Corbyn's days (very) numbered?

[GlennB]

And so back to Corbyn's policies, as opposed to baggage, real or confected. They're what the voters might care about, after all.

They might, but regrettably The Mail, Sun, Telegraph, Express and others won't hesitate to put whatever happened in the worst possible light.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Can you let us have some of these quotes about the IRA at this distance from the election?

Sorry, I should detract that statement about quotes in support for the IRA, as I cannot find any that directly say he supported the IRA (although, there is a very clear quote in support of Hamas).

However, in this article:
http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/new...anscript-of-his-nolan-interview-31430884.html

He simply cannot say that he condemns the methods of the IRA. How hard is that to do? At best, it shows a typical politician who cannot answer a straight question (straight talking, honest politics anyone?) . At worst, it shows someone who does not want to condemn the IRA violence for whatever reason.

How, in any way, coupled with the Hamas support, will that ring well with the electorate?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jimbob]

They might, but regrettably The Mail, Sun, Telegraph, Express and others won't hesitate to put whatever happened in the worst possible light.

True, also what are his policies? I know that he was considering a non nuclear Trident but don't think that got to official policy.

 

[Aber]

And so back to Corbyn's policies, as opposed to baggage, real or confected. They're what the voters might care about, after all.

Not really.

They're also interested in his leadership qualities for dealing with crises as the UK's Head of Government. His havering when asked whether he would support NATO allies attacked by Russia is an example of things that will finish him. He might want to give an eloquent explanation of his principled opposition to war, but unless he gives an unequivocal absolute 'yes' he is going to be pilloried as weak.

 

[Garrison]

Perhaps not, but one should remember that the leadership he was attacking led the Labour Party into the 2010 and 2015 elections, and the Blair-Brown years are quite widely regarded as wasted ones. Perhaps he had a point.

Oh I see, Corbyn disagreed vehemently with Blair and Brown so he was entitled to vote against their policies and denounce them. When current MPs disagree with Corbyn they should just shut up and put party loyalty first. Like I said, hypocrisy plain and simple.

 

[Craig B]

Sorry, I should detract that statement about quotes in support for the IRA, as I cannot find any that directly say he supported the IRA (although, there is a very clear quote in support of Hamas).

However, in this article:
http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/new...anscript-of-his-nolan-interview-31430884.html

He simply cannot say that he condemns the methods of the IRA. How hard is that to do?

So you can see that something you thought was there is not in fact so clear, and you are inclined to retract what you previously said with confidence because of the impressions left in your mind by the Telegraph and other sources.

 

[jimbob]

So you can see that something you thought was there is not in fact so clear, and you are inclined to retract what you previously said with confidence because of the impressions left in your mind by the Telegraph and other sources.

I am not - he was reported to stand in honour of fallen IRA terrorists (who were killed whilst attacking the British Army) He didn't deny it at the time, and hasn't denied it since, so there is no reason to doubt it.

He attended meetings in support of the armed struggle. Again, he has tried to evade it, but hasn't denied it.

He voted against the Anglo-Irish agreement as that was against a united Ireland (despite the fact that the Irish Government was in favour). There is every reason to believe that he supported violence against the British Army in Northern Ireland, and none to disbelieve that.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

So you can see that something you thought was there is not in fact so clear, and you are inclined to retract what you previously said with confidence because of the impressions left in your mind by the Telegraph and other sources.

I'm inclined to retract because I couldn't find anything to back up my claims!

But Craig, you must see that the article I have posted does not cover him in glory, nor does will it translate well to the electorate at all. It's baffling that he cannot bring himself to answer the question put before him. For an example of how easy it is to answer, do you, Craig, condemn what the IRA did?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GlennB]

Not really.

They're also interested in his leadership qualities for dealing with crises as the UK's Head of Government. His havering when asked whether he would support NATO allies attacked by Russia is an example of things that will finish him. He might want to give an eloquent explanation of his principled opposition to war, but unless he gives an unequivocal absolute 'yes' he is going to be pilloried as weak.

Yes, he will. However, empty words are easy if you judge that an event is massively unlikely. If Russia invaded Lithuania then Theresa May's UK would *not* intervene militarily, no matter what waffle she might spew for public consumption.

 

[Craig B]

I'm inclined to retract because I couldn't find anything to back up my claims!

But Craig, you must see that the article I have posted does not cover him in glory, nor does will it translate well to the electorate at all. It's baffling that he cannot bring himself to answer the question put before him. For an example of how easy it is to answer, do you, Craig, condemn what the IRA did?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Which act of the IRA are you asking me to condemn? I condemn many, including all acts of violence directed against civilians.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Which act of the IRA are you asking me to condemn? I condemn many, including all acts of violence directed against civilians.

See, you go a lot further than what Corbyn, a man who aspires to be PM, said. If he'd asked that question, and answered that, it would have been the end of the questioning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Craig B]

See, you go a lot further than what Corbyn, a man who aspires to be PM, said. If he'd asked that question, and answered that, it would have been the end of the questioning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You haven't given me any detail of what act he was asked to condemn and wouldn't.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

You haven't given me any detail of what act he was asked to condemn and wouldn't.

The issue is that he never asked that question but instead acted like a classic politician, not a straight talker of honest politics, and avoided the question. How hard was it for him? If he wants to demonstrate that he can appeal to the electorate, what does he expect they will see when he refuses to say 'yes, if you are talking about their campaign of terror' to the question 'do you condemn what the IRA did. He is just massively incompetent, and the Tories will be able to ask the electorate if they want a man who refuses to condemn the IRA. Labour annihilation.

He did the same thing when confronted with appearing on PressTV (and blatantly lied)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Craig B]

Here is part of his interview with the Belfast Telegraph, from your link. I could not respond to the BT here as they evidently wished Corbyn to do.

SN: The question is do you condemn what the IRA did?

JC: Look I condemn what was done by the British Army as well as the other sides as well. What happened in Derry in 1972 was pretty devastating as well.

SN: Do you distinguish between State forces like the British Army and the IRA?​

In the matter of killing civilians I do NOT make such a distinction. I condemn all sides who perpetrate such violence. The Belfast Telegraph doesn't. Do you?

 

[Craig B]

Your last post, which mine crossed, looks like waffle. I note you have changed the terms.

they will see when he refuses to say 'yes, if you are talking about their campaign of terror' to the question 'do you condemn what the IRA did?'​

Now I have stated that I condemn all acts of violence against civilians. That's not the same thing as restricting this to "terror" or to the IRA. But I do in fact condemn the IRA, along with all other perpetrators of such criminality. Would the Belfast Telegraph let Corbyn say that? From the transcript it's not obvious they were leaving him that option.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Your last post, which mine crossed, looks like waffle.

Well, as I've shown Craig, I'm quite happy to readdress my opinions based on what is, and what is not out there. But you'll have to tell me in more detail as to why it constitutes waffle.

It remains that Corbyn and his supporters rebel against the concept that there are unelectable. I imagine you are giving Corbyn leeway in not saying 'Yes' to the question that is 'do you condemn what they (the IRA) did' as you believe that you cannot condemn all of what the IRA did. Fine, that's ok. But neither can you condemn all of what the Taliban have done. Imagine for a second a major candidate in the USA unable to answer 'yes' to the same question, but with Taliban substituted for IRA. Or drawing a moral equivalence between the violence of the US and the Taliban. Do you think this person would stand a hope in hell of being elected?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Craig B]

Well, as I've shown Craig, I'm quite happy to readdress my opinions based on what is, and what is not out there. But you'll have to tell me in more detail as to why it constitutes waffle.

It remains that Corbyn and his supporters rebel against the concept that there are unelectable. I imagine you are giving Corbyn leeway in not saying 'Yes' to the question that is 'do you condemn what they (the IRA) did' as you believe that you cannot condemn all of what the IRA did. Fine, that's ok. But neither can you condemn all of what the Taliban have done. Imagine for a second a major candidate in the USA unable to answer 'yes' to the same question, but with Taliban substituted for IRA. Or drawing a moral equivalence between the violence of the US and the Taliban. Do you think this person would stand a hope in hell of being elected?

You have changed the terms of the discussion yet again! I observed

Now I have stated that I condemn all acts of violence against civilians. That's not the same thing as restricting this to "terror" or to the IRA. But I do in fact condemn the IRA, along with all other perpetrators of such criminality. Would the Belfast Telegraph let Corbyn say that? From the transcript it's not obvious they were leaving him that option.​

Comment on that, and we can talk about the Taliban afterwards.

 

[Giz]

Here is part of his interview with the Belfast Telegraph, from your link. I could not respond to the BT here as they evidently wished Corbyn to do.

SN: The question is do you condemn what the IRA did?

JC: Look I condemn what was done by the British Army as well as the other sides as well. What happened in Derry in 1972 was pretty devastating as well.

SN: Do you distinguish between State forces like the British Army and the IRA?​

In the matter of killing civilians I do NOT make such a distinction. I condemn all sides who perpetrate such violence. The Belfast Telegraph doesn't. Do you?

The above is just silly. If you condemn all sides who have used violence against civilians then just about every government that ever waged war must be viewed as equivalent to the Nazis.

Silly. And immoral.

 

[Giz]

Which act of the IRA are you asking me to condemn? I condemn many, including all acts of violence directed against civilians.

Hmm, it's so tough to give blanket condemnations. I mean, people ask me to condemn John wayne Gacy but I don't want to condemn all of his activities. Sure I condemn some things, like killings in general but I don't think I want to just say " I condemn John wayne Gacy ".

 

[Craig B]

The above is just silly. If you condemn all sides who have used violence against civilians then just about every government that ever waged war must be viewed as equivalent to the Nazis.

Silly. And immoral.

So you support the Birmingham Pub bombings? Shame on you! Did every government send millions to gas chambers? And you support this? Double shame on you!!