good Brexit deal (Brexit, remember that forgotten concept?) and/or presiding over an economic debacle? God knows what happens to UK politics then...

 

I was surprised to see your mate Rod Liddle suggesting that the Labour vote in the North was "sticky". Outside the major cities, the council results and polling data suggest otherwise - bigger swing to the Tories than elsewhere. Didn't analysis also show that the recent tightening of the polls had mainly been caused by ABC1 voters switching to Labour, not C2DE voters?

 

The extra potential votes that Labour is accumulating might be in the wrong locations - in big city seats that they already hold or prosperous Tory seats in the South that they stand no chance of winning.

If voting matches the polls, Labour could still lose an awful lot of seats across the North and Midlands, winning just a handful in the South. A Tory landslide is still a lot more likely than a hung parliament, I reckon.

 

There could also be a late swing back to the Tories. They were largely relying on Labour's unpopularity, not their own popularity - and have severely pissed a lot of people off with their crap manifesto, U-turns and social care policy. But I can imagine a lot of voters angry at the Tories either staying at home or grudgingly voting Tory at the last minute, out of concern for what Corbyn might be like.

I do - the more I look at it the more I think that not only is be an overestimation of Labour but maybe hardening his core vote with a few old socialists - either way not something that is going to take Tory seats that he'll need to win an election.

 

Aren't the polls out today? I'll go have a look.

[Guest MattP]

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 45% (-1)
LAB: 35% (+2)
LDEM: 7% (-1)
UKIP: 5% (-)

(via @OpiniumResearch / 23 - 25 May)

 

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 46% (-2)
LAB: 34% (+4)
LDEM: 8% (-2)
UKIP: 5% (-)
GRN: 2% (-1)

(via @ComRes / 24 - 26 May)

 

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 44% (-2)
LAB: 38% (+4)
LDEM: 7% (-)
UKIP: 5% (-2)

(via @ORB_Int / 24 - 25 May)

 

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 43% (-)
LAB: 36% (-2)
LDEM: 9% (-1)
UKIP: 4% (-)

(via @YouGov / 25 - 26 May)

 

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 46% (-1)
LAB: 32% (-1)
LDEM: 8% (-1)
UKIP: 5% (+1)
GRN: 2% (-)

(via @ICMResearch / 24 - 26 May)

 

 

Will be a few people in Tory HQ relived this morning.

[Guest MattP]

Finally a decent attack video from the Tories.

 

 

"Except the Army, where we could do with a few more cuts" - that should be on billboards along with Abbott's claim of the British state being defeated being a victory for all of "us" - whoever "us" is.

[katieakita]

On ‎22‎/‎05‎/‎2017 at 22:38, LiberalFox said:

 

I'll have a look into it but government ministers can't prosecute people or halt prosecutions (maybe the Home Secretary?). It sounds like whatever happened it will be dealt with by the legal system.

 Now have more time to explain why the Lib/Dems failed the public so badly over postal affairs. Royal Mail was sold off at a greatly reduced price everybody knows and accepts that. As a private company it can only be a matter of time before Royal Mail look at their business model, will they continue to deliver post for rivals at a loss or will they tell the regulator where to go. Will they continue to deliver post 6 days a week to non profit making routes or will they up prices one thing for sure is service levels will drop. As for the Liberals and the Post Office where to start. The 1st postal  minister Ed Davey promised £300 of extra government work and to make the Post Office the front office of government. Instead the figure has halved probably best highlighted by the DVLA saving £20 million a year by scrapping tax discs that were issued by the Post Office the fact that non payment of vehicle licence fees has risen by over £150 million a year since the scrapping of paper licences did not stop the bonus payments for DVLA officials for delivering this "£20 Million saving".

