Am I missing something? The bit in red is the truth.
"... the peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA"
3,000+ dead people where also due to the action of the IRA. I do not see McDonnell shouting about that.
If the British Government was less intransigent and really cared for a settlement, a lot of those lives could have been saved. Very easy to paint this in black and white, between good and evil etc - we all know it's more complex than that.
Absolute rubbish. The British Governments, both Tory and Labour, tried the approach of secret negotiations with the Republicans in the early and mid-1970s. That achieved nothing but a rising death tolll. Then in 1976 Labour's Roy Mason, one of the true heroes of the Troubles, was appointed Northern Ireland Secretary. He completely reversed the policy, and embarked on a tough-minded new strategy of treating the the IRA as hardened criminals instead of political warriors, a policy known as "normalisation." He was fiercely opposed by the British left, but his strategy worked in the long-term. Ultimately, the IRA were beaten by the security forces. Their entire organisation was riddled with British informers. Their casualties were unsustainable. That is why they surrendered, though they dressed up their capitulation in rhetoric about the peace process.. And it was also why Corbyn is such a foul hypocrite on Northern Ireland. He now pretends that he wanted peace, but he vociferously opposed the very thing that brought peace to my homeland: the defeat of the IRA.
I grew up in and around North Belfast and my father's shop was on the Old Park Road with Ardoyne being a short walk up the hill toward Ballysillan. It was generally accepted knowledge that the paramilitaries on both sides were no more than gangsters and a lot of the fighting was squabbling over the protection rackets used on local businesses or the black taxi firms.
I think we can confidently expect to see some sort of land value tax in the 2022 Conservative manifesto?
As a big supporter of the Land Value Tax,* I would love that, But I think it is highly unlikely to become Tory policy, Teresa May is pushing the party as fast as she can away form classical liberalism, and economic sense. while a big chunk of the Parys supporters should stand to lose out.
I won't go in to a big essay hear, but Denmark has a LVT and is IMO one of the reasons why that country has both high tax revenue and thriving free market economy.
*Technically, all tax is steeling, so I don't so much support it as see it as by far the lest bad option, so may be support is the wrong word?
Who decides the value?
That is a good question and one of the reasons that for a long time I was sceptical. But now that I have seen that it has been implemented in Denmark, and Estonia, and the US city of Pittsburgh, I think it is not an insurmountable problem.
The value should be what the free market would value it as if it was on sale, (and undeveloped) so it has to be with reference to property that has been sold in the area recently. nowadays there are computer algorithms used by estate agents to estimate values, So I would suggest doing something similar.
I agree. Can't be that hard to produce a decent valuation methodology. The tax is going to be a very small % of value anyway. So being out by £5k valuing a house might be as small a difference as £50 a year?
Yes unlike the council tax band system, being a grand over or under estimated value would put you in a higher tax band and a big difference in tax rate. With a Land Value Tax it wont massively affect if it is out by a small amount. in the Denmark it is between 1.6 and 3.4 % depending on which local government area you live in.
Evening all shouldn't May now take part in the debate tomorrow? I can kind of understand her reluctance when she was riding high in the polls. Now she has to take that risk.
naaaah.. let corbyn make a fool of himself. few are fooled
Evening all shouldn't May now take part in the debate tomorrow? I can kind of understand her reluctance when she was riding high in the polls. Now she has to take that risk.
She's still in front and would win comfortably and Corbyn's not there if she isn't, so he won't directly benefit from her no showing, she doesn't have to take the risk. He should change his tune and go, that would make her look really bad.
Evening all shouldn't May now take part in the debate tomorrow? I can kind of understand her reluctance when she was riding high in the polls. Now she has to take that risk.
No she doesn't. She is still 7/8 maybe 12% ahead. The point is to lower the viewing figures if she goes on it it will have high figures and the Libdems or SNP or UKIP might surge.
Is this stuff really cutting through? It ought to, but it's amazing how many people I speak to are indifferent or have the attitude that 'it was 20 years ago', as if Corbyn's past behaviour and words indicate nothing about how safe he'd keep the country today.
I can forgive youngsters for not really grasping the lunacy of letting Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott near the levers of power. I was young and naïve once (now I am just naïve) & Jezza does have a sort of noble, rebellious quality to him if you don't scratch the surface.
The oldies who would let these nutcases in No 10 out of partisan hate for the Tories should be ashamed of themselves though
Didn't you claim after the Labour manifesto came out that you were a "floating voter"?
LOL. Mr Isam sadly is a bit of a joke on here. Treat his comments with the disdain they deserve.
