The 2017 UK General Election Thread - Voting open today from 7am - 10pm

[Eighthours]

The amount of people I've heard this morning talking about how May is the only one to keep us safe and that Corbyn condone's terrorism

The Corbyn supports terrorism thing has been rumbling away for a while, it’s only going to get worse after the events last night.

It’s crazy to think either party can “keep us safe”. Terrorism will happen under the Conservatives, it will happen under Labour.

But it's about the perceived effectiveness of reaction, isn't it? The policies pursued to help our security situation, contain terrorism as much as possible and undermine the ideology fuelling it. Corbyn has a problem in this area because he's seen as soft on terrorism. We could get into debates as to why, but that's probably off topic right now... His policy of talking to all sides isn't necessarily an inferior approach to to the UK's countless military interventions in the eyes of many, but his stated intent of leaving all decision-making to the UN is an obviously flawed approach in my view. The UN has been rendered a talking shop at this point by the veto rights of Russia and China, so any policy that relies on them coming to decisions comes across as kicking the terrorism issue into the long grass. Effectively ruling out military action in all circumstances (when asked in the past, Corbyn hasn't been able to conceive of a scenario where he would greenlight military action) isn't reassuring me either.

The question, I suppose, is whether having Corbyn in Downing Street would cause terrorists to ignore us or carry on just as before; whether his different approach would result in us being more vulnerable or less likely to be attacked. We really haven't had the situation yet where a Western leader doesn't respond to terrorism with the usual words and actions. Would such a thing be a help or a hindrance? Personally I reckon that terrorists would continue to attack a UK whose leader just talks and doesn't do anything about them, and indeed it might even encourage them, but that's just a hunch. None of us actually know whether it would make a positive or negative difference, we just know individually which rhetoric we prefer when the worst happens.

At the risk of sounding like a hippy mannn, I actually think Corbyn or somebody of his mindset would be the only kind of person who could save us from terrorism. You can keep doing what currently happens where I imagine 99.9% of threats are defused without anyone knowing but they'll always be one that gets through at some point unfortunately. Or the alternative that someone like Corbyn could provide is to tackle the actual root causes of terrorism (like selling arms, destabilising regions, climate change etc)

None of those causes are things that May or The Conservatives even acknowledge so nothing can ever improve

And that's a totally valid view. It's a shame we even have to talk about this kind of stuff.

[Moggy]

The amount of people I've heard this morning talking about how May is the only one to keep us safe and that Corbyn condone's terrorism

The Corbyn supports terrorism thing has been rumbling away for a while, it’s only going to get worse after the events last night.

It’s crazy to think either party can “keep us safe”. Terrorism will happen under the Conservatives, it will happen under Labour.

But it's about the perceived effectiveness of reaction, isn't it? The policies pursued to help our security situation, contain terrorism as much as possible and undermine the ideology fuelling it. Corbyn has a problem in this area because he's seen as soft on terrorism. We could get into debates as to why, but that's probably off topic right now... His policy of talking to all sides isn't necessarily an inferior approach to to the UK's countless military interventions in the eyes of many, but his stated intent of leaving all decision-making to the UN is an obviously flawed approach in my view. The UN has been rendered a talking shop at this point by the veto rights of Russia and China, so any policy that relies on them coming to decisions comes across as kicking the terrorism issue into the long grass. Effectively ruling out military action in all circumstances (when asked in the past, Corbyn hasn't been able to conceive of a scenario where he would greenlight military action) isn't reassuring me either.

The question, I suppose, is whether having Corbyn in Downing Street would cause terrorists to ignore us or carry on just as before; whether his different approach would result in us being more vulnerable or less likely to be attacked. We really haven't had the situation yet where a Western leader doesn't respond to terrorism with the usual words and actions. Would such a thing be a help or a hindrance? Personally I reckon that terrorists would continue to attack a UK whose leader just talks and doesn't do anything about them, and indeed it might even encourage them, but that's just a hunch. None of us actually know whether it would make a positive or negative difference, we just know individually which rhetoric we prefer when the worst happens.

Nothing the UK government does is going to stop terrorism. We have tried the Blair style all out action, invade everywhere approach and it wasn't really very successful.

When it comes to IRA style terrorism, talking might well be a better option than going in all guns blazing. The IRA had an actual aim and could be negotiated with.

With ISIS style terrorism, it doesn't matter who is in Number 10. Their aim is to kill everybody that doesn't agree 100% with them. No negotiation is ever going to work. The only thing you can do is try and stop anybody wanting to join them in the first place and hope that the people that have joined realise just how strawberry floating mental they are.

[Moggy]

How exactly do they keep getting away with lying so openly? Where is the watchdog?

He didn't condemn the IRA, he condemned IRA bombings. There's an important distinction in his use of language whenever he talks about the IRA.

If he supports the idea of a united Ireland but condemns the violence, what's the issue?

There might not be an issue if he actually stated his beliefs, rather than obfuscating every time.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/05/22/jeremy-co ... s-6653633/

Yep, lots about his views on a united Ireland there.

We were talking about condemning the IRA. He has condemned the violence (on both sides), I fail to see there is any issue there.

He's been pretty clear in the past that he supports the idea of a united Ireland. I doubt he has changed his mind on it.

[BID0]

The amount of people I've heard this morning talking about how May is the only one to keep us safe and that Corbyn condone's terrorism

The Corbyn supports terrorism thing has been rumbling away for a while, it’s only going to get worse after the events last night.

It’s crazy to think either party can “keep us safe”. Terrorism will happen under the Conservatives, it will happen under Labour.

But it's about the perceived effectiveness of reaction, isn't it? The policies pursued to help our security situation, contain terrorism as much as possible and undermine the ideology fuelling it. Corbyn has a problem in this area because he's seen as soft on terrorism. We could get into debates as to why, but that's probably off topic right now... His policy of talking to all sides isn't necessarily an inferior approach to to the UK's countless military interventions in the eyes of many, but his stated intent of leaving all decision-making to the UN is an obviously flawed approach in my view. The UN has been rendered a talking shop at this point by the veto rights of Russia and China, so any policy that relies on them coming to decisions comes across as kicking the terrorism issue into the long grass. Effectively ruling out military action in all circumstances (when asked in the past, Corbyn hasn't been able to conceive of a scenario where he would greenlight military action) isn't reassuring me either.

The question, I suppose, is whether having Corbyn in Downing Street would cause terrorists to ignore us or carry on just as before; whether his different approach would result in us being more vulnerable or less likely to be attacked. We really haven't had the situation yet where a Western leader doesn't respond to terrorism with the usual words and actions. Would such a thing be a help or a hindrance? Personally I reckon that terrorists would continue to attack a UK whose leader just talks and doesn't do anything about them, and indeed it might even encourage them, but that's just a hunch. None of us actually know whether it would make a positive or negative difference, we just know individually which rhetoric we prefer when the worst happens.

At the risk of sounding like a hippy mannn, I actually think Corbyn or somebody of his mindset would be the only kind of person who could save us from terrorism. You can keep doing what currently happens where I imagine 99.9% of threats are defused without anyone knowing but they'll always be one that gets through at some point unfortunately. Or the alternative that someone like Corbyn could provide is to tackle the actual root causes of terrorism (like selling arms, destabilising regions, climate change etc)

None of those causes are things that May or The Conservatives even acknowledge so nothing can ever improve

And that's a totally valid view. It's a shame we even have to talk about this kind of stuff.

It really is a shame and it's a hard topic to even approach (especially so for a politician, just look at the flack Corbyn, The Greens or any others that share views of looking at terrorism differently).

While there's so much money to be made from warfare (which we all here indirectly benefit from) and newspapers who profit from fanning the flames when anything does happen then the conversation can never take place. Human nature dictates that we must fight the other side.

[Preezy]

Or the alternative that someone like Corbyn could provide is to tackle the actual root causes of terrorism (like selling arms, destabilising regions, climate change etc)

I don't think ISIS give a gooseberry fool about any of those reasons. Unlike Al Qaeda and all the other vanilla terrosits, these lunatics are solely interested in making Islam the ruling authority across the planet, by any means necessary. They aren't railing against Western imperialism or the theft of land and oil, solving those issues won't placate ISIS.

[Eighthours]

How exactly do they keep getting away with lying so openly? Where is the watchdog?

He didn't condemn the IRA, he condemned IRA bombings. There's an important distinction in his use of language whenever he talks about the IRA.

If he supports the idea of a united Ireland but condemns the violence, what's the issue?

There might not be an issue if he actually stated his beliefs, rather than obfuscating every time.

It'd be political suicide for Corbyn to state that he supports a united Ireland, obviously. It opens the door to Northern Ireland leaving the UK, and also to Scottish and Welsh independence if he gets in.

That's why I said "support the idea of", I don't see anything wrong with being open to the idea that N Ireland might want to join the Republic one day. In fact I think that is the very basis of the Good Friday Agreement, if the people of N Ireland want to rejoin Ireland, then they should be allowed to.

I agree with you - was just rebutting Eighthours' point. If Corbyn does support the idea of a united Ireland(which I'm pretty sure he does), he's undoubtedly constrained from being able to outright say that, and so has to mince his words a little bit.

It's a shame that politicians can't say what they really believe on certain issues (see also the furore over Tim Farron, who has very obvious views on abortion and gay sex that he can't state).

My problem with Corbyn on this isn't that he supports a united Ireland (I wouldn't be totally against a referendum on the question), it's his pretty direct support for the IRA in the 80s. Those 72 meetings with Irish Republicans, inviting Gerard McLochlainn and Linda Quigley to Parliament 2 weeks after the Brighton bombing (this is like someone in Congress inviting Al Qaeda members to Washington in late September 2001), voting against the Anglo-Irish agreement, etc etc.

[BID0]

Or the alternative that someone like Corbyn could provide is to tackle the actual root causes of terrorism (like selling arms, destabilising regions, climate change etc)

I don't think ISIS give a gooseberry fool about any of those reasons. Unlike Al Qaeda and all the other vanilla terrosits, these lunatics are solely interested in making Islam the ruling authority across the planet, by any means necessary. They aren't railing against Western imperialism or the theft of land and oil, solving those issues won't placate ISIS.

It's a really complicated subject and I'm not going to pretend to be an expert, but you can't deny that the things I did list are all used to recruit people even if their not specifically the reasons behind ISIS' campaign against the world.

People don't just wake up one morning and decide they're going to be a terrorist. If we ignore the reasons for people being radicalised then you can never win.

It's the same principle behind the war on drugs. Making drugs illegal hasn't made the addiction problem go away. People take drugs for a whole number of reasons, but as a society we have decided it's easier to just make drugs illegal and ignore all the reasons behind why people take them in the first place.

[Corazon de Leon]

How exactly do they keep getting away with lying so openly? Where is the watchdog?

He didn't condemn the IRA, he condemned IRA bombings. There's an important distinction in his use of language whenever he talks about the IRA.

If he supports the idea of a united Ireland but condemns the violence, what's the issue?

There might not be an issue if he actually stated his beliefs, rather than obfuscating every time.

It'd be political suicide for Corbyn to state that he supports a united Ireland, obviously. It opens the door to Northern Ireland leaving the UK, and also to Scottish and Welsh independence if he gets in.

That's why I said "support the idea of", I don't see anything wrong with being open to the idea that N Ireland might want to join the Republic one day. In fact I think that is the very basis of the Good Friday Agreement, if the people of N Ireland want to rejoin Ireland, then they should be allowed to.

I agree with you - was just rebutting Eighthours' point. If Corbyn does support the idea of a united Ireland(which I'm pretty sure he does), he's undoubtedly constrained from being able to outright say that, and so has to mince his words a little bit.

It's a shame that politicians can't say what they really believe on certain issues (see also the furore over Tim Farron, who has very obvious views on abortion and gay sex that he can't state).

My problem with Corbyn on this isn't that he supports a united Ireland (I wouldn't be totally against a referendum on the question), it's his pretty direct support for the IRA in the 80s. Those 72 meetings with Irish Republicans, inviting Gerard McLochlainn and Linda Quigley to Parliament 2 weeks after the Brighton bombing (this is like someone in Congress inviting Al Qaeda members to Washington in late September 2001), voting against the Anglo-Irish agreement, etc etc.

I can't really comment on the 1980s as I wasn't around then and it's far my historical specialty - my point was only that it's not something that a high profile politician can really discuss. Same with Farron and the abortion issue, really. I do agree that it's a shame they can't be more open when questioned though - at least then I'd know who to vote for.

[Preezy]

Or the alternative that someone like Corbyn could provide is to tackle the actual root causes of terrorism (like selling arms, destabilising regions, climate change etc)

I don't think ISIS give a gooseberry fool about any of those reasons. Unlike Al Qaeda and all the other vanilla terrosits, these lunatics are solely interested in making Islam the ruling authority across the planet, by any means necessary. They aren't railing against Western imperialism or the theft of land and oil, solving those issues won't placate ISIS.

It's a really complicated subject and I'm not going to pretend to be an expert, but you can't deny that the things I did list are all used to recruit people even if their not specifically the reasons behind ISIS' campaign against the world.

No I agree with you there. I'd actually typed out that ISIS might find it harder to recruit people if those problems are solved, but deleted it before posting as it undermined my argument I still don't think it would actually stop ISIS trying to conquer the world.

[BID0]

Or the alternative that someone like Corbyn could provide is to tackle the actual root causes of terrorism (like selling arms, destabilising regions, climate change etc)

I don't think ISIS give a gooseberry fool about any of those reasons. Unlike Al Qaeda and all the other vanilla terrosits, these lunatics are solely interested in making Islam the ruling authority across the planet, by any means necessary. They aren't railing against Western imperialism or the theft of land and oil, solving those issues won't placate ISIS.

It's a really complicated subject and I'm not going to pretend to be an expert, but you can't deny that the things I did list are all used to recruit people even if their not specifically the reasons behind ISIS' campaign against the world.

No I agree with you there. I'd actually typed out that ISIS might find it harder to recruit people if those problems are solved, but deleted it before posting as it undermined my argument I still don't think it would actually stop ISIS trying to conquer the world.

Agreed. You can never stop the ISIS or the world but you can make their argument weaker. But doing that makes you look like a terrorist sympathiser or a flower powered hippy

[Moggy]

My problem with Corbyn on this isn't that he supports a united Ireland (I wouldn't be totally against a referendum on the question), it's his pretty direct support for the IRA in the 80s. Those 72 meetings with Irish Republicans, inviting Gerard McLochlainn and Linda Quigley to Parliament 2 weeks after the Brighton bombing (this is like someone in Congress inviting Al Qaeda members to Washington in late September 2001), voting against the Anglo-Irish agreement, etc etc.

That's not direct support. That's opening a dialogue and talking through issues. Unless you have evidence that he met with those people to discuss places they could target?

Corbyn obviously went down a different path to the other politicians of the time, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that he actual gave direct support to the violent IRA campaign.

On the issue of the Anglo-Irish agreement, at the time he said:

"Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some of us oppose the agreement for reasons other than those that he has given? We believe that the agreement strengthens rather than weakens the border between the six and the 26 counties, and those of us who wish to see a United Ireland oppose the agreement for that reason"

He then went on to express concerns that the agreement threatened Irish neutrality and risked forcing the Republic of Ireland to accept the British presence in Northern Ireland. The former cabinet minister Tony Benn and Ken Livingstone, then leader of the Greater London Council, also opposed the agreement because they believed Britain should withdraw from Northern Ireland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Iri ... opposition

That is not direct support for the IRA.

[Eighthours]

My problem with Corbyn on this isn't that he supports a united Ireland (I wouldn't be totally against a referendum on the question), it's his pretty direct support for the IRA in the 80s. Those 72 meetings with Irish Republicans, inviting Gerard McLochlainn and Linda Quigley to Parliament 2 weeks after the Brighton bombing (this is like someone in Congress inviting Al Qaeda members to Washington in late September 2001), voting against the Anglo-Irish agreement, etc etc.

That's not direct support. That's opening a dialogue and talking through issues. Unless you have evidence that he met with those people to discuss places they could target?

Corbyn obviously went down a different path to the other politicians of the time, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that he actual gave direct support to the violent IRA campaign.

On the issue of the Anglo-Irish agreement, at the time he said:

"Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some of us oppose the agreement for reasons other than those that he has given? We believe that the agreement strengthens rather than weakens the border between the six and the 26 counties, and those of us who wish to see a United Ireland oppose the agreement for that reason"

He then went on to express concerns that the agreement threatened Irish neutrality and risked forcing the Republic of Ireland to accept the British presence in Northern Ireland. The former cabinet minister Tony Benn and Ken Livingstone, then leader of the Greater London Council, also opposed the agreement because they believed Britain should withdraw from Northern Ireland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Iri ... opposition

That is not direct support for the IRA.

Mate, you're deluding yourself here.

[Preezy]

If you're trying to get elected as the leader of the UK, you need to just accept that people are not going to be happy about you appearing (rightly or wrongly) to support the IRA or aspects of them. If he was smart he'd just flat out condemn them and let the voters hear what they expect a potential leader to say, not some "well it's complicated and here's why I don't fully condemn this or that". Voters don't have the time or the inclination to read up about his opinions on the IRA, they just need to know that he thinks terrorism in all its forms is bad. He isn't doing that, and it's hurting his chances bigly.

[Errkal]

If you're trying to get elected as the leader of the UK, you need to just accept that people are not going to be happy about you appearing (rightly or wrongly) to support the IRA or aspects of them. If he was smart he'd just flat out condemn them and let the voters hear what they expect a potential leader to say, not some "well it's complicated and here's why I don't fully condemn this or that". Voters don't have the time or the inclination to read up about his opinions on the IRA, they just need to know that he thinks terrorism in all its forms is bad. He isn't doing that, and it's hurting his chances bigly.

Say what they want to hear is how we are in the mess we are in with PR lead campaigns about the leader, not policies.

[Moggy]

My problem with Corbyn on this isn't that he supports a united Ireland (I wouldn't be totally against a referendum on the question), it's his pretty direct support for the IRA in the 80s. Those 72 meetings with Irish Republicans, inviting Gerard McLochlainn and Linda Quigley to Parliament 2 weeks after the Brighton bombing (this is like someone in Congress inviting Al Qaeda members to Washington in late September 2001), voting against the Anglo-Irish agreement, etc etc.

That's not direct support. That's opening a dialogue and talking through issues. Unless you have evidence that he met with those people to discuss places they could target?

Corbyn obviously went down a different path to the other politicians of the time, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that he actual gave direct support to the violent IRA campaign.

On the issue of the Anglo-Irish agreement, at the time he said:

"Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some of us oppose the agreement for reasons other than those that he has given? We believe that the agreement strengthens rather than weakens the border between the six and the 26 counties, and those of us who wish to see a United Ireland oppose the agreement for that reason"

He then went on to express concerns that the agreement threatened Irish neutrality and risked forcing the Republic of Ireland to accept the British presence in Northern Ireland. The former cabinet minister Tony Benn and Ken Livingstone, then leader of the Greater London Council, also opposed the agreement because they believed Britain should withdraw from Northern Ireland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Iri ... opposition

That is not direct support for the IRA.

Mate, you're deluding yourself here.

I really don't think I am.

Do you honestly believe that Corbyn gave direct support to the IRA bombing campaign?

I don't even like Corbyn FFS!

[BID0]

My problem with Corbyn on this isn't that he supports a united Ireland (I wouldn't be totally against a referendum on the question), it's his pretty direct support for the IRA in the 80s. Those 72 meetings with Irish Republicans, inviting Gerard McLochlainn and Linda Quigley to Parliament 2 weeks after the Brighton bombing (this is like someone in Congress inviting Al Qaeda members to Washington in late September 2001), voting against the Anglo-Irish agreement, etc etc.

That's not direct support. That's opening a dialogue and talking through issues. Unless you have evidence that he met with those people to discuss places they could target?

Corbyn obviously went down a different path to the other politicians of the time, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that he actual gave direct support to the violent IRA campaign.

On the issue of the Anglo-Irish agreement, at the time he said:

"Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some of us oppose the agreement for reasons other than those that he has given? We believe that the agreement strengthens rather than weakens the border between the six and the 26 counties, and those of us who wish to see a United Ireland oppose the agreement for that reason"

He then went on to express concerns that the agreement threatened Irish neutrality and risked forcing the Republic of Ireland to accept the British presence in Northern Ireland. The former cabinet minister Tony Benn and Ken Livingstone, then leader of the Greater London Council, also opposed the agreement because they believed Britain should withdraw from Northern Ireland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Iri ... opposition

That is not direct support for the IRA.

Mate, you're deluding yourself here.

I really don't think I am.

Do you honestly believe that Corbyn gave direct support to the IRA bombing campaign?

I don't even like Corbyn FFS!

Don't think we haven't noticed your communist agenda moggy

[Moggy]

Don't think we haven't noticed your communist agenda moggy

Do these communists even vote now? IIRC, stats suggest not.

[captain red dog]

On the subject of comparing it to inviting Al-Qaida/Taliban representatives to Washington for dialogue after 9/11, that might not have been a bad idea considering the clusterfuck they actually made in response.

[Eighthours]

My problem with Corbyn on this isn't that he supports a united Ireland (I wouldn't be totally against a referendum on the question), it's his pretty direct support for the IRA in the 80s. Those 72 meetings with Irish Republicans, inviting Gerard McLochlainn and Linda Quigley to Parliament 2 weeks after the Brighton bombing (this is like someone in Congress inviting Al Qaeda members to Washington in late September 2001), voting against the Anglo-Irish agreement, etc etc.

That's not direct support. That's opening a dialogue and talking through issues. Unless you have evidence that he met with those people to discuss places they could target?

Corbyn obviously went down a different path to the other politicians of the time, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that he actual gave direct support to the violent IRA campaign.

On the issue of the Anglo-Irish agreement, at the time he said:

"Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some of us oppose the agreement for reasons other than those that he has given? We believe that the agreement strengthens rather than weakens the border between the six and the 26 counties, and those of us who wish to see a United Ireland oppose the agreement for that reason"

He then went on to express concerns that the agreement threatened Irish neutrality and risked forcing the Republic of Ireland to accept the British presence in Northern Ireland. The former cabinet minister Tony Benn and Ken Livingstone, then leader of the Greater London Council, also opposed the agreement because they believed Britain should withdraw from Northern Ireland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Iri ... opposition

That is not direct support for the IRA.

Mate, you're deluding yourself here.

I really don't think I am.

Do you honestly believe that Corbyn gave direct support to the IRA bombing campaign?

I don't even like Corbyn FFS!

Not the bombing campaign: the IRA and their cause. He met Irish Republicans 72 times, Loyalists 0 times. Just as he met representatives of Palestine many, many times, representatives of Israel 0 times. Corbyn hasn't been committed to dialogue between all the parties in the cases of Northern Ireland and Israel/Palestine - he's picked a side and gone to bat for them.

Also, that mag he wrote for had some rather nasty views after the Brighton bombing:

"We refuse to parrot the ritual condemnation of 'violence', because we insist on placing responsibility where it lies," said the LLB retraction.

"Let our 'Iron Lady' know this: those who live by the sword shall die by it. If she wants violence, then violence she will certainly get."

The only answer was "an unequivocal British withdrawal, including the disarming of the RUC and UDR".

The editorial board also allowed some light-hearted contributions. "What do you call four dead Tories? A start," was one of the rejoicing readers' letters.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opini ... 27183.html

I know that Corbyn says he wasn't on the editorial board of the LLB (a claim originally made by Private Eye, now regurgitated by the newspapers), but he was certainly involved in the magazine more than just being a writer. For starters, he handled the membership list IIRC.

[Pancake]

It's very difficult to believe that Corbyn ever actually condoned the use of violence. I think it's clear that he supported the republican cause but I'm highly sceptical that he ever supported the IRA's actions, it would be so out of character!