Evidence 2. Corbyn takes part in a minute's silence for terrorists,
At an Irish Republican event in 1987, Corbyn took part in a minute's silence to commemorate eight IRA men shot dead by the SAS as they travelled to attack a police station in County Armagh. 'I'm happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland,' he said.
- The Mail might just have an anti-Corbyn agenda. I say this before reading the article. Yes, doesn't make what it say automatically untrue
- This was thirty years ago. Change is possible in that time, surely? Any evidence that Corbyn has changed his stance
- This article is too long for me to refute every single claim individually, but I find the following particularly egregious: Too long?
"Following the terror attacks in Paris in 2015, Corbyn said he opposed police being allowed to shoot terror suspects, saying he's 'not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general'."Separate bit of evidence against Corbyn but doesn't invalidate the evidence.
Hang on. This is a bit of a false equivalence/straw man and recontextualises his words to fit the Mail's agenda.
Well done for at least having a go rather than just dismissing it all by saying "you're obsessed".
Yes, too long. I'll have a response for you, sentence by sentence if you like, sometime in 2020.
Much of it is likely valid. But then you get stuff like this:
In 1981, London Labour Briefing, a far-Left monthly journal that Corbyn helped run, published a letter from Liam McCloskey, a convicted terrorist, inviting readers to 'help us along the road to a Socialist Republic free from the chains of capitalism'.
- What was Corbyn's role? "Helped run" could mean absolutely anything.
- Corbyn didn't publish the letter himself, did he? Or even write it. Or even necessarily express its views.
- ... Capitalism isn't exactly perfect, but that's by the by.
----------------------
So yes, it's miles too long to properly refute if I'm going to be exercising critical thought on literally every bullet point. It is much, much easier for me to shit on the Mail like I usually do (well, I don't, because I wouldn't even want to use it as toilet paper).
I imagine it means he had a leading role within the paper, wiki would agree
"Jeremy Corbyn, later Leader of the Labour Party, became a regular contributor to London Labour Briefing in the 1980s, and was described by The Times in 1981 as "Briefing's founder".[2] The Economist in a 1982 article named Corbyn as "Briefing's general secretary figure",[3] as did a profile on Corbyn compiled by parliamentary biographer Andrew Roth in 2004,[4][5] which alleges that he joined the editorial board as General Secretary in 1979.[6] "
Helped run seems fairly accurate! If he was Indeed an editor then surely he's, at least partly responsible for what They print?
Fair play. Even so, we've just put in collectively, I imagine, several minutes' worth of research and typing and refutation to each other/the Mail, going off of one (seemingly accurate, in fairness) claim made in one sentence of a pretty long article.
This will come as a shock to many people, but I have better things to do that go through that article point by point, and I presume this back-and-forth demonstrates the necessity for nuance, as Callum so correctly summarises above.
All true @leuth rather sneeringly suggested he find any attempt to present evidence as funny. Where was the nuance there?
Evidence is being presented but like you I have things to do just know but will come back with more.
Wait where did I do that? If evidence is strong and accurately-presented then I have no trouble with it, even if it challenges my views
Although, I agree that the answer to the deterrent question should be “Yes IF x y z conditions are met” but I can see why any political is hesitant to condition their answers like that.
I'd say Corbyn does express pretty nuanced views, at least from what I've heard from him. He is certainly a lot more considered and thoughtful than a lot of politicians when expressing a view, which may be partly why he's popular, but is also part of the reason he gets clobbered by the press.
Although, I agree that the answer to the deterrent question should be “Yes IF x y z conditions are met” but I can see why any political is hesitant to condition their answers like that.
Setting out the party's defence policy which will be agreed by party officials tomorrow, Mr Corbyn said: "Labour supports the renewal of the Trident submarine system.
"But any prime minister should be extremely cautious about ordering the use of weapons of mass destruction which would result in the indiscriminate killing of millions of innocent civilians.
"As a nuclear armed power, our country has a responsibility to fulfil our international obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
"Labour will lead multilateral efforts with international partners and the UN to create a nuclear free world."
Although, I agree that the answer to the deterrent question should be “Yes IF x y z conditions are met” but I can see why any political is hesitant to condition their answers like that.
So @Callumcafc you accept it is a yes or no answer, it is black and white.
The answer is either:
I would reluctantly press the button if the situation demands it
or
I would never press the button,
Either is a valid stance although neither are easy.
What Corbyn has had for 30 years is the freedom of being a back bencher who ignored his party whip on dozens of occasions to vote with his own views.
But now he's party leader and potentially prime minister so he is no longer able to make empty gestures with no consequences. He would have to make that decision to press or not press the button as PM so it is a legitimate question.
