Wednesday 22nd March 2017

[citizenJA]

I completely agree, Kinnock is hopeless. The Evil Blairites (with the notable exception of one T BLair) have disgraced themsevles over freedom of movement, art 50, and now this.

Vote Green is my advice.

A point of order, Mods. I thought it was a longstanding unwritten rule here that while discussion and debate about who to vote for is pretty much the raison d'etre of FTN, telling people how they ought to vote is not on. If I have that right, could one of you have a word with Hugo and require that he rein in his constant exhortations to vote Green please? Especially as he has no interest in Green politics and just wants to see Labour weakened so his sort can retake control at some unspecified point in the future. It's an attempt at manipulation which should have no place here, IMO. Thanks.

Knowing what you and I do about the commentator, we're free, we know what the contributions are ultimately worth.

You're a real person and so are friends here. I don't always like my friends' posts and I fully accept others many not like mine. We work it out. Détente, at least, you know? History documents Labour and other progressive political parties, organisations, in-fighting, disagreeing on issues of importance. I accept this. Arguing isn't so much a problem but physically fragmenting our vote leads to Tory governments. I won't oblige Tories by not voting Labour.

I tell people to vote Labour here and elsewhere all the time. Am I not supposed to? Let me know.

[citizenJA]

Progress goes full Kipper

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Only the Corbynite wing of Labour now stands up for decency and multiculturalism.

Any wing of Labour want to help me, my friends, family, community, country and world out, I'm taking it and thank you, Labour wings, all of you. You've got my vote, support and citizenJA Hostage & Other Tough Spot negotiation skills free of charge.

Even from a wing that insists that immigrants jettison their culture and transform themselves into Westerners? That's one step away from forced conversions.

No, that's totally unacceptable way to treat people. Labour doesn't do that to people.

I support any wing of Labour that IS Labour.

Me too.

The Kinnock persuasion is NOT Labour. It is Ukip with a dash of BNP and a shoddy coat of pink.

UKIP with BNP pink calling itself 'Labour' is scandalous, Labour don't treat people like UKIP or BNP treat people. Labour is better than that. I know Labour aren't UKIP or BNP. Any Labour MP want to treat people like UKIP or BNP treat people, that Labour MP needs to choose between UKIP or BNP and go there. Labour MPs use Labour rules for treating people only.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I've not noticed the Tories bother with Corbyn over the IRA even after McGuinness dying. You'd think Michael Fallon would fancy it.

MPs want Corbyn gone because they don't fancy defending that disgrace on the doorstep. We'll probably get Jez and team defending it as ahead of its time peace process.

So opening a channel to the IRA was right in the 90s but wrong in the 80s?

Being a 'friend of terrorists' in the 80s makes you a disgrace now but being an actual terrorist in the 80s who stopped being a terrorist a statesman and peacemaker?

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. As you said yourself, even the Tories aren't bothering to try that any more, and they don't usually let the truth get in the way of a good lie.

You really can't see the difference here can you?

The Tories aren't bothering because they want Corby still there. They have it for the election.

[citizenJA]

Well I honestly find it hard to believe that McGovern is fully happy with it, for example.

But this is one of the pitfalls of being an elitist top-down low membership organisation I suppose - money and contacts count, and though totally loathsome Kinnock Jnr has both. But there are still those desperate that the Labour party should be organised in the same way!

Yep. McGovern is the elected chair. She's fine. I agree with you about that Angell though.

Any old fool can spout Kinnock Jnr stuff and get attention. See Danczuk. Not really a matter of elite top down.

Exactly so. Danczuk got tossed out of the Labour party for just cause. He's no longer Labour. That's what happens when Labour and/or other rules get broken.

http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/co ... nczuk/4059

[citizenJA]

Another point about selection of MPs.

If you want diversity, and we do, this has to be centralised more, not less.

So, if you have 1,000 members, and ask them to choose 4 MPs, you'll get a diversity.

If you choose four groups of 250 members to choose 1 MP each, you're much more likely to get 4 of the same kind of MP (PPE SpAds).

So, leaving constituency parties to their own devices is hopeless if you want more women, BAME, disabled, working class etc etc MPs, and few white male PPE SpAds (although we should have a few of the latter).

The trouble with that argument is that you're assuming the centralizing is done in good faith. It needs to, to work as you say it should.