 

Vince Cable could and should have pushed for a Post Bank something that has been a success in every country that has launched one. There were a few options to go with this the major one would have been to rectify the failings of project Merlin that cost the taxpayer £190 billion at the start of the coalition government. Would it not have made more sense when it became very clear the banks would not lend to business's and targets were continually missed for the Business secretary Vince Cable to grow a pair and call time on the banks who were clearly not interested in meeting any agreed targets. Rather than give tens of billions to the banks as a reward for nearly bankrupting the country would it not have made sense for the government to lend money from its own bank to business setting the loan criteria and the rates rather than have the banks taking the p1ss saying nobody wants to borrow the money at rates of 24% (which my bank offered me for being a good business customer). Targets could have been reached and the profits would have come back to the treasury rather than the banks. If that is too extreme the French Post Bank model generates 1 Billion euros a year profit dealing with the mainly socially excluded for Bank accounts. Basically working with credit unions to remove the need for pay day loan companies  as all they do is keep the poorest poor or does the country need the likes of Wonga. 

 

From the pittance the government got for Royal Mail £1.34 billion was allocated to the Post Office to deliver the latest restructuring program Network Transformation and the management team that had failed to deliver on the 3 previous attempts were giving this vast some to try again notwithstanding that the Post Office as a government owned company has never been held to account or had to justify how taxpayers money was spent. Despite concerns raised by the likes of the union representing the Post Office, the Rural Shop Alliance, the Association of convenience stores, the Citizens Advice Bureau they were ignored and the idiots responsible for previous failed programs were given licence to spend and waste. A look around shows the success of this with Post Offices closing and turning up in the back of your local convenience store or tucked away in a corner of WH Smiths or rurally down to a van once a week or like Market Bosworth not having one. Of course they are open longer not that the advertised hours are kept or they have staff trained to do the work. When they were 15,000 post Offices we had to many so they were paid to shut by the taxpayer one of the many failings of the latest fools errand was to increase opening hours to more than when there was 15,000 offices but to pay those running the offices 15% less than before. Rurally nationwide many offices have shut or services have been slashed to one or 2 mornings a week. When asked about the rising amount of closures the Postal Minister Norman Lamb deferred to the Post Office and stated that numbers were not dropping whatever concerns MP's even though 3 rural offices had shut in just his own constituencies in the previous 12 months. When it was clear that the conversion targets were not being met the Post Office went to the next Postal Minister Jo Swinson with a proposal that another £680 billion was required for the program to be completed but that from being a voluntary program it would need to become compulsory for Post Offices to take on the new contract or be sacked. Post Offices have been shut down experienced Post Office owners paid off  and the business given to a neighbouring shop for little or no money but on greatly reduced pay to save costs. Sadly on a weekly basis new operators are now realising that this is a waste of time so the closure list continues to grow. 

 

Cross party concerns were raised continually about the conduct of the Post Office and the contracts on offer described as Dickensian by some Tory MP's in fact one of the savings the Post Office put in place was a change in contract to avoid them paying National Insurance contributions which has produced a saving to the Post Office of over £11 million a year at the exchequers expense. Something that went completely against government policy and something that all the parties plan to outlaw (well certainly the Conservatives and Labour) look forward to Matt P's explanation as to how the Conservatives are going to deal with sham contracts like Uber's when they are one of the worst culprits. 

 

My real gripe though with the LIb/Dems though is the handling of the horizon (useless outdated computer system) fiasco. For a number of years there has been complaints about the conduct of Post Office Ltd and the treatment of Postmasters accused of "stealing money". People have gone to prison, at least one killed themselves people have been bankrupted by the Post Office and lost their business and reputation. Complaints about this have been going on for years and hundreds of cross party MP's have raised concerns having looked at the information themselves or finding themselves unhappy with the response and conduct of the Post Office. Every single time during their spell in power when either this latest closure program that was costing around £7 million a week or the conduct and integrity of the Post Office was questioned the spineless successive Lib/Dem Minister deferred to the Post Office and read out and maintained anything this accused tax payer funded organisation told them at no time having the courage to look for themselves. After threats of legal action against the Post Office it was announced that the Post Office had appointed the best Independent firm of forensic accountants and computer experts to look into these claims and exonerate them. Despite taking years and costing millions in legal fees to the tax payer to get to this stage it would be hard to argue that things were not moving on. However problems arose at the cross party committee meeting when the Best Forensic accountants gave their initial findings and were clearly a little bit more independent than the Post Office had bargained for. 18 months or so down the line they had found a number of issues with the computer and the Post Offices conduct but their biggest problem was that the Post Office had constantly failed to co-operate with them and would not release information to them that they had requested to help conduct their investigations. The committee were furious with the conduct of the Post Office and ordered them to comply and assist this firm of Forensic Accountants with their investigation. The Post Offices CEO who is paid around £1 million a year by the taxpayer maintained the mistake was by the accountants who had requested the wrong information by giving the Post Office the wrong dates. When questioned directly about this by the Chair of the committee  the Forensic accountants maintained they had given the correct dates but the Post Office maintained the wrong dates had been supplied. The Chairman of the committee actually had the evidence  in front of him and new the accountant was telling the truth and the Post Office were not something the Liberal Minister was made aware of. At what stage if you are supposed to be in charge of this does alarm bells start ringing and do you keep giving the accused £7 million a week to carry on with a program only they maintain is succeeding. There is little point for me in seeking power when if you get it you do nothing with it. 

