Current Affairs The Labour Party

[Seanjd]

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?

What makes it naff? Well firstly, it's the express. Secondly, it's the only source of this ever happening and is covered in a 100 word clipping on the front of a paper of which the headline reads; "BLACK GANG JEER DIANA AT CINEMA".

Hardly the most respectable of journalism.

 

[Seanjd]

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.

Politician befriends terrorists at the height of their barbaric crimes, who then become politicians themselves. Surely there's a link there? Corbyn seeks peace. He doesn't have a vested interest in helping the IRA blow everyone up to form a united Ireland. He was one of many who wanted the blood bath to end, and was one of few who shown them that politics could be used instead of violence. It really isn't that hard to see that, is it?

 

[ToffeeTim]

Politician befriends terrorists at the height of their barbaric crimes, who then become politicians themselves. Surely there's a link there? Corbyn seeks peace. He doesn't have a vested interest in helping the IRA blow everyone up to form a united Ireland. He was one of many who wanted the blood bath to end, and was one of few who shown them that politics could be used instead of violence. It really isn't that hard to see that, is it?

I think that's a simplistic and inaccurate narrative of the situation. He said supported all who "fought" for united ireland. A united ireland is a completely legitimate goal. Fighting for it is not. He said he supported that.

The colonial argument shows his true motives imo. Its an outdated, bigoted view to hold against people simply because of where they happened to be born.

 

[peteblue]

Politician befriends terrorists at the height of their barbaric crimes, who then become politicians themselves. Surely there's a link there? Corbyn seeks peace. He doesn't have a vested interest in helping the IRA blow everyone up to form a united Ireland. He was one of many who wanted the blood bath to end, and was one of few who shown them that politics could be used instead of violence. It really isn't that hard to see that, is it?

I think Corbyn does seek peace. Unfortunately his naivety undermines his intentions. I genuinely believe that he would always seek to talk through an issue with an opponent, but unfortunately his opponents are not quite so naive and so would always take advantage......it's a shame but it's realpolitik........

 

[Seanjd]

I think that's a simplistic and inaccurate narrative of the situation. He said supported all who "fought" for united ireland. A united ireland is a completely legitimate goal. Fighting for it is not. He said he supported that.

The colonial argument shows his true motives imo. Its an outdated, bigoted view to hold against people simply because of where they happened to be born.

I don't think he meant 'fought' as in blowing things up.

 

[edge]

Starmer on radio 4 now talking about brexit.

 

[edge]

well that was a waste of time, basically we leave the EU but keep everything the same as being in it.
no way is he leadership material to monotone bore the life of you listening to him for any length of time

 

[Tubey]

well that was a waste of time, basically we leave the EU but keep everything the same as being in it.
no way is he leadership material to monotone bore the life of you listening to him for any length of time

Stuck between rock and a hard place due to Labour's confusion on the whole thing. The party is pro-Europe, but the leader is clearly anti-Europe, whereas their voters are a mix of both.

They don't know what to say, so they are saying a bit of everything, hoping some part of the message latches on to different people. It won't, because their message doesn't make sense. At this point, you're either for Brexit or against it.

They should have advocated for a second referendum based on the terms of leaving. At least that would have given them a firm political stance to campaign on.

 

[ToffeeTim]

Stuck between rock and a hard place due to Labour's confusion on the whole thing. The party is pro-Europe, but the leader is clearly anti-Europe, whereas their voters are a mix of both.

They don't know what to say, so they are saying a bit of everything, hoping some part of the message latches on to different people. It won't, because their message doesn't make sense. At this point, you're either for Brexit or against it.

They should have advocated for a second referendum based on the terms of leaving. At least that would have given them a firm political stance to campaign on.

Most of their marginal seats in England voted leave tho. So yeah, rock and a hard place is pretty much it. Personally think Corbyn would have been better off saying what he believes rather than trying to be a remainer, which he clearly is not.

 

[Milkman]

Stuck between rock and a hard place due to Labour's confusion on the whole thing. The party is pro-Europe, but the leader is clearly anti-Europe, whereas their voters are a mix of both.

They don't know what to say, so they are saying a bit of everything, hoping some part of the message latches on to different people. It won't, because their message doesn't make sense. At this point, you're either for Brexit or against it.

They should have advocated for a second referendum based on the terms of leaving. At least that would have given them a firm political stance to campaign on.

I think they've got it pretty right to be fair. Labour's in a bind about it because no party's traditional vote is as split on Brexit as them, so why not do some fence-sitting here? The Lib Dems have nothing to lose by going gung-ho in their undemocratic quest for a second referendum. Labour's position on this is to be as representative of as many people's views as possible. The problem is that is does inevitably sound incoherent when it's not as myopic as alternatives put forward by the Tories and Lib Dems.

 

[Tubey]

I think they've got it pretty right to be fair. Labour's in a bind about it because no party's traditional vote is as split on Brexit as them, so why not do some fence-sitting here? The Lib Dems have nothing to lose by going gung-ho in their undemocratic quest for a second referendum. Labour's position on this is to be as representative of as many people's views as possible. The problem is that is does inevitably sound incoherent when it's not as myopic as alternatives put forward by the Tories and Lib Dems.

The lack of coherency is the issue though with this. People just want to know where the party stands on the issue so they can make an informed call in terms of a vote if the issue is important enough to them.

All they can see right now is a load of nonsense. Everyone (I hope) knows by now that we can't leave and stay in the single market, so why Labour keep parroting basically that approach is because of a weak position on the issue; they can't come down either for or against strongly.

 

[neil999]

could see sadiq khan as new leader(obvs has to be mp first) him as leader with keir starmer as right hand man

sadiq has the charisma/common touch and starmer has the intellect

 

[edge]

could see sadiq khan as new leader(obvs has to be mp first) him as leader with keir starmer as right hand man

sadiq has the charisma/common touch and starmer has the intellect

bit of a Blair/ Brown double act see were your going with it, to be honest think we need a new face to take us onwards Northern , down to earth, bit polished in front of the media , if we just stick up another metropolitan face spouting the same narrow message that nobody outside of the party listens to or relates to the Labour party is finished, not just beat finished
ps don't mind Khan at all should hold office if they ever get in..

 

[The binman chronicles]

The lack of coherency is the issue though with this. People just want to know where the party stands on the issue so they can make an informed call in terms of a vote if the issue is important enough to them.

All they can see right now is a load of nonsense. Everyone (I hope) knows by now that we can't leave and stay in the single market, so why Labour keep parroting basically that approach is because of a weak position on the issue; they can't come down either for or against strongly.

Damn right. Same on replacing trident. Talk about getting splinters in your ass. The party haven't got a clear message so will lose voters to parties who least have made a choice.

 

[tsubaki]

could see sadiq khan as new leader(obvs has to be mp first) him as leader with keir starmer as right hand man

sadiq has the charisma/common touch and starmer has the intellect

Khan is the probable front-runner, but if he is going to have a chance then he really has to step up his game as Mayor because so far he has been a considerable let-down.