Jeremy Corbyn

Well according to latest reports Sinn Fein / ira are back on the
Streets murdering/assassinating people at will...I do wonder what
Fantasy land people like darsy and lynch inhabit
Corbin/McDonnell have associated themselves/ sympathised with
An organisation that waged a campaign of terror over the UK
Murdering, bombing and mutilating innocent British citizens,
The list is endless .... Birmingham pub bombings, Manchester bombings.. Etc
Sinn Fein / Ira murdered and maimed indiscriminately
And we now have a leader of the Labour Party that is sympathetic
To the republican Irish scum that tried to blow us up?

The haters can hate all they like just look at the timing and the speed of progress post 9-11. You guys can be as abrupt and aggressive as you like, it's just a sign of weakness. That's why make zero effort to engage in the personal abuse and have ever reported a post, why bother when I'm perfectly happy to see you continue with it.

NURSE 😉

FWIW i dont hate you i just struggle to see what your logic is for your views

Its really is daft to claim the main cause of the peace process is something that happened about a decade after the process started. You can dress this up as haters hating if you like but i only hate opinions that are not supported by the facts.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4072261.stm

As the time line will demonstrate they were discussing peace with the first talks 10 years before 9/11. given this is it just temporally impossible that it was the major cause and at best it helped hasten the process once it had started, as you are now claiming, rather than it was the MOST IMPORTANT as you originally claimed

IMO the single biggest factor in the peace was 9-11. It ended all funding from the US and the IRA realised the terrorist narrative was done.

Was 9/11 significant - possibly and certainly US involvement was but it was not what you originally claimed as events a decade afterwards cannot be the cause of a process. ITS IMPOSSIBLE

IMHO both sides realised they could not win by killing each other/armed struggle so they stopped - see the timeline for when that happened - and sought a political peaceful solution.
I think this mainly because it is what happened and not because of what I saw in some bar in the US. You really need to stop thinking your anecdotes/personal experience are facts and that they trump reality or the actual facts.

I see little hope for this happening

As the time line will demonstrate they were discussing peace with the first talks 10 years before 9/11.

And worth noting that Jeremy voted against the Anglo-Irish agreement, the first big step towards the peace process

Jambalaya, do you actually think JC wants/wanted the IRA or Hamas to hurt people?

Your timeline is spot on imo Junkyard. If there was one terrorist incident that was a game changer it was Enniskillen not 9/11.

Enniskillen was a monumental blunder by the IRA that caused widespread revulsion throughout the nationalist community. The IRA was forced to apologize and declare that it was a "mistake". Although to be fair it probably was in terms of the target, but that's irrelevant imo - and the opinions of others including the nationalist community.

The IRA had already previously admitted to "mistakes" including the Harrods bombing. It was now becoming clear to them that continued bombing campaign was simply further alienating people and doing their cause no good.

The game was up and it was time to explore alternatives, progress wasn't going to come from further military action. A war weary Westminster government came to the same conclusion, it was time to talk.

Btw it's worth remembering that in the latter years of the Troubles loyalist terrorists were killing a greater number of people than republican terrorists were, a fact always overlooked by people who are so quick to condemn the IRA.

ernie_lynch - Member
Your timeline is spot on imo Junkyard. If there was one terrorist incident that was a game changer it was Enniskillen not 9/11.

Tbh whatever you think of the Provo campaign i reckon if they had thought of bombing the likes of canary warf in the 70s I reckon there'd have a UI by now. ie if they directly tried to destabilise the finances of britain. targets in NI and British civilian and miltary targets where never particularly that effective in budging the british state very far.

Although, I don't think ultimately the reason for the cease fire was Enniskillen. I reckon war weary-ness was and is ultimately responsibile for the continuation of ceasfire, essentially there's only so much people can take.

The ceasefire as it stands is a stalemate that won't last forever imo. Not while things like peacewalls remain there needs to be more fundamental change. May be 10 years may be 50 years, but division like that can't remain peacefully forever.

Btw regards to funding of the IRA, i'd be willing to bet Britain was a massive source of income for them, American funding would have been important but it wouldn't have destroyed them if it dried up, the sources would have been pretty diverse.