 

Finally a date was given for the completed investigation by this company 2nd sight to be released and then HMG could at least deal with the findings. The day before the report was to be published 2nd sight were sacked by the Post Office and ordered to destroy all evidence and a gagging order was imposed on them. Thankfully a Conservative MP got wind of this and stopped the disposal of evidence and gagging order and the completed report was published by the BBC despite threats of legal action from Post Office Ltd. The Post Office hastily supplied their own findings clearing themselves, something the Lib/Dem Minister endorsed.

 

In the present we have a high court action taking place this has cost tens of millions to get under written as single people have grouped together to take on the tax payer funded Post Office and we also have a high number of criminal case reviews taking place A group of MP's so disgusted by the conduct of the Post Office went to "friends in the City"  to underwrite this class action and a quick look at the evidence was all they needed to come up with the funding. When prosecuting these individuals one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Post Office was that nobody else had access to the computer system as it was totally secure hence any losses would be down to the individual. The Post Office have now reluctantly disclosed that in fact 3rd party access to the system had happened and had always been happening. Something that not only casts huge doubts on any convictions but now also leaves the Tax payer owned Post liable to a charge of miss selling contracts to anyone who has bought a Post Office. The Lib/Dems when in control of the Post Office did nothing despite all the warning signs and concerns. £2 billion has been wasted that is nearly half what we the tax payer got for Royal Mail, the Post Office has been destroyed and I would not like to put a price on the cost to the taxpayer of rectifying the Post Offices conduct. In the scheme of things this is a drop in the Ocean but honestly o what basis could you or would you trust the Lib/Dems to run the country if given power.

 

[Guest MattP]

Diane Abbott on Marr. Delighted she is back out on the campaign.

[Guest MattP]

 I shouldn't laugh as it's serious but can't help it. This is horrific. 

 

Marr has found an old early day motion of Abbott calling for MI5 to be abolished and we now find out she voted against designated Al-Qaeda and numerous other Jihadi groups as terrorist organisations. 

 

She's just said she had an afro at the time at time so it's OK. 

 

Now been asked four times do you regret what you said about the defeat the British state being a good thing - wouldn't answer except from saying it was a long time ago. Unbelievable, she can't even bring herself to say it, she still believes it doesn't she? She must despise this country.

 

I'd genuinely refuse to vote Tory if she was on the front bench.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, MattP said:

 I shouldn't laugh as it's serious but can't help it. This is horrific. 

 

Marr has found an old early day motion of Abbott calling for MI5 to be abolished and we now find out she voted against designated Al-Qaeda and numerous other Jihadi groups as terrorist organisations. 

 

She's just said she had an afro at the time at time so it's OK. 

 

Now been asked four times do you regret what you said about the defeat the British state being a good thing - wouldn't answer except from saying it was a long time ago. Unbelievable, she can't even bring herself to say it, she still believes it doesn't she? She must despise this country.

 

I'd genuinely refuse to vote Tory if she was on the front bench.

She is awful. Corbyn obviously took a lot of flak within the party and publically but has actually done really well during this campaign. I actually like quite a few of the labour team - and certainly think they can more than hold their own against the tory team in general - but abbot is just useless. Huge error by corbyn not recognising this a long time ago. Whilst I'd only give rudd, boris and fallon 1/10, abbott is a -5. 