It probably would work okay, like you say it should. I don't want to cause trouble or hurt feelings, but the selection of Labour MPs advice tip is coming from who knows who, so, whatever.

[seeingclearly]

BBC reporting an incident in Westminster and a lockdwn. Not very clear on what exactly happened.

[citizenJA]

Owen Smith was a perfectly acceptable alternative. Pro EU, freedom of movement too. Job outside politics in important industry was "Big Pharma Blairite" to Corbyn and pals. We could be sitting here now watching a long term position starting to pay dividend.

I can't be arsed any more.

The slight problem with Smith was that he was useless, vacuous and principle-free. The fact that he was pro-EU would have meant little. We could be sitting here watching a total collapse instead of a gradual slide.

And do you think Ukiprogress would be happy in the long term to support a soft left leader who favoured freedom of movement? Or even the short term?

Owen Smith is okay enough, I disagree with some of your analysis of him. The fact he was pro-EU could've been the difference between remaining in the Single Market and retaining freedom of movement while using the tools the EU has already provided member nations enforcing conditions upon that freedom of movement in order to control like other nations successfully control. No total collapse instead a meaningful opposition providing dumb-ass Tory government with solutions to their horrid Tory problems caused by the wretched Tory party ALONE. We can still do this with whomever is Labour leader now, I don't care. It could work if leadership want to make it so.

[citizenJA]

BBC reporting an incident in Westminster and a lockdwn. Not very clear on what exactly happened.

oh, holy smokes

[Lost Soul]

BBC reporting an incident in Westminster and a lockdwn. Not very clear on what exactly happened.

Parliament attack: man shot after police officer stabbed at House of Commons - live updates





Major security alert at Westminster after at least one person was shot after police officer was stabbed outside House of Commons
Alleged assailant shot by police
‘Several injured’ in separate incident on Westminster bridge
House of Commons suspended

[Lost Soul]

1m ago
15:35

Luke Harding Luke Harding

I’m outside Downing Street- 200 metres from parliament Square - where police are in force and there is a nervy mood. Met officers have taped off the pavement and are clearing the public - tourists, workers,passersby - back towards Trafalgar Square.

Unmarked police vehicles have blocked off the road to parliament at Horse Guards Parade. A helicopter is flying low above the Foreign Office and the PM’s residence. Trafalgar square is a log-jam of buses and cars.

“It’s a serious incident sir. Please keep moving,” one officer said.

2m ago
15:35

Robert Booth Robert Booth

I’m at the police cordon at Victoria Street and Parliament Sq.
Police are telling the public to move back for their own safety. One constable said there were “various serious incidents going on. It’s not safe to be around here at the moment”. The police are clearly agitated.
There’s an air ambulance and about 15 police vehicles in the otherwise deserted square. Outside Westminster Abbey, groups of tourists are taking snaps oblivious of this afternoon’s incident.

4m ago
15:33

Vikram Dodd Vikram Dodd

A senior police source has confirmed that Scotland yard’s counter terrorism command involved in investigation following this afternoon incidents.
The early police view emerging from the chaos is there were probably two sites of attack.
Westminster Bridge where people may have been run over. Parliament itself where appears officer stabbed and attacker shot.

Plans for a London wide emergency have been put into place as a precaution. Police are hopeful the incidents are over.

7m ago
15:29

Rajeev Syal

Theresa May, the prime minister, was rushed into a car 40 yards from the gates outside parliament where shots were fired minutes after the incident occurred, according to footage filmed by a member of staff.

She was ushered by at least eight armed undercover police, some with their firearms drawn, into a waiting black vehicle in Speaker’s Court, the footage seen by the Guardian shows. Loud bangs can be heard in the background as she is ushered into the car, but it is unclear whether the bangs were gunshots.

Updated at 3.30pm GMT

8m ago
15:28

What we know so far

There have been two serious incidents near the British parliament.
A police officer has been stabbed in the Houses of Parliament in central London, the Commons leader, David Lidington, has said.
The alleged assailant was shot by armed police following a “serious” incident.
There are further reports of a car driving into a number of people on Westminster Bridge, before driving into the railings of the Palace of Westminster.
According to reports as many as 12 people could have been involved. People are being treated at the scene.

Westminster is currently in lockdown with MPs told to remain in the main chamber or in their offices.
Scotland Yard said it was called to a firearms incident on Westminster Bridge amid reports of several people injured.
Transport for London said Westminster underground station has been shut at the police’s request.

This link - though looks odd will take you there

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/bl ... itics-live" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[howsillyofme1]

Afternoon

Oh here we go with the IRA link again, although speaking to the IRA in the 80s seems to be worse than lying to the HoC in order to justify a war, allowing the selling of arms to countries that use them against civilians and, in Ireland, allowing the paramilitary behaviour of certain parts of the army and the police

Speaking directly to the IRA was clearly not popular in the 80s, and possibly naïve politically, but I think we know now that the IRA leadership contained people who quite early on realised that the armed struggle was only a temporary measure and would not bring the end s wanted - where they were right though was without the armed struggle they would not have achieved what they wanted

The IRA only succeeded and were able to operate was due to the behaviour of the Northern Irish Parliament and the Unionist majority there - this had been the case since the 20s and any attempt to change this was met with the threat of violence from the Ulster side.

An example of the gerrymandering was that the 'Ulster' we know is not the true Ulster - due to the need to ensure a Unionist majority. To try and pretend that Catholics existed in a democracy is something that the English tried to pretend - but they didn't and there was almost an apartheid state at times in terms of employment and access to the wealth

Corbyn is, and has always been, to me an anti-colonialist. I am sure he sees Northern Ireland as an aberration and that a United Ireland would be the best thing for a viable future - and I would say it is not hard to disagree with him and the likelihood that this will happen is becoming stronger every year. I am not convinced at all that he supports violence at all but I think he is probably sympathetic to why people take up arms without condoning it

There are parallels to his approach to Israel and their treatment of the Palestinians - understanding why someone has taken up arms is very different from actually condoning/supporting it

We have now moved on 30 years and this people that Corbyn was speaking to are now elected politicians and have been instrumental in delivering relative peace on the island of Ireland - something we have not seen for 1000 years!
In this we also have to doff our caps to many other politicians as well who took up the baton despite it being unpopular at times, from all sides of politics

If people want to use this against Corbyn then let them but I think it demeans them. I think most of the people who do are also usually hypocrites most politicians have supported armed struggle somewhere or other if it supports their political goals - and don't give me the cap about 'if in Government you have to speak to these people' because it is, well, crap!

So those who supported (and often supported the sale of arms) the first incarnation of Bin Laden against the Russians, Israeli actions against civilian populations, Bahrainis against their own people, the apartheid Government, the Contras etc, etc......there are many examples should also be condemned

Edited to add: Corbyn, like me, is an avowed Republican who wants to sees the monarchy as part of the problem in our complicated and out of date political culture. The Unionist overt focus on the monarchy and the concept of 'loyalty' (I have experienced this poisonous culture myself) would also tend towards sympathy for the Republicans

[PorFavor]

Come on, Eileen . . .

Dexys Midnight Runners ?
Lively tune, that

Yes! In PMQs, Jeremy Corbyn's named correspondent was Eileen - hence the tangential leap.

[howsillyofme1]

Owen Smith was a perfectly acceptable alternative. Pro EU, freedom of movement too. Job outside politics in important industry was "Big Pharma Blairite" to Corbyn and pals. We could be sitting here now watching a long term position starting to pay dividend.

I can't be arsed any more.

The slight problem with Smith was that he was useless, vacuous and principle-free. The fact that he was pro-EU would have meant little. We could be sitting here watching a total collapse instead of a gradual slide.

And do you think Ukiprogress would be happy in the long term to support a soft left leader who favoured freedom of movement? Or even the short term?

Owen Smith is okay enough, I disagree with some of your analysis of him. The fact he was pro-EU could've been the difference between remaining in the Single Market and retaining freedom of movement while using the tools the EU has already provided member nations enforcing conditions upon that freedom of movement in order to control like other nations successfully control. No total collapse instead a meaningful opposition providing dumb-ass Tory government with solutions to their horrid Tory problems caused by the wretched Tory party ALONE. We can still do this with whomever is Labour leader now, I don't care. It could work if leadership want to make it so.

can you explain to me how an Owen Smith led Labour Party could deliver the remaining in the Single Market and accepting Free Movement of People ? I am completely lost as to how Labour do this - are you arguing that he would have persuaded 20-30 Tory MPs to vote down A50?

