-
Corbyn - never fofget
There are many clever people – pollsters, commentators, strategists – who say that Jeremy Corbyn’s past does not matter, that the voters do not care about it, and that his critics ought to move on. Recounting every Islamist he shared a platform with, every anti-Semite he rallied beside, every Irish republican he cosied up to is a waste of time. Corbyn has caught the spirit of the moment and his detractors are stuck in the past.
They may be right but let me try to explain to them why we care so much about these things. Thirty-four years ago today – at 2.54 a.m. to be precise – a bomb tore through the Grand Brighton Hotel during the Conservative Party conference. Anthony Berry, MP for Enfield Southgate, was killed, along with Muriel Maclean, Eric Taylor, Jeanne Shattock and Roberta Wakeham. Margaret Tebbit was left paralysed and Margaret Thatcher only narrowly escaped the blast. The device had been planted by IRA member Patrick Magee and the IRA released an infamous statement claiming responsibility: ‘Today we were unlucky, but remember, we only have to be lucky once; you will have to be lucky always.’
They did get lucky again, but the Brighton bombing was the closest they would come to assassinating a British prime minister. Neil Kinnock wrote to Mrs Thatcher after the attack to profess himself ‘horrified and outraged at this terrible atrocity’ and to describe the terrorists as ‘the sworn enemies of all the people of normal mind and reasoning politics’.
Labour MPs evidently do not grasp the significance of this behaviour, for they continue to sit behind this man and campaign to make him Prime Minister. And so I ask myself: What if, two weeks after Jo Cox was murdered, a backbench Tory invited members of National Action to Parliament? What if, while her murderer Thomas Mair was in court declaring ‘death to traitors’, that same Tory MP was outside at a ‘solidarity’ vigil? What if that Tory MP had been willing to get himself arrested for the pleasure? And what if he had written a cheery note to the organiser of the demo?
Now imagine that Tory MP ended up party leader one day. How would Labour MPs respond? Would they cut his backbenchers the same slack they cut themselves? Would they shrug their shoulders and say, ‘Oh, they’re just being loyal party people’ or ‘He’s doing well in the polls’? Would they empathise with the Tory MPs and members who said they were staying to fight for their party’s ‘soul’? Would they hell. They would be howling and marching and demanding every last Tory MP resign. And they’d be right.
Instead, Labour MPs have surrendered – those, that is, who bothered putting up a fight in the first place – and decided to go along with Corbyn and his moment. They reason that, yes, he’s a despicable man but he may get them back into government or at least get rid of this hopeless, rotten, callous government. Even those who do not believe this hang around and do their bit to put Corbyn in power because, however much extremism and anti-Semitism pain them, walking away from the Labour Party would hurt them more. This is how Corbynism corrupts the soul and tribalism poisons the antidote. They have more in common with Corbyn than that which divides them.
The clever people may be right. The Brighton murders have receded sufficiently from our collective memory to lose their visceral horror. It has been so long since we heard insidious apologism for the IRA that the thought of it can’t quite stir the same hot contempt. The generations that have come since may regard Britain as an illegal occupier, Ulster the West Bank across the Irish Sea and Gerry Adams an avuncular freedom-fighter. Among the semi-ironic alt-leftists who ‘stan’ Corbyn on social media – the Lmaoists and the Lolsheviks – political violence is a source of boisterous humour and vicarious thrills, just another level unlocked in Call of Duty.
But, however unfashionable it may be right now, the past matters. Truth matters. Jeremy Corbyn’s character matters. And the character of this country – and what would become of it if we made this man our Prime Minister – matters. It may not be clever of us, the voters may not care, but some of us
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
Well I for one won't fofget that Spectator article in a hurry. Given that you did not quite cut and paste it all it might have been easier just to post the link.
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
Jezza won't be around for ever, but he is the only one who can break the current status quo. Otherwise it's a choice between Tory and Tory light (Blairites), and to be fair, the Tories aren't even proper Tories anymore.
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wales-Bales
Jezza won't be around for ever, but he is the only one who can break the current status quo. Otherwise it's a choice between Tory and Tory light (Blairites), and to be fair, the Tories aren't even proper Tories anymore.
Is anyone really anyone anymore? :biggrin:
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
I for one would prefer to have a Labour leader or PM , who has British values at heart . We're not perfect, but we're better than most, and we should respect that, before sliding towards extreme politics .
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
Quote:
Originally Posted by
life on mars
I for one would prefer to have a Labour leader or PM , who has British values at heart . We're not perfect, but we're better than most, and we should respect that, before sliding towards extreme politics .
