Well I'm back from having a loop recorder fitted this morning. Unsurprisingly the talk at the NNUH was all about last night's events. Just from reading this site and conversations there, the anger is palpable. It's not a sullen acceptance of the tragedy of evil it's a genuine anger that is going I think to now boil over. The country, the west, is at the point of no return and collectively saying enough. It's probably an unstoppable rage. Electorally it will of course have an effect. A dramatic one. Obviously some hold or have held positions that the majority will not be able to stomach. It is their right to hold those views, and our right to vote against them should we see fit.
Theresa May's remark that "it is not the first time Manchester has suffered in this way" was a reference to the 1996 IRA bomb.
That bomb was aimed at property and although it injured a large number of people it killed nobody. If anybody made a killing out of it, it was property developers.
(Interestingly IRA figures built themselves a property empire in Manchester. Meanwhile, security at the Hacienda was provided by the Noonan family, gangsters who were closer to the INLA. You've got to wonder to what extent gangster involvement in venue and event "security" hinders real security, not just in Manchester but elsewhere in Britain.)
By alluding to the 1996 bomb Theresa May was trying to dig at Jeremy Corbyn, whose (wrong) praise for Irish republicanism in the 1980s has been a major theme in Tory propaganda. She was electioneering.
"That bomb was aimed at property and although it injured a large number of people it killed nobody." That's fine, then.
I suspect you think you are a controversialist. Bad news: what you are is a massive arse.
In what way? Reminding Corbyn of his actual views and deeds isn't dirty, clearly.
You have slightly taken my words out of context.
My point was (as someone's whose mother died of dementia and understands the present system), the Labour party already smeared the Tories on the dementia tax.
Corbyn is in a difficult & vulnerable position. I expect the nuances of his position to be ignored and him to be smeared. (I mean, I think his position is more nuanced than "I love terrorists")
So be it. What goes around comes around.
But what do you mean by 'smeared' though?
Reminding him of his actual views and deeds isn't smearing, nor is it a personal attack.
Corbyn doesn't need to be "reminded" of his former views.
His former views are still his views.
I doubt whether Tory politicians "reminding" Corbyn is necessary.
Although I expect it will happen, and the reminding to be of a rather crude & sensationalist nature. Much like Labour's take on the dementia tax.
By alluding to the 1996 bomb Theresa May was trying to dig at Jeremy Corbyn,
I thought the PM showed restraint by not mentioning the authors of the earlier Manchester bomb (or fatal Warrington bomb, which killed children also) - Corbyn's IRA support is not her fault.
You know I'm right: she was electioneering. I agree that Jeremy Corbyn's wrong position on Irish republicanism in the 1980s is not Theresa May's fault. Nor is the Tory party's support in the same period for the racist regime in South Africa and its denunciation of the opponents of apartheid, such as the ANC, as "terrorists" Corbyn's fault. Electioneering was also the motive for the way that May spoke of suspending the election campaign, not deigning to mention Jeremy Corbyn or Tim Farron and thus conflating the office of prime minister with her role as leader of the Tory party.
Corbyn was also electioneering when he said it was important that "we do not allow our communities to be divided". But at least he wasn't using public resources at the time.
I expect that they'll be rescheduled for later in the campaign. Or they might just bump Nuttall out if campaigning's back on tomorrow (which'd feel a bit early, to my mind). UKIP clearly now below the other four in significance.
No chance. The BBC would not need that kind of controversy. Nuttall will get his turn, and so he should.
They could put him on BBC3?
Being serious, I don't think he should get a turn. UKIP is now on a par with Plaid and the Greens in terms of significance, not the SNP, Lib Dems, Tories or Labour.
The decision has been made. The BBC can't respond to every up and down of the opinion polls.
I have heard it suggested that the Police might advise against Corbyn continuing with his big rallies - at which he has been quite effective. That is unlikely I would have thought. Moreover until the 1990s most electioneering by party leaders during the campaign period consisted of addressing mass audiences at various City and Town Halls across the land. Back in the 1960s it was common to find hecklers at those meetings some of whom were effective at interrupting the speakers. This came to mind yesterday with the footage of an Anti – Fox Hunting demonstrator being carried off and arrested during May’s Wrexham visit on the grounds of a ‘breach of the peace’. Nobody tried to arrest those people hecking Harold Wilson , Alec Douglas Home, George Brown or Ted Heath at the 1964 /1966 elections.It seems unnecessary that the police authorities collude in the silencing of dissenters in this way. At the end of the day it is not their job to support the control freakery of today’s party leaders.
There was one incident at the 1964 election when a protester threw an egg at Alec Douglas-Home and the PM - a former first-class cricketer - caught it without breaking the shell.
Comments
Electorally it will of course have an effect. A dramatic one. Obviously some hold or have held positions that the majority will not be able to stomach. It is their right to hold those views, and our right to vote against them should we see fit.
I suspect you think you are a controversialist. Bad news: what you are is a massive arse.
His former views are still his views.
I doubt whether Tory politicians "reminding" Corbyn is necessary.
Although I expect it will happen, and the reminding to be of a rather crude & sensationalist nature. Much like Labour's take on the dementia tax.
Corbyn was also electioneering when he said it was important that "we do not allow our communities to be divided". But at least he wasn't using public resources at the time.