I think the Labour amendments were meaningful attempts to ahold the Government to account - some Labour MPs voted against the party outnumbering the handful of Tories who voted for

The battle was lost when to was clear no Tories would rebel...do you have any evidence that 20-30 would have voted differently under a different Labour leader

Also, what you want is essentially still membership of EU without voting rights (similar to Norway who know it is not a great option for them as well) - is there any evidence that this is popular? From what it seems the polling suggests the UK population do not seem to have a clue what they voted for with a majority wanting to be in the market but not wanting to apply anything like free movement

[PorFavor]

Parliament attack: man shot after police officer stabbed and several injured in related incident - live updates

Major security alert at Westminster after at least one person was shot after police officer was stabbed outside House of Commons

Alleged assailant shot by police in attack
‘Several injured’ in related incident on Westminster Bridge
Police confirm incident is being treated as terrorist attack
House of Commons suspended
What we know so far

(Politics Live, Guardian)

[howsillyofme1]

Looks like the terrorists have won another battle!

Wall to wall media coverage in as dramatic a way as possible!

Not saying it is a horrible incident but these things are going to happen and we have to learn not to react to exacerbate the problems we have

Will be a test for how May and her shambolic Government react to this. Will they remain stoic or will the go out all 'detention without trial' again and how will Labour react to that?

Corbyn would likely be opposed to attempts to strengthen security service powers on the back of something like this but there are plenty of Labour MPs who will (as they did during the Blair years) - which would be the right approach?

[Tubby Isaacs]

I saw Owen Smith speak about Brexit.

Not at all vacuous or principle free. And knows what he's talking about.

[howsillyofme1]

I saw Owen Smith speak about Brexit.

Not at all vacuous or principle free. And knows what he's talking about.

He supports a second referendum.....doesn't really indicate he knows what he is talking about

Would standing up in the HoC and arguing for that have encourage Tory defectors and is it popular with the party?

His own constituency voted Exit....perhaps he could have spent some time persuading them during the referendum....but I forgot, individual MPs had no responsibility for their constituencies votes...it was all Corbyn's fault

[Tubby Isaacs]

Being prepared to take on Kipper pensioners in his own constituency suggests to me principles.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Progress as UKIP makes a bit of sense- except when it comes from a supporter of Corbyn. Had he and his wing not been taken on by Kinnock Pere, we could have reached the current disaster about 20 years ago.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Laura K quite rightly getting a kicking for her utterly ghoulish and unprofessional tweeting earlier.

[HindleA]

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/11051/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


People with epilepsy losing benefit on transfer to pip


http://www.parliament.uk/business/publi ... 3-13/67503" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[citizenJA]

From what it seems the polling suggests the UK population do not seem to have a clue what they voted for with a majority wanting to be in the market but not wanting to apply anything like free movement

(cJA edit)

What polling are you referring to here, please?

[SpinningHugo]

The main problem with Corbyn and McDonnell was not that they talked with terrorists. It was that they supported them in their 'struggle'.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It should also not need pointing out that there is a large difference between backbench MPs lending support to Sinn Fein during this era, and government ministers talking to them in private about the possibility of a ceasefire.

There is, let it also be remembered, a large and important difference between ends and means. There is a case that Ireland should be united. No case at all that the right way to achieve that goal is through the murder of innocent people.

Support for the IRA by its leader is, for me, a sufficient reason not to vote for Labour. I do understand that for others this is less of a moral priority.

As for today, we can be grateful that terrorists are, generally, idiots. It would be hard to pick a place in the UK for the killing of the innocent where large scale success was less likely.

[Tubby Isaacs]

When awful stuff like this takes place, one of the things that strikes me is that nobody much has a go at the government for police cuts.

If we had a Labour Prime Minister who'd cut loads of police as Home Secretary, things would be discussed in a totally different way.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Progress as UKIP makes a bit of sense- except when it comes from a supporter of Corbyn. Had he and his wing not been taken on by Kinnock Pere, we could have reached the current disaster about 20 years ago.

Except that things were different then - Labour "moderates" had a programme that could be attractive to both most party members/activists and the wider electorate.

Right now, they have neither. 2008 basically dynamited what remained of their political project, and they mostly remain totally in denial about this.

[Tubby Isaacs]

The main problem with Corbyn and McDonnell was not that they talked with terrorists. It was that they supported them in their 'struggle'.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It should also not need pointing out that there is a large difference between backbench MPs lending support to Sinn Fein during this era, and government ministers talking to them in private about the possibility of a ceasefire.

There is, let it also be remembered, a large and important difference between ends and means. There is a case that Ireland should be united. No case at all that the right way to achieve that goal is through the murder of innocent people.

Support for the IRA by its leader is, for me, a sufficient reason not to vote for Labour. I do understand that for others this is less of a moral priority.

As for today, we can be grateful that terrorists are, generally, idiots. It would be hard to pick a place in the UK for the killing of the innocent where large scale success was less likely.

It's not something I'd decide my vote on, though I think it was very bad. I was more saying that it was a wedge issue that the Tories aren't using.

A friend of mine (who may or not be semi-famous as not being a fan of Corbyn) said he'd heard that Corbyn and McDonnell tried to insert themselves into the Peace Process. Mo Mowlam and Tony Blair weren't having it.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Present events inevitably make one recall the June 2010 shootings up here.

It kicked off just yards away from where i worked in Whitehaven some days (though not then, as it happened) That office and many others were locked down for several hours.

We have also just passed the 21st anniversary of Dunblane, and in August reach the 30th anniversary of the Hungerford Massacre. Locals still feel the trauma of both now.

[SpinningHugo]

The main problem with Corbyn and McDonnell was not that they talked with terrorists. It was that they supported them in their 'struggle'.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It should also not need pointing out that there is a large difference between backbench MPs lending support to Sinn Fein during this era, and government ministers talking to them in private about the possibility of a ceasefire.

There is, let it also be remembered, a large and important difference between ends and means. There is a case that Ireland should be united. No case at all that the right way to achieve that goal is through the murder of innocent people.

Support for the IRA by its leader is, for me, a sufficient reason not to vote for Labour. I do understand that for others this is less of a moral priority.

As for today, we can be grateful that terrorists are, generally, idiots. It would be hard to pick a place in the UK for the killing of the innocent where large scale success was less likely.

It's not something I'd decide my vote on, though I think it was very bad. I was more saying that it was a wedge issue that the Tories aren't using.

A friend of mine (who may or not be semi-famous as not being a fan of Corbyn) said he'd heard that Corbyn and McDonnell tried to insert themselves into the Peace Process. Mo Mowlam and Tony Blair weren't having it.

Fairly clear why not. They have lots of material on this and will use it during an election campaign to crush Labour. The presence of this material, and lots more besides, and the shambolic nature of Labour's organisation, means that it is almost certain to lose considerable support during any campaign.

Most of the electorate don't really know about the background of Corbyn and McDonnell. The Tories will be explaining it loudly.

[AnatolyKasparov]

And given what some are inevitably saying currently, might be worth reminding ourselves that none of Michael Ryan/Thomas Hamilton/Derrick Bird were brown people.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Progress as UKIP makes a bit of sense- except when it comes from a supporter of Corbyn. Had he and his wing not been taken on by Kinnock Pere, we could have reached the current disaster about 20 years ago.

Except that things were different then - Labour "moderates" had a programme that could be attractive to both most party members/activists and the wider electorate.

Right now, they have neither. 2008 basically dynamited what remained of their political project, and they mostly remain totally in denial about this.

I don't think they're in denial about 2008 exactly. The way they see it is that it torpedoed Labour reputation for economic competence, and so you do whatever you have to do to get that back because you're lost without it.

What nobody is doing is facing up to the need for middle class tax rises. Burnham briefed he was considering an NI rise to pay for the NHS before the 2015 election. I assume that was polled and the results were bad. Without that, you're left with what Miliband did- cobbling together high end tax rises which turn out not to add up to much.

You can talk about investment as much as you like, but at the moment, the policy is basically borrowing for current spending, with a few soundbites about cracking down on tax dodging. You don't have to be nasty to oppose that- it's basically dumping the responsibility on future generations.

[Tubby Isaacs]

The main problem with Corbyn and McDonnell was not that they talked with terrorists. It was that they supported them in their 'struggle'.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It should also not need pointing out that there is a large difference between backbench MPs lending support to Sinn Fein during this era, and government ministers talking to them in private about the possibility of a ceasefire.

There is, let it also be remembered, a large and important difference between ends and means. There is a case that Ireland should be united. No case at all that the right way to achieve that goal is through the murder of innocent people.