Of course it is asked because it is a difficult question for him. I'd have more respect for him if he'd said "No, I would never press the button and we're replacing the rockets and guns with kidney machines". At least it would be honest ( and good song reference)
Evidence 1. Corbyn hosts terrorist in the house of commons and is rebuked by his own party for doing so.
"Donald Dewar, the Labour Chief Whip, read the riot act individually to three Labour MPs - Ken Livingstone, Jeremy Corbyn, and Alan Simpson - in his room off the members' lobby.
The Chief Whip said it was a matter of some sensitivity. It had been drawn to his attention the MPs had put the House at some considerable and unacceptable risk.
A Labour source said: "He had been informed by the security services that people with Mitchell McLaughlin were directly involved with the IRA or connected with the IRA. He said this House had been the target in the past and could well be in the present and the future."
Although, I agree that the answer to the deterrent question should be “Yes IF x y z conditions are met” but I can see why any political is hesitant to condition their answers like that.
So @Callumcafc you accept it is a yes or no answer, it is black and white.
The answer is either:
I would reluctantly press the button if the situation demands it
or
I would never press the button,
Either is a valid stance although neither are easy.
What Corbyn has had for 30 years is the freedom of being a back bencher who ignored his party whip on dozens of occasions to vote with his own views.
But now he's party leader and potentially prime minister so he is no longer able to make empty gestures with no consequences. He would have to make that decision to press or not press the button as PM so it is a legitimate question.
Of course it is asked because it is a difficult question for him. I'd have more respect for him if he'd said "No, I would never press the button and we're replacing the rockets and guns with kidney machines". At least it would be honest ( and good song reference)
That’s still not a black and white situation though, it’s a “yes if” answer that he’d still be slaughtered for for being too ‘wishy washy’.
For him, the question is a lose lose lose situation.
YES - lose trust from a large section of his core support
YES IF - Daily Mail headline “Corbyn isn’t strong on defence”
Evidence 2. Corbyn takes part in a minute's silence for terrorists,
At an Irish Republican event in 1987, Corbyn took part in a minute's silence to commemorate eight IRA men shot dead by the SAS as they travelled to attack a police station in County Armagh. 'I'm happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland,' he said.
Anyone who supports Corbyn is obviously a Tory. Because Corbyn is unelectable.
40.0% at the last election, the highest for Labour since 2001.
Yes, but lies, damn lies .....
We all know that unlike most elections in the past 20 or so years, 2017 saw a pretty polarised two party dynamic with the Lib Dems and UKIP virtually disappearing from view.
Anyone who supports Corbyn is obviously a Tory. Because Corbyn is unelectable.
40.0% at the last election, the highest for Labour since 2001.
And he lost
Still huge gains against all odds. Put it to the public again, I’d bet he wins this time around.
I have never voted Tory in my life and looking at the present shower of shite in government I am hardly going to start now. There is nothing I would like to see more than for a Labour victory at the next election but with Corbyn in charge I can't see it happening.
Evidence 1. Corbyn hosts terrorist in the house of commons and is rebuked by his own party for doing so.
"Donald Dewar, the Labour Chief Whip, read the riot act individually to three Labour MPs - Ken Livingstone, Jeremy Corbyn, and Alan Simpson - in his room off the members' lobby.
The Chief Whip said it was a matter of some sensitivity. It had been drawn to his attention the MPs had put the House at some considerable and unacceptable risk.
A Labour source said: "He had been informed by the security services that people with Mitchell McLaughlin were directly involved with the IRA or connected with the IRA. He said this House had been the target in the past and could well be in the present and the future."
Although, I agree that the answer to the deterrent question should be “Yes IF x y z conditions are met” but I can see why any political is hesitant to condition their answers like that.
So @Callumcafc you accept it is a yes or no answer, it is black and white.
The answer is either:
I would reluctantly press the button if the situation demands it
or
I would never press the button,
Either is a valid stance although neither are easy.
What Corbyn has had for 30 years is the freedom of being a back bencher who ignored his party whip on dozens of occasions to vote with his own views.
But now he's party leader and potentially prime minister so he is no longer able to make empty gestures with no consequences. He would have to make that decision to press or not press the button as PM so it is a legitimate question.
Of course it is asked because it is a difficult question for him. I'd have more respect for him if he'd said "No, I would never press the button and we're replacing the rockets and guns with kidney machines". At least it would be honest ( and good song reference)
That’s still not a black and white situation though, it’s a “yes if” answer that he’d still be slaughtered for for being too ‘wishy washy’.
For him, the question is a lose lose lose situation.
YES - lose trust from a large section of his core support
YES IF - Daily Mail headline “Corbyn isn’t strong on defence”
NO - “Corbyn is weak and we’re doomed”
But that is the real world, that is being PM rather than a backbencher.
You have to make hard decisions. You can't always please you core support and the electorate, Corbyn knows this and it why he fudges the answer on this and even more so on Brexit.
Just trying to convey (badly) the absurdity of asking what someone would do in the event of a nuclear confrontation, where as we know, the only winning move is not to play
Evidence 2. Corbyn takes part in a minute's silence for terrorists,
At an Irish Republican event in 1987, Corbyn took part in a minute's silence to commemorate eight IRA men shot dead by the SAS as they travelled to attack a police station in County Armagh. 'I'm happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland,' he said.
There was a minute silence and he kept his gob shut. Did he walk out? No, he said "'I'm happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland,' The eight men shot, were they convicted terrorists? Corbyn clearly believed that they were fighters as he said "'I'm happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland,"
Just trying to convey (badly) the absurdity of asking what someone would do in the event of a nuclear confrontation, where as we know, the only winning move is not to play
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
Corbyn sits in his seat in number 10, he sees a blinding light from his window, and in the milliseconds before he is incinerated he smiles to himself and says “I won”.
Meanwhile the rest of the world are then held to ransom by a rogue nuclear power who have proven that the old democratic powers won’t lift a finger.
I literally cannot fathom any scenario how not retaliating to a nuclear strike makes the world any better.
Although, I agree that the answer to the deterrent question should be “Yes IF x y z conditions are met” but I can see why any political is hesitant to condition their answers like that.
Setting out the party's defence policy which will be agreed by party officials tomorrow, Mr Corbyn said: "Labour supports the renewal of the Trident submarine system.
"But any prime minister should be extremely cautious about ordering the use of weapons of mass destruction which would result in the indiscriminate killing of millions of innocent civilians.
"As a nuclear armed power, our country has a responsibility to fulfil our international obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
"Labour will lead multilateral efforts with international partners and the UN to create a nuclear free world."
Just trying to convey (badly) the absurdity of asking what someone would do in the event of a nuclear confrontation, where as we know, the only winning move is not to play
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
Comments
Pretty black and white.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/10/labour-extremely-cautious-trident-would-deploy-troops-last-resort/
Setting out the party's defence policy which will be agreed by party officials tomorrow, Mr Corbyn said: "Labour supports the renewal of the Trident submarine system.
"But any prime minister should be extremely cautious about ordering the use of weapons of mass destruction which would result in the indiscriminate killing of millions of innocent civilians.
"As a nuclear armed power, our country has a responsibility to fulfil our international obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
"Labour will lead multilateral efforts with international partners and the UN to create a nuclear free world."
The answer is either:
I would reluctantly press the button if the situation demands it
or
I would never press the button,
Either is a valid stance although neither are easy.
What Corbyn has had for 30 years is the freedom of being a back bencher who ignored his party whip on dozens of occasions to vote with his own views.
But now he's party leader and potentially prime minister so he is no longer able to make empty gestures with no consequences. He would have to make that decision to press or not press the button as PM so it is a legitimate question.
Of course it is asked because it is a difficult question for him. I'd have more respect for him if he'd said "No, I would never press the button and we're replacing the rockets and guns with kidney machines". At least it would be honest ( and good song reference)
Because Corbyn is unelectable.
For him, the question is a lose lose lose situation.
YES - lose trust from a large section of his core support
YES IF - Daily Mail headline “Corbyn isn’t strong on defence”
NO - “Corbyn is weak and we’re doomed”
9.3m votes for Ed Miliband in 2015
11.3m votes for David Cameron in 2015
12.8m votes for Jeremy Corbyn in 2017
The eight men shot, were they convicted terrorists?
We all know that unlike most elections in the past 20 or so years, 2017 saw a pretty polarised two party dynamic with the Lib Dems and UKIP virtually disappearing from view.
"Uhhh...neither?"
CORBYN WEAK ON BESTIALITY
There is nothing I would like to see more than for a Labour victory at the next election but with Corbyn in charge I can't see it happening.
YES OR NO
You have to make hard decisions. You can't always please you core support and the electorate, Corbyn knows this and it why he fudges the answer on this and even more so on Brexit.
Just trying to convey (badly) the absurdity of asking what someone would do in the event of a nuclear confrontation, where as we know, the only winning move is not to play
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
Meanwhile the rest of the world are then held to ransom by a rogue nuclear power who have proven that the old democratic powers won’t lift a finger.
I literally cannot fathom any scenario how not retaliating to a nuclear strike makes the world any better.
Too long though for reference
Better than the tories.
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies