Current Affairs The Labour Party

[tsubaki]

Not exactly Leadership is it?

I'd say putting your own beliefs away so that you can represent your party memberships' is pretty good evidence of leadership.

In any case I am not sure why he gets loads for doing that, when May has gone from quietly being Remain to vocally being Leave so quickly.

 

[Gwladysstreetlad]

Not exactly Leadership is it?

Hardly, but to be fair I still fail to see anyone in the Labour party who would do that much of a better job and stand any chance of getting elected.

 

[roydo]

I'd say putting your own beliefs away so that you can represent your party memberships' is pretty good evidence of leadership.

In any case I am not sure why he gets loads for doing that, when May has gone from quietly being Remain to vocally being Leave so quickly.

Fair point. Well, points.

 

[JonS]

Whoa whoa whoa there. Should never praise groups that commit acts of terrorism. You can praise groups that want the same thing perhaps but don't use explosives and guns to make the point.

Not arguing about opening dialog, my point was the notion of praising a militant group. You can understand the cause you can empathise with struggles, but any act of terrorism should be condemned and by association you can't pat the people who have ordered those killings on the back.

Talking about the general issue you bring up (NOT the Irish situation) if a group of people without a state (but who perhaps have valid claims to one) are subject to military or violent action by a state itself for me they have the right to take physical action against the state that takes such action against them.

That said, I would never support them taking action where innocent people are affected or harmed.

 

[Gwladysstreetlad]

I'd say putting your own beliefs away so that you can represent your party memberships' is pretty good evidence of leadership.

In any case I am not sure why he gets loads for doing that, when May has gone from quietly being Remain to vocally being Leave so quickly.

I dont think she's really changed her stance on that issue though mate. Lots and lots of others absolutely, but not that one imo. She's just respecting the decision of the 17.4million and the winning majority.

His change in attitude during Brexit made me very sad about the guy. I always thought he was a man of principle (and I still think he's better then most politician's) but to just tow the party line over such an important issue was a poor call. His remain campaign was actually one of the better ones but it just felt hollow to those of us who remember his older views that he clearly wouldn't change overnight.

 

[tsubaki]

Hardly, but to be fair I still fail to see anyone in the Labour party who would do that much of a better job and stand any chance of getting elected.

Of this generation I could only see Starmer having any chance at all, but I can't see where his support would ever come from (either in the PLP or in the wider party) to get the leadership.

 

[The binman chronicles]

Talking about the general issue you bring up (NOT the Irish situation) if a group of people without a state (but who perhaps have valid claims to one) are subject to military or violent action by a state itself for me they have the right to take physical action against the state that takes such action against them.

That said, I would never support them taking action where innocent people are affected or harmed.

Exactly. That sounds like a civil war type scenario where it's perfectly acceptable to defend your people and attack military targets. It's the blowing up buses packed with children who have done nothing more than be in the wrong place at the wrong time to bring attention to their fight is what grinds my gears.

 

[catcherintherye]

Whoa whoa whoa there. Should never praise groups that commit acts of terrorism. You can praise groups that want the same thing perhaps but don't use explosives and guns to make the point.

They are fighting a civil war against people who want to wipe their community out being given arms by Saudi, Turkey and the US. How would you propose they defend themselves mate?

 

[JonS]

Exactly. That sounds like a civil war type scenario where it's perfectly acceptable to defend your people and attack military targets. It's the blowing up buses packed with children who have done nothing more than be in the wrong place at the wrong time to bring attention to their fight is what grinds my gears.

Agreed mate, but don't forget the state sponsored killing of innocent people either. You seemed to be getting at Corbyn but how many hundreds and thousands of innocents have the US the UK and Russia killed?

See the whole perspective is all I'm asking...

 

[Seanjd]

Strange, as Corbyn played a significant role in a 1980s Labour magazine labelled Labour Briefing. In fact, he was on the editorial board of it.

Their rhetoric was: Labour briefing stands for peace, but we are not pacifists. They also chose to align with Sinn Fein IRA rather than the SDLP.

A political party with clear ties with the PIRA, whereas the SDLP also campaigned for a united Ireland without the blatant support for violence.

In addition, Corbyn and McDonnell on numerous occasions aired their negatives views toward the Anglo-Irish Treaty, a major aspect of future peace.

His Shadow Chancellor even remarked how, 'The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA.' - that's not the stance of a pacifist is it?

