Corbyn isn't going to "get in" overall; the worst that can happen is that your local seat changes hands. Ultimately unless the seat finishes with a majority of one (which at parliamentary level I don't ever recall), one vote can't change the result anyway, so it's about which column you want your vote tallied under; whatever mix of best person and best party policies you think appropriate.
Very much the lines along which I'm approaching it. I'm happy to have my vote tallied in the Lib Dem column but not so happy to have it tallied in the Farron column. If I lived in a seat where the Lib Dems were starting from 1st or 2nd place I'd not be pondering so much and I'd be voting for them without hesitation despite Farron.
This is a terrible election to be socially liberal and economically dry.
The choice is between a terrorist loving hard left nutter with an even more terrifying cabinet, A wibbly-wobbly social democrat with authoritarian tendencies and a habit of making policy on the hoof, A homophobe committed to reversing the results of a democratic vote.
I live in a constituency that's safe as houses so it becomes a question of under whose column do I want my vote to be tallied.
The obvious answer is that I have nowhere else to go so I might as well vote Conservative and hope that whoever follows May will be better, but for the first time I'm seriously considering sitting this one out. It'd be different if I lived in a marginal but I don't.
Wonder how many other people are thinking the same.
But you had about 20 years of socially liberal and economically dry leaders with Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron from 1997 to 2016. Probably also John Major from 1990 to 1997.
The UK is home to 23,000 jihadists, security sources believe.
23,000.
That means, out of a Muslim population of 2.6 million, almost one in every hundred is a jihadist - not just a bit ranty, or slightly radical, but a jihadist
1% of UK Muslims want to wage war on us, and blow up our children. That means every mosque will have a few like this.
And these are the active Islamofascists, the ones prepared to use guns on us. How many are passive sympathisers, who might give money, or help, or turn a blind eye. 5% of UK Muslims? 10%? Are there 100,000 sympathisers, or 200,000?
Terrifying.
Exactly the reason why mass immigration was such a horrendous mistake. Even if it were 0.25% we would be in trouble
I live in a tight midlands marginal (Con held, Lab facing) where the Lib Dems came 4th last time. I'm a Lib Dem who thinks that Farron is a totally useless idiot and I want to see him gone... but the local Lib Dem candidate is very impressive. Also there's a very good independent candidate standing who I could comfortably vote for too. Then I get worried that Corbyn might get in and have moments where I think I might vote for the Conservative candidate (who is not someone I like at all).
I really don't know which way I'll jump. I'm torn about 49%/49% between the Lib Dem and the independent. 2% Conservative (but more when I see closer polls).
Vote LD. It is all part of the longterm fightback. It was never going to be a short journey.
I am in a safe seat, but will be voting for our excellent local LD candidate. We are LibDems, so there is no prospect of Farron as PM. It is all about building for the future.
The LDs look as if they are finished. I wouldn't be surprised if Farron is their only representative in the new Parliament. If one doesn't want a large Tory majority, one should vote Labour in most of England & Wales (PC in Y Fro Gymraeg) and SNP north of the Border.
They do look pretty finished, and could end up with no more seats or even fewer than now on June 9th, but do you really think they are in danger of losing all their seats other than Westmoreland? Yes, it is the only one with a decent sized majority, and yes, in some of them there is reason to suspect they could get slightly backwards or simply get swamped by a Tory surge, that 2015 is not the lowpoint for them in those seats, but some of them will be very tough to seize nevertheless - Orkney went back to LD strongly at Holyrood, Edinburgh South looks very promising as a rare rare Gain, and Ceredigion cannot be taken for granted but seems very possible given the main opposition is PC, and that's just to name 3 seats. 4-13 seams a good range from bad night to good night.
Corbyn isn't going to "get in" overall; the worst that can happen is that your local seat changes hands. Ultimately unless the seat finishes with a majority of one (which at parliamentary level I don't ever recall), one vote can't change the result anyway, so it's about which column you want your vote tallied under; whatever mix of best person and best party policies you think appropriate.
Very much the lines along which I'm approaching it. I'm happy to have my vote tallied in the Lib Dem column but not so happy to have it tallied in the Farron column. If I lived in a seat where the Lib Dems were starting from 1st or 2nd place I'd not be pondering so much and I'd be voting for them without hesitation despite Farron.
This is a terrible election to be socially liberal and economically dry.