 

Talking of people though, I've read that the next leaders debate will see a tory input but, rather than go herself, may is sending amber rudd. May's reticence to debate or talk to the public really does look terrible - the tory campaign really is laughably bad - even you'd surely have to admit that mattp (you kind of have earlier)!

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

She is awful. Corbyn obviously took a lot of flak within the party and publically but has actually done really well during this campaign. I actually like quite a few of the labour team - and certainly think they can more than hold their own against the tory team in general - but abbot is just useless. Huge error by corbyn not recognising this a long time ago. Whilst I'd only give rudd, boris and fallon 1/10, abbott is a -5. 

 

Talking of people though, I've read that the next leaders debate will see a tory input but, rather than go herself, may is sending amber rudd. May's reticence to debate or tali to the public really does look terrible - the tory campaign really is laughably bad - even you'd surely have to admit that mattp (you kind of have earlier)!

I'm on record numerous times as saying it's horrific - hiding and only popping up on occasions to shout policy the public hates, the debate moving from the NHS/Social Care to National Security has probably saved them from humiliation. 

 

Amber Rudd isn't very good, if she wasn't a woman I don't think she would be anywhere near the cabinet. 

[Carl the Llama]

Tell you what the Tory and Labour campaigning is doing a great job of convincing me that Tim Farron isn't such a terrible option after all.

[Realist Guy In The Room]

24 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Tell you what the Tory and Labour campaigning is doing a great job of convincing me that Tim Farron isn't such a terrible option after all.

Close thread.

[Alf Bentley]

It would be good to see polling figures broken down by region, since the polls tightened. If Labour has mainly gained votes in London, SE and big cities, that might secure very few seats.

Likewise, though, if much of the increase in the Tory vote since 2015 is in Labour safe seats, those might not yield many seats.

My best guess is we're still looking at a Tory majority of at least 50-100, despite the rise in Labour support. There's still a Lab->Con swing since 2015 due to the collapse of UKIP.

Whose voters turn out on the day will be another factor, though. Generally Tories turn out more, but that might not be the case this time. A lot of Tories uninspired by May & co, I'd imagine.

 

The Lib Dems must be panicking at those poll figures - especially as the Tories are their main opponents in most seats where they stand a chance.

They could conceivably end up with fewer seats than now - 5 or fewer, possibly? Their poll rating is the same or lower than for the 2015 election (7.9%), while the Tories are up.....

Just imagine if Clegg was the only Lib Dem MP elected?! There are almost as many question marks over the future of the Lib Dems as over UKIP just now....

 

I didn't see Abbott's interview, but have read about it. If she was going to say that "her views had changed like her Afro" or whatever, I don't understand why she didn't just say: "Yes, I regret those comments".

She could quite easily have said: "I supported Troops Out. I was young and made some stupid comments. Those were stupid comments. I regret them. I didn't and don't support terrorism. I support the Peace Process led by our great Labour MP Tony Blair, and my main concern now is over border arrangements post-Brexit". If all she had to offer was comparisons to her hairstyle, she should have stayed at home.

 

That Tory attack video might seem good to someone on the Right with a strong interest in politics. But I wonder how it will be seen by uncommitted voters, possibly paying little attention or with little interest in politics?

The response might just be: "There are the politicians throwing mud at one another again. Let's switch off". Also, the punchline doesn't work as well as it would have done a few weeks back. The video essentially sets Corbyn up as a complete arse, then offers you the alternative of Theresa May. That would have seemed a good idea 4 weeks ago. Not sure it is now. They're now essentially asking: "Look at this pile of shit here. Do you really want that pile of shit? Instead, we're offering you......this other pile of shit!!". Corbyn might still be a liability for Labour (if marginally less than before), but May might no longer be an asset to the Tories. 

[Realist Guy In The Room]

Fallon battling with Abbott to see who can cause most damage to their parties campaign.

 

3-2 Abbott going into the last 10 minutes.

 

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

It would be good to see polling figures broken down by region, since the polls tightened. If Labour has mainly gained votes in London, SE and big cities, that might secure very few seats.

Likewise, though, if much of the increase in the Tory vote since 2015 is in Labour safe seats, those might not yield many seats.