Oh am I?! Nice
Yes, your view on immigrants, islam etc is bordering on the offensive at times. That is my opinion and you'll disagree but hey-ho.
Evening all shouldn't May now take part in the debate tomorrow? I can kind of understand her reluctance when she was riding high in the polls. Now she has to take that risk.
She's still in front and would win comfortably and Corbyn's not there if she isn't, so he won't directly benefit from her no showing, she doesn't have to take the risk. He should change his tune and go, that would make her look really bad.
Apparently he is now thinking of going so she should make the first move.
I generally base my comments on Corbynistas on Twitter (which is representative of the Left to an extent) and my real life experiences. Maybe there's a chance that a lot of Corbynistsas are willing to engage without automatically calling you a Blairite or a Tory, but sadly that's not been my experience.
I can't comment on that Laura K tweet as I didn't see it.
I agree with you on Andrew Neil - he's the best political interviewer on TV. I also agree with you on Paxman, he was bloody awful yesterday. He got universally bad reviews across pundits of all stripes on Twitter yesterday as well. Even Dan Hodges was pretty critical of him.
I don't use Twitter much but can well imaginr that it appeals to the knee-jerk types always ready to hate someone. On the doorstep, Momentum and Progress types are mingling pretty amicably, including some who haven't got on that well for a long time. The sense of common effort for a common cause is ironing out past mistrust to quite a large extent, especially as it seems to be going quite well. None of us have much time for the characters who just sit at home tweeting!
Evening all shouldn't May now take part in the debate tomorrow? I can kind of understand her reluctance when she was riding high in the polls. Now she has to take that risk.
She's still in front and would win comfortably and Corbyn's not there if she isn't, so he won't directly benefit from her no showing, she doesn't have to take the risk. He should change his tune and go, that would make her look really bad.
Apparently he is now thinking of going so she should make the first move.
Am I missing something? The bit in red is the truth.
"... the peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA"
3,000+ dead people where also due to the action of the IRA. I do not see McDonnell shouting about that.
If the British Government was less intransigent and really cared for a settlement, a lot of those lives could have been saved. Very easy to paint this in black and white, between good and evil etc - we all know it's more complex than that.
Oh I see... because they could not get what they wanted, killing 3,000 people over 30 years - many of them from their own "side" - was fully justified?
You need to remove the blinkers my dear. It's far more complex. I am not saying that the IRA were angels - but they we're fighting for a better future for their people. Why do you think SF pile up votes in elections? If the IRA were truly evil, would they?
SF pile up votes because of the history that preceded the Troubles. It used to be the SDLP that got the nationalist vote just like the UUP got the unionist vote. When the IRA stopped killing people SF (its political arm) became more respectable and thus electable.
Northern Ireland was an incredibly bigoted and discriminatory society for decades before the 70s. When the IRA started its campaign, it was against the Stormont govt, not the Westminister one.
Evening all shouldn't May now take part in the debate tomorrow? I can kind of understand her reluctance when she was riding high in the polls. Now she has to take that risk.
She's still in front and would win comfortably and Corbyn's not there if she isn't, so he won't directly benefit from her no showing, she doesn't have to take the risk. He should change his tune and go, that would make her look really bad.
Apparently he is now thinking of going so she should make the first move.
bullshit
Labour surge has come about mainly as a result of a massive squeeze on the minor parties and return to a binary choice in England. Not sure it would be smart to undermine that by changing his mind.
Evening all shouldn't May now take part in the debate tomorrow? I can kind of understand her reluctance when she was riding high in the polls. Now she has to take that risk.
She's still in front and would win comfortably and Corbyn's not there if she isn't, so he won't directly benefit from her no showing, she doesn't have to take the risk. He should change his tune and go, that would make her look really bad.
Apparently he is now thinking of going so she should make the first move.
Or they could be trying to provoke that reaction - and so would wait for TM to say she will attend and then just send anyone-other-than-Corbyn.
It would end up with everyone attacking May and no-one noticing Labour is really there.
May is right to refuse to engage with these 'debates'
Is this stuff really cutting through? It ought to, but it's amazing how many people I speak to are indifferent or have the attitude that 'it was 20 years ago', as if Corbyn's past behaviour and words indicate nothing about how safe he'd keep the country today.
I can forgive youngsters for not really grasping the lunacy of letting Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott near the levers of power. I was young and naïve once (now I am just naïve) & Jezza does have a sort of noble, rebellious quality to him if you don't scratch the surface.
The oldies who would let these nutcases in No 10 out of partisan hate for the Tories should be ashamed of themselves though
Didn't you claim after the Labour manifesto came out that you were a "floating voter"?