He's a Commie, Marxist, are they British values.
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rogersblue
He's a Commie, Marxist, are they British values.
Nope .
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
You guys will have to start building a new party then, as there is no other viable option out there right now.
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wales-Bales
You guys will have to start building a new party then, as there is no other viable option out there right now.
A new party would be a very good idea in.my opinion
Tories and Labour are both veering away from the centre.
Problem would be finding a decent leader.
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cyril evans awaydays
Well I for one won't fofget that Spectator article in a hurry. Given that you did not quite cut and paste it all it might have been easier just to post the link.
But whsy id you view on it?
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wales-Bales
Jezza won't be around for ever, but he is the only one who can break the current status quo. Otherwise it's a choice between Tory and Tory light (Blairites), and to be fair, the Tories aren't even proper Tories anymore.
If he is the only one we are in deep trouble
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Elwood Blues
If he is the only one we are in deep trouble
Indeed, now I'm depressed, cant imagine the dystopia world we would be in ,and how dumbed down ones thoughts would have to be to survive.
No need to work though, no foreign owners , free transport, thousands of extra police , which is a plus I guess .
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Elwood Blues
But whsy id you view on it?
I agree that politicians should be called to account for their previous words, actions and behaviours and Corbyn has a lot of form in that area. I also think that when you go down that road then you set the bar for all and there are enough politicians across he spectrum who might fail to reach the required standard. The article itself gets carried away with its own rhetoric and the writer's own perceived cleverness when chucking out his alt-left stan Lolshevik epithets in the penultimate paragraph and ends up looking smugger than necessary in making (a well worn) point. What about you?
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Elwood Blues
A new party would be a very good idea in.my opinion
Tories and Labour are both veering away from the centre.
Problem would be finding a decent leader.
It's very unlikely that it would succeed. The SDP seemed like it was going to be a success but it never happened, despite having good leaders.
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Elwood Blues
If he is the only one we are in deep trouble
Like I said he won't be around forever, and right now he is the only person capable of breaking up the existing status quo.
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Taunton Blue Genie
It's very unlikely that it would succeed. The SDP seemed like it was going to be a success but it never happened, despite having good leaders.
Not unless the media led brainwashed masses over here wake up. At least America has shown that some kind of change can be achieved if people think for themselves.
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wales-Bales
Not unless the media led brainwashed masses over here wake up. At least America has shown that some kind of change can be achieved if people think for themselves.
WB, you continually put yourself above other people and explain how your thoughts and analytical processes are superior to other people's but you often blatantly mis-quote posters and précis their comments incorrectly. You very often see only side of an argument while painting yourself as even minded. Personally, I have given up trying to rationally discuss anything with you.
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Taunton Blue Genie
WB, you continually put yourself above other people and explain how your thoughts and analytical processes are superior to other people's but you often blatantly mis-quote posters and précis their comments incorrectly. You very often see only side of an argument while painting yourself as even minded. Personally, I have given up trying to rationally discuss anything with you.
Not the first and won't be the last, TBG.
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Taunton Blue Genie
It's very unlikely that it would succeed. The SDP seemed like it was going to be a success but it never happened, despite having good leaders.
Yes well I didn't say it would be easy
Difference now may be that such a party could possibly attract MP's from both major parties.
But it would need oodles of money, snd success would still be questionable.
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Elwood Blues
Yes well I didn't say it would be easy
Difference now may be that such a party could possibly attract MP's from both major parties.
But it would need oodles of money, snd success would still be questionable.
I can't see it happening anytime soon it seems to me this is about a leadership person issue and if Labour were to change its Leadership for a Kier type person it may make further ground on the Tories beleaguered position , however if say the Tories found a younger , modern , fresher , voice say Ruth Davidson it too would sweep ahead and probaly recover the centre ground anyway ,whereas Labour if it stayed left , may struggle , even with a new leader, the current Tory problem, is it looks and smells old .
As an offshoot comment , I heard on the radio the other day that the Conservatives are the most successful political party in the history of western democracy .
( not great news for middle ground socialist I guess, as even the successful Blair, is now deemed a Tory among some)
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Taunton Blue Genie
WB, you continually put yourself above other people and explain how your thoughts and analytical processes are superior to other people's but you often blatantly mis-quote posters and précis their comments incorrectly. You very often see only side of an argument while painting yourself as even minded. Personally, I have given up trying to rationally discuss anything with you.
In what way? You just need people to vote for something that isn't the status quo. Could the average person do that? I doubt it very much, as they have been conditioned by the media to think that only two political parties could do the job. Is this true? Is your average MP really clever? Or do they employ advisors, experts and think-tanks? Once they formulate policy do they implement it, or do civil servants have responsibility for that? My cousin is a PA to a sitting MP, so I have my own thoughts about this.
PS why the continual personal attacks? You and your pals always attack the person and not the idea. Your debating skills are very juvenile.
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lardy
Not the first and won't be the last, TBG.
Here comes the calvary, Mr Trump Russia Collusion deluded lardy.
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Elwood Blues
Yes well I didn't say it would be easy
Difference now may be that such a party could possibly attract MP's from both major parties.
But it would need oodles of money, snd success would still be questionable.
MP's from both major parties are probably the last thing you would need, they would try to turn it in the LabCon party :biggrin:
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wales-Bales
In what way? You just need people to vote for something that isn't the status quo. Could the average person do that? I doubt it very much, as they have been conditioned by the media to think that only two political parties could do the job. Is this true? Is your average MP really clever? Or do they employ advisors, experts and think-tanks? Once they formulate policy do they implement it, or do civil servants have responsibility for that? My cousin is a PA to a sitting MP, so I have my own thoughts about this.
PS why the continual personal attacks? You and your pals always attack the person and not the idea. Your debating skills are very juvenile.
Irony alert.
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
Quote:
Originally Posted by
life on mars
I can't see it happening anytime soon it seems to me this is about a leadership person issue and if Labour were to change its Leadership for a Kier type person it may make further ground on the Tories beleaguered position , however if say the Tories found a younger , modern , fresher , voice say Ruth Davidson it too would sweep ahead and probaly recover the centre ground anyway ,whereas Labour if it stayed left , may struggle , even with a new leader, the current Tory problem, is it looks and smells old .
As an offshoot comment , I heard on the radio the other day that the Conservatives are the most successful political party in the history of western democracy .
( not great news for middle ground socialist I guess, as even the successful Blair, is now deemed a Tory among some)
Ruth Davidson has said she does not want the job as she would fear for her mental health
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wales-Bales
Not unless the media led brainwashed masses over here wake up. At least America has shown that some kind of change can be achieved if people think for themselves.
Well we had our chance of right wing Trump like change, with Nigel Farage and UKIP , voters flocked to them with their Brexit , Johnny Foreginer mantra , only to drop them as soon as their hatred of the Tories returned.
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cyril evans awaydays
I agree that politicians should be called to account for their previous words, actions and behaviours and Corbyn has a lot of form in that area. I also think that when you go down that road then you set the bar for all and there are enough politicians across he spectrum who might fail to reach the required standard. The article itself gets carried away with its own rhetoric and the writer's own perceived cleverness when chucking out his alt-left stan Lolshevik epithets in the penultimate paragraph and ends up looking smugger than necessary in making (a well worn) point. What about you?
Yes the final bit of the penultimate paragraph does over egg the pudding a bit but the rest of it makes sense.
And even though it is a well worn point it is still valid.
There are so many alive today who don't realise that 30 years ago people were as concerned about the IRA then as they are of ISIL today. And many who were don't seem to remember.
Time is a great healer but some things should never be forgotten.
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cyril evans awaydays
I agree that politicians should be called to account for their previous words, actions and behaviours and Corbyn has a lot of form in that area. I also think that when you go down that road then you set the bar for all and there are enough politicians across he spectrum who might fail to reach the required standard. The article itself gets carried away with its own rhetoric and the writer's own perceived cleverness when chucking out his alt-left stan Lolshevik epithets in the penultimate paragraph and ends up looking smugger than necessary in making (a well worn) point. What about you?
What's a Laugh-out-loud-shevik?
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
Is 'never fofget' linked to 'covfefe'?
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wales-Bales
What's a Laugh-out-loud-shevik?
Did you read the original article? It was the smart arse writer's attempt to portray Corbyn's followers on social media as people who laugh whenever an act of political violence is perpetrated on people or groups they don't like or approve.
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Elwood Blues
Yes the final bit of the penultimate paragraph does over egg the pudding a bit but the rest of it makes sense.
And even though it is a well worn point it is still valid.
There are so many alive today who don't realise that 30 years ago people were as concerned about the IRA then as they are of ISIL today. And many who were don't seem to remember.
Time is a great healer but some things should never be forgotten.
I'm not so sure about that - it's pretty obvious that not all of the article was pasted into the OP.
Also, although I accept that the following will probably lead to me being accused of being an IRA apologist, there are two sides to the argument, as applied to Ireland, outlined in the article. Of course, the Brighton bombing was one of a series of outrages perpetrated by the IRA which cannot, and should never be, condoned, but the inference of the article appears to be that the murder of politicians and/or their family members is somehow worse than all of the other killings carried out, by both sides, in that period lasting from the sixties through to the nineties. I lived through that time and can remember, for example, Bloody Sunday which would, surely, have made a huge impression on many young Catholics in Northern Ireland at that time.
Thirteen years after the Brighton bombing came the Good Friday Agreement which was supported on all sides of the political spectrum - should those who enabled the likes of Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness to play a part in the governing of Northern Ireland by voting for the agreement also be condemned? Jeremy Corbyn voted in favour of the Good Friday Agreement and I believe that articles like this one
https://www.channel4.com/news/factch...rthern-ireland
offer a more genuine analysis of his attitude towards that country than the one portrayed in the article.
In my opinion, Jeremy Corbyn's weakness when it comes to antisemitism and Brexit raise legitimate questions about his worthiness to become Prime Minister, but I don't think what he said and did about Northern Ireland thirty years and more ago (a time when the political landscape in that area was completely different to what it is now) should preclude him from getting the job.
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
Quote:
Originally Posted by
the other bob wilson
I'm not so sure about that - it's pretty obvious that not all of the article was pasted into the OP.
Also, although I accept that the following will probably lead to me being accused of being an IRA apologist, there are two sides to the argument, as applied to Ireland, outlined in the article. Of course, the Brighton bombing was one of a series of outrages perpetrated by the IRA which cannot, and should never be, condoned, but the inference of the article appears to be that the murder of politicians and/or their family members is somehow worse than all of the other killings carried out, by both sides, in that period lasting from the sixties through to the nineties. I lived through that time and can remember, for example, Bloody Sunday which would, surely, have made a huge impression on many young Catholics in Northern Ireland at that time.
Thirteen years after the Brighton bombing came the Good Friday Agreement which was supported on all sides of the political spectrum - should those who enabled the likes of Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness to play a part in the governing of Northern Ireland by voting for the agreement also be condemned? Jeremy Corbyn voted in favour of the Good Friday Agreement and I believe that articles like this one
https://www.channel4.com/news/factch...rthern-ireland
offer a more genuine analysis of his attitude towards that country than the one portrayed in the article.
In my opinion, Jeremy Corbyn's weakness when it comes to antisemitism and Brexit raise legitimate questions about his worthiness to become Prime Minister, but I don't think what he said and did about Northern Ireland thirty years and more ago (a time when the political landscape in that area was completely different to what it is now) should preclude him from getting the job.
Sorry cant agree with you on this one ,and he won't have changed his view either ,this is about suitability and security and the fact folk died .
""" [I]Jeremy Corbyn was arrested in 1986 taking part in a protest by IRA sympathisers to “show solidarity” with accused terrorists including the Brighton bomber, a Sunday Times investigation reveals.
Corbyn joined a picket outside the Old Bailey to oppose the “show trial” of a group including Patrick Magee, who was subsequently convicted of murdering five people at the 1984 Tory party conference.
Magee was also convicted with the other defendants of planning a massive bombing campaign in London and seaside resorts.
Emily Thornberry, the shadow foreign secretary, defended her leader this morning for speaking out openly at the time, adding that Mr Corbyn’s position was “not having open support for the IRA”.""
And has he not since attended some strange events, and remembrances ?
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
Quote:
Originally Posted by
life on mars
Sorry cant agree with you on this one ,and he won't have changed his view either ,this is about suitability and security and the fact folk died .
""" [I]Jeremy Corbyn was arrested in 1986 taking part in a protest by IRA sympathisers to “show solidarity” with accused terrorists including the Brighton bomber, a Sunday Times investigation reveals.
Corbyn joined a picket outside the Old Bailey to oppose the “show trial” of a group including Patrick Magee, who was subsequently convicted of murdering five people at the 1984 Tory party conference.
Magee was also convicted with the other defendants of planning a massive bombing campaign in London and seaside resorts.
Emily Thornberry, the shadow foreign secretary, defended her leader this morning for speaking out openly at the time, adding that Mr Corbyn’s position was “not having open support for the IRA”.""
And has he not since attended some strange events, and remembrances ?
Cleverly written to imply that Corbyn was present to 'show solidarity' with accused terrorists which is an obvious rewriting of history. The Troops out Movement didn't believe Patrick Magee was going to get a fair trial, Corbyn attended to protest against a trial for show. Are you in favour of show trials or do you think the law should be followed to the letter in all instances (even under the most emotive of circumstances)?
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
Quote:
Originally Posted by
the other bob wilson
I'm not so sure about that - it's pretty obvious that not all of the article was pasted into the OP.
Also, although I accept that the following will probably lead to me being accused of being an IRA apologist, there are two sides to the argument, as applied to Ireland, outlined in the article. Of course, the Brighton bombing was one of a series of outrages perpetrated by the IRA which cannot, and should never be, condoned, but the inference of the article appears to be that the murder of politicians and/or their family members is somehow worse than all of the other killings carried out, by both sides, in that period lasting from the sixties through to the nineties. I lived through that time and can remember, for example, Bloody Sunday which would, surely, have made a huge impression on many young Catholics in Northern Ireland at that time.
Thirteen years after the Brighton bombing came the Good Friday Agreement which was supported on all sides of the political spectrum - should those who enabled the likes of Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness to play a part in the governing of Northern Ireland by voting for the agreement also be condemned? Jeremy Corbyn voted in favour of the Good Friday Agreement and I believe that articles like this one
https://www.channel4.com/news/factch...rthern-ireland
offer a more genuine analysis of his attitude towards that country than the one portrayed in the article.
In my opinion, Jeremy Corbyn's weakness when it comes to antisemitism and Brexit raise legitimate questions about his worthiness to become Prime Minister, but I don't think what he said and did about Northern Ireland
thirty years and more ago (a time when the political landscape in that area was completely different to what it is now) should preclude him from getting the job.
It is this naivety that sends me loopy on this board. Show me a PM or leading politician who doesn't have a blot on their copybook when hindsight is applied to their decisions. Maggie was besties with a mass muderer, Cameron directly helped jihadis take over libya and Blair inadvertently did the same in Iraq - both managed to destabilise entire regions in a matter of months - we should never fofget these things either. Hindsight applied to Corbyn seems to stick, Hindsight applied to May's ghastly record against minorities whilst in the home office and against the most vulnerable as PM doesn't seem to.
Yes but lets get another 'centralist' as LOM says because they don't do bad things (unless you count mindless decisions that go some way to destroying the world as bad).
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Cartman
It is this naivety that sends me loopy on this board. Show me a PM or leading politician who doesn't have a blot on their copybook when hindsight is applied to their decisions. Maggie was besties with a mass muderer, Cameron directly helped jihadis take over libya and Blair inadvertently did the same in Iraq - both managed to destabilise entire regions in a matter of months - we should never fofget these things either. Hindsight applied to Corbyn seems to stick, Hindsight applied to May's ghastly record against minorities whilst in the home office and against the most vulnerable as PM doesn't seem to.
Yes but lets get another 'centralist' as LOM says because they don't do bad things (unless you count mindless decisions that go some way to destroying the world as bad).
Maybe they are preparing the ground for another referendum or a snap election? When you see these smears and hit pieces, you know something is lurking around the corner.
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Cartman
It is this naivety that sends me loopy on this board. Show me a PM or leading politician who doesn't have a blot on their copybook when hindsight is applied to their decisions. Maggie was besties with a mass muderer, Cameron directly helped jihadis take over libya and Blair inadvertently did the same in Iraq - both managed to destabilise entire regions in a matter of months - we should never fofget these things either. Hindsight applied to Corbyn seems to stick, Hindsight applied to May's ghastly record against minorities whilst in the home office and against the most vulnerable as PM doesn't seem to.
Yes but lets get another 'centralist' as LOM says because they don't do bad things (unless you count mindless decisions that go some way to destroying the world as bad).
The Spectator article referred to in the original post refers to Corbyn meeting Sinn Fein representatives shortly after the Brighton Bombing when he knew Sinn Fein was the political wing of the IRA who were responsible for the bombing.
Where does hindsight come into it?
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Elwood Blues
The Spectator article referred to in the original post refers to Corbyn meeting Sinn Fein representatives shortly after the Brighton Bombing when he knew Sinn Fein was the political wing of the IRA who were responsible for the bombing.
Where does hindsight come into it?
The state has aways met with our enemies through backchannels, so what's the difference? How are you supposed to find common ground and possible solutions if you don't talk to people?
-
Re: Corbyn - never fofget
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Elwood Blues
The Spectator article referred to in the original post refers to Corbyn meeting Sinn Fein representatives shortly after the Brighton Bombing when he knew Sinn Fein was the political wing of the IRA who were responsible for the bombing.
Where does hindsight come into it?
It feels like you are dodging the question on EU bullying in the other thread.
Hindsight doesn't come into that at all. As far as I am aware it was roundly condemned at the time.