Originally Posted by GS
Don't let your inability to read get in the way of your desperate need to talk down to people. Anything that makes you feel better, right?
Theresa May's Conservatives
Jeremy Corbyn's Labour
Tim Farron's Liberal Democrats
Paul Nuttall's UKIP
2 people's Greens
Nicholas Durgeon's Scottish Nationalists
Satan's Sinn Fein
Dr Ian Paisley's DUP
Some other bunch of nonces
I'm foreign, but I wish I were an Englishman
Don't let your inability to read get in the way of your desperate need to talk down to people. Anything that makes you feel better, right?
Lol.
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.
Don't let your inability to read get in the way of your desperate need to talk down to people. Anything that makes you feel better, right?
No, you're right, the employed welcome high taxes to fund free tuition and high welfare payouts.
Or maybe people who are less self-interested are both more likely to work in the public sector and more likely to vote for the left.
I don't even understand the bit about taxes/welfare, public sector workers still pay taxes.
I'd wonder why it's become like that in the first place, as one of the things about this place is the variety of opinion.
You've addressed my point though. Nice one.
Evidently.
Doctors aren't altruistic, mate. We've been through this.
Fucking.
Keep reading Hammer's posts as Giggles's because of the avatar for some reason.
What am I supposed to post, other than my own perspective?
No, you're right. Only unemployed people have ever cared about that.
I can assure you Hamster that other members don't talk about this bilge elsewhere. We're more interested in cat gifs and leaked celebs.
With that criticism in mind, why do you do that 'New Page' thing. Do you feel like it adds to the conversation?
Stop being a cunt.
I thought the second one there was me at first but then I checked the numbers of posts. Phew.
There will be live blood sport on BBC at 7pm, if anyone is interested.
He is literally incapable of answering a straight question on the RA. "I never met the IRA" has to be a new low.
GS, you really are genuinely incapable of coming to terms with the concept that anyone might do anything for reasons which aren't self-serving. It's a bit sad to be honest.
Hardly, but they're always going to be a minority when it necessitates a material sacrifice.
Lad
Serious question, how do you compare Corbyn with the fact that the Conservative government of the 80's and 90's was almost certainly meeting the IRA in secret?
Nailed it. Did I read once you used to be a Labour supporter, GS?
They were meeting with them even back in the 70s.
Some context is important, as I suspect the general knowledge of this period of Northern Ireland is somewhat scarcely spread these days.
The Conservatives met the IRA secretly in 1972, when Willie Whitelaw was Secretary of State - here. 1972 was the worst year of the Troubles, with nearly 500 people killed. Their key demands at the meeting (which was also attended by Martin McGuinness who was already second in command in Derry) included an immediate amnesty for all "political prisoners" (that is, terrorists in normal language) and full withdrawal of British forces by 1975. This was clearly unworkable in a modern democracy, and they were rightly told no - so they continued the campaign.
There was a border poll in 1973, which the nationalists boycotted because they knew they couldn't possibly win - here. There was also the first attempt at a negotiated settlement with the Sunningdale agreement - here. The elections were boycotted by the republicans, who continued the campaign of violence (Paisley's role in this was equally stupid, but we're focusing on the IRA here). So attempts at resolving the issue 'constitutionally' and / or 'democratically' failed.
So it was very clear from the early seventies that the IRA were not interested in 'proper' negotiation. The government may have had certain back channels to the IRA at various points over the following years, but we had no devolved administration and security was therefore their direct responsibility under 'direct rule'. Given the IRA weren't going to stop unless they forced Britain out of Ireland, the government had two choices: 1) they could concede the point, which would have been monumentally thick, or 2) not concede the point and set about beating them.
They did the latter. They may have negotiated with them through back channels (for example, at the height of the hunger strikes in 1981), but they were also simultaneously infiltrating the organisation, seizing its weapons, and, where necessary, outright shooting their members before they could undertake attacks. The IRA ultimately came to the table because the British state successfully reduced its operational capacity to such an extent that it simply couldn't carry on. When a deal was reached under Blair, accepting that the constitutional status of the north could only change through a referendum was basically their official recognition of defeat (not that they'll ever admit it was anything other than a draw). The south also revoked its constitutional clauses claiming jurisdiction over the 'six counties', so it recognised the border officially.