Tbh whatever you think of the Provo campaign i reckon if they had thought of bombing the likes of canary warf in the 70s I reckon there'd have a UI by now

Tbh whatever you think of the Provo campaign i reckon if they had thought of bombing the likes of canary warf in the 70s I reckon there'd have a UI by now. ie if they directly tried to destabilise the finances of britain. targets in NI and British civilian and miltary targets where never particularly that effective in budging the british state very far.

Do you consider Canary Wharf a legitimate target? My FIL and wifes uncle worked there for years. Hardly stalwarts of the British state you loath.

ie if they directly tried to destabilise the finances of britain

The Provos did among their targets choose economic targets, that was the point of hitting shopping centres which also involved issuing warnings before detonation, eg Warrington and Manchester shopping centres.

Btw I find your comment that the IRA would have succeeded in their aims had they had a different policy on selecting targets rather crass. Whatever they were these people weren't stupid and everything they did they thought very carefully about.

If you're looking for knuckle-dragging halfwits during the Troubles I would suggest you focus on the loyalist terrorists, or paramilitaries as our media used to call them. It was reputed that among the prisoners in the Maze the republicans would spend their time educating themselves while the loyalists were down the gym pumping iron.

consistent with him inviting Hezbollah to the House of Commons he likewise engaged with and gave credibility to Sinn Fein members who everyone knows where in the IRA too.

He advocated talking to them as a means to end the fighting. Do you really honestly think that means he supports them? Really?

He's a ****ing peacenik, and you are trying to paint him as a terrorist sympathiser? SERIOUSLY?

If/when Corbyn fails it won't be because of economic policies, it will be because he will grossly underestimate the stupidity of the electorate. People who not only believe stupid shit like this but think it's worthy of discussion and peddling.

A tragedy it will be too.

Well said molgrips. Great advances were made during both Major and Blair to engage those on both sides. Prisoner releases may be unpalatable to some but did seem to help. Currently IMO the stance taken by tbe DUP to walk out of the assembly is an act of petulance that will acheive little.

In a statement, PSNI Det Supt Kevin Geddes said: “It is my assessment that Action Against Drugs are a group of individuals who are criminals, violent dissident republicans and former members of the Provisional IRA.

“They are dangerous, they are involved in violence and extortion of the nationalist and republican communities.

“My assessment is that this is a separate group from the Provisional IRA. I have no information at this stage to say whether [the killing] was sanctioned at a command level or not.”

The Provisional IRA was meant to have disbanded as a military force in 2005 and to have decommissioned its entire arsenal as part of moves to build a power sharing coalition with their former unionist enemies.

So former members are now criminals and it was not sanctioned
To an outsider it looks to me like they just want an excuse to flounce and this was it.
Not only that it was an "internal" issue rather than a community one as a former IRA man was killed by former IRA people. Hardly a restarting of the war but not exactly good news

Do you consider Canary Wharf a legitimate target? My FIL and wifes uncle worked there for years. Hardly stalwarts of the British state you loath.

If/when Corbyn fails it won't be because of economic policies, it will be because he will grossly underestimate the stupidity of the electorate. People who not only believe stupid shit like this but think it's worthy of discussion and peddling.

I think that, sadly, this is already a certainty. Even on this relatively well-informed forum you can see the half-truths, disrtortions and lies have been repeated so many times that nobody challenges them any more and they become accepted as "fact" - "terrorist sympathiser", "printing money" etc etc.

Together with the British fetish for self-flagellation, you have a potent cocktail that will see the Tories elected again, with their stories of "household economics" being swallowed by the ignorant who see austerity as their moral deserts, and funding the spiralling excesses of the wealthy.

He didn't say anywhere was a legitimate target. He didn't say he loathed the British state. Please pay attention to what was actually written instead of making a lot of stuff up and then asking him to defend it.

I did not accuse him of saying Canary Wharf was a legitimate target. I asked him if he thought it was. Please understand what ? is for.

Ok cool in that case

Are you mental?

Are you an idiot?