LOL. Mr Isam sadly is a bit of a joke on here. Treat his comments with the disdain they deserve.
Oh am I?! Nice
Yes, your view on immigrants, islam etc is bordering on the offensive at times. That is my opinion and you'll disagree but hey-ho.
Your views on virtually everything are offensive. That is my opinion and you'll disagree, but hey-ho...
Evening all shouldn't May now take part in the debate tomorrow? I can kind of understand her reluctance when she was riding high in the polls. Now she has to take that risk.
She's still in front and would win comfortably and Corbyn's not there if she isn't, so he won't directly benefit from her no showing, she doesn't have to take the risk. He should change his tune and go, that would make her look really bad.
But not as bad if she screws up. She has a lot more to lose than Corbyn, ie, the election.
I think we can confidently expect to see some sort of land value tax in the 2022 Conservative manifesto?
As a big supporter of the Land Value Tax,* I would love that, But I think it is highly unlikely to become Tory policy, Teresa May is pushing the party as fast as she can away form classical liberalism, and economic sense. while a big chunk of the Parys supporters should stand to lose out.
I won't go in to a big essay hear, but Denmark has a LVT and is IMO one of the reasons why that country has both high tax revenue and thriving free market economy.
*Technically, all tax is steeling, so I don't so much support it as see it as by far the lest bad option, so may be support is the wrong word?
Who decides the value?
That is a good question and one of the reasons that for a long time I was sceptical. But now that I have seen that it has been implemented in Denmark, and Estonia, and the US city of Pittsburgh, I think it is not an insurmountable problem.
The value should be what the free market would value it as if it was on sale, (and undeveloped) so it has to be with reference to property that has been sold in the area recently. nowadays there are computer algorithms used by estate agents to estimate values, So I would suggest doing something similar.
Would it be in addition to, or instead of business rates ?
Instead, absolutely instead. Any tax could be used to raise more tax and I recognise some other supporters of a LVT do want that, but for me no it would be as a replacement, first off replacing council tax and business rates, and then over time faze out national insurance corporation tax and possibly income tax (amongst others)
I am a low tax/no tax libertarian so I don't want any increase in the over all burden of taxation, but I also see there is a very big difference in the economic damage done by some taxes compared to others so Its possible, in fact probable, that cutting 50 Billion of other taxes and then raising 75 Billion with a LVT would over all be better for the economy. which is why I don't have a problem allaying on this issue with varies 'lefty's' and greens, who I know also want to raze the total tax take.
Evening all shouldn't May now take part in the debate tomorrow? I can kind of understand her reluctance when she was riding high in the polls. Now she has to take that risk.
She's still in front and would win comfortably and Corbyn's not there if she isn't, so he won't directly benefit from her no showing, she doesn't have to take the risk. He should change his tune and go, that would make her look really bad.
Apparently he is now thinking of going so she should make the first move.
Or they could be trying to provoke that reaction - and so would wait for TM to say she will attend and then just send anyone-other-than-Corbyn.
It would end up with everyone attacking May and no-one noticing Labour is really there.
May is right to refuse to engage with these 'debates'
The only reason we have these ridiculous debates w 7 people in them is because Cameron gerrymandered it in 2015 to dilute the influence of Farage. Now that issue is resolved it should be the big 2 only
Evening all shouldn't May now take part in the debate tomorrow? I can kind of understand her reluctance when she was riding high in the polls. Now she has to take that risk.
She's still in front and would win comfortably and Corbyn's not there if she isn't, so he won't directly benefit from her no showing, she doesn't have to take the risk. He should change his tune and go, that would make her look really bad.
But not as bad if she screws up. She has a lot more to lose than Corbyn, ie, the election.
Oh I don't think she should go, having been so adamantly against it (though I think she should have agreed in the first place), she has more to lose now, as you say. But Corbyn has more to gain, potentially, by going even if he could also lose from doing so.
Am I missing something? The bit in red is the truth.
"... the peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA"
3,000+ dead people where also due to the action of the IRA. I do not see McDonnell shouting about that.
Brighton Bombing almost killed Thatcher, the IRA mortared Downing St, both were attempts at regime change. Add on the loss of lives in Belfast, Londonderry, Canary Wharf, Warrington and it is possible to understand why Corbyn and McDonnell are not trusted by their contemporaries. They both beneath contempt.
One sided bollocks! Probably resonates with a simpleton like you!
It is not one sided to those who went through it. I have a great mistrust of Corbyn, and McDonnell in particular as I grew up in Warrington. I had school friends who were in town when the bomb went off. My neighbour was injured by Shrapnel. And why did they blow up a shopping street on Saturday lunchtime - because they had people arrested on the nearby M6! 2 children killed because some of the other cowards got arrested.
Can you not see that all the Tories are doing to Labour is compilations of their own statements. It's so devastating because you can't argue with it.
Evening all shouldn't May now take part in the debate tomorrow? I can kind of understand her reluctance when she was riding high in the polls. Now she has to take that risk.
She's still in front and would win comfortably and Corbyn's not there if she isn't, so he won't directly benefit from her no showing, she doesn't have to take the risk. He should change his tune and go, that would make her look really bad.
But not as bad if she screws up. She has a lot more to lose than Corbyn, ie, the election.
Agreed but I think there is a real risk she is going to lose. She needs to regain the initiative.
7 way debate is actually low risk for May and Corbyn because it's not a debate - having 7 people means it's just a series of short statements with minimal interaction / follow-up (even in the opened up sections).
Evening all shouldn't May now take part in the debate tomorrow? I can kind of understand her reluctance when she was riding high in the polls. Now she has to take that risk.
She's still in front and would win comfortably and Corbyn's not there if she isn't, so he won't directly benefit from her no showing, she doesn't have to take the risk. He should change his tune and go, that would make her look really bad.
But not as bad if she screws up. She has a lot more to lose than Corbyn, ie, the election.
Agreed but I think there is a real risk she is going to lose. She needs to regain the initiative.
I think she took a big step forward with her speech today. To change her mind on appearing would look 'weak and wobbly'.
As some of you know I am in Sri Lanka now for a visit (I am ethnically Tamil) and can see the parallels between the IRA and the LTTE. The massive difference was that for whatever reason the IRA came to the negotiating table and a peace was agreed. Sadly the LTTE continued solely as a military force till their brutal defeat in 2009. Even though there is peace now, it's a victors' peace with the Tamil people essentially confirmed as second class citizens. At least the IRA didn't allow that to happen to their constituency.
We better not have their meat or butter nor from New Zealand.. mind you it never "went off" in the old days
Thornberry is a fool.
Maybe that's why NZ lamb tastes different.. its slightly off?
Its what Thornberry is saying thats slightly off NZ lamb is IMHO the best in the world. Never tasted it fresh, only from frozen.. but from frozen it wins every time.
She didn't mean it, clearly. Everyone who votes Tory is apparently voting explicitly for a slightly lower standard of living in return for more sovereignty and lower immigration.
The Baby Boomers are voting themselves one last blast of privilege and champagne whilst handing the bill to those following them
Yet they are worst off under the Tories' plan.
Are they? The vast majority of them will not go into care. About 1 in 3 do so.
Evening all shouldn't May now take part in the debate tomorrow? I can kind of understand her reluctance when she was riding high in the polls. Now she has to take that risk.
She's still in front and would win comfortably and Corbyn's not there if she isn't, so he won't directly benefit from her no showing, she doesn't have to take the risk. He should change his tune and go, that would make her look really bad.
But not as bad if she screws up. She has a lot more to lose than Corbyn, ie, the election.
Oh I don't think she should go, having been so adamantly against it (though I think she should have agreed in the first place), she has more to lose now, as you say. But Corbyn has more to gain, potentially, by going even if he could also lose from doing so.
I still reckon the upsides for him are minimal. He's not Barack Obama - he's Jeremy Corbyn. He hasn't suddenly become a star attraction, or a polished performer. He's a daft old sod who is bewildered and flattered by his loony groupees.
Friday's QT will be a re-run of the C4/Sky debate, with more emphasis on Brexit.
Unless someone makes a Gordon Brown 'bigoted woman' style cock up, not much is going to change either way from now until election day.
She didn't mean it, clearly. Everyone who votes Tory is apparently voting explicitly for a slightly lower standard of living in return for more sovereignty and lower immigration.
The Baby Boomers are voting themselves one last blast of privilege and champagne whilst handing the bill to those following them
Yet they are worst off under the Tories' plan.
Are they? The vast majority of them will not go into care. About 1 in 3 do so.
Forgetting WFA? Which the lib dems and labour are protecting. Bet those millionaire pensioners are chuffed to bits.
Evening all shouldn't May now take part in the debate tomorrow? I can kind of understand her reluctance when she was riding high in the polls. Now she has to take that risk.
She's still in front and would win comfortably and Corbyn's not there if she isn't, so he won't directly benefit from her no showing, she doesn't have to take the risk. He should change his tune and go, that would make her look really bad.
But not as bad if she screws up. She has a lot more to lose than Corbyn, ie, the election.
Agreed but I think there is a real risk she is going to lose. She needs to regain the initiative.
I think she took a big step forward with her speech today. To change her mind on appearing would look 'weak and wobbly'.
There has been very little in the way of canvassing reports suggesting that the campaign on the ground is following the media and polling narrative. Given how accurate the Tory targeting was in the last election (amid widespread derision in many places) it is probably wise to assume they still know what they're doing.
We better not have their meat or butter nor from New Zealand.. mind you it never "went off" in the old days
Thornberry is a fool.
Maybe that's why NZ lamb tastes different.. its slightly off?
Its what Thornberry is saying thats slightly off NZ lamb is IMHO the best in the world. Never tasted it fresh, only from frozen.. but from frozen it wins every time.
As some of you know I am in Sri Lanka now for a visit (I am ethnically Tamil) and can see the parallels between the IRA and the LTTE. The massive difference was that for whatever reason the IRA came to the negotiating table and a peace was agreed. Sadly the LTTE continued solely as a military force till their brutal defeat in 2009. Even though there is peace now, it's a victors' peace with the Tamil people essentially confirmed as second class citizens. At least the IRA didn't allow that to happen to their constituency.
.....and yet you are still a Corbyn apologist. The mind boggles.
Will stick to perceptions and an expat view. Remember there is no one under 60. Majority con 99.5% Lib dem (me and my wife) (0.5%) Labour nil including traditional working class labour voters for the whole of their lives. Now anybody who has been over 15 years can't vote Many will note vote I'll vote if I get my ballot paper in time which apparently was sent out on the 19th
Still not had anybody run out to throw my leaflet back at me, still not had anyone telling me to "fuck off!" I'm not used to it being this civil.....
Is that what usually happens? I've canvassed in places from Glasgow tenements to Sussex villages for 50 years, and neither of those events has ever happened to me! Torbay must be a jolly scary place.
Leaflets being thrown back at you by someone running out their house? Oh yes. Usually several times each election.
I usually encounter at least one very angry or hectoring person as well, who also tries to sabotage your work with neighbours and passers by, but they are rare.
To be fair, I've had the same in the past when delivering non-political leaflets. I think some people sit alone, stewing in their own bile, and a leafletter is the perfect outlet.
I had one guy put his son outside his door, to try and stop me delivering the leaflet, which didn't click with me at the time, and I just said "excuse me, sorry mate", and I just dodged past him to post it.
Then he theatrically pushed the leaflet back out his own letterbox about ten seconds later, all scrunched up, littering his own front porch in doing so but did nothing to pick it up (I was about two homes down the road by then, as I work fast) and his son was laughing at me, with the father swearing - I presume, he said something, although I couldn't quite hear what it was.
I was shocked, but shrugged it off and carried on.
Some people are just quite angry and resentful in general, and looking for a target.
About 1% of the population exhibit psychopathological tendencies so you are quite likely to come across it when canvassing.
I'm sure nobody on PB comes from that 1%.
Back in the eighties an enthusiastic friend of mine was very left wing. He sold Labour Briefing, which is the only reason I had heard of it before the current election. I don't think even he actually read it mind. But he was canvassing on a council estate and got into an argument with an old woman. He annoyed her so much she bit him. He decided to go to the doctors and get a jab just in case. He then reacted to the jab and ended up in hospital. It meant he missed the 1983 election results, which he wouldn't have enjoyed at all. So it wasn't entirely bad.
It's best to walk away from such people. There's nothing to be gained from prolonging debate.
That is a good question and one of the reasons that for a long time I was sceptical. But now that I have seen that it has been implemented in Denmark, and Estonia, and the US city of Pittsburgh, I think it is not an insurmountable problem.
The value should be what the free market would value it as if it was on sale, (and undeveloped) so it has to be with reference to property that has been sold in the area recently. nowadays there are computer algorithms used by estate agents to estimate values, So I would suggest doing something similar.
I agree. Can't be that hard to produce a decent valuation methodology. The tax is going to be a very small % of value anyway. So being out by £5k valuing a house might be as small a difference as £50 a year?
Doesn't work for houses but for land and property with no sentimental value:
"Value it yourself, on the proviso that if someone offers you 10% over your valuation, you are compelled to sell".
Evening all shouldn't May now take part in the debate tomorrow? I can kind of understand her reluctance when she was riding high in the polls. Now she has to take that risk.
She's still in front and would win comfortably and Corbyn's not there if she isn't, so he won't directly benefit from her no showing, she doesn't have to take the risk. He should change his tune and go, that would make her look really bad.
But not as bad if she screws up. She has a lot more to lose than Corbyn, ie, the election.
Agreed but I think there is a real risk she is going to lose. She needs to regain the initiative.
The ICM poll today still gives her a 12 point lead. Given the splits in support by age the Tories must already be many hundreds of thousands of votes ahead with postal votes cast.
As some of you know I am in Sri Lanka now for a visit (I am ethnically Tamil) and can see the parallels between the IRA and the LTTE. The massive difference was that for whatever reason the IRA came to the negotiating table and a peace was agreed. Sadly the LTTE continued solely as a military force till their brutal defeat in 2009. Even though there is peace now, it's a victors' peace with the Tamil people essentially confirmed as second class citizens. At least the IRA didn't allow that to happen to their constituency.
The Republicans came to the negotiating table because they were beaten. Gerry Adams and his allies did not suddenly see the light. They simply did no longer had the capacity to carry on the armed struggle.
Evening all shouldn't May now take part in the debate tomorrow? I can kind of understand her reluctance when she was riding high in the polls. Now she has to take that risk.
She's still in front and would win comfortably and Corbyn's not there if she isn't, so he won't directly benefit from her no showing, she doesn't have to take the risk. He should change his tune and go, that would make her look really bad.
But not as bad if she screws up. She has a lot more to lose than Corbyn, ie, the election.
Agreed but I think there is a real risk she is going to lose. She needs to regain the initiative.
I think she took a big step forward with her speech today. To change her mind on appearing would look 'weak and wobbly'.
She shouldn't have been spooked by the knee jerk social care policy reaction.
ICM gives the Tories a 15 point lead in England (the Tories and Labour are tied in the North). In Wales Labour has a 20 point lead. In Scotland the Tories are up to 26% with the SNP on 43% https://www.icmunlimited.com/polls/
The difference between Tories on 26 and 28 in my model (depending on the exact switching matrix) is huge. It's pretty much he difference between taking only gaining BRS and putting 20 seats in play.
As some of you know I am in Sri Lanka now for a visit (I am ethnically Tamil) and can see the parallels between the IRA and the LTTE. The massive difference was that for whatever reason the IRA came to the negotiating table and a peace was agreed. Sadly the LTTE continued solely as a military force till their brutal defeat in 2009. Even though there is peace now, it's a victors' peace with the Tamil people essentially confirmed as second class citizens. At least the IRA didn't allow that to happen to their constituency.
.....and yet you are still a Corbyn apologist. The mind boggles.
Just because I like to challenge a few views does not make me an apologist. JC is crap, I have always said that. I have also said that TMay is also crap, probably the worst PM we have ever had.
I know Labour want to avoid talking about Brexit at all costs but it's time journalists/interviewers pinned them down over this.
We are only just under three weeks away from one of the biggest issues this country has faced in a while and I want to know who is going to be their on negotiating team. Have they done any work on this, etc, etc.
Those Labour MPs' who put Jeremy Corbyn on the ballot paper have a lot to answer for. God help this country if he gets in.
I don't always agree with Liz Kendall, but the way she has been vilified by Corbynistas has been terrible. They really hate the idea of the Labour party being a board church.
Another one who they seem to truly *hate* is Laura K. I've never noticed anything wrong with her reports all in all, but according to Corbynistas that I know apparently, she's always biased against Corbyn....
I don't always agree with Liz Kendall, but the way she has been vilified by Corbynistas has been terrible. They really hate the idea of the Labour party being a board church.
Another one who they seem to truly *hate* is Laura K. I've never noticed anything wrong with her reports all in all, but according to Corbynistas that I know apparently, she's always biased against Corbyn....
According to the BBC Trust she is too
It's not so much her bias, it's her shrill, self important grandstanding. Worse Beeb political correspondent in a generation.
The standard of MP's is really, really low right now.
On the Labour that is true but the conservatives have a lot of talent on their back benches. I hope Theresa May, if she wins, has the courage to promote some of them and has a massive clearout of all those tired old faces on the front bench.
Absolute rubbish. The British Governments, both Tory and Labour, tried the approach of secret negotiations with the Republicans in the early and mid-1970s. That achieved nothing but a rising death tolll. Then in 1976 Labour's Roy Mason, one of the true heroes of the Troubles, was appointed Northern Ireland Secretary. He completely reversed the policy, and embarked on a tough-minded new strategy of treating the the IRA as hardened criminals instead of political warriors, a policy known as "normalisation." He was fiercely opposed by the British left, but his strategy worked in the long-term. Ultimately, the IRA were beaten by the security forces. Their entire organisation was riddled with British informers. Their casualties were unsustainable. That is why they surrendered, though they dressed up their capitulation in rhetoric about the peace process.. And it was also why Corbyn is such a foul hypocrite on Northern Ireland. He now pretends that he wanted peace, but he vociferously opposed the very thing that brought peace to my homeland: the defeat of the IRA.
Your version of history completely leaves the Protestant paramilitaries out of it.
The loyalist thugs were far stronger than the IRA thugs. They were stronger than all of the nationalist paramilitaries and the entire armed forces of the Irish Republic put together. It was Protestant forces that scuppered British efforts in the early 1970s to bring about peace by means of power-sharing. The IRA may have opposed Sunningdale on paper but their opposition was weak compared to the "physical force" loyalist opposition. Loyalist thugs broke the peace effort using violence and by threatening a bloodbath that would have made the troubles up until then look minor. Dublin got car-bombed. Nearly 40 civilians were killed during the two week general strike, the enforcers of which included guys who got home from their jobs as policemen and went out in the evenings wearing balaclavas. All of those civilians were killed by loyalist paramilitaries. Britain realised they couldn't keep control of the power stations and couldn't defeat the loyalist thugs so they took on the republican thugs instead, over a course of many years. The troubles continued, with hundreds more killed. Eventually Britain did as you say defeat the IRA but it would have been far fucking better if there had been peace 20 years before.
I know Labour want to avoid talking about Brexit at all costs but it's time journalists/interviewers pinned them down over this.
We are only just under three weeks away from one of the biggest issues this country has faced in a while and I want to know who is going to be their on negotiating team. Have they done any work on this, etc, etc.
Those Labour MPs' who put Jeremy Corbyn on the ballot paper have a lot to answer for. God help this country if he gets in.
Labour could've semi-neutralised May's brexit baloney by saying clearly and simply that they would carry out the will of the people as expressed in the referendum vote. It's turned out that Labour hasn't needed to so far - they've managed to make the polls move on other issues, but the Tories' election-winning gap is (ironically, igws) built on brexit.
A few days ago TykeJohnno said: "eastern european immigration which is unskilled and poor and coming here not for a job then it can f--- right off.(Example the inner city I live)"
Which countires have actually implemented this, and how many people have they actually rounded up and deported after 3 months. Very few I would bet actually get deported I would guess. It's just not realistic. Best to not let them come here in the first place.
You don't have to deport them, you just don't give them any benefits that they're not entitled to. Despite appearances to the contrary, many EU migrants have played by the rules: they came, they failed, they returned.
One of the strangest sights on our streets has been migrant Big-Issue sellers; I'm not alone in finding this peculiar to say the least. Now the Big Issue might think it's only being kind, but it's fallen prey to abuse of its own system and the benefits system, and helped to foster the attitudes that enabled brexit, so it's been a foot-shooting rather than a do-gooding exercise.
I have sympathy for the Roma who make up a good percentage of the people we're talking about, but the UK govt would've been better off spending the millions it's spent on benefits for Roma emigrants, on schemes to improve their situation back home in Romania, Slovakia etc. It's sad in hindsight to realise that there are so many things that Blair, Brown and Cameron could've done themselves to improve the image of the EU over the last dozen years, instead of moaning.
Am I missing something? The bit in red is the truth.
"... the peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA"
3,000+ dead people where also due to the action of the IRA. I do not see McDonnell shouting about that.
If the British Government was less intransigent and really cared for a settlement, a lot of those lives could have been saved. Very easy to paint this in black and white, between good and evil etc - we all know it's more complex than that.
Absolute rubbish. The British Governments, both Tory and Labour, tried the approach of secret negotiations with the Republicans in the early and mid-1970s. That achieved nothing but a rising death tolll. Then in 1976 Labour's Roy Mason, one of the true heroes of the Troubles, was appointed Northern Ireland Secretary. He completely reversed the policy, and embarked on a tough-minded new strategy of treating the the IRA as hardened criminals instead of political warriors, a policy known as "normalisation." He was fiercely opposed by the British left, but his strategy worked in the long-term. Ultimately, the IRA were beaten by the security forces. Their entire organisation was riddled with British informers. Their casualties were unsustainable. That is why they surrendered, though they dressed up their capitulation in rhetoric about the peace process.. And it was also why Corbyn is such a foul hypocrite on Northern Ireland. He now pretends that he wanted peace, but he vociferously opposed the very thing that brought peace to my homeland: the defeat of the IRA.
The much derided David Trimble made a remark to the effect that each time he came to the negotiating table there was a bit less for his people. OTOH the IRA and Sinn Féin basically for what they wanted from the Good Friday Agreement. The timing was right for both parties.
Comments
I grew up in and around North Belfast and my father's shop was on the Old Park Road with Ardoyne being a short walk up the hill toward Ballysillan. It was generally accepted knowledge that the paramilitaries on both sides were no more than gangsters and a lot of the fighting was squabbling over the protection rackets used on local businesses or the black taxi firms.
2010 - Spoilt Ballot in Solihull. I couldn't bring myself to vote for Labour and I was upset that Lorely Burt voted for the Digital Economy Bill.
2015 - Green Party as a student in Newcastle upon Tyne East.
2017 - Lib Dem in Gateshead.
Never for a winner!
Northern Ireland was an incredibly bigoted and discriminatory society for decades before the 70s. When the IRA started its campaign, it was against the Stormont govt, not the Westminister one.
It would end up with everyone attacking May and no-one noticing Labour is really there.
May is right to refuse to engage with these 'debates'
Thornberry is a fool.
Instead, absolutely instead. Any tax could be used to raise more tax and I recognise some other supporters of a LVT do want that, but for me no it would be as a replacement, first off replacing council tax and business rates, and then over time faze out national insurance corporation tax and possibly income tax (amongst others)
I am a low tax/no tax libertarian so I don't want any increase in the over all burden of taxation, but I also see there is a very big difference in the economic damage done by some taxes compared to others so Its possible, in fact probable, that cutting 50 Billion of other taxes and then raising 75 Billion with a LVT would over all be better for the economy. which is why I don't have a problem allaying on this issue with varies 'lefty's' and greens, who I know also want to raze the total tax take.
With the benefit for myself of being about as far away as possible!
- 100% clash with Britain's Got Talent
- Lack of pre publicity
If Corbyn (and / or May) are going to go it needs to be announced today so they can do previews / build-up on TV news tonight.
Can you not see that all the Tories are doing to Labour is compilations of their own statements. It's so devastating because you can't argue with it.
Thornberry is a fool.
Friday's QT will be a re-run of the C4/Sky debate, with more emphasis on Brexit.
Unless someone makes a Gordon Brown 'bigoted woman' style cock up, not much is going to change either way from now until election day.
NEW THREAD
Remember there is no one under 60.
Majority con 99.5%
Lib dem (me and my wife) (0.5%)
Labour nil including traditional working class labour voters for the whole of their lives.
Now anybody who has been over 15 years can't vote
Many will note vote
I'll vote if I get my ballot paper in time which apparently was sent out on the 19th
"Value it yourself, on the proviso that if someone offers you 10% over your valuation, you are compelled to sell".
We are only just under three weeks away from one of the biggest issues this country has faced in a while and I want to know who is going to be their on negotiating team. Have they done any work on this, etc, etc.
Those Labour MPs' who put Jeremy Corbyn on the ballot paper have a lot to answer for. God help this country if he gets in.
On the Labour that is true but the conservatives have a lot of talent on their back benches. I hope Theresa May, if she wins, has the courage to promote some of them and has a massive clearout of all those tired old faces on the front bench.
The loyalist thugs were far stronger than the IRA thugs. They were stronger than all of the nationalist paramilitaries and the entire armed forces of the Irish Republic put together. It was Protestant forces that scuppered British efforts in the early 1970s to bring about peace by means of power-sharing. The IRA may have opposed Sunningdale on paper but their opposition was weak compared to the "physical force" loyalist opposition. Loyalist thugs broke the peace effort using violence and by threatening a bloodbath that would have made the troubles up until then look minor. Dublin got car-bombed. Nearly 40 civilians were killed during the two week general strike, the enforcers of which included guys who got home from their jobs as policemen and went out in the evenings wearing balaclavas. All of those civilians were killed by loyalist paramilitaries. Britain realised they couldn't keep control of the power stations and couldn't defeat the loyalist thugs so they took on the republican thugs instead, over a course of many years. The troubles continued, with hundreds more killed. Eventually Britain did as you say defeat the IRA but it would have been far fucking better if there had been peace 20 years before.
One of the strangest sights on our streets has been migrant Big-Issue sellers; I'm not alone in finding this peculiar to say the least. Now the Big Issue might think it's only being kind, but it's fallen prey to abuse of its own system and the benefits system, and helped to foster the attitudes that enabled brexit, so it's been a foot-shooting rather than a do-gooding exercise.
I have sympathy for the Roma who make up a good percentage of the people we're talking about, but the UK govt would've been better off spending the millions it's spent on benefits for Roma emigrants, on schemes to improve their situation back home in Romania, Slovakia etc. It's sad in hindsight to realise that there are so many things that Blair, Brown and Cameron could've done themselves to improve the image of the EU over the last dozen years, instead of moaning.