So ultimately the government talking to the IRA whilst simultaneously beating them into the ground meant the troubles ended. There's also the quite clear distinction that the government are actually in a position to implement decisions and / or make concessions. What the fuck was Jeremy Corbyn going to do exactly? He was an obscure backbench MP who liked a bit of romantic terrorism. He had absolutely no power whatsoever (Labour weren't in government the whole of Corbyn's parliamentary career until 1997), no influence, no substantial intellectual weight behind which anybody could fall. This leader from the Guardian, no less, is really quite scathing of Corbyn's relationship with the IRA at the time:
This is also the sort of thing he was saying and doing publicly at the time (this is merely one example):
‘I’m happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland’.
He quite blatantly supported the IRA campaign. He supported an armed terrorist group seeking to kill British citizens, to destroy the territorial integrity of Britain against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, and he did so repeatedly over many, many years despite continued IRA bombings and atrocities. Comparing that to legitimate government back channels (whilst they simultaneously smashed them into defeat) isn't a line of debate that needs to be pursued further. There is no comparison.
By the way, I'm aware this may not exercise huge numbers of people under the age of about 50. Which is fine. What I simply can't hack is the attempt to rewrite the history of the thing. At least recognise him for what he is in respect of the Troubles. If you still think it's worthwhile voting for despite his blatant IRA apologist stance, that's fine - but pretending it doesn't matter or doesn't represent a dreadful black mark on his personal judgement is taking the piss. It doesn't really matter it he's offering free tuition - the man is a tool who is singularly unfit for public office, never mind as Prime fucking Minister.
(Apologies for the long post, but it's a complex issue and deserves to be treated as such.)
I'll be voting for him because I hate northern Irish people.
Unless we ever met them to discuss our unconditional surrender, any comparisons with the British state are stupid.
It's like I said a few pages back, Hammer.
Virgins.
That Michael Fallon footage is sort of lol, but he could have just said Boris Johnson was wrong and got out of it, so it's not quite as bad as people are making out (although he is prone to coming out with shite, which probably robs him of the benefit of any doubt).
SoMe cOnTeXt iS ImPoRtAnT, aS I SuSpEcT ThE GeNeRaL KnOwLeDgE Of tHiS PeRiOd oF NoRtHeRn iReLaNd iS SoMeWhAt sCaRcElY SpReAd tHeSe dAyS. tHe cOnSeRvAtIvEs mEt tHe iRa sEcReTlY In 1972, wHeN WiLlIe wHiTeLaW WaS SeCrEtArY Of sTaTe - hErE. 1972 WaS ThE WoRsT YeAr oF ThE TrOuBlEs, WiTh nEaRlY 500 PeOpLe kIlLeD. tHeIr kEy dEmAnDs aT ThE MeEtInG (wHiCh wAs aLsO AtTeNdEd bY MaRtIn mCgUiNnEsS WhO WaS AlReAdY SeCoNd iN CoMmAnD In dErRy) InClUdEd aN ImMeDiAtE AmNeStY FoR AlL "pOlItIcAl pRiSoNeRs" (tHaT Is, TeRrOrIsTs iN NoRmAl lAnGuAgE) aNd fUlL WiThDrAwAl oF BrItIsH FoRcEs bY 1975. ThIs wAs cLeArLy uNwOrKaBlE In a mOdErN DeMoCrAcY, aNd tHeY WeRe rIgHtLy tOlD No - sO ThEy cOnTiNuEd tHe cAmPaIgN. tHeRe wAs a bOrDeR PoLl iN 1973, WhIcH ThE NaTiOnAlIsTs