As mentioned earlier, there was his (Corbyn's) open support for those involved in the attack on an RUC station and praised their sacrifice.

As I said earlier, I have no issue with desiring Irish Independence but to claim he doesn't condone terrorism and is a pacifist are questionable.

You seem to have picked up a lot of his information from a Telegraph article. Throughout the article, it quotes sections which sound awful, but not one of those quotes comes directly from Corbyn himself, but from the magazine he was a member of, or the programme of an event he spoke at. I would say the accusation is totally and utterly unfounded.

As for his 'open support' for the republicans involved in the RUC station bombing, can you source that? The only thing I can find is a naff clipping from an express article from the 80's

 

[PhilM]

You seem to have picked up a lot of his information from a Telegraph article. Throughout the article, it quotes sections which sound awful, but not one of those quotes comes directly from Corbyn himself, but from the magazine he was a member of, or the programme of an event he spoke at. I would say the accusation is totally and utterly unfounded.

As for his 'open support' for the republicans involved in the RUC station bombing, can you source that? The only thing I can find is a naff clipping from an express article from the 80's

So being a member of the editorial board of magazine, which is clearly pro-Sinn Fein and made such statements, provides no justifiable link?

Of course I cannot say they're all his views, yet if you align yourself with an organisation then to an extent you must take some of the burden.

With regards to the Express article - what makes it naff? I'm not the biggest advocate of the paper, but can you question his quotation in it?

 

[The binman chronicles]

Agreed mate, but don't forget the state sponsored killing of innocent people either. You seemed to be getting at Corbyn but how many hundreds and thousands of innocents have the US the UK and Russia killed?

My comments are not Corbyn related so to speak so basically I should stop posting as it's clogging up a thread. This could apply to Ireland, Lebanon, Sudan, South Africa and so on. I'm not saying that the other side that provoked the retaliation is in the right, hell you can see why some groups took up arms, (the ANC after sharpesville etc.) but acts of terrorism against non military targets just perpetuates violence and an eye for eye mentality that keeps the conflict burning for generations.

 

[JonS]

My comments are not Corbyn related so to speak so basically I should stop posting as it's clogging up a thread. This could apply to Ireland, Lebanon, Sudan, South Africa and so on. I'm not saying that the other side that provoked the retaliation is in the right, hell you can see why some groups took up arms, (the ANC after sharpesville etc.) but acts of terrorism against non military targets just perpetuates violence and an eye for eye mentality that keeps the conflict burning for generations.

Agreed mate...

 

[The binman chronicles]

They are fighting a civil war against people who want to wipe their community out being given arms by Saudi, Turkey and the US. How would you propose they defend themselves mate?

Kind of answered this in other posts. No problem with a group defending and attacking against an aggressor, just not supporting random attacks of terrorism on civilians.

 

[ToffeeTim]

Without leading this into a conversation about Irish politics, let me try to explain why Corbyn is not a terrorist sympathiser, or an IRA supporter as such.

There is a simple question to be asked when it comes to viewpoint on the politics of the Troubles; are you in favour of continued British rule over Northern Ireland, or are you in favour of unity? That's essentially what it comes down to. Corbyn, along with many other Labour MP's, believe in unity by consent. Corbyn, like others, could sympathise with the reasons why the IRA felt the need to fight against colonial rule. He started to become actively involved with it when it looked as though there could be a transition from unity by violence to unity by peace and politics. He and others, if you like, offered a hand at this time towards the IRA and were influential in their decision to go down the political route, rather than continue with terrorist attacks.

Corbyn has done more for the peace process than the majority of politicians. He obviously doesn't condone terrorism as means to an end, or he wouldn't be considered a pacifist.

He won't get elected, though.

So what would you say about Ian Paisley who became good a friend of Mcguiness.

Corbyn befriended them when they were at the height of their barbaric crimes. Paisley befriended Mcguiness once the ira had stood down and some remorse had been shown. Incidentally Paisley never befriended Adams and that's because he a huge lier and never at any point has shown remorse.

Personally find the "colonial" argument absurd. I'm from Northern Ireland but I never asked to be born here. Frig me if I could have picked I wouldn't have picked here lol.

The idea that Corbyn would support a group who believe people like me simply shouldn't live here puts me off him even more. Basically the colonial argument puts forward a narrative that the majority of the people in NI have some kind of supremacy and abuse others. I find that patronising and absurd. I'm just a product of where I was born. I never asked to grow up here.