The choice is between a terrorist loving hard left nutter with an even more terrifying cabinet, A wibbly-wobbly social democrat with authoritarian tendencies and a habit of making policy on the hoof, A homophobe committed to reversing the results of a democratic vote.
I live in a constituency that's safe as houses so it becomes a question of under whose column do I want my vote to be tallied.
The obvious answer is that I have nowhere else to go so I might as well vote Conservative and hope that whoever follows May will be better, but for the first time I'm seriously considering sitting this one out. It'd be different if I lived in a marginal but I don't.
Wonder how many other people are thinking the same.
Could always vote anyone but Con, on the basis that whatever the government then does won't be your fault at least.
I am in deep on this market. But we could be waiting some time for any winnings.
Difficult to see Cooper getting it, if this election does not turn out to be the disaster for Corbyn that most were predicting originally. It is likely to be a successor chosen and supported by him, when he eventually goes.
Right now I'd have to say McIRA may well get it. And the Tories had better have a superior campaign to this one if he's leading Labour in 2022.
McDonnell is a better media performer than Corbyn, and much quicker on his feet, but he lacks the weird "authenticity" of Corbyn, a strange kind of charisma which even I can perceive after a couple of vodkatinis. McD feels like another smooth, lying politician.
Also, McDonnell has much more previous than Corbyn - his statements about Marxism, Islamism, the IRA and so on have been even more extreme.
Corbyn is basically the left wing Farage. He enthuses a lot of people, but he repels more.
The tories had no other option. They aren't prepared to run on their record - a large chunk of the tory party hate Dave & George more than they hate Jezza.
To make their strategy work properly, they needed to trigger the election a month and a half earlier - and dangle A50 in front of voters.
Keep it dead simple, "Give me a mandate and tomorrow morning I'll catch the first eurostar to Brussels with this letter in my hand."
Right now, they're unable to give voters something to vote for, which is why the social care stuff has become an issue.
Since Jezza accepted brexit, it would split the LD/Lab vote much more evenly. IMO, she'd have got 50%+ and a landslide.
I don't think it is a large proportion of the tory party that hate Cameron and Osborne more than Corbyn - I think it more that they don't want to trumpet some of the things they did as they want to appeal to former UKIPers and former Labour voters as well, without disavowing the Cameron stuff either.
And they are offering things - steady as she goes, more of the same, with a couple of eye catching changes only. It's not exciting, and some may think it a very poor offer, but given the unexpected realism of taking away freebies for their elderly support base, it is quite clear they wanted the offer to be Tory realism vs Labour fantasy - I doubt they expected it to go down as poorly as they thought though.
I live in a tight midlands marginal (Con held, Lab facing) where the Lib Dems came 4th last time. I'm a Lib Dem who thinks that Farron is a totally useless idiot and I want to see him gone... but the local Lib Dem candidate is very impressive. Also there's a very good independent candidate standing who I could comfortably vote for too. Then I get worried that Corbyn might get in and have moments where I think I might vote for the Conservative candidate (who is not someone I like at all).
I really don't know which way I'll jump. I'm torn about 49%/49% between the Lib Dem and the independent. 2% Conservative (but more when I see closer polls).
Vote LD. It is all part of the longterm fightback. It was never going to be a short journey.
I am in a safe seat, but will be voting for our excellent local LD candidate. We are LibDems, so there is no prospect of Farron as PM. It is all about building for the future.
The LDs look as if they are finished. I wouldn't be surprised if Farron is their only representative in the new Parliament. If one doesn't want a large Tory majority, one should vote Labour in most of England & Wales (PC in Y Fro Gymraeg) and SNP north of the Border.
They do look pretty finished, and could end up with no more seats or even fewer than now on June 9th, but do you really think they are in danger of losing all their seats other than Westmoreland? Yes, it is the only one with a decent sized majority, and yes, in some of them there is reason to suspect they could get slightly backwards or simply get swamped by a Tory surge, that 2015 is not the lowpoint for them in those seats, but some of them will be very tough to seize nevertheless - Orkney went back to LD strongly at Holyrood, Edinburgh South looks very promising as a rare rare Gain, and Ceredigion cannot be taken for granted but seems very possible given the main opposition is PC, and that's just to name 3 seats. 4-13 seams a good range from bad night to good night.