bOyCoTtEd bEcAuSe tHeY KnEw tHeY CoUlDn't pOsSiBlY WiN - HeRe. ThErE WaS AlSo tHe fIrSt aTtEmPt aT A NeGoTiAtEd sEtTlEmEnT WiTh tHe sUnNiNgDaLe aGrEeMeNt - hErE. tHe eLeCtIoNs wErE BoYcOtTeD By tHe rEpUbLiCaNs, WhO CoNtInUeD ThE CaMpAiGn oF ViOlEnCe (PaIsLeY'S RoLe iN ThIs wAs eQuAlLy sTuPiD, bUt wE'Re fOcUsInG On tHe iRa hErE). So aTtEmPtS At rEsOlViNg tHe iSsUe 'CoNsTiTuTiOnAlLy' AnD / Or 'DeMoCrAtIcAlLy' FaIlEd. So iT WaS VeRy cLeAr fRoM ThE EaRlY SeVeNtIeS ThAt tHe iRa wErE NoT InTeReStEd iN 'pRoPeR' nEgOtIaTiOn. ThE GoVeRnMeNt mAy hAvE HaD CeRtAiN BaCk cHaNnElS To tHe iRa aT VaRiOuS PoInTs oVeR ThE FoLlOwInG YeArS, bUt wE HaD No dEvOlVeD AdMiNiStRaTiOn aNd sEcUrItY WaS ThErEfOrE ThEiR DiReCt rEsPoNsIbIlItY UnDeR 'dIrEcT RuLe'. gIvEn tHe iRa wErEn't gOiNg tO StOp uNlEsS ThEy fOrCeD BrItAiN OuT Of iReLaNd, ThE GoVeRnMeNt hAd tWo cHoIcEs: 1) tHeY CoUlD CoNcEdE ThE PoInT, wHiCh wOuLd hAvE BeEn mOnUmEnTaLlY ThIcK, oR 2) nOt cOnCeDe tHe pOiNt aNd sEt aBoUt bEaTiNg tHeM. tHeY DiD ThE LaTtEr. ThEy mAy hAvE NeGoTiAtEd wItH ThEm tHrOuGh bAcK ChAnNeLs (FoR ExAmPlE, aT ThE HeIgHt oF ThE HuNgEr sTrIkEs iN 1981), bUt tHeY WeRe aLsO SiMuLtAnEoUsLy iNfIlTrAtInG ThE OrGaNiSaTiOn, SeIzInG ItS WeApOnS, aNd, WhErE NeCeSsArY, oUtRiGhT ShOoTiNg tHeIr mEmBeRs bEfOrE ThEy cOuLd uNdErTaKe aTtAcKs. ThE IrA UlTiMaTeLy cAmE To tHe tAbLe bEcAuSe tHe bRiTiSh sTaTe sUcCeSsFuLlY ReDuCeD ItS OpErAtIoNaL CaPaCiTy tO SuCh aN ExTeNt tHaT It sImPlY CoUlDn't cArRy oN. wHeN A DeAl wAs rEaChEd uNdEr bLaIr, AcCePtInG ThAt tHe cOnStItUtIoNaL StAtUs oF ThE NoRtH CoUlD OnLy cHaNgE ThRoUgH A ReFeReNdUm wAs bAsIcAlLy tHeIr oFfIcIaL ReCoGnItIoN Of dEfEaT (nOt tHaT ThEy'lL EvEr aDmIt iT WaS AnYtHiNg oThEr tHaN A DrAw). tHe sOuTh aLsO ReVoKeD ItS CoNsTiTuTiOnAl cLaUsEs cLaImInG JuRiSdIcTiOn oVeR ThE 'sIx cOuNtIeS', So iT ReCoGnIsEd tHe bOrDeR OfFiCiAlLy. So uLtImAtElY ThE GoVeRnMeNt tAlKiNg tO ThE IrA WhIlSt sImUlTaNeOuSlY BeAtInG ThEm iNtO ThE GrOuNd mEaNt tHe tRoUbLeS EnDeD. tHeRe's aLsO ThE QuItE ClEaR DiStInCtIoN ThAt tHe gOvErNmEnT ArE AcTuAlLy iN A PoSiTiOn tO ImPlEmEnT DeCiSiOnS AnD / Or mAkE CoNcEsSiOnS. wHaT ThE FuCk wAs jErEmY CoRbYn gOiNg tO Do eXaCtLy? He wAs aN ObScUrE BaCkBeNcH Mp wHo lIkEd a bIt oF RoMaNtIc tErRoRiSm. He hAd aBsOlUtElY No pOwEr wHaTsOeVeR (lAbOuR WeReN'T In gOvErNmEnT ThE WhOlE Of cOrByN'S PaRlIaMeNtArY CaReEr uNtIl 1997), No iNfLuEnCe, No sUbStAnTiAl iNtElLeCtUaL WeIgHt bEhInD WhIcH AnYbOdY CoUlD FaLl. ThIs lEaDeR FrOm tHe gUaRdIaN, nO LeSs, Is rEaLlY QuItE ScAtHiNg oF CoRbYn's rElAtIoNsHiP WiTh tHe iRa aT ThE TiMe. ThIs iS AlSo tHe sOrT Of tHiNg hE WaS SaYiNg aNd dOiNg pUbLiClY At tHe tImE (tHiS Is mErElY OnE ExAmPlE): ‘i’m hApPy tO CoMmEmOrAtE AlL ThOsE WhO DiEd fIgHtInG FoR An iNdEpEnDeNt iReLaNd’. hE QuItE BlAtAnTlY SuPpOrTeD ThE IrA CaMpAiGn. He sUpPoRtEd aN ArMeD TeRrOrIsT GrOuP SeEkInG To kIlL BrItIsH CiTiZeNs, To dEsTrOy tHe tErRiToRiAl iNtEgRiTy oF BrItAiN AgAiNsT ThE WiShEs oF ThE PeOpLe oF NoRtHeRn iReLaNd, AnD He dId sO RePeAtEdLy oVeR MaNy, MaNy yEaRs dEsPiTe cOnTiNuEd iRa bOmBiNgS AnD AtRoCiTiEs. CoMpArInG ThAt tO LeGiTiMaTe gOvErNmEnT BaCk cHaNnElS (wHiLsT ThEy sImUlTaNeOuSlY SmAsHeD ThEm iNtO DeFeAt) IsN'T A LiNe oF DeBaTe tHaT NeEdS To bE PuRsUeD FuRtHeR. tHeRe iS No cOmPaRiSoN. bY ThE WaY, i'm aWaRe tHiS MaY NoT ExErCiSe hUgE NuMbErS Of pEoPlE UnDeR ThE AgE Of aBoUt 50. wHiCh iS FiNe. WhAt