Support for the IRA by its leader is, for me, a sufficient reason not to vote for Labour. I do understand that for others this is less of a moral priority.

As for today, we can be grateful that terrorists are, generally, idiots. It would be hard to pick a place in the UK for the killing of the innocent where large scale success was less likely.

It's not something I'd decide my vote on, though I think it was very bad. I was more saying that it was a wedge issue that the Tories aren't using.

A friend of mine (who may or not be semi-famous as not being a fan of Corbyn) said he'd heard that Corbyn and McDonnell tried to insert themselves into the Peace Process. Mo Mowlam and Tony Blair weren't having it.

Fairly clear why not. They have lots of material on this and will use it during an election campaign to crush Labour. The presence of this material, and lots more besides, and the shambolic nature of Labour's organisation, means that it is almost certain to lose considerable support during any campaign.

Most of the electorate don't really know about the background of Corbyn and McDonnell. The Tories will be explaining it loudly.

Yeah, that's my fear.

It's not the only card they're not using. The comments by Milne on Estonia- if Putin attacks them, they're not getting military help- were dreadful and a nice way of making EU negotiations harder. Nia Griffiths should have walked out.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Milne is a gruesome Stalinist relic obviously, but it isn't just unreconstructed lefties who find the fondness of some for beating the war drums against Russia unnerving.

[howsillyofme1]

The main problem with Corbyn and McDonnell was not that they talked with terrorists. It was that they supported them in their 'struggle'.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It should also not need pointing out that there is a large difference between backbench MPs lending support to Sinn Fein during this era, and government ministers talking to them in private about the possibility of a ceasefire.

There is, let it also be remembered, a large and important difference between ends and means. There is a case that Ireland should be united. No case at all that the right way to achieve that goal is through the murder of innocent people.

Support for the IRA by its leader is, for me, a sufficient reason not to vote for Labour. I do understand that for others this is less of a moral priority.

As for today, we can be grateful that terrorists are, generally, idiots. It would be hard to pick a place in the UK for the killing of the innocent where large scale success was less likely.

You seem to have so many reasons not to vote Labour

I don't think you have ever done so either - I think you are a liar

On ''ends and means' - personally I think this is a cop out. The reason the IRA came back to the fore in the 70s was that the peaceful attempts for civil liberties for the Catholics were put down and any attempts to compromise on removing the Unionist apartheid were subject to dark threats from people such as Vanguard

This was being allowed in part of the UK, brutal violence against civilians by the state when peacefully demonstrating for civil liberties!

Unfortunately, it is naïve to pretend that violence does not have its part to play in struggle - I can't think really where armed struggle did not play some sort of part - remember Thatcher's view of Mandela!

Many countries who call themselves democracies have areas where a number of people are disenfranchised and that can breed frustration - whether that turns to violence depends on how the state responds. Once the UK Government started talking seriously in the early 90s things moved quite quickly to cease fires and cessation of violence

[AnatolyKasparov]

One of the notable people praising McGuinness yesterday was one (Lord) W D Trimble.

Who just happened to be a member of Vanguard back in the day - maybe that gives him a better understanding of things than some.

[howsillyofme1]

Being prepared to take on Kipper pensioners in his own constituency suggests to me principles.

Again, it would have been better for him to use his skills on persuading people in his own area not to vote Brexit

It is easy to take on Kipper pensioners, or by saying that are you implying that the current leader would not do it, but what about those who are not 'Kippers' (that is a pretty generalist and not very helpful term) who still voted Exit

Same to Kinnock Jnr - their part of Wales gets lots of funding from the EU but didn't take that into account

Or was the local MP not influential at all?

[howsillyofme1]

One of the notable people praising McGuinness yesterday was one (Lord) W D Trimble.

Who just happened to be a member of Vanguard back in the day - maybe that gives him a better understanding of things than some.

Indeed AK

[Tubby Isaacs]

One of the notable people praising McGuinness yesterday was one (Lord) W D Trimble.

Who just happened to be a member of Vanguard back in the day - maybe that gives him a better understanding of things than some.

I thought it was an excellent response from Trimble, and I thought the coverage generally of McGuinness was good. I do have a problem with politicians from way outside piling in on one side. And indeed shitting on the SDLP in the process.

[howsillyofme1]

The main problem with Corbyn and McDonnell was not that they talked with terrorists. It was that they supported them in their 'struggle'.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It should also not need pointing out that there is a large difference between backbench MPs lending support to Sinn Fein during this era, and government ministers talking to them in private about the possibility of a ceasefire.

There is, let it also be remembered, a large and important difference between ends and means. There is a case that Ireland should be united. No case at all that the right way to achieve that goal is through the murder of innocent people.

Support for the IRA by its leader is, for me, a sufficient reason not to vote for Labour. I do understand that for others this is less of a moral priority.

As for today, we can be grateful that terrorists are, generally, idiots. It would be hard to pick a place in the UK for the killing of the innocent where large scale success was less likely.

It's not something I'd decide my vote on, though I think it was very bad. I was more saying that it was a wedge issue that the Tories aren't using.

A friend of mine (who may or not be semi-famous as not being a fan of Corbyn) said he'd heard that Corbyn and McDonnell tried to insert themselves into the Peace Process. Mo Mowlam and Tony Blair weren't having it.

Does this friend of yours have a name?

Who did he hear from?

Would it be possible that the IRA side asked for McDonnell and Corbyn to be involved as they had been working with them when it was not possible?

Anecdote should not be dismissed entirely but this is is pretty poor excuse of 'anecdotal evidence'

[SpinningHugo]

Milne is a gruesome Stalinist relic obviously, but it isn't just unreconstructed lefties who find the fondness of some for beating the war drums against Russia unnerving.

There is a chasm of difference between condemning "beating the war drums" and attributing blame for the invasion of Ukraine by Russia to EU and Nato "expansionism."

[SpinningHugo]

Would it be possible that the IRA side asked for McDonnell and Corbyn to be involved as they had been working with them when it was not possible?

Possible.

But there is no evidence for this whatsoever.

There is, again, a difference between

1. Talking with the IRA to sound them out for a ceasefire

and

2. Supporting the IRA during a campaign of terror.

[Tubby Isaacs]

My friend has a name. A writer, as opposed to a journalist. Not a household name but one article had a fair bit of attention.

[howsillyofme1]

Would it be possible that the IRA side asked for McDonnell and Corbyn to be involved as they had been working with them when it was not possible?

Possible.

But there is no evidence for this whatsoever.

There is, again, a difference between

1. Talking with the IRA to sound them out for a ceasefire

and

2. Supporting the IRA during a campaign of terror.

I was not providing any evidence for it, I was responding to an anecdotal comment from another poster claiming something

Your assessment of the situation in Ireland is, as is mostly the case with your posts, pathetically unsubstantial and lacking in understanding the complexity of these type of things

[SpinningHugo]

The main problem with Corbyn and McDonnell was not that they talked with terrorists. It was that they supported them in their 'struggle'.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It should also not need pointing out that there is a large difference between backbench MPs lending support to Sinn Fein during this era, and government ministers talking to them in private about the possibility of a ceasefire.

There is, let it also be remembered, a large and important difference between ends and means. There is a case that Ireland should be united. No case at all that the right way to achieve that goal is through the murder of innocent people.

Support for the IRA by its leader is, for me, a sufficient reason not to vote for Labour. I do understand that for others this is less of a moral priority.

As for today, we can be grateful that terrorists are, generally, idiots. It would be hard to pick a place in the UK for the killing of the innocent where large scale success was less likely.

You seem to have so many reasons not to vote Labour

I don't think you have ever done so either - I think you are a liar

On ''ends and means' - personally I think this is a cop out. The reason the IRA came back to the fore in the 70s was that the peaceful attempts for civil liberties for the Catholics were put down and any attempts to compromise on removing the Unionist apartheid were subject to dark threats from people such as Vanguard

This was being allowed in part of the UK, brutal violence against civilians by the state when peacefully demonstrating for civil liberties!

Unfortunately, it is naïve to pretend that violence does not have its part to play in struggle - I can't think really where armed struggle did not play some sort of part - remember Thatcher's view of Mandela!

Many countries who call themselves democracies have areas where a number of people are disenfranchised and that can breed frustration - whether that turns to violence depends on how the state responds. Once the UK Government started talking seriously in the early 90s things moved quite quickly to cease fires and cessation of violence

Yes. I think that is a ridiculous distortion of the historical record. But there we are.

If you think the IRA's struggle was morally justifiable and fine, then of course you'll have no problem with Corbyn and McDonnell's position. I think there were options other than the murder of innocent people, and that the means didn't justify the ends, even if we assumed they were good. That doesn't mean there was not injustice committed by the British government that does not also require condemnation.

I am hardly likely to persuade someone such as yourself. Much cosier for you just to assume I am a liar.

There was a good piece in the Economist on Owen Jones recently on how modern discourse is scarred by people adopting the comforting position that others only make arguments we disagree with because they are in bad faith

http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwo ... emocracy-0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Tubby Isaacs]

Milne is a gruesome Stalinist relic obviously, but it isn't just unreconstructed lefties who find the fondness of some for beating the war drums against Russia unnerving.

That's right, but you can make that point while still saying you'll defend an ally. If you don't honour treaties, why would anyone bother with you?

I know we fully agree on Milne.

[howsillyofme1]

My friend has a name. A writer, as opposed to a journalist. Not a household name but one article had a fair bit of attention.

I will therefore ignore your comment on the accusation about Corbyn and McDonnell about them trying to get themselves involved in the negotiations

Unless you are prepared to link to the article and we can see what it was based on

[Tubby Isaacs]

He didn't put it in an article. He said it to me in my house.

Take it as you will.

[howsillyofme1]

The main problem with Corbyn and McDonnell was not that they talked with terrorists. It was that they supported them in their 'struggle'.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It should also not need pointing out that there is a large difference between backbench MPs lending support to Sinn Fein during this era, and government ministers talking to them in private about the possibility of a ceasefire.

There is, let it also be remembered, a large and important difference between ends and means. There is a case that Ireland should be united. No case at all that the right way to achieve that goal is through the murder of innocent people.

Support for the IRA by its leader is, for me, a sufficient reason not to vote for Labour. I do understand that for others this is less of a moral priority.

As for today, we can be grateful that terrorists are, generally, idiots. It would be hard to pick a place in the UK for the killing of the innocent where large scale success was less likely.

You seem to have so many reasons not to vote Labour

I don't think you have ever done so either - I think you are a liar

On ''ends and means' - personally I think this is a cop out. The reason the IRA came back to the fore in the 70s was that the peaceful attempts for civil liberties for the Catholics were put down and any attempts to compromise on removing the Unionist apartheid were subject to dark threats from people such as Vanguard

This was being allowed in part of the UK, brutal violence against civilians by the state when peacefully demonstrating for civil liberties!

Unfortunately, it is naïve to pretend that violence does not have its part to play in struggle - I can't think really where armed struggle did not play some sort of part - remember Thatcher's view of Mandela!

Many countries who call themselves democracies have areas where a number of people are disenfranchised and that can breed frustration - whether that turns to violence depends on how the state responds. Once the UK Government started talking seriously in the early 90s things moved quite quickly to cease fires and cessation of violence

Yes. I think that is a ridiculous distortion of the historical record. But there we are.

If you think the IRA's struggle was morally justifiable and fine, then of course you'll have no problem with Corbyn and McDonnell's position. I think there were options other than the murder of innocent people, and that the means didn't justify the ends, even if we assumed they were good. That doesn't mean there was not injustice committed by the British government that does not also require condemnation.

I am hardly likely to persuade someone such as yourself. Much cosier for you just to assume I am a liar.

There was a good piece in the Economist on Owen Jones recently on how modern discourse is scarred by people adopting the comforting position that others only make arguments we disagree with because they are in bad faith

http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwo ... emocracy-0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think you are a liar about what you do and who you vote for - I think your behaviour and bans from numerous sites suggests you are in bad faith

I disagree fundamentally with Tubby and have been angry at some of the posts he has made but have never thought his posts are in bad faith or that he is a liar

I think you will find that I have never said I supported the 'terror ' of the IRA and roundly condemn that

Again I think your approach is incredibly simplistic for what is an immensely complex subject and that it is not possible to make blanket condemnations or blanket support in these cases

It is this complexity I am trying to tease out

[AnatolyKasparov]

I am happy to believe Tubby on this point, tbh.

[howsillyofme1]

I am happy to believe Tubby on this point, tbh.

I am happy to believe someone he knows said it to him, I am less happy to believe that this person really knows the whole story

[Tubby Isaacs]

Jeez, can people in the media stop this "attack on democracy" stuff?

It's some arseholes trying to kill people where it gets noticed. Not even the arseholes who did it think that democracy is dealt any serious kind of blow.