General Election, June 8th

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, Webbo said:

He's equating the British army with people who deliberately targeted civilians.

I thought he was equating the IRA and Loyalist paramilitary groups like the UVF/UDA?

[Webbo]

14 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

I thought he was equating the IRA and Loyalist paramilitary groups like the UVF/UDA?

The clip I saw, that I can't find now he was asked if he was equating the IRA to the army and he gave his usual non committal nonsense.

 

There's no doubt he was an IRA sympathiser he was a regular at pro republican events during the troubles. 

 

http://news.sky.com/story/mi5-had-file-on-jeremy-corbyn-over-ira-10885001

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, Webbo said:

The clip I saw, that I can't find now he was asked if he was equating the IRA to the army and he gave his usual non committal nonsense.

 

There's no doubt he was an IRA sympathiser he was a regular at pro republican events during the troubles. 

Again though from what I understand in that article he defines it as him having conversations with people he disagrees with...  Perhaps that's revisionism of the past, I can't really claim to have anything like enough knowledge to say that it isn't but then again perhaps it's that he really was pro-republican and this latest interview illustrates how his attitude has changed with age so now he's more of an 'it takes two to tango' kind of guy.  Alternatively maybe he was pro the republican cause but anti-bombing which is an entirely fair view to hold and the supposition I'm most inclined to believe at this point in time given what I know about the man's politics.  Or of course perhaps he's simply telling porkies about his views on the matter to try and win votes like a good cynical politician.

 

I wouldn't mind seeing that clip if anyone knows what Webbo's talking about, it's certainly a different line of questioning to the one in the article and could shed further light to provide a bit more clarity.  I was pretty comfy with Jezza's response in that article I linked but Webbo's definitely thrown some niggling doubts into the equation.  Not that it's the most vital of electoral matters, I still find it interesting.

[Sharpe's Fox]

@Carl the Llama people on Corbyn's wing of the party certainly see The Troubles as not a legitimate response against Republican fundamentalist terrorism but an aggression by the British State towards the Catholic community and the IRA as a response to that. It's up to you to what side you take although both viewpoints have been warped in the melting pot of events like Bloody Sunday and the Brighton Bomb to the point at which any view seen to favour the "wrong" side is wildly taken out of context. In this country you are a traitor if you bring up the legitimate grievance Catholics had towards Britain but there are instances where supporting an armed struggle against an oppressor is supported, Nelson Mandela being one.

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

@Carl the Llama people on Corbyn's wing of the party certainly see The Troubles as not a legitimate response against Republican fundamentalist terrorism but an aggression by the British State towards the Catholic community and the IRA as a response to that. It's up to you to what side you take although both viewpoints have been warped in the melting pot of events like Bloody Sunday and the Brighton Bomb to the point at which any view seen to favour the "wrong" side is wildly taken out of context. In this country you are a traitor if you bring up the legitimate grievance Catholics had towards Britain but their are instances where supporting an armed struggle against an oppressor is supported, Nelson Mandela being one.

I think if you aspire to lead this country, supporting people who murdered your own citizens is a bit of a no no.

[Sharpe's Fox]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I think if you aspire to lead this country, supporting people who murdered your own citizens is a bit of a no no.

I wouldn't hold that view against you since you lived in those times and I didn't, but The Troubles is just a historical event to me and it's not something I take into account on the ballot box. If Paisley can work with McGuiness maybe it puts into context some opinions that haven't changed in 30 years in some people.

[Webbo]

6 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

I wouldn't hold that view against you since you lived in those times and I didn't, but The Troubles is just a historical event to me and it's not something I take into account on the ballot box. If Paisley can work with McGuiness maybe it puts into context some opinions that haven't changed in 30 years in some people.

That's big of you. I get the feeling though that you wouldn't be so forgiving if a tory had shared a platform with a wanted murderer.

[Sharpe's Fox]

5 minutes ago, Webbo said:

That's big of you. I get the feeling though that you wouldn't be so forgiving if a tory had shared a platform with a wanted murderer.

Yeah you're probably right. Saudi Arabia is one I bring up a lot.

[LiberalFox]

23 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Again though from what I understand in that article he defines it as him having conversations with people he disagrees with...  Perhaps that's revisionism of the past, I can't really claim to have anything like enough knowledge to say that it isn't but then again perhaps it's that he really was pro-republican and this latest interview illustrates how his attitude has changed with age so now he's more of an 'it takes two to tango' kind of guy.  Alternatively maybe he was pro the republican cause but anti-bombing which is an entirely fair view to hold and the supposition I'm most inclined to believe at this point in time given what I know about the man's politics.  Or of course perhaps he's simply telling porkies about his views on the matter to try and win votes like a good cynical politician.