My best guess is we're still looking at a Tory majority of at least 50-100, despite the rise in Labour support. There's still a Lab->Con swing since 2015 due to the collapse of UKIP.

Whose voters turn out on the day will be another factor, though. Generally Tories turn out more, but that might not be the case this time. A lot of Tories uninspired by May & co, I'd imagine.

 

The Lib Dems must be panicking at those poll figures - especially as the Tories are their main opponents in most seats where they stand a chance.

They could conceivably end up with fewer seats than now - 5 or fewer, possibly? Their poll rating is the same or lower than for the 2015 election (7.9%), while the Tories are up.....

Just imagine if Clegg was the only Lib Dem MP elected?! There are almost as many question marks over the future of the Lib Dems as over UKIP just now....

 

I didn't see Abbott's interview, but have read about it. If she was going to say that "her views had changed like her Afro" or whatever, I don't understand why she didn't just say: "Yes, I regret those comments".

She could quite easily have said: "I supported Troops Out. I was young and made some stupid comments. Those were stupid comments. I regret them. I didn't and don't support terrorism. I support the Peace Process led by our great Labour MP Tony Blair, and my main concern now is over border arrangements post-Brexit". If all she had to offer was comparisons to her hairstyle, she should have stayed at home.

 

That Tory attack video might seem good to someone on the Right with a strong interest in politics. But I wonder how it will be seen by uncommitted voters, possibly paying little attention or with little interest in politics?

The response might just be: "There are the politicians throwing mud at one another again. Let's switch off". Also, the punchline doesn't work as well as it would have done a few weeks back. The video essentially sets Corbyn up as a complete arse, then offers you the alternative of Theresa May. That would have seemed a good idea 4 weeks ago. Not sure it is now. They're now essentially asking: "Look at this pile of shit here. Do you really want that pile of shit? Instead, we're offering you......this other pile of shit!!". Corbyn might still be a liability for Labour (if marginally less than before), but May might no longer be an asset to the Tories. 

I think, whatever the result, theresa may well be coming out of the election in a worse position than she went in. Perhaps a landslide will save her but a slim majority will put her in trouble imo.

[Alf Bentley]

3 hours ago, MattP said:

Probably have to agree to disagree on that - I think with the list of evidence provided no one except a Corbynista or a Labour loyalist would genuinely believe he didn't support them.

 

The weirdest response for me was that he had never met the IRA - after the line from his fans for two years that he met them to help the peace process, surprised Neil didn't go further on that point.

 

 

A quick attempt to explain, as someone who was involved in Labour politics in the 1980s....

 

A lot of people on the Left supported aims espoused by the Republican movement: a united Ireland and troops out of the North. When I was about 18-21, I would have been one of them myself (though I wasn't involved in any campaigns).

Once I'd grown up a bit, I realised that such ideas were simplistic: you couldn't just withdraw the troops overnight and, whatever the history, a united Ireland would only ever be possible, if at all, via negotiations and with majority consent in the North and South - including with the consent of, and guarantees for Northern unionists. That became part of the Good Friday Agreement.

 

It's certainly fair to say that Corbyn was not "promoting peace", he was promoting Troops Out and a united Ireland (there was no peace process back then). It is fair to say that Corbyn and allies supported Republican aims. It is also fair to argue that Corbyn and others on the left should not have shared platforms with people with IRA connections (though Govt representatives did likewise in the years prior to the Peace Process)....that's a matter of opinion. But, without more evidence, it is not fair to say that Corbyn "supported the IRA" - a lot of people, rightly or wrongly, supported Republican aims without supporting the IRA.

 

Some context is also required: this was a time when anti-Catholic discrimination was still widespread in N. Ireland, when many innocent Irish people were banged up for terrorist murders they'd not committed after corrupt investigations - and when Gerry Adams, an elected MP, had his voice banned from TV broadcasts. None of that excuses terrorism by the IRA or anyone else. Personally, I'm not a nationalist of any kind (Irish or British) and I loathe the atrocities carried out by the IRA (& others) - in my lovely, peaceful Dad's name?! He didn't want any of that! I hope that explains a bit.