It does look as if the national LD vote will be slightly up overall, but at risk from red and blue surges. On the other hand there is concentration of effort over roughly 20 seats, and these are much stronger areas, usually in a 2 way fight.
LDs will be restablished as the 3rd party after this election, and well placed for 2022, which is my target for a mpre significant comeback.
And these are the active Islamofascists, the ones prepared to use guns on us. How many are passive sympathisers, who might give money, or help, or turn a blind eye. 5% of UK Muslims? 10%? Are there 100,000 sympathisers, or 200,000?
This seems horribly prescient, and backs up the idea that 1% of Muslims are actively trying to kill us and 100,000 are supportive and sympathetic towards their cause:
"However, six per cent insist that the bombings were, on the contrary, fully justified. Six per cent may seem a small proportion but in absolute numbers it amounts to about 100,000 individuals who, if not prepared to carry out terrorist acts, are ready to support those who do."
"However, nearly a third of British Muslims, 32 per cent, are far more censorious, believing that "Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to bring it to an end".
Among those who hold this view, almost all go on to say that Muslims should only seek to bring about change by non-violent means but one per cent, about 16,000 individuals, declare themselves willing, possibly even eager, to embrace violence."
And these are the active Islamofascists, the ones prepared to use guns on us. How many are passive sympathisers, who might give money, or help, or turn a blind eye. 5% of UK Muslims? 10%? Are there 100,000 sympathisers, or 200,000?
This seems horribly prescient, and backs up the idea that 1% of Muslims are actively trying to kill us and 100,000 are supportive and sympathetic towards their cause:
"However, six per cent insist that the bombings were, on the contrary, fully justified. Six per cent may seem a small proportion but in absolute numbers it amounts to about 100,000 individuals who, if not prepared to carry out terrorist acts, are ready to support those who do."
"However, nearly a third of British Muslims, 32 per cent, are far more censorious, believing that "Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to bring it to an end".
Among those who hold this view, almost all go on to say that Muslims should only seek to bring about change by non-violent means but one per cent, about 16,000 individuals, declare themselves willing, possibly even eager, to embrace violence."
"Both the general law and its Gresham’s corollary point, in contemporary circumstances, towards the resort to physical violence, in the form of firearms or high explosive, as being so probable as to be predicted with virtual certainty. The experience of the last decade and more, all round the world, shows that acts of violence, however apparently irrational or inappropriate their targets, precipitate a frenzied search on the part of the society attacked to discover and remedy more and more grievances, real or imaginary, among those from the violence is supposed to emanate or on whose behalf it is supposed to be exercised. Those commanding a position of political leverage would then be superhuman if they could refrain from pointing to the acts of terrorism and, while condemning them, declaring that further and faster concessions and grants of privilege are the only means to avoid such acts being repeated on a rising scale. We know that those who thus argue will always find a ready hearing. This is what produces the gearing effect of terrorism in the contemporary world, yielding huge results from acts of violence perpetrated by minimal numbers. It is not, I repeat again and again, that the mass of a particular population are violently or criminally disposed. Far from it; that population soon becomes itself the prisoner of the violence and machinations of an infinitely small minority among it. Just a few thugs, a few shots, a few bombs at the right place and time—and that is enough for disproportionate consequences to follow." - Enoch Powell 1977
Crazy stuff. Totally fair to ask people if there views have changed from such extremes in the past (as with changing views on homosexuality and the like).
The UK is home to 23,000 jihadists, security sources believe.
23,000.
That means, out of a Muslim population of 2.6 million, almost one in every hundred is a jihadist - not just a bit ranty, or slightly radical, but a jihadist
1% of UK Muslims want to wage war on us, and blow up our children. That means every mosque will have a few like this.
And these are the active Islamofascists, the ones prepared to use guns on us. How many are passive sympathisers, who might give money, or help, or turn a blind eye. 5% of UK Muslims? 10%? Are there 100,000 sympathisers, or 200,000?
Terrifying.
1 in 100 in total, but that includes children, elderly people, women.
Yes, the more you think about it, the more terrifying it is. Completely dwarfs the IRA, which only had about 1500 members at its brief, early 70s peak, and most of them were in Ulster/Ireland
23,000
Jesus.
The IRA had about 100,000 sympathisers and fellow travellers in Northern Ireland, and probably similar numbers in the Republic and England and Scotland.
I have no time for Diane Abbot at all. I have looked at a clip her Marr interview in which she is pressed on her 1984 comments re-the IRA, and whilst she does not admit to having been wrong she does repeat that she 'has moved on'. I suspect that most people hearing that would treat that as a statement that she no longer holds the same views - ie that she has changed her mind.. I suspect that the impact of her remarks on the typical viewer will be much less dramatic than assumed by political anoraks on sites such as this. I say this as someone who cannot abide her!
I am in deep on this market. But we could be waiting some time for any winnings.
Difficult to see Cooper getting it, if this election does not turn out to be the disaster for Corbyn that most were predicting originally. It is likely to be a successor chosen and supported by him, when he eventually goes.
Right now I'd have to say McIRA may well get it. And the Tories had better have a superior campaign to this one if he's leading Labour in 2022.
Hard to say. He's slick, he's presentable, he's more authoritative, but as SeanT notes, there's something in Corbyn's offbeat, quiet, slightly unkempt approach that people really get enthused about, and I think his approach would be less appealing to those people.
And they are offering things - steady as she goes, more of the same, with a couple of eye catching changes only. It's not exciting, and some may think it a very poor offer, but given the unexpected realism of taking away freebies for their elderly support base, it is quite clear they wanted the offer to be Tory realism vs Labour fantasy - I doubt they expected it to go down as poorly as they thought though.
Has it gone down poorly outside the frothing ? The Tory vote has hardly moved, and is certainly inside margin of error. Labour has been increasing, but at the expense of the LDs and the Kippers, both of whom are flirting with oblivion.... plus no one seriously believes Labour are going to get 38% anyway, so the question then become who will be the benefiaries of the maybe 5-6% of Labour voters that in practise don't support them at the vote. If they stay at home, that is an implicit boost to the vote share of the other parties.
But it is a very safe seat, South West Wiltshire - over 50% Tory, UKIP second last time but not standing this time, LDs pushed to fourth last time.
Well seeing as the seat is very very safe Tory, go with your "heart"; the calculation would be different if you were in a marginal.
My heart is like my gut - unreliable and vacillating.
Write "Farron out" in the Lib Dem box. Keep it entirely within the box.
Writing Farron out within the box will be regarded as a spolit vote since it is not a vote in favour of anyone.
It's a 'clear mark'
Void for uncertainty of meaning. Famously drawing a picture of a prick has been deemed a valid vote - draw him instead ?? (Sorry)
Did have a picture of a prick on a vote cross a table just down from me at the local elections - but there was an X in the Lab box and the prick was outside a box pointing at the Tory box.
I would love to have seen it seriously questioned as ambiguous, but the only person present for looking at the questionable ballots was the Tory candidate, who was so far ahead she didn't care to make a fuss.
I have no time for Diane Abbot at all. I have looked at a clip her Marr interview in which she is pressed on her 1984 comments re-the IRA, and whilst she does not admit to having been wrong she does repeat that she 'has moved on'. I suspect that most people hearing that would treat that as a statement that she no longer holds the same views - ie that she has changed her mind.. I suspect that the impact of her remarks on the typical viewer will be much less dramatic than assumed by political anoraks on sites such as this. I say this as someone who cannot abide her!
Abbot's poll ratings are in the toilet. It's a fruitful line of attack.
And they are offering things - steady as she goes, more of the same, with a couple of eye catching changes only. It's not exciting, and some may think it a very poor offer, but given the unexpected realism of taking away freebies for their elderly support base, it is quite clear they wanted the offer to be Tory realism vs Labour fantasy - I doubt they expected it to go down as poorly as they thought though.
Has it gone down poorly outside the frothing ? The Tory vote has hardly moved, and is certainly inside margin of error. Labour has been increasing, but at the expense of the LDs and the Kippers, both of whom are flirting with oblivion.... plus no one seriously believes Labour are going to get 38% anyway, so the question then become who will be the benefiaries of the maybe 5-6% of Labour voters that in practise don't support them at the vote. If they stay at home, that is an implicit boost to the vote share of the other parties.
It hasn't seemed to depress the Tory vote, but it seems to have coincided with firing up opposition to them under Labour. If they don't stay at home, that's significant.
I live in a tight midlands marginal (Con held, Lab facing) where the Lib Dems came 4th last time. I'm a Lib Dem who thinks that Farron is a totally useless idiot and I want to see him gone... but the local Lib Dem candidate is very impressive. Also there's a very good independent candidate standing who I could comfortably vote for too. Then I get worried that Corbyn might get in and have moments where I think I might vote for the Conservative candidate (who is not someone I like at all).
I really don't know which way I'll jump. I'm torn about 49%/49% between the Lib Dem and the independent. 2% Conservative (but more when I see closer polls).
Vote LD. It is all part of the longterm fightback. It was never going to be a short journey.
I am in a safe seat, but will be voting for our excellent local LD candidate. We are LibDems, so there is no prospect of Farron as PM. It is all about building for the future.
The LDs look as if they are finished. I wouldn't be surprised if Farron is their only representative in the new Parliament. If one doesn't want a large Tory majority, one should vote Labour in most of England & Wales (PC in Y Fro Gymraeg) and SNP north of the Border.
They do look pretty finished, and could end up with no more seats or even fewer than now on June 9th, but do you really think they are in danger of losing all their seats other than Westmoreland? Yes, it is the only one with a decent sized majority, and yes, in some of them there is reason to suspect they could get slightly backwards or simply get swamped by a Tory surge, that 2015 is not the lowpoint for them in those seats, but some of them will be very tough to seize nevertheless - Orkney went back to LD strongly at Holyrood, Edinburgh South looks very promising as a rare rare Gain, and Ceredigion cannot be taken for granted but seems very possible given the main opposition is PC, and that's just to name 3 seats. 4-13 seams a good range from bad night to good night.
It does look as if the national LD vote will be slightly up overall, but at risk from red and blue surges. On the other hand there is concentration of effort over roughly 20 seats, and these are much stronger areas, usually in a 2 way fight.
LDs will be restablished as the 3rd party after this election, and well placed for 2022, which is my target for a mpre significant comeback.
The vote will be static or slightly up perhaps - they need to get a more Scotland style distribution to save their current seats and win a few more (Cambridge has to be out of reach now).
I have no time for Diane Abbot at all. I have looked at a clip her Marr interview in which she is pressed on her 1984 comments re-the IRA, and whilst she does not admit to having been wrong she does repeat that she 'has moved on'. I suspect that most people hearing that would treat that as a statement that she no longer holds the same views - ie that she has changed her mind.. I suspect that the impact of her remarks on the typical viewer will be much less dramatic than assumed by political anoraks on sites such as this. I say this as someone who cannot abide her!
Abbot's poll ratings are in the toilet. It's a fruitful line of attack.
I would happily see Labour win 10 more seats elsewhere if it meant that, somehow, Abbott lost her seat. Obviously not happening though.
Thank you. Can you quote the part you mean, please?
Corbyn was the General Secretary of the Editorial Board of Labour Briefing when it published a special supplement on the Brighton Bombing:
In its December 1984 leader, editorial board “disassociated itself” from an article the previous month criticising the bombing, saying the criticism was a “serious political misjudgment.”
The board said it “reaffirmed its support for, and solidarity with, the Irish republican movement” and added that “the British only sit up and take notice [of Ireland] when they are bombed into it.”
Alongside its editorial, the board reprinted a speech by Gerry Adams describing the bombing as a "blow for democracy" and the "inevitable result of the British presence in [Ireland]."
Briefing earlier stated: “We refuse to parrot the ritual condemnation of ‘violence’ because we insist on placing responsibility where it lies…. 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 UK is home to 23,000 jihadists, security sources believe.
23,000.
That means, out of a Muslim population of 2.6 million, almost one in every hundred is a jihadist - not just a bit ranty, or slightly radical, but a jihadist
1% of UK Muslims want to wage war on us, and blow up our children. That means every mosque will have a few like this.
And these are the active Islamofascists, the ones prepared to use guns on us. How many are passive sympathisers, who might give money, or help, or turn a blind eye. 5% of UK Muslims? 10%? Are there 100,000 sympathisers, or 200,000?
Terrifying.
1 in 100 in total, but that includes children, elderly people, women.
Yes, the more you think about it, the more terrifying it is. Completely dwarfs the IRA, which only had about 1500 members at its brief, early 70s peak, and most of them were in Ulster/Ireland
23,000
Jesus.
The IRA had about 100,000 sympathisers and fellow travellers in Northern Ireland, and probably similar numbers in the Republic and England and Scotland.
You're taking a broad definition of sympathisers there, but then that might equate to the third of British Muslims - almost a million - who would, apparently, like to see liberal British democracy destroyed, and replaced by Islam and Sharia.
In the early Seventies, there were about 500,000 Catholics in Northern Ireland. A significant minority of them in the rural heartlands of Republicanism simply detested Protestants and Unionists, viewing them as interlopers and oppressors, and wanted them out of Northern Ireland. These are the people who would always turn a blind eye to IRA activity, and always offer excuses for it. And of course, they had their loyalist equivalents.
Hard to say. He's slick, he's presentable, he's more authoritative, but as SeanT notes, there's something in Corbyn's offbeat, quiet, slightly unkempt approach that people really get enthused about, and I think his approach would be less appealing to those people.
Yes, count me in there. I think McDonnell is highly intelligent and has done a good job of making a serious effort on economic issues, but as he engagingly says of himself, "Jeremy is teaching me to be a nicer person but i'm only halfway through the course."
But he doesn't want to be leader, and has said so emphatically on repeated occasions.
I am in deep on this market. But we could be waiting some time for any winnings.
Difficult to see Cooper getting it, if this election does not turn out to be the disaster for Corbyn that most were predicting originally. It is likely to be a successor chosen and supported by him, when he eventually goes.
Right now I'd have to say McIRA may well get it. And the Tories had better have a superior campaign to this one if he's leading Labour in 2022.
Hope he is not put forward by Corbyn as his successor. I would happily vote for most centre left canandidates in a leadership election, but don't think I could vote for McD, he comes with far too much baggage.
Based purely on Twitter, I'd say that Labour activists aren't all that left wing. They just like Corbyn. I don't think Corbyn's successor has to be from the same pedigree.
Thank you. Can you quote the part you mean, please?
Corbyn was the General Secretary of the Editorial Board of Labour Briefing when it published a special supplement on the Brighton Bombing:
In its December 1984 leader, editorial board “disassociated itself” from an article the previous month criticising the bombing, saying the criticism was a “serious political misjudgment.”
The board said it “reaffirmed its support for, and solidarity with, the Irish republican movement” and added that “the British only sit up and take notice [of Ireland] when they are bombed into it.”
Alongside its editorial, the board reprinted a speech by Gerry Adams describing the bombing as a "blow for democracy" and the "inevitable result of the British presence in [Ireland]."
Briefing earlier stated: “We refuse to parrot the ritual condemnation of ‘violence’ because we insist on placing responsibility where it lies…. 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.”
I have no time for Diane Abbot at all. I have looked at a clip her Marr interview in which she is pressed on her 1984 comments re-the IRA, and whilst she does not admit to having been wrong she does repeat that she 'has moved on'. I suspect that most people hearing that would treat that as a statement that she no longer holds the same views - ie that she has changed her mind.. I suspect that the impact of her remarks on the typical viewer will be much less dramatic than assumed by political anoraks on sites such as this. I say this as someone who cannot abide her!
Abbot's poll ratings are in the toilet. It's a fruitful line of attack.
I like Diane Abbot. Whatever she says, I just can't seem to be upset with her.
Comments
And they are offering things - steady as she goes, more of the same, with a couple of eye catching changes only. It's not exciting, and some may think it a very poor offer, but given the unexpected realism of taking away freebies for their elderly support base, it is quite clear they wanted the offer to be Tory realism vs Labour fantasy - I doubt they expected it to go down as poorly as they thought though.
LDs will be restablished as the 3rd party after this election, and well placed for 2022, which is my target for a mpre significant comeback.
I would love to have seen it seriously questioned as ambiguous, but the only person present for looking at the questionable ballots was the Tory candidate, who was so far ahead she didn't care to make a fuss.
Good luck.
In its December 1984 leader, editorial board “disassociated itself” from an article the previous month criticising the bombing, saying the criticism was a “serious political misjudgment.”
The board said it “reaffirmed its support for, and solidarity with, the Irish republican movement” and added that “the British only sit up and take notice [of Ireland] when they are bombed into it.”
Alongside its editorial, the board reprinted a speech by Gerry Adams describing the bombing as a "blow for democracy" and the "inevitable result of the British presence in [Ireland]."
Briefing earlier stated: “We refuse to parrot the ritual condemnation of ‘violence’ because we insist on placing responsibility where it lies…. 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.”
NEW THREAD
But he doesn't want to be leader, and has said so emphatically on repeated occasions.