 

I wouldn't mind seeing that clip if anyone knows what Webbo's talking about, it's certainly a different line of questioning to the one in the article and could shed further light to provide a bit more clarity.  I was pretty comfy with Jezza's response in that article I linked but Webbo's definitely thrown some niggling doubts into the equation.  Not that it's the most vital of electoral matters, I still find it interesting.

 

 

Bit on the IRA starts at 7:30. Personally think it would be more apt to describe the interview as "Sophy Ridge aggressively accuses Labour leader of supporting the IRA", thought he handled it fairly well despite her desperate attempts to use strawman arguments and provocative questioning and body language to unsettle him. Love the bit where she tries to accuse him of cutting her off, yes Sophy we really just want you to do all the talking, don't let Corbyn actually speak. 

[Carl the Llama]

15 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

Bit on the IRA starts at 7:30. Personally think it would be more apt to describe the interview as "Sophy Ridge aggressively accuses Labour leader of supporting the IRA", thought he handled it fairly well despite her desperate attempts to use strawman arguments and provocative questioning and body language to unsettle him. Love the bit where she tries to accuse him of cutting her off, yes Sophy we really just want you to do all the talking, don't let Corbyn actually speak. 

Cheers.  Whilst what he does say is all fair enough, could've easily wiped the smug grin off her face by replying with something like "of course I condemn the violent actions of the IRA" before going into the extra detail about also condemning Loyalists that she seemed so upset by as though bombing Catholic civilians is a lesser crime.

 

Was amused at how that segment started with her getting her facts about the magazine he wrote for completely wrong  

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Cheers.  Whilst what he does say is all fair enough, could've easily wiped the smug grin off her face by replying with something like "of course I condemn the violent actions of the IRA" before going into the extra detail about also condemning Loyalists that she seemed so upset by as though bombing Irish civilians is a lesser crime.

The IRA killed Irish civilians too, as well as knee capping them and general intimidation.

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, Webbo said:

The IRA killed Irish civilians too, as well as knee capping them and general intimidation.

You are of course right Webs, but I'd corrected that slip of the tongue (fingers?) about a minute before you hit send.

 

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

You are of course right Webs, but I'd corrected that slip of the tongue (fingers?) about a minute before you hit send.

 

They killed catholics as well. Also, he's never been accused of supporting Loyalist terrorists so there there wasn't any point asking him about that.

[Guest]

 

 

[Rincewind]

They did eventually get around the table to work out a peaceful solution, Some thought that would never be possible.It took compromise from both sides.

[Carl the Llama]

5 minutes ago, Webbo said:

They killed catholics as well. Also, he's never been accused of supporting Loyalist terrorists so there there wasn't any point asking him about that.

From what I've gathered so far it's more accurate to say that he sympathised with their cause, not that he supported their means.  I feel that given recent events you of all people would understand the desire for a nation to seek its sovereignty from the oppression of an increasingly authoritarian regime from across the sea. 

 

Basically we've learned that he promotes peace and would prefer to seek it through allowing all sides of the disagreement to be heard, is that wrong?  It seems to me that if you want to be angered by one of our candidates' relation to violent regimes then maybe you should direct those feelings towards the lady selling firearms to oppressive foreign governments with a history of human rights abuse rather than a man who once talked to some bad eggs in the 80s.

[LiberalFox]

3 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Cheers.  Whilst what he does say is all fair enough, could've easily wiped the smug grin off her face by replying with something like "of course I condemn the violent actions of the IRA" before going into the extra detail about also condemning Loyalists that she seemed so upset by as though bombing Irish civilians is a lesser crime.

 

I think it's to do with interview technique. It's on Sky (a slightly right leaning organisation) and the interviewer is clearly being hostile. You get asked to condemn X(the IRA). It's highly likely she has a pre-planned line of attack based on him condemning the IRA. "So if you condemn them why did you say Y in 19xx" "What made you change your mind" "Clearly you've changed your mind etc". He's trying to avoid the tripwire by not directly answering the question but saying something that can't easily be twisted to attack him with. All you can really do in such interviews is allude to the unreasonableness of the interviewer and try to avoid being predictable as it throws them off their prepared line of attack. Most people watching have already decided they don't like Corbyn so they are just wanting to be entertained or to get reassurance of their prejudice. Corbyn's tactic is to get his own message out there by being the reasonable one and repeatedly alluding to the fact that May is avoiding such interviews completely. He was never going to get Webbo's vote but maybe he snags a few wavering voters who think that actually his explanation sounds quite reasonable. 

[Guest]

I watched the first half of the interview and got bored. The interviewer seems to have an agenda and corbyn is standing up to it very well. Interesting that he's been more frank on immigration and the fact that he won't get onto numbers (and why). Assuming from the posts above it moves into ira. Im hoping sky will also be in attack mode with may.

From what i gather previously corbyn believes in talking to all parties. I don't have a problem with this. Labelling people sympathisers simply because they recognise the need to discuss opposing views is something more problematic.

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, toddybad said:

I watched the first half of the interview and got bored. The interviewer seems to have an agenda and corbyn is standing up to it very well. Interesting that he's been more frank on immigration and the fact that he won't get onto numbers (and why). Assuming from the posts above it moves into ira. Im hoping sky will also be in attack mode with may.

From what i gather previously corbyn believes in talking to all parties. I don't have a problem with this. Labelling people sympathisers simply because they recognise the need to discuss opposing views is something more problematic.

Good point.  @Webbo's engaged me in conversation about the EU on more than one occasion, I guess that means he's really an EU sympathiser?  Very sly, Webster.

 

Seriously though, I think pretty much all of us in this thread align on the necessity for fair discourse, in fact I know from his history of moderation practices that Webs falls firmly into that camp or else I and many others would have been wiped from FT existence long ago.  If this conversation carries on much longer we may just convince him that he and Jezza aren't so different after all (though I'm sure Webbo has a far better record on speaking out against antisemitism, maybe the next great Labour leader walks among us).

 

9 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

 

I think it's to do with interview technique. It's on Sky (a slightly right leaning organisation) and the interviewer is clearly being hostile. You get asked to condemn X(the IRA). It's highly likely she has a pre-planned line of attack based on him condemning the IRA. "So if you condemn them why did you say Y in 19xx" "What made you change your mind" "Clearly you've changed your mind etc".

You're probably not too far wrong there.

 

 

[Webbo]

Theresa May supports a free vote on Fox hunting, howls of indignation and accusations of vicious cruelty.

 

Jeremy Cornyn supports the kneecapping of Irish Chatholics and it's " nobody's perfect".

 

This is what happens when you support a political party like a football team. You ignore its faults ,make ridiculous excuses and get offended by legitimate criticism.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Theresa May supports a free vote on Fox hunting, howls of indignation and accusations of vicious cruelty.

 

Jeremy Cornyn supports the kneecapping of Irish Chatholics and it's " nobody's perfect".

 

This is what happens when you support a political party like a football team. You ignore its faults ,make ridiculous excuses and get offended by legitimate criticism.

Thing is, theresa may actually does support fox hunting. 

I suspect the reality is that corbyn was happy to talk through (and maybe agreed with) the argument for n.ireland being part of ireland not the uk. The guy clearly isn't a fan of violence or war though so to conflate this with the suggestion he supported kneecapping or the means by which the ira fought its war is reactionary nonsense. 

[Buce]

14 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Theresa May supports a free vote on Fox hunting, howls of indignation and accusations of vicious cruelty.

 

Jeremy Cornyn supports the kneecapping of Irish Chatholics and it's " nobody's perfect".

 

This is what happens when you support a political party like a football team. You ignore its faults ,make ridiculous excuses and get offended by legitimate criticism.

 

Speechless.

[Webbo]

Just now, toddybad said:

Thing is, theresa may actually does support fox hunting. 

I suspect the reality is that corbyn was happy to talk through (and maybe agreed with) the argument for n.ireland being part of ireland not the uk. The guy clearly isn't a fan of violence or war though so to conflate this with the suggestion he supported kneecapping or the means by which the ira fought its war is reactionary nonsense. 

You can talk to people without attending their rallies, he didn't attend any UVF rallies. He was arrested outside the high court protesting against the trial of an IRA bomber. This " he was just promoting peace" is rewriting history, deep down I don't think any of you truly believe it.

[Webbo]

6 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Speechless.

I was para phrasing something Carl used to say a lot.

[Finnaldo]

22 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Theresa May supports a free vote on Fox hunting, howls of indignation and accusations of vicious cruelty.

 

Jeremy Cornyn supports the kneecapping of Irish Chatholics and it's " nobody's perfect".

 

This is what happens when you support a political party like a football team. You ignore its faults ,make ridiculous excuses and get offended by legitimate criticism.

 

Is there real evidence pointing to collusion or support for the IRA proper though? And that's a genuine question, I've done my own research and the most I can find is support for the Republican cause which is not the same thing. 

 

In terms of May, it's pretty much in the open she's selling weapons to the global centre of Wahhabism and Salafism, and asked for a second vote on fox hunting in the present. The worst of the troubles were 30 years ago, and even had he been supportive, there's a good chance his world view has changed in retrospect. If you asked Theresa May her views on gay rights 30 years ago, having grown up thoroughly Christian, should that be used as a criticism tool? I'd say no, if she has expressed a change in her views since. However if you've got evidence to prove collusion I'd be happy to condemn him.