Looks like Jeremy Corbyn’s terrorist sympathies have been somewhat understated.
The Telegraph has a piece running tomorrow that sheds some rather unwholesome light on exactly what his position on the IRA was (is?)
It is the Telegraph of course and it has an agenda but the evidence appears to be a matter of record rather than heresay.
I suspect they waited for the conferences to be over before publishing, give the story the space it deserves but, wow. Reading through it, if any small proportion of it turns out to be true then it is very difficult to think he can continue. He had the opportunity to clear this up before it all came to light and he failed to do so…bad move.
I’d be interested to know what any Corbyn supporters think about this (if true of course) and whether it would have changed their voting had it come to light before the leadership election
I’m not surprised at all, to be honest. The old fashioned UK left has rarely found a perceived anti-imperialist, anti-UK, anti-US cause they could not support. The whole Ireland thing, well, there were discussions at a much higher level than those in the article going on at the time. The GFA took a long, long time to negotiate. “Your Majesty, may I present Mr McGuinness?” was the culmination of a process going back forever, to Thatchers’s PM-ship if not before.
Anyway, I think the rush of blood that allowed Corbyn to be elected is a disaster for the UK. He’s not capable of taking the country away from the Tory “starve the beast” agenda.
Essentially, where the fuck is he? There’s so much low-hanging fruit with this miserable bunch of spivs, that the Leader of the Opposition should be causing ministerial resignations on a weekly basis. “Can the Prime Minister detail the agreement between the Ministry of Justice and Saudi Arabia about providing judicial services, and furthermore can the Prime Minister clarify his policy on decapitation and crucifixion?”.
Obviously, as a foreigner, I’m coming from some degree of ignorance on this subject, but wasn’t there a tremendous amount of internal disagreement in the U.K. about how best to deal with the Ireland issue? Isn’t this simply dredging up old arguments about a settled problem, kind of like U.S. politicians bringing up one’s stance on Vietnam in 1970?
I do think that a potential national leader of a country with a nuclear deterrent publicly announcing that he would never authorise its use marks a combination of naivity and foolishness that is difficult to credit. Even if you wouldn’t ‘press the button’ (I wouldn’t unless under certain unlikely circumstances) you don’t tell potential enemies that.
A pity because the UK does need a distinct opposition party, even if you don’t agree with his policies its better to have a Labour party with its own identity rather than ‘Tory-Lite’ (why vote for them when you can have the real thing?).
The current situation wasn’t negotiated between sergeants, but between generals. One of those generals has been deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland since 2007. The British state is nothing if not pragmatic about that kind of thing (ruthless obviously, too, when it best suits, but still)
This doesn’t help me understand at all. Are you saying that the only people with a valid opinion are the ones who were high ranking at the time of the settlement? Seriously, I don’t get what you’re trying to tell me.
It’s just a lack of basic nous. “The content of any Prime Minister’s letter of last resort has never been revealed. I would not wish for mine to be the first”.
That’s it - end of fucking story, move on, make the news agenda about the looming tax credit impoverishment exercise or something. But no, grandpa Corbyn is doing what? Establishing a consensus? He needs to get a grip and go full barrel.
Which is kind of concerning in the leader of one of the two main political parties. As you say there are a myriad of different ways he could have responded to that question while still maintaining his personal integrity and beliefs, but no, he throws the nuclear deterrent and several hundreds of billions of pounds out of the window, should he actually become PM.
btw I’m personally undecided on whether the UK should retain the nuclear deterrent, mostly on the basis that if it is got rid of there is really no means to bring it back should the international situation change in the future. Sure, at the moment most of the conflicts and wars are low-level guerrilla and terrorist types that nuclear weapons have no place in, but who is to say that in the coming decades a deterrent won’t become useful again, we’re certainly heading in the direction of a second Cold War with Russia.
Yes, that’s an easily understood concept. But you’re using that concept to argue that Corbyn’s opinion in 1988 is damnable. That’s the part I don’t get.
I asked, “wasn’t there a tremendous amount of internal disagreement in the U.K. about how best to deal with the Ireland issue?” You are avoiding that question, as best I can tell.
I’ll be content to wait for an answer untill when you are sober, if that’s necessary.
What if the Viet Cong had launched a terror campaign on the streets of America, setting off bombs and killing civilians. And then a U.S. politician had attended multiple services commemorating the perpetrators as heroes, supporting and justifying their actions. Do you think he could then, later in life, be elected President of the United States?
I don’t think I did to be honest. All sorts of people had all sorts of viewpoints about Northern Ireland. Some who used violence ended up in government. Many were in government already. For avoidance of doubt, seeing as you need slow repetition, I don’t think Jeremy Corbyn is a good choice of Labour leader, for quite a lot of reasons.
Really? That’s what you do now? You used to have some responsibility around about this place. Easy to see why you no longer do, I guess
Well, of course you have. This thead is about Corbyn’s actions and views on Northern Ireland. You mention that he was only elected due to a 3 pound payment to the party. How is that relevant to the thread?
Wait, is it the Irish Catholics or the Irish Protestants that you’re equating to the Viet Cong? Both factions performed terrorist actions within the U.K.
If Corbyn had voiced Republican sympathies or associated himself with the political wing, Sinn Fein, it would not be such a big deal, in my opinion - there were undoubtedly inequalities and injustices that needed to be righted in Northern Ireland.
The trouble is, he supported the military wing who were committing terrorism offences against British civilians (as well as soldiers). Furthermore, he was against the peace process and supported the full Republican ideal of a united Ireland, to be brought about by the use of violence.
I think he was too far to the left to be electable by the British public, but if the story’s true then I think it’s the final nail in the coffin for his chances. I don’t see anyone credible, or with the necessary gravitas, waiting in the Labour wings either.
To be honest, in this thread, I am attempting to ignore the political arguments of today about Corbyn, those which attempt to portray him as unsuitable due simply to his stands on the issues of today. Some posters in this thread, including you, are using those arguments.
Regardless, this post is helpful on forming my views as to Corbyn’s actions and view in the past. Thank you.
I’d still like to ask: are there, or were there, British politicians who supported acts of terrorism against Catholic British civilians?