Are you on drugs?

Obviously if i do this I am not actually saying anything about your posting I am just asking a question and not really saying you are these

Its not that convincing IMHO but it is arguable.

All of these are examples I am not saying this erm I meant sorry asking this

ernie_lynch - Member
ie if they directly tried to destabilise the finances of britain
The Provos did among their targets choose economic targets, that was the point of hitting shopping centres which also involved issuing warnings before detonation, eg Warrington and Manchester shopping centres.

Btw I find your comment that the IRA would have succeeded in their aims had they had a different policy on selecting targets rather crass. Whatever they were these people weren't stupid and everything they did they thought very carefully about.

If you're looking for knuckle-dragging halfwits during the Troubles I would suggest you focus on the loyalist terrorists, or paramilitaries as our media used to call them. It was reputed that among the prisoners in the Maze the republicans would spend their time educating themselves while the loyalists were down the gym pumping iron

I think a concerted campaign directed at destabilising the British pound would have been more successful in that respect. I know they targeted shopping centres and stuff, but they aren't really the same as shutting down stock markets on a regular basis and the likes. Then again, maybe that's just a factor of the times, as really, who thought about financial markets and the likes in the 70s. I'm just speculating.

I just reckon if the ceasefire didn't happen that's where the conflict was clearly heading, and I'm just speculating as to what I think would have happend if they used that tactic earlier in a concerted campaign.

I think the major point i'm really making is that money talks and that they had realised that by the mid 90s, I know they were calculating and not unthinking in their strategy. Saying that maybe they came to the same conclusion as me that it would have lead to unacceptable levels of violence and opted for a more protracted campaign, who knows. It's not really anything crass, nor cheerleading I'm doing. Just contemplating a different history.

With regards to loyalist culture, well yip, that's the reason why I think it will explode again in the future if that isn't dealt with.

I'm fully behind the peace process, and believe that a UI would be achieved under it if republicans and nationalists all argued together with a common goal in mind. Ie convincing moderate unionists that their future lies better in a unified ireland and making them realise they need to ostracise the extreme loyalist culture that exists. (Given the lumpen natare of loyalism, it baffles me why more can't see that that's a fairly easy argument, which will be won over time.)

Problem there though within the republican movement, that i see, is there are factions with in it that still believe in the war time propaganda of not recognising the British state, so are very belligerent and un helpful to the goals I mention above. (And they actually give extreme loyalism a very easy target for their hatred, so ultimately counter productive.)

athgray - Member
He didn't say anywhere was a legitimate target. He didn't say he loathed the British state. Please pay attention to what was actually written instead of making a lot of stuff up and then asking him to defend it.
I did not accuse him of saying Canary Wharf was a legitimate target. I asked him if he thought it was. Please understand what ? is for.

Do I condone PIRA violence? no. Do I understand why it developed as it did into conflict? yes. Do I view the the Provo's as monsters? no.

Not, that my opinion matters a jot, I just have alot of interest in it and try and view the whole thing fairly emotionless-ly.

It was genuinely meant as a question. I apologize for the way it came across. I am saying that if the IRA consider financial institutions as legit targets to affect the pound, it affects ordinary people just trying to put food on the table. Although in my opinion not legit, it may have worked.

Do I condone PIRA violence? no. Do I understand why it developed as it did into conflict? yes. Do I view the the Provo's as monsters? no.

I won't disagree with that. Both sides have a dubious history. Talking with those you disagree with is the only way forward. The position that NI is in at the moment, after decades of bombings is pretty good. Not perfect but great strides have been made. Considering PIRA or unionist groups as monsters would not have got us here.

I also have not quibbles with those on both sides who have lost loved ones thinking people monster. Forgiveness like that must be hard.

JY it's my view that 9-11 was the key factor which broke the deadlock in a process that was largely stalled.

@gofaster - to be fair I do not think Corbyn wanted/wants to see people killed and maimed by terrorists but his wilful naivety provides legitimacy to terrorists as they so easily manipulate him. He is spectacularly naive in his statements on Argentina / Falklands and in dealing with Putin / Ukraine.

I see again people here going down a route which suggests people who see Corbyn as a danger are somejow less well informed or indeed less intelligent.

There are no half truths being printed about what Corbyn or McDonald said or who they met. People are absolutely entitled to interpret those events how they wish.

@DrJ you are correct in that most Tories and LibDems see Corbyns election as an huge positive opportunity for them, this is consistent with most Labour MPs being gravely concerned. The Tories speak in household economics as that's the best way to communicate to the majority, simple and very powerful. Yvette Cooper and many others in the Labour Party have critised Corbyns "QE" proposals, they are another golden gift to Labours opponents

I see again people here going down a route which suggests people who see Corbyn as a danger are somejow less well informed or indeed less intelligent.

Can you explain how he is a 'danger' - other than just parroting tabloid headlines?

What @athgray says, as someone who has worked in finance mostly in London for 30 years I have seen first hand the necessary security measures (no bins, road blocks etc), I had colleagues showered with glass shards after the Aldgate bomb, been just a few 100 yards from the St Mary's axe bomb, had to check under my car every morning for bombs when visiting friends in the military plus numerous other non-IRA incidents both in UK and in the Middle East. I can easily see a situation where people live away fromLondon or a major city think terrorism is some thing you justice on TV, but that's not how it is.

It was genuinely meant as a question. I apologize for the way it came across.

How was it meant when you talked about "the British state you loath" ?

@grum if I thought you where actually interested in my reply I'd answer in detail, however think of it in the same way as Labour who lost the last election not least as they lacked credibility on the economy and migration (as per focus group research/debriefs). Corbyn is seen as a danger on these issues, security and more. What is important is not my view but those of the voters in winnable constituencies deciding whether to vote Labour again. It's far too easy to attack Corbyn as his career has been one of protest politics and "sod the consequences" as he never sought a senior position in government or opposition.

The Tories speak in household economics as that's the best way to communicate to the majority, simple and very powerful.

And wrong. But hey, who cares?

JY it's my view that 9-11 was the key factor which broke the deadlock in a process that was largely stalled.

JY already comprehensively refuted that claim - why do you insist on repeating it?

his wilful naivety provides legitimacy to terrorists as they so easily manipulate him

You really have to be f***ing joking! Who is being exploited by ISIS in their current propaganda which has enlisted the support of enough people to take over half the middle east? Is it JC? Or is it the bellicose fools in Washington and Downing Street?

I know DrJ. Was supposed to be then I lost the plot a bit. It was not right of me.

Can you explain how he is a 'danger' - other than just parroting tabloid headlines?

I think that is a "no".

know DrJ. Was supposed to be then I lost the plot a bit. It was not right of me.

Fair do's.

People are absolutely entitled to interpret those events how they wish

Hah! And you accuse Corbyn of being naive?!

The facts are the facts, but people aren't debating those. They are picking them out of context to justify a pre-existing belief. You're doing it, the media are doing it, and the general population are either doing it or reading other people doing it. On both sides.

If you don't understand this then you are either staggeringly naive or dim. Or unwilling to examine your own thought processes because you like your own conclusions. Telling yourself what you want to hear, in other words.

@grum if I thought you where actually interested in my reply I'd answer in detail, however think of it in the same way as Labour who lost the last election not least as they lacked credibility on the economy and migration (as per focus group research/debriefs). Corbyn is seen as a danger on these issues, security and more. What is important is not my view but those of the voters in winnable constituencies deciding whether to vote Labour again. It's far too easy to attack Corbyn as his career has been one of protest politics and "sod the consequences" as he never sought a senior position in government or opposition.

I'd be interested in your answer if you weren't just doing exactly what I asked if you could avoid doing. You're not actually coming up with any valid criticism of Corbyn, you just keep repeating 'oh well this won't play well in the press'. The press is behaving in a truly disgraceful manner towards Corbyn - you claim to care about press standards, yet you keep defending this as if it's reasonable.

@gofaster - to be fair I do not think Corbyn wanted/wants to see people killed and maimed by terrorists but his wilful naivety provides legitimacy to terrorists as they so easily manipulate him. He is spectacularly naive in his statements on Argentina / Falklands and in dealing with Putin / Ukraine.

I don't think he is naive - I think he is utopian

"hey everyone, wouldn't the world be a better place if everyone just got along, and we would never need bombs or tanks, and could disband the armies, and use our bayonets to knit tofu instead"

I also think that its that that is his biggest weakness, as the electorate know that utopia doesn't really exist.

PS. loving: https://twitter.com/corbynjokes

his wilful naivety provides legitimacy to terrorists

Reading this again.. you do realise that terrorists want peace too, don't you? And that they usually only resort to violence when they have no other options?

So you have two options, don't you? Talk to them, or crush them. The latter option seems not to work, ever.

JY it's my view that 9-11 was the key factor which broke the deadlock in a process that was largely stalled.

IMO the single biggest factor in the peace was 9-11. It ended all funding from the US and the IRA realised the terrorist narrative was done.

@ at the gray Respect for your reply to the points raised We all do it from time to time but not all of us will admit it

Jam why dont you just take a leaf out his book eh. Anyone who can understand time or cause and effect can see your original point is wrong and it will just lead to folk questioning your integrity as well as your insight.

@grum this thread is full of posts from me saying why I think Corbyn would be a financially and politically dangerous PM, I'm relaxed about it though as he has zero chance of being elected PM in 2020. If you're that interested you can re-read from the start.

I am certain I spend far more time reading public and private reports and opinion pieces on GEO-politics and finance than do most (all ?) here not least as that's part of what I am paid to do so spend a lot of time every day doing just that. I've also been fortunate to be able to speak to an ex head of MI5 about the IRA, she was doing a presentation / corporate team building event at SCB. I appreciate others have a different opinion, we are lucky enough to live in a Democracy where we can express such views and do so free from intimidation.

I'm off out for the rest of the day so will catch up tomorrow. Pairs btw still has many fully armed troops guarding all sensitive sites like Synagogues and Jewish Schools, I suppose you all think this isn't necessary ? Big BFMTV interview last night with another Brit who had reacted when the terrorist on the train tried to open fire, another guy not the one who had the legion d'honor.

Why do you always try and give us your CV?

We don't care. It doesn't give your silly point any more authority.

I'm actually beginning to think you, thm and bainbrge are all the same person btw! Can we get and IP check? 😆

ex head of MI5 and a she...oh who could it be?

Anyway thanks for yet another appeal to authority, this time your own

Who can argue with a poster who cites his own brilliance and expertise as the evidence and an off the record anecdote.
If this sort of reason and logic does not beat cause and effect and the actual events then I for one dont know what does.

Now the thread's reduced to a few of the usual suspects clawing away like rats in a sack (otherwise known as "the debate on the left"), I just wondered - has any other thread passed the 3,000 mark?

[img] [/img]

Genuine LOL at Woppit!

Scottish independence was the longest by some way and a few of your god ones 😉

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0145x77 ]nice lectures [/url]by Jambalayas mate on terrorism and how to deal with it

[quote=Mr Woppit ]Now the thread's reduced to a few of the usual suspects clawing away like rats in a sack (otherwise known as "the debate on the left"), I just wondered - has any other thread passed the 3,000 mark?

[url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/tune-association-threadits-friday-and-im-bored ]This one? [/url]

nice lectures by Jambalayas mate on terrorism and how to deal with it

That has obviously worked like a charm as terrorism has now gone away.

the debate on the left

To be fair, this is mostly the left vs Jambalaya.

Its mainly logic and reason v Jambalaya

He is entitled to his opinion - he makes some ok points on how ordinary folk may perceive JC IMHO though I draw the line at publicly agreeing with him 😉 - but his IRA terrorism analysis is risible TBH I was amazed anyone wants to support that view.

you do realise that terrorists want peace too, don't you? And that they usually only resort to violence when they have no other options?

konabunny - Member
...Some terrorists turned to terrorism because they don't have any popular legitimacy and/or because they're simply scumbags.

And some because they want their country back.

One man's terrorist is another man's patriot.