i sImPlY CaN'T HaCk iS ThE AtTeMpT To rEwRiTe tHe hIsToRy oF ThE ThInG. aT LeAsT ReCoGnIsE HiM FoR WhAt hE Is iN ReSpEcT Of tHe tRoUbLeS. iF YoU StIlL ThInK It's wOrThWhIlE VoTiNg fOr dEsPiTe hIs bLaTaNt iRa aPoLoGiSt sTaNcE, tHaT'S FiNe - bUt pReTeNdInG It dOeSn't mAtTeR Or dOeSn't rEpReSeNt a dReAdFuL BlAcK MaRk oN HiS PeRsOnAl jUdGeMeNt iS TaKiNg tHe pIsS. iT DoEsN'T ReAlLy mAtTeR It hE'S OfFeRiNg fReE TuItIoN - ThE MaN Is a tOoL WhO Is sInGuLaRlY UnFiT FoR PuBlIc oFfIcE, nEvEr mInD As pRiMe fUcKiNg mInIsTeR. (ApOlOgIeS FoR ThE LoNg pOsT, bUt iT'S A CoMpLeX IsSuE AnD DeSeRvEs tO Be tReAtEd aS SuCh.)
What the fuck?
Do you even meme bro?
Am I high?
Is he drunk?
That must have taken some effort.
All that education finally paid off, Stephen.
If he hasn't converted that somehow I'm repping. Can you confirm Toid?
There must be a website that does that for you, otherwise in terms of willpower required Boydy has pretty much ran a marathon.
Lovely seethe. Just what I needed to kick start my Friday night.
Is that our Chrissy that just popped up on Newsnight?
Website or not, that Boyd post is great
I wrote a small Python program to do it for me. I've been pissing around trying to learn some coding and that was the main motivation for doing it.
Nah, you wouldn't put that much effort into anything.
It was only 11 lines. Plus, I learnt something out of it. And I thought it was funny.
Corbyn did well in the interview I thought, claims from the bigoted section of our membership that he was insufficiently vitriolic in his attitude towards the IRA notwithstanding.
May is going full on with the terrorism stuff too, in the aftermath of the Manchester attack, blatantly lying about Corbyns position. Hopefully people understand nuance better than she thinks, and the implication that you're either unquestionably behind middle-eastern wars or a supporter of ISIS won't stand.
It's worth noting that this has happened before, when the Spanish government tried to use the Madrid bombing for political gain on much the same grounds, and it backfired.
Meh, I'll be voting Labour anyway. They're the only one canvassing in our area. I've seen maybe two Tory leaflets in my time here and they're both either, "Our candidate's in a band." or "Yeah but Labour proper did all those school cuts that the Tory government definitely had nothing to do with."
Our Labour mainstay is taken credit for the building I work in and the regeneration of the city centre. Fine, I guess. That's the thing I get from local politicians. You're never really sure how much they actually do or how far their power reaches. Ultimately, the decisions are made by people with far more influence than them.
Can someone explain how 'yes but the loyalists killed lots of people too' is as offensive as the dick heads on my Facebook seem to find it? I mean, it seems a simple declaration of both sides being murderous cunts to me.
The loyalists killed more, often in collusion with the British state.
But that's consigned to the memory hole, apparently.
Loyalists didn't kill more.
Corbyn took the battering well, but ultimately anybody that watched it will have witnessed 20 minutes dedicated to reasons to not vote for him. The best he could do is not lose votes.
Apologies. They killed more civilians. I remembered that wrong.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote