Jeremy Corbyn

If he had anything about him he would show a bit of humility that he got it so badly wrong.

And if my mother's sister had a sex change ...

Jamba is Jamba.

Pigface - Member - Block User - Quote
It's so disappointing Jamba can't just put his hand up and admit to being wrong. All the May is playing a blinder posts just look foolish now. If he had anything about him he would show a bit of humility that he got it so badly wrong.

Agreed. Sorry Andy, but you did use those precise words re the early election and then, when it was quoted to you yesterday, scrolled on past with no response.

Not that I'm calling for your humiliation- its nothing personal- but your volte-face on this shows that you either didn't really believe it yourself, or you just bend in the wind to agree with whatever the Maybot was doing at that point was the right thing, regardless of what it was.

Can I extend that and say that the whole of your "Hard Brexit=Good" stance might suffer from the same diminishment? Will we expect to see you agree with May soon on a softer Brexit when the DUP are forcing her compromises?

If so, I will do a very heavy ROFL. Hope the knee doesn't get too achey from genuflecting to her.

I will never be his biggest fan but I enderestimated the man.

By extension- you heard it here first- leftish, pre-Blair politics still have a place in our politics- and I am very, very happy about this indeed.

tbh its a result few of us called - myself included - so I am not sure anyone can claim they got it right. However few of us got it as wrong as he did - he even manged to get it wrong about what he had said

One wonders what is the point in engaging with someone when we know he does this though - its not exactly new behaviour and its unlikely to change.

Also, ultra Pro Tories who kept harping on about the IRA thing absolutely must acknowledge that this DUP pact is worse. Otherwise you will never have any credibility.

Obviously an intelligent man.

I initially gave him the benefit of the doubt, offering to meet up for a ride and a chat if he was ever in the area.

However, his refusal to even acknowledge the harm caused by his ideology, let alone engage in debate about it has changed my mind.

I can only go off the evidence he presents on here and that leads me to the conclusion he is a thoroughly unpleasant man.

To extend the pub analogy, I might chat with someone like that when out for a drink, but probably only the once.

Life's too short tbh.

If we're crowing about who got what right can I just stick my hand in the air to say I consistently said that all the loony left hysteria was a load of bollox and that Corbin was not the demon he was portrayed to be by the papers and some on here. Including I might add a certain someone who said labour would have <100 seats right now 🙂

Having said that though, I am also surprised and can't claim to have predicted the result. I thought corbyn's policy on brexit was crazy, and have been proved wrong. I only hope now that we'll get to see what is possible with a united party.

Corbyns manifesto and the positive response to it from many voters is when it turned. Surprisingly? a lot of people do feel society is not fairly governed and that public services are very important and need to be kept in a good state.
A wise government looking to get people to back them would take a lot of those ideas rather than just repeating magic money tree all the time.

I thought corbyn's policy on brexit was crazy,

Really? I think it's the one that would be the best for the UK, other than staying put, of course.

ultra Pro Tories who kept harping on about the IRA thing absolutely must acknowledge that this DUP pact is worse. Otherwise you will never have any credibility.

So you're now trying to indicate a parity between supporting, on an entirely partisan basis, IRA-SF whilst they were *still* engaged in an armed, murderous rebellion against the state, the British nation as a whole, it's Institutions, infrastructure and innocent members of the public, and supporting their aim of a united, socialist Ireland, and telling your supporters that every defeat of the British Government was a victory for all of them

With dealing with a political party, who at best had tenuous links with any murders (certainly not tied to the UDF and UDA the way that SF-PIRA were) many years later, after the multilateral renouncement of violence and an established and steady peace process, a party who have been part of the assembly government for years.

I think you're clutching at straws

There is only one person clutching at straws 😀

Yes I would say there is parity ninfan.

Really

Yup. I thought it was sitting on the fence and offered little to people on either side who instead would support the tories/UKIP or the libdems depending on which side of brexit they stood. Obviously I was completely wrong and very happy about that. I really should have had more faith.

One word of caution though is that i think all this talk of people moving left is over-egged. People (as always) voted with their pockets. The end to tuition fees and the fear of losing their homes to pay for care drove many towards labour. If those policies are now neutralised (the tories will do something about fees I think) then labour will need to come up with something else to tempt the middle classes.

Yes I would say there is parity ninfan.

Two words

Nelson Mandela

😆

Also, ultra Pro Tories who kept harping on about the IRA thing absolutely must acknowledge that this DUP pact is worse. Otherwise you will never have any credibility.

The analogy doesn't work, Corbyn was fighting a socialist revolution by proxy when he invited IRA members to the House of Commons after the Brighton Bomb.

We now have peace in Northern Ireland (sort from the odd but job) and all the parties with MPs would have MLAs if it sat. Any party that wants support from one of the NIrish parties we shouldn't have an issue as they are democratically elected.

The Good Friday agreement does mean that any support should be managed carefully and discussions with other NI parties should be had before anything is formalised.

We do have a potential opportunity, the DUP (and other parties) have some views that are behind the curve of public opinion. Exposure to wider UK media will see them melt in the heat of examination. The NI Assembly is grid locked and a renewed focus will help unblock that.

And before you ask if Corbyn had got more seats and a majority in coalition with SF then so be it, that's democracy. But that didn't happen.

Corbyn was fighting a socialist revolution by proxy when he invited IRA members to the House of Commons after the Brighton Bomb.

No he wasn't: he felt that best solution was dialogue, not more bombs, which is what he was trying to achieve. It's a bit different to inviting them to form a government with you.

Even if the DUP has put violence behind them, their views still have no place in civilised, modern society. Your attempt to gloss over this is really quite blatant and irresponsible

We now have peace in Northern Ireland (sort from the odd but job)

By nut job do you mean the Leader of the DUP and the members of the UDA?

[url= http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2017/dup-chief-arlene-foster-met-uda-boss-days-after-loyalist-murder-in-bangor-35776873.html ]h/dup-chief-arlene-foster-met-uda-boss-days-after-loyalist-murder-in-bangor[/url]

codybrennan - Member

Agreed. Sorry Andy, but you did use those precise words re the early election and then, when it was quoted to you yesterday, scrolled on past with no response.

Yeah, but jamba said it last week

No he wasn't: he felt that best solution was dialogue, not more bombs, .

If you believe the revisionist history of Corbyn " working for peace" that's your right, some people equally believe his double speak on the IRA, trident etc shows that although his haircut has changed his views haven't

Even if the DUP has put violence behind them, their views still have no place in civilised, modern society. Your attempt to gloss over this is really quite blatant and irresponsible

What gloss, they are democratically elected, sometimes people get elected who you profoundly disagree with, that's democracy. As I stated before nobody really cared about the DUP until Friday, now they do, their views are going to get challenged on a national stage, they won't stand up and it's very likely that NI will change once the assembly can be reconvened.

By nut job do you mean the Leader of the DUP and the members of the UDA?

She is probably "working for peace"

Anyone shooting people for political reasons is a nutjob, and a criminal, there is no justification in a democracy

big_n_daft - Member
And before you ask if Corbyn had got more seats and a majority in coalition with SF then so be it, that's democracy. But that didn't happen.

I wouldn't have been happy with it.
It's been discussed with other Labour supporting friends over the last few days and I haven't found one who would accept that as a price for power.

It wouldn't be good for the peace process and it wouldn't be good for democracy.

Religious sectarianism is a disease and has no place in mainstream politics.
And I say this as someone brought up a Catholic with Northern Irish relatives.

May's actions are an insult to those who worked bloody hard to bring about peace in NI and shows utter contempt for the electorate.

This is turning into 'I'm a politician, please don't get me out of here'.
Desparate people who will do absolutely anything to retain power.

Sad, isn't it?

I wouldn't have been happy with it.
It's been discussed with other Labour supporting friends over the last few days and I haven't found one who would accept that as a price for power.

I wouldn't be happy with it either but that is our democracy.

The good news at the moment is that people suddenly care again about NI

I don't think most decent people ever stopped caring.

But yes, it might just help focus people's minds.

Corbyn was fighting a socialist revolution by proxy when he invited IRA members to the House of Commons after the Brighton Bomb.

sometimes people get elected who you profoundly disagree with, that's democracy

One cannot have a debate when your principle flip flops based on whether you support the party/person who did it rather than defend the principle

FWIW corbyn did it for the noble reason of bringing about peace and may to cling to power

Stop being at such tribal levels of partisanship its a bit DM - who will also not speak of the DUP deal in the same lying way they did , and you just did, about Corbyn

If you believe the revisionist history of Corbyn " working for peace" that's your right

@Pigface maybe you didn't see the other thread I certainly did pit my hand up and say I was wrong (and linked to John Snow saying the same thing - imication was I was agreeing with him we got it very wrong)

As I said it really seems the Tory's in Scotland brought their A game and outperformed whereas the seperate team in England (who have now quit) got it very wrong. I have looked at a few different constituencies in South and the Labour increase is driven significantly by new votwr registrations. Now this is good for Labour as if they have been motivayed to vote once they'll likely do so again.

As I posted elsewhere the Remainers / Soft Brexiteers may well get a very nasty shock as its most likely the Tory Leave posse will take over - Ove and IDS quite likely to be back

As for my "no election" necessary you need to go back to last yea and early thisr. May said so repeatedly and got all the legislation through on her 17 seat majority. She made a very poor decsion as much on manifesto (eg social care) where she took unecessary risks and was guilty of giving an easy target to Corbyn etc even if Labour want to target the same "rich" indovisuals with inheritance tax.

If you believe the revisionist history of Corbyn " working for peace" that's your right, some people equally believe his double speak on the IRA, trident etc shows that although his haircut has changed his views haven't

I believe the facts as they are presented. If you want to believe your own version of events, biased by your own party politics, then that is your right, but don't judge everyone by your own standards.

I think a lot of voters have just signalled that they don't flipping care what Jezza was doing two or three decades ago - because they can tell he's a diamond geezer now.

I think Teresa May has signalled she doesn't care what the DUP were doing two or three decades ago. She's desperate...

She made a very poor decsion

Not what I would have done but I can see the logic, May is playing a blinder.

I never saw one post where you criticised either her calling the election or her performance during it and your last post before the election was

75-100 remains my prediction. Personally I think the Tory lead has increased over the election campaign, I think the early polls where manipulated up and the latter ones down. All makes for headlines and an ability to "create the news" by the newsmedia.

May went into the election with a 17 seat majority and much talk of disruption to Brexit. IMO on Jue 9th sh will have a much much larger majority and a much stronger hand at home and abroad. Job Done.

I'm offline tomorrow , I'm sure the world will keep on turning

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/is-may-about-to-call-an-election/page/78#post-8518558
Its hard to reconcile what you are saying now [ or what you claim you said then] with what we can all easily find on here by simply reading and repeating your posts to you. You think she increased her lead, whilst reducing your guess at seats gain and now you thinks "she made a poor decision"
She did but this is not what you thought at the time - very few of us did to be fair it looked like a stroll in the park until the exit poll tbh.
I replied with

She will won but not by what she expected to and I very much dount the Tory grandees have any faith left in her

She will be very very lucky to ever face the electorate again as PM and will need to show some skill that has been hitherto lacking in her performances in either the election or her previous department or her premiership- the lady is for turning

I believe the facts as they are presented. If you want to believe your own version of events, biased by your own party politics, then that is your right, but don't judge everyone by your own standards.

I have no party politics, my voting record shows me to be a classic floating voter, I have never been a member of a political party, I am a trade union member of twenty years standing

The revisionist history of Corbyn and his fellow travellers is all very new, people seem desperate to swallow a carefully crafted double speak which blurs the reality whilst keeping his acolytes happy that he isn't deviating from the true path. People have grasped the straws of any opposition to "austerity" which is understandable, the pork barrel manifesto achieved it's aim, but to state he has "integrity" and all the other meme's now attracted to this modern day secular saint shows the desperation to not shoot the messenger just in case the message is tainted.

Someone should ask him why he turned down the Nobel peace prize

The revisionist history of Corbyn and his fellow travellers is all very new, people seem desperate to swallow a carefully crafted double speak

Have a word with yourself, as I said people just don't GAS.

[quote=Junkyard ]tbh its a result few of us called - myself included - so I am not sure anyone can claim they got it right.

Ahem: http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/election-predictions-whats-yours#post-8523195

...oh hang on, that was wrong too, a few on there predicting a hung parliament, though I'm not sure if anybody was being more serious than me.

Though also this which was a serious comment:
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/voter-turnout-today-in-your-area#post-8522693
...I'm feeling a bit smug about that, as few others were even prepared to go that far in suggesting the polls were wrong in that direction.

my voting record shows me to be a classic floating voter

he did not meet terrorists he met politicians

but to state he has "integrity" and all the other meme's now attracted to this modern day secular saint

You can shoot him with anything you like for some reason you have chosen ad homs, outright falsehoods and utter[ flowery] BS as your weapons of choice rather than facts.

The revisionist history of Corbyn and his fellow travellers is all very new...

It really isn't. Anyone half-interested in what was below the media veneer would have known that he was way more about dialogue- as we all should be.

I am a trade union member of twenty years standing

Wee bit of virtue signalling?

aracer i could claim my post was true- its not bad actually- but i did expect her to get a majority. I shall not claim otherwise now even though i might get away with it and I could defend such a claim

The revisionist history of Corbyn and his fellow travellers is all very new, people seem desperate to swallow a carefully crafted double speak which blurs the reality whilst keeping his acolytes happy that he isn't deviating from the true path.

I can't find any history of revisionism and I looked bloody carefully before deciding he was worth supporting.

Indeed, he condemned IRA violence in a 1994 early day motion here [url=www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-party-ira-violence-1994-general-election-a7761801.html%3Famp]link.[/url]

And a decent article on his actual involvement from openDemocracy [url=www.opendemocracy.net/uk/tom-griffin/corbyn-mcdonnell-and-irish-peace-process]here.[/url]

I have been unable to find any reliable sources which contradict any of his statements on the subject.

There is however an awful lot of info readily available which suggests he's telling the truth.

codybrennan - Member

Wee bit of virtue signalling?

Not really, it's scene setting- when I'm talking to Labour people I always tend to say I was a member, I'm a union man, it's just saying "I am not the other side"

Anyone half-interested in what was below the media veneer would have known that he was way more about dialogue

Presumably he was speaking to both sides in the interest of 'dialogue' to achieve peace?

I haven't seen a single reference to him speaking to any Loyalists before 1994

This is turning into 'I'm a hopeless,arrogant politician with appalling decision making skills,who can't answer an unscripted question,won't accept responsibilities for my mistakes and an absolute contempt for principles and people, please don't get me out of here'.
Desperate people who will do absolutely anything to retain power.

Fixed that for you.

ninfan - Member

Presumably he was speaking to both sides in the interest of 'dialogue' to achieve peace?

Yes.

He met with David Ervine on several occasions.
Paisley too and several other major loyalists politicians/former activists.
And Tony Benn met with Paisley many times too.

You could find this out for yourself, but where's the fun in that?

Don't forget that Thatcher was holding talks with Sinn Fein, under wraps, throughout the campaign, but that doesn't suit your dogma, does it?

[quote=mikey74 ]Don't forget that Thatcher was holding talks with Sinn Fein, under wraps, throughout the campaign, but that doesn't suit your dogma, does it?

Don't try and defend Jezza by comparing him with a known terrorist sympathiser
[img] [/img]

Don't forget that Thatcher was holding talks with Sinn Fein, under wraps, throughout the campaign, but that doesn't suit your dogma, does it?

Doesn't the fact that the Govt had ongoing, private, dialogue, without giving SF-IRA the publicity coup of it taking place on a public stage, entirely undermine any arguments that it was necessary or beneficial for Jezza to speak to them?

No, as solutions to those sort of issues need agreements at all levels, with all parties.

No.

Btw, Corbyn was awarded the Gandhi Foundation International Peace Award for his efforts to bring about a peaceful solution to the conflict in Northern Ireland in 2013.

His acceptance speech is available online.

If you mean agreement regards Labour and Tory/UK parties, that's what the Privy council is for, and we all know that Jezza only got membership a year or so ago.

If you mean agreement in NI, at this point (and for many years afterwards) Jezza wasn't speaking to the unionists, and the proposition they were sitting down with him, after he had publicly allied himself with the shinners and committed himself to a united Ireland (and rejected the Anglo-Irish agreement on this basis) is preposterous.

As I said, nobody has presented any contemporary records or articles showing Jezza meeting any unionists before '94 (at the time of the ceasefire) everything else is loose and willy claims by momentumites with no corroboration from unionist sources

ninfan -
Doesn't the fact that the Govt had ongoing, private, dialogue, without giving SF-IRA the publicity coup of it taking place on a public stage, entirely undermine any arguments that it was necessary or beneficial for Jezza to speak to them?

And to cap what you've been told above- no, because he wouldn't have known about these talks with Thatcher- the official files documenting the talks only began to be released in 2011.

That's what 'private' in a governmental context meant. Covered by the OSA, etc. "Non-public".

Isn't that a bit obvious?