@grum this thread is full of posts from me saying why I think Corbyn would be a financially and politically dangerous PM, I'm relaxed about it though as he has zero chance of being elected PM in 2020. If you're that interested you can re-read from the start.

I asked for you to do it using something other than meaningless hysterical tabloid cliches though. Oh well.

you do realise that terrorists want peace too, don't you? And that they usually only resort to violence when they have no other options?

This is tosh. Everyone wants peace - on their terms. Some terrorists turned to terrorism because they don't have any popular legitimacy and/or because they're simply scumbags.

This times lots, resisted making the same point myself earlier. I don't think the Taliban, or PIRA for that matter, represent the will of the majority. There's usually the option of engaging constructively with your opponents/putting up and shutting up.

I don't think the Taliban, or PIRA for that matter, represent the will of the majority. There's usually the option of engaging constructively with your opponents/putting up and shutting up.

Really? What negotiating line do you think the Russians would actually have taken? Beer and sandwiches?

Hence my use of "usually". And I was talking about the modern Taliban, not the Mujahideen.

I don't know why all the shock and surprise, especially from Molgrips, over jambalaya's suggestion that Corbyn is a terrorist sympathizer.

It's a pretty standard tactic when all else fails for those with strong right-wing views to both question the loyalty of their opponents and to claim that they sympathize with terrorists.

Donald Trump gave a wonderful example of this only yesterday when at a rally he welcomed the suggestion that the US President Barack Obama is a Muslim, not even American, and allows the growth of terrorist camps in the United States by people who want to kill Americans.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/18/trump-fails-to-correct-questioner-who-calls-obama-muslim-and-not-even-american

Obviously anyone with just average intelligence will dismiss as complete nonsense those suggestions, however in US presidential election everyone with below average intelligence is also gets a vote so it can be a very useful tactic.

jambalaya is merely maintaining this right-wing tradition by using the tactic against Corbyn. Others before him have used it on Ken Livingstone, who like Corbyn was accused of being a racist and terrorist sympathizer - ninfan/Z-11/Labrat did the honours on here in the case of Livingstone.

When you're struggling to offer credible and logical arguments accusing your opponent of being a disloyal terrorist sympathizer certainly beats talking about the real issues.

I don't know why all the shock and surprise, especially from Molgrips, over jambalaya's suggestion that Corbyn is a terrorist sympathizer

What I am is angry with him.

You are right though, the real issue is whether or not his alternative (to the Tories) economic policies can work. And that is a legitimate question.

his alternative (to the Tories) economic policies

For a party that is seen as economically incompetent this isn't exactly reasuring. Funny though. Bloody funny. The longer this lasts the better. I hope the coup is months away... 😀

molgrips - Member

To be fair, this is mostly the left vs Jambalaya.

It's causality vs Jambalaya

Not so much an alternative to the Tory's policy, but an alternative to every other economic policy (with the possible exception of the Weimar Republic, Zimbabwe and Venezuela).

Care to flesh out your comment by telling us which specific policies you imagine have anything in common with the examples you mention?

with the possible exception of the Weimar Republic, Zimbabwe and Venezuela).

Yeah go on. Compare Corbyn's version of QE (bear in mind we've been doing QE for ages) with Zimbabwe, we're keen to hear it. And then put you right 🙂

Ah Zimbabwe, we haven't heard Zimbabwe being mentioned for a while.

Corbyn is just like Robert Mugabe doncha know ?

rabid right wing view here

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/09/why-are-people-falling-for-john-mcdonnells-question-time-apology/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

I wasn't sure if people would accept McDonnell's explanation and apology, although he did receive quite an applause from the QT audience, it's good to hear that the Spectator thinks they have.

The smear campaign doesn't seem to be working terribly well so far. If it carries on like this who knows Corbyn might even end up winning the next general election.

Like the racist and sectarian connections which punctuate Mr Corbyn’s life and friends-list, the Corbynistas will pretend that the facts are not facts but merely ‘smears’.

Forget the terrorist stuff.

Corbyn has lost all credibility as a Labour leader by appointing a Lord to his shadow cabinet IMO.

That's not really standing up for democracy.

Interesting view here:

http://publicpolicypast.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/the-wrongness-of-corbynism.html?m=1

That's not really standing up for democracy

Standing up for democracy would involve only having MPs in the shadow cabinet?

I'm not convinced that the general public shares the same faith in MPs as you apparently do epicyclo, specially as only 16 Labour MPs voted for Corbyn despite almost 60% of party members and supporters doing so.

Labour MPs appear to be very disconnected from their own party. And considering how many have expressed regret that Corbyn was even on the ballot paper, not very democratic.

It is a tad tricky having a Leader in the Lords, a shadow cabinet position, who sits in the Commons.

I suspect epicyclo thinks that Corbyn should ignore the House of Lords and pretend that that part of our bicameral legislature doesn't exist.

I don't share epics view that all lords are bad, however this one did set fire to a hotel, which makes me question his judgement slightly.

Interesting view here:
http://publicpolicypast.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/the-wrongness-of-corbynism.html?m=1

Not so interesting. Some paragraphs of huffing and puffing followed by an "analysis" that largely doesn't support the conclusions reached in the prologue. Par for the course, then.

Labour MPs appear to be very disconnected from their own party.

They want to win the next election? The traitorous bastards!

Not so interesting. Some paragraphs of huffing and puffing followed by an "analysis" that largely doesn't support the conclusions reached in the prologue. Par for the course, then.

theres none so blind...

Well I skipped past the title " the wrongness of Corbyn" excitingly looking forward to what was to come but I got distracted

SO ninfan what did it conclude? Supportive or negative the suspense is killing me

SO ninfan what did it conclude?

that some of his policies were quite positive, others negative, but the electoral sums of trying to increase vote share on the left don't add up, because you still need to take votes from the right to win.

They want to win the next election?

You obviously have forgotten that the preferred blairite candidate to win the next general election and become the next Labour prime minister was Liz Kendall.

Winning the next general election clearly wasn't the priority.

this one did set fire to a hotel

While I accept that setting light to a hotel sounds far more dramatic iirc he was convicted of setting fire to curtains in a hotel.

[quote=ernie_lynch]

this one did set fire to a hotel

Ok ernie, "won't someone think of the curtains"!
Should I differentiate between the fixtures and the hotel?

On 22 September 2005, Lord Watson was sentenced to 16 months' imprisonment. Sheriff Kathrine Mackie justified the sentence, stating that there was both "[b]a significant risk of re-offending[/b]"

Where should he have started the fire to make the original comment true?

Well to make the original comment true he would have had to set the hotel on fire.

If in a drunken stupor I throw a glass in a hotel bar and smash it, I would have smash a glass in a hotel bar. I would not have 'smashed up a hotel' even if smashing up a hotel starts by breaking the first glass.

athgray used the 'set fire to a hotel' to make the offence sound more dramatic and more serious, I accept that. I was merely pointing out that as I recalled it he was convicted for setting the curtain alight.

I agree scotroutes. IMO setting fire to the curtains in a hotel equates to setting fire to the hotel. Tell the queen or the rectors and students of the Glasgow School of Art about curtains.

Setting fire to a hotel??
Politics is the new rock and roll 😉
That should get the kids interested.

"a significant risk of re-offending"

Ah. Maybe JC has a plan.....

Maybe there was a significant risk of re-offending because he had a drink problem, I don't know. Maybe he is now teetotal (it was 10 years ago) I don't know.

And frankly as long as he doesn't go around setting light to curtains now I don't care. There are much more important issues to deal with.

I have no problem with an ex-offender being in the shadow cabinet, in fact I quite like the idea. As long as its not linked to dodgy dealings, child abuse, and other issues which cast very serious doubts on the character of an individual.

ernie. I approve of JC. I would like to think he can muster a few good MPs for his cabinet of people against child abuse and dodgy arms dealing that don't involve brining in people convicted of setting fire to hotel curtains. FWIW Tom Watsons antics look like the the desperate attempts of a hopeless drunk to find a quiete corner in the hostel to have a piss!