UKH

Headline news today and hardly a peep on UKC, its almost as if some people are in denial!

Here's the full version, straight from the horses mouth so to speak. 11 mins but well worth a listen to anyone in any doubt about the full horror of the reality of a Corbyn government.

https://order-order.com/2019/12/10/ashworth-civil-service-machine-will-move...

Most Labour MPs know he's not fit to govern but as the recording reveals, they screwed up getting rid of him. Ashworth almost seems pleased Labour probably won't win because if they did he and any remaining sensible Labour MPs would have to try and reign in Corbyn, McDonnell and the other true believers, though he seems at a loss as to what they could actually do.

Can I just pre-empt the usual suspect's replies to save you trouble of posting?

"His 'friend' is a b*****d to leak this, you can't trust a Tory"

"he was only joshing with his 'friend'", (listen to the recording, unless he's the best actor in the world this wasn't joshing)

"the sun shines out of Corbyn's a***"

"Boris is a liar"

"All Tories are c****"

There, that's made it easier for you.

As I said on this thread

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/has_the_nation_taken_leave_of_i...

Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear must realise, never in our history has anyone so grossly unfit to govern come so dangerously close to holding the highest office in the land.

Though if Ashworth is correct, not quite as close as we might think.

You'd rather pay for your healthcare then? 

Don't worry. It won't be long before the same old posters turn up spouting the same old shite!

Is that the best you can do? The recording was 11 mins long and you posted this 3 mins after my OP.

One of them already has

What, stuff like Corbyn is for 4 years but the end of the NHS is forever?  

Too late!

If you read your other thread you'll see I already knew about this.  

Like I said I'm not a Corbyn fan anyway.  I just think he is less dangerous than Boris and his mate Trump.  

Trump, now there is a lack of common sense...

Anyway I'm bored of you now.  Enjoy yourself.  I'm out. 

In the name of balance

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris...

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/9440172/boris-johnson-...

Also I’ve yet to see anyone on here claim the sun shines out of Jeremys ass

although the sun does like to paint him as an ass

(see what I did there 😏)

This does fit nicely with my viewpoint and what I have been saying all along. They're all awful and democracy is a sham! 

Or, do you endorse any of them? 

Best outcome would be a hung parliament then, so none of them can implement the worst of their manifesto pledges.

Now what's the best way to achieve that?

Surely you know it's against the rules to post links to The Sun on UKC, its all Tory propaganda!

Yes, I did see what you did there, very good indeed

Release a grizzly bear in to the chamber to prevent anyone from doing any politics. 

Its either Boris or Corbyn for PM.

Whilst I understand the concerns about Boris and indeed have some of my own I think Corbyn is a dangerous lunatic. No lie Boris has ever spoken is as bad as some of the truths that Corbyn has said.

Read through the charge sheet against Corbyn in my other post I linked to above if you haven't already. All of that stuff is verifiable, it wasn't culled from the Mail or Telegraph as JC's disciples would claim. Its horrific.

So whilst in an ideal world Boris wouldn't be my PM of choice, in this one it's a no brainer. It's also the case that the Conservatives are very good at getting rid of leaders when they've passed their sell by date but if Corbyn wins he (or his annointed successor) is there for the duration. The Marxists have waited more than half a century for this chance, they aren't going anywhere if they get in.

So if I choose not to endorse either, by choosing not to vote, then that would be a position you would be happy to support as I have legitimate concerns about both of the possible PMs and their organisations? 

‘Kin Amen

More paralysis is just what business is crying out for. Actually what they're saying is any deal, even no deal is less of a problem for them than Corbyn.

Re a hung parliament, nobody seems to have worked out yet that one possible consequence of a hung parliament is no deal on Jan 31st. By far the most likely hung parliament scenario would still have the Conservatives as the biggest party who could be propped up by the DUP.

We know the DUP won't support the Boris deal but they will support no deal and with all those troublesome europhiles banished, so would the Tories in all likelihood. Without biased Bercow bending the constitution to breaking point Parliament may well not be able to concoct another 'surrender' act and we would 'crash out' at the end of Jan.

Be careful what you wish for.

I'm still a bit undecided about my vote direction this coming Thursday. I've obviously taken into consideration what I consider to be the following swaying points on the two main parties.

On the one hand the Conservative Boris Johnson is a bit of a rascal with the ladies and can sometimes bend the truth a bit, he’s also a bit posh.

And on the other hand.. Labours Jeremy Corbyn Invited two IRA members to parliament two weeks after the Brighton bombing. Attended Bloody Sunday commemoration with bomber Brendan McKenna. Attended meeting with Provisional IRA member Raymond McCartney. Hosted IRA linked Mitchell McLaughlin in parliament. Spoke alongside IRA terrorist Martina Anderson. Attended Sinn Fein dinner with IRA bomber Gerry Kelly. Chaired Irish republican event with IRA bomber Brendan MacFarlane. Attended Bobby Sands commemoration honouring IRA terrorists. Stood in minute’s silence for IRA gunmen shot dead by the SAS. Refused to condemn the IRA in Sky News interview. Refused to condemn the IRA on Question Time. Refused to condemn IRA violence in BBC radio interview. Signed EDM after IRA Poppy massacre massacre blaming Britain for the deaths. Arrested while protesting in support of Brighton bomber’s co-defendants. Lobbied government to improve visiting conditions for IRA killers. Attended Irish republican event calling for armed conflict against Britain. Hired suspected IRA man Ronan Bennett as a parliamentary assistant. Hired another aide closely linked to several convicted IRA terrorists. Heavily involved with IRA sympathising newspaper London Labour Briefing. Put up £20,000 bail money for IRA terror suspect Roisin McAliskey. Didn’t support IRA ceasefire. Said Hamas and Hezbollah are his “friends“. Called for Hamas to be removed from terror banned list. Called Hamas “serious and hard-working“. Attended wreath-laying at grave of Munich massacre terrorist. Attended conference with Hamas and PFLP. Photographed smiling with Hezbollah flag. Attended rally with Hezbollah and Al-Muhajiroun. Repeatedly shared platforms with PFLP plane hijacker. Hired aide who praised Hamas’ “spirit of resistance“. Accepted £20,000 for state TV channel of terror-sponsoring Iranian regime. Opposed banning Britons from travelling to Syria to fight for ISIS. Defended rights of fighters returning from Syria. Said ISIS supporters should not be prosecuted. Compared fighters returning from Syria to Nelson Mandela. Said the death of Osama Bin Laden was a “tragedy“. Wouldn’t sanction drone strike to kill ISIS leader. Voted to allow ISIS fighters to return from Syria. Opposed shoot to kill. Attended event organised by terrorist sympathising IHRC. Signed letter defending Lockerbie bombing suspects. Wrote letter in support of conman accused of fundraising for ISIS. Spoke of “friendship” with Mo Kozbar, who called for destruction of Israel. Attended event with Abdullah Djaballah, who called for holy war against UK. Called drone strikes against terrorists “obscene”. Boasted about “opposing anti-terror legislation”. Said laws banning jihadis from returning to Britain are “strange”. Accepted £5,000 donation from terror supporter Ted Honderich. Accepted £2,800 trip to Gaza from banned Islamist organisation Interpal. Called Ibrahim Hewitt, extremist and chair of Interpal, a “very good friend”. Accepted two more trips from the pro-Hamas group PRC. Speaker at conference hosted by pro-Hamas group MEMO. Met Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh several times. Hosted meeting with Mousa Abu Maria of banned group Islamic Jihad. Patron of Palestine Solidarity Campaign – marches attended by Hezbollah. Compared Israel to ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah and al-Qaeda. Said we should not make “value judgements” about Britons who fight for ISIS. Received endorsement from Hamas. Attended event with Islamic extremist Suliman Gani. Chaired Stop the War, who praised “internationalism and solidarity” of ISIS. Praised Raed Salah, who was jailed for inciting violence in Israel. Signed letter defending jihadist advocacy group Cage. Met Dyab Jahjah, who praised the killing of British soldiers. Shared platform with representative of extremist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Compared ISIS to US military in interview on Russia Today. Opposed proscription of Hizb ut-Tahrir. Attended conference which called on Iraqis to kill British soldiers. Attended Al-Quds Day demonstration in support of destruction of Israel. Supported Hamas and ISIS-linked Viva Palestina group. Attended protest with Islamic extremist Moazzam Begg. Made the “case for Iran” at event hosted by Khomeinist group. Photographed smiling with Azzam Tamimi, who backed suicide bombings. Photographed with Abdel Atwan, who sympathised with attacks on US troops. Said Hamas should “have tea with the Queen”. Attended ‘Meet the Resistance’ event with Hezbollah MP Hussein El Haj. Attended event with Haifa Zangana, who praised Palestinian “mujahideen”. Defended the infamous anti-Semitic Hamas supporter Stephen Sizer. Attended event with pro-Hamas and Hezbollah group Naturei Karta. Backed Holocaust denying anti-Zionist extremist Paul Eisen. Photographed with Abdul Raoof Al Shayeb, later jailed for terror offences. Mocked “anti-terror hysteria” while opposing powers for security services. Named on speakers list for conference with Hamas sympathiser Ismail Patel. Criticised drone strike that killed Jihadi John. Said the 7/7 bombers had been denied “hope and opportunity”. Said 9/11 was “manipulated” to make it look like bin Laden was responsible. Failed to unequivocally condemn the 9/11 attacks. Called Columbian terror group M-19 “comrades”. Blamed beheading of Alan Henning on Britain. Gave speech in support of Gaddafi regime. Signed EDM spinning for Slobodan Milosevic. Blamed Tunisia terror attack on “austerity”. Voted against banning support for the IRA. Voted against the Prevention of Terrorism Act three times during the Troubles. Voted against emergency counter-terror laws after 9/11. Voted against stricter punishments for being a member of a terror group. Voted against criminalising the encouragement of terrorism. Voted against banning al-Qaeda. Voted against outlawing the glorification of terror. Voted against control orders. Voted against increased funding for the security services to combat terrorism.

So it’s a tricky one really 🤷‍♂

For the reasons I have given I couldn't personally support anything that could put Corbyn in charge but it's your vote, you can use it (or not) however you wish. Spoil your ballopaper if you like, I've done that before when I didn't like the choice before me.

I don't know where you get all this rubbish from but I'm certainly glad I'm not reading the same lies and believing them.

Blimey, that's one hell of a list. I thought mine was quite long!

Yes, Boris is a loose cannon but he's not a Britain hating, terrorist sympathising, anti-semitic Marxist. 

He also opposed the military action to retake the Falklands and said it was a "Tory Plot".

You've not been paying attention have you? Or you're just indulging in an exercise in extreme cherry-picking. Not that I don't have a low opinion of Corbyn but Johnson is as bad, in fact arguably worse - I don't think Corbyn has actually consigned anyone to an Iranian prison because of his incompetence and disregard. And the man's a known security risk. 

What did you think about the Race & Equality Manifesto?

I thought it was unbelievably dangerous in places. An ideological rewriting of history.

”Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past”.

At least the Labour party is patriotically British financed rather than Russian financed.

What's your opinion on the actual content in the list provided by Oceanrower?
Worrying for a potential PM?
Or, just ignore because it doesn't suit your purposes?
Johnson might well be morally questionable, but that list against Corbyn must surely raise doubts in even the most ardent Labour voter.
 

Yes, but less so than a man who prorogues parliament for political convenience. Corbyn is a good democrat in comparison to a proven anti-parliamentarian.

Have you no doubts about the phone grabbing and proroguing PM's commitment to democracy?

Fancy going through that list supplied by Oceanrower and providing a defence for it?
Bet you will find it difficult for a lot of it...

I don’t think anyone thinks Corbyn can win - the best we can hope for is that the pathological liar Johnson doesn’t get a majority. 

No, I'll let you do that as I don't have the inclination.

No more difficult than defending Johnson's racist, homophobic, islamophobic and poor hating reporting. Care explain why they're ok? The quotes are all in the press.

Can't think of anyone that is less suitable than Boris to be our PM. 

... Hang on, except that is for Corbyn. 

Boris is a lying blundering self promoting lune. The only thing that gives me a crumb of comfort is that with his track record the chance of him seeing out a full term without sh*gging, insulting, fighting, or running off with someone is pretty remote.

Corbyn is by far the worst worst option. 

Or, you could say, someone who will literally do anything for power, including breaking the law in order to suppress democracy and most likely breaking up the UK as an unintended consequence of a political manoeuvre to get towards Downing Street. I think it's obvious that never he believed in Brexit, it was purely a self-serving move to gain support from the Farage voters and the right wing of the Tory Party. Taking the UK out of the EU and breaking up the Union is a big thing to do just for your own career. 

youtube.com/watch?v=-a6HNXtdvVQ&

You should note as well, that he's purged the Tories of all the people who would be competent in government, and those standing are likes of JRM who are politically really quite extreme in their ideology, or simply completely spineless lackeys like Matt Hancock. 

This should really worry anyone about the type of PM he is/will/would be, because it has serious, massive consequences for the country. You can't have someone running something as big as the UK who simply doesn't a give a f*ck, who sees it as a game. It's unacceptable.

Well if your reasons for voting are largely based on who someone was photographed with, or on a patently absurd belief that they support Al Qaeda, then I guess a lot of things are going to be tricky for you. 

I don't think you were really serious, but the thought process behind your post just looks like you don't know why you're voting. I agree that there are reasons Corbyn isn't the right man for PM - but you're miles off the mark as to what those reasons are, as if you're not actually engaging in politics at all.

What is it that you guys think Corbyn is going to do? Mastermind a terrorist attack on home soil (since he's into terrorism and hates Britain, presumably he would, right)? Are you able to articulate seriously what you're actually frightened of in terms of the consequences for yourselves, your families, etc.

Is it just higher taxes? Because all this terrorism stuff isn't serious, it's silly.

So much of it is total dross! "Was photographed with..." "wouldn't catagorically condemn...". There probably is some stuff in there which is concerning and requires a defence, but I haven't got the time to pick it out from all the nonsense.

If you pick me out a few bits that actually have some substance - which I'm sure there are - I'll tell you what I think. 

The technique used in place of an argument is rather like the "gish-gallop". It's not a genuine argument, it's cheap, and shit.

I think you’re misjudging my position here...

Of course it worries me.  But then having a possibly compromised Russian asset as actual PM also worries me. It was the trivialising of Johnson’s faults in the post that I wanted to highlight. 

Why would you ask a question like that when I’ve already said “Not that I don't have a low opinion of Corbyn...”.

Certainly does for me. 

I'm genuinely really quite down about this, because it looks like we're going to have a shit country to live in for the shittest reasons possible.

On the Tory side, the internal politics of the party led to the 2016 referendum, which was just a misjudged gamble by Cameron. An attempt to silence Farage and the trouble-makers in his party which had calamitous consequences for the nation. It's been f*cking shit since then.

Then on the Labour side, the way their party works has installed the totally unsuitable Corbyn as leader, who's destroyed any credibility of opposition. It's absolute madness. Given where the Tories are, effective opposition is incredibly important, and look what we've got instead. Unbelievable.

The level of debate we've got here, where people are saying stuff as stupid as "Corbyn supports ISIS", really makes me despair. These are the reasons people are giving for voting. That's not OK. It's an atrocious spectacle and I don't want to see where it goes from here. It's a disaster. It's f*cked.

 For the sake of devils advocate much of that could be viewed from the perspective that he thinks reaching out to people might be more successful than alienating and condemning them. Radicalisation feeds on people feeling isolated and alienated, and people become radicalised for reasons far more varied and complex than “they are evil”. Sending a message that “we’re aren’t your enemy” might stand to be a powerful tool for negating radicalisation by contradicting the divisive us vs them rhetoric of extremists. 

I think there is a very difficult line to be walked in combatting radicalisation in terms of not inadvertently reinforcing the arguments of those recruiting. If JCs motivations for those meetings was to try to start dialogues, hear people’s grievances, and work towards peaceful resolution then I have no issue with that. This course of action will obviously entail building relationships with people who’s views are difficult to reconcile. I have no idea if that actually was his motivation but I do think that anything that breaks the perception of us vs them can only be helpful in preventing terrorism.

 Either way, personally, whatever JCs motivation it wouldn’t change my vote. I will be voting against the incumbent government. I don’t think Corbyn would be a great PM but nor do I honestly see that on the horizon. My hope is for a coalition that forces some moderation into the lunacy. 

It's kind of strange that an illegally obtained recording of a Labour MP is all over the broadcast media.  However, when Arron Banks e-mails to various Tories got hacked and splashed all over Twitter the broadcast and print media wouldn't touch them because it would be illegal.

None of us know what is in the report on Russian links to Boris because Boris blocked it until after the election.   Several enquiries into Boris allegedly giving public money to his mistress, also all conveniently sub-judice for another few months.   Boris even gets away with not saying how many kids he has.

There's no level playing field in this election.  The Tories have a stack of dirty money, they playing dirty games with sock puppet accounts on Twitter to plant false stories for their pals in the media to pick up, they have the BBC on a leash and they use the power of government to prevent the electorate getting information which might embarrass them.  It's all very Trump like.

I know at least it wasn’t the daily mail!!

Yes, and this was pretty controversial at the time from what I gather.  He was certainly engaging with Irish republicans, as were the government of course who had open lines of communication with the IRA, and loyalist paramilitaries of course.

Is that the Bloody Sunday Justice campaign event in 2000 with speakers also including MPs Tony Benn and John McDonnell?  Breandán Mac Cionnaith was representing the Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition.  He had served a 6 year jail term in the 80's for involvement with a bombing in Portadown.  Although it took a long time for the Saville report to finally be released I'm sure you agree that, with retrospect, it was in the public interest to know about the actions of British security forces during the troubles and be able to hold them, and the government to account?

Is this another publicly advertised meeting with the Bloody Sunday Justice Campaign in 2005 which you refer to?  Raymond McCartney was at the time (and still is) an elected MLA in the Northern Ireland Assembly.  I suspect he was present at this event as he was present in Derry on the civil rights march on Bloody Sunday and his cousin was shot and killed.   He did indeed join the PIRA following Bloody Sunday although it may be worth  mentioning that his convictions have subsequently been overturned.

The only reference I can find for this is a rather odd 1996 Independent article (which also spells Mitchel's name wrong).  It reports that MPs Ken Livingstone, Jeremy Corbyn, and Alan Simpson were reprimanded by the Labour whip, but that Mitchel (who was at the time general secretary for Sinn Fein, and was MLA in the NI Assembly from 1998-2016) met many Labour MPs and was watched by security forces (something which MI5 categorically denied).  The article quotes a Labour MP  "We left them under no illusions that the left in Britain were absolutely adamant that without the restoration of the ceasefire, there would no peace process and they needed to take that message back to the hard men in the IRA."

This seems to have taken place around 9 months after the Docklands bombing (and the end of the ceasefire), and 6 months before the 1997 ceasefire, leading to the GFA.

Is this the 2007 public event 'What next for the Irish peace process'?.  Corbyn spoke alongside Martina Andersen (at the time she was MLA in the NI Assembly, currently a Sinn Fein MEP) and Sammy Wilson (of the DUP, who was at the time MP for East Antrim and currently Brexit Spokesperson for the DUP).  Andersen was convicted of conspiring to cause explosions in 1986, and released under terms of the GFA in 1998.  Wilson has caused stirs agreeing with the "ethnics out" comment regarding leaving the EU, and as Mayor of Belfast presided over URM rallies (a loyalist paramilitary group that collaborated with the UVF and the UDA in arms procurement).  At least you can't accuse Corbyn of fraternising with only one kind of terrorist I suppose.

I have looked through the first five on the list, to be honest I haven't got time to look through any more I'm afraid.  I'm not trying to justify any of these, but context is everything and my response to every one so far has been 'it's a bit more complicated than that'.  I'm sure you could also come up with a list of one line criticisms of Johnson, but again my response would probably be the same.

The list seems to be a copy and paste from a 2017 article on Guido Fawkes which has some very scanty references (often just the 'What's On' page from An Phoblacht), but if I'd be interested could provide some more references and, more importantly context for the other claims.

I'm not sure what the learning point is.  On the subject of NI I think it is that because the struggle has been so bitter and so recent, that it is impossible to completely untangle the paramilitary from the political.  If a paramilitary group has support and power, you have to engage with them despite their past.  If people are democratically elected to represent their community, you have to engage with despite their past.  We should strive to hold the everyone to account within the context of their actions, paramilitaries, the government, the security forces.  This is true on both sides.  We have had 2 decades of relative peace, and I'm sure you would wish that to continue.

I'm not a massive fan of Corbyn.  I believe he cares for people, idealistically he wants to increase social mobility, decrease injustice, and allow everyone a little bit of the privilege that I have had by being a relatively well-off white anglo-saxon in a very unfair world.  However I have been very disappointed by his stance on Brexit, he clearly has issues of support within his party and I'm not convinced his solutions are all answers to the problems we face.  Nevertheless this is a post regarding the upcoming general election and the questions should surely be of who is the best (or should that be least bad) option as we are definitely going to get one of them!

Tried to find the edit button but is has disappeared.

Apologies for the spelling mistakes, in particular Martina Anderson's name!

Probably a Jewish Tory... After all they crucified Christ and helped the Nazis. Betray their own mother. Probably on pay roll from Israel. Have I covered all the standard UKC/Labour antisemitic vibes?

It's not shit. It's fact. As usual you just come out with your excessive aggressive response trying to shout people down and close down the debate. Why do you feel the need to defend him?  You might hate Boris Johnson with good reason but there are better reasons to detest Corbyns politics in Oceanrowers list. Corbyn is a danger to the security and defence of this country. Corbyn hates the British monarchy and other long held institutions. Corbyn is the puppet of Momentum and they are 10 x more bat shit crazy than Boris Johnson. There's none so blind as those that won't see. 

Well why don't you go and live somewhere a little less shit? Make your choice while you can.

We are a long way from being f*cked. You should adopt a more PMA. It's not healthy to be so negative. By the way, what's it to you the reasons why people vote? Different strokes for different folks and all that. If you don't like it, well, tough shit. You have choices so why not grow a pair and do something about it instead of behaving like a cross between a playground bully and a big cry baby?

Most of the comments on here are pretty tame on Corbyn. If you want a good hard nosed critique of him then read the editorial of the Economist( which recommends voting for the Liberals).They describe the manifesto as an attempt to deal with 21st century problems using policies that failed in the 20th.

The conservatives are just plain scary to me.

John Ashworth is effectively now a dead politician and he many as well pack in his career and step down..

Well done for compiling that. The man prides himself on his unflinching ethics and beliefs. The left, in particular, believes that the nuance of action underpins the motive. There is no denying that this is a man who is not a blundering idiot but a calculated man who passionately believes in the causes. Unfortunately many of his supporters don't care or agree with him on these issues. 

Ah yes, the heretic hates the monarchy. I’m quite okay with that. 
 

Personally the thing I find odd is that the same people arguing for the importance of letting people earn their rightful place in society without handouts or support, so often get so protective about a living symbol of wealth and status being a birthright. 

Pretty weak cut and paste from Guido Fawkes.

I can't take the credit. It was sent to me and I thought I'd share it on.

The trouble is we have a choice between two such people, one already PM.  Since, on top all his other flaws the current PM is dead set on running the country off a cliff and is likely to get majority which will allow him to operate unhindered and without serious scrutiny.  The only sane option is go for the option that is merely incompetent and with dubious loyalties, knowing that he will never get close to a majority so his incompetence can be managed.

I think it is a stretch to say that there is “no denying” that he is a passionate believer in Irish republicanism, Islamic fundamentalism et al. 
 

On the balance of probability I feel it far more likely that he believes people resort to terrorism because they feel they have no other means of having their voice heard, rather than that he is a passionate believer devoted to every terrorist ideology going. And that’s before you take into account his consistent pacifist stance, which rather tips the balance towards him perhaps being more “can we talk about this?” rather than “kill the unbelievers.”
 

Question: taking the IRA as an example, is it their methods or their goal (an Ireland free of British rule) that you find repulsive? If it is just their methods then might giving them the option of talking be worth exploring?

I do think that military intervention is sometimes needed. But I also think that a good versus evil narrative and condemning those who try to build some common ground and open up peaceful dialogue is totally unhelpful. Talking to people isn’t always going to work, but if there is the slimmest chance of a peaceful resolution it  surely has to be worth a try. 

Except of course the venal sack of offal currently corrupting it.

Of course he's correct, it's hardly news. Johnson is about to win a landslide with maybe 40% of the popular vote. What that and his cabinet of inadequate ghouls will do to the UK should chill us all to the bone.

jk

No deal in 2020 is the almost inevitable consequence of a radicalised tory intake making the corner Johnson has backed himself into inescapable. A hung parliament might result in no-deal or it might result in either another election or a referendum. I can live with that slim hope.

jk

Really? Still looks very close to me which is why we get this hysterical cartoon stuff all over the tory press and social media that Corbyn is a terrorist (based on past political mistakes) and the biggest threat to Jews in the world (middle east terrorists groups and anti Isreal states are sulking big time) and will make the UK marxist (by returnding tax levels to the EU norm and leave UK borrowing very llittle different from Boris if he ends up with no deal). There is nothing to fear with Corbyn as, back to the OP question, even Labour know they are highly unlikely to win a majority. Boris on the other hand has a similar dangerous mistakes list that he carried out when, unlike Jeremy, he was actually in office (as mayor, a minister and PM). Vote tactically and keep this dangerous PM from returning with a majority.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/11/tories-still-favourites-bu...

Too many posts for me to reply to them all in the time available but for me this incident really stands out.

The IRA planted a bomb in the hotel at Brighton with the deliberate intention of assassinating the democratically elected Prime Minister. They failed in that aim but muredered 5 others and injured many more, some with life changing injuries. This wasn't just an attack on the government, it was an attack on democracy itself.

The crass insensitivity of inviting two convicted terrorists from that very organisation to parliament, the ultimate symbol of our democracy only two weeks later, when some of the injured were still in hospital almost defies belief. The hypocrisy of that man professing to be caring and compassionate is staggering. To say his is a very selective compassion, would be generous.

Effectively by this action Corbyn is condoning the assassination of  political opponents, he can use all the weasel words he wants about reaching out to people you disagree with but the reality is he has never reached out to the people HE disagrees with. Why didn't he meet with the UVF or the UDA, why doesn't he meet with racist groups or go and speak to Israeli politicians, why didn't he meet up with Trump when he had the chance? The fact is he's not really interested in building bridges with people he disagrees with at all, just promoting his own causes and willing to overlook any atrocity in the process. That's why he's spent his life sharing platforms with terrorists, anti-semites, holocaust deniers and Marxists, always with some mealy mouthed excuse, he didn't know, he hadn't seen, he didn't look carefully enough, he didn't realise etc etc.

The Brighton bomb incident alone is enough to render him unfit to lead, let alone the countless other incidents. Lets just imagine for one moment if Labour wins the elction and that a far right group bombs the Labour party conference next autumn in an attempt to assassinate Corbyn killing five people in the process. And lets say the next Tory leader invites Tommy Robinson and Nick Griffin to parliament a fortnight later to "build bridges". How do you think the left will respond?

What time gap would you find acceptable?

Funny you should say that about Brighton.... Maggie didn't stop the back channel secret talks with the IRA.

Would I be right in thinking that throughout the relevant period, all adults in Northern Ireland had a vote, and could vote for the political wing of the IRA, in addition to all the usual ways of "having their voice heard" in a Western democracy? 

A wee Daily Heil echo chamber here I see full of more Tory lies. But why not? Have fun kids. 

Everything I've seen and heard though warns me the Conservative bullshit has really cut through and connected with people. We only see a fraction of it (still more than in past years, they're even paying to target snowflakes like me this time). My bet is a majority of 80 seats from 40% of the vote to Con, 4% BP. I'm desperate to be wrong.

Sound advice but it's too late. No amount of tactical voting websites or celebrity pleading can overcome the simple fact there are too many remain choices vs one clear leave option on each ballot.

jk

Hard to put a figure on it, it would be more dependant upon there being a substantial change in circumstances, so probably years or decades if indeed ever.

Then we wouldn't have the Good Friday Agreement.

As the Prime Minister you have a duty to act in the national interest and sometimes that means holding your nose and talking to your opponents. Bear in mind also they would have had communication with all parties involved.

To compare the PM acting in accordance with that duty, via intermediaries, in secret and out of the public gaze with a self appointed backbencher who was never in a position to enact anything anyway, willingly fraternising with terrorists and their representative from one side and one side only, to promote his own pet cause is utterly spurious.

Are you seriously suggesting that if Corbyn hadn't invited those two to parliament we wouldn't have had a Good Friday Agreement or indeed that he in any way usefully contributed to it?

In reply to all:

Sorry, can't reply to anything else now, I've got to do some work!

Did that stop bloody Sunday from happening or republican families being petrol bombed out of their homes and being second class citizens in a country their families go back thousands of years? 

Eh?

It's been clear for a long time Corbyn has no chance of forming a majority governments, and little chance of running a minority one.

It's clear you're a Tory, and this is the Tory tactic, negative campaigning towards Corbyn, and Brexit, Brexit, Brexit. No policies and the grown up Tories have been kicked out the party. The only consolation is this miserable 5 years will see the end of Tory domination of British politics. No amount of media tycoon support will cover the mess to come.

No. Are you seriously suggesting that we would have the GFA if we had never talked to the terrorists?

Form conversations outside of my "bubble"*, I agree. The media have successfully painted Corbyn as a marxist, a treat to national security and an anti-semite. These three things have come up in every conversation I have had, policies are routinely ignored in all discussions and the coverstaion returns to the persoanlities involves and Johnson's actions, however bad, are rebutted with, "Yes, but Corbyn would be worse".

* SW Manchester Liberal elite snowflake etc......

Let’s just take a moment to thank the geniuses in the Labour Party for refusing the electoral alliance offered by the other parties. 

Well that's a pathetic justification if ever I heard one.

One was a mealy mouthed MP with no regard for victims of the Brighton bombing and with nothing but a massively inflated sense of their own importance who likes to cosy up to terror groups around the world. The other was head of the UK government looking to try and bring a peaceful solution to the troubles. It's not quite the same is it although I've no doubt you've got a lifesize cuddly doll of Corbyn hanging in your bedroom who lulls you to sleep at night....

Would it not be better to start out with the notion that Jeremy Corbyn is a decent man, and then to ask why a decent man would get involved with all those things on your list?

The answer might be that he is not actually colluding and conspiring with 'the enemy' for ulterior ends, but actually employing pretty advanced negotiation methods in order to get them (at the very least) to talk.

On a one-to-one personal level, NOT talking with people with whom you disagree is probably the worst thing you could do, because the subject of disagreement/conflict would then be allowed to fester and perpetuate itself into hostility - significantly worse than the original dispute.

If you agree with that basic principle on the personal level, then might it possible to extrapolate up to national and international collaboration, cementing relationships, a better understanding, and thereby establishing the possibility of defusing future conflict? Isn't that what Corbyn is, and has been, doing all along?

I think you're being way overly pessimistic.
They ended up with an eight point lead in 2017 and didn't get a majority:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2017/may/08/general-ele...
Probably why he's banging on about a hung parliament, he's running scared.

That would be entirely fair -- if he also had a long track record of talking to the other side in such disputes.  

Point us to his long-standing engagement with Israelis to go alongside his long-standing engagement with groups wanting the annihilation of Israel.

You are a strange one. Would you not regard anybody who said they had no doubt you slept with a cuddly Boris doll as an idiot?

And the LibDems for the same. And the SNP who with the LD effectively forced this election to be fought at the time and on the 'issues' of Johnson's choosing for petty party gain. Nobody comes out of this clean.

jk

It's probably worth reminding people that, if they really want to make sure brexit happens, they should put their cross in both the Tory box and the Brexit party box when they come to vote.

I hope so though frankly with the loss of Bercow a majority of one is all he really needs to start a run-away chain reaction that dismantles the UK as we've known it.

You don't think any lessons were learned from that disaster? The popular vote barely matters, the key is picking your fights. We're fighting amongst ourselves while the Conservatives carefully pick off the stragglers.

It's just electioneering. He'd be doing it scared or not, he needs people to turn out, maybe in grim weather, to vote for something they may have grave misgivings about. He's hardly going to offer waverers the comfort of believing their reluctant Conservative vote, maybe their first ever, isn't needed.

jk

I agree that they had other options, but I would suggest they clearly didn’t feel that they were being heard through those channels. And the problem with these sort of things is that shows of force and a refusal to talk in return just strengthen their argument and commitment. 
 

If the choice is between attempting to negotiate a peaceful resolution, and shooting or imprisoning people until there is no one left, I’d like to give the former a go. 
 

As I say, I do think military intervention etc has its place. But I don’t think it should be the sole solution. 

So the Tory billionaire owned media show a story about the Labour shadow health minister giving his opinion on whether they will win the GE and what will happen if they don't. And a snide comment that is bunkum about national security and that is all you have?

Yet you have a fit about it just like the BS in your last post which is a whole lot of nothing dressed up to look like something. 

2/10

3 points for your drama queenery and 1 for effort minus 2 for trying to con people. 

It's just realpolitik. Maggie was saying publicly that she would never talk with the IRA until they renounced violence.

That's a pretty crass point, given the historical, political, cultural and religious background.

Then you don't know what a fact is. Most of the statements in the list are headlines from papers like the Express and Mail. It's easy to google them to find the sources.

If you're unable to distinguish newspaper headlines (from partisan papers) from facts, then that means you lack critical thinking skills. And many of the statements are too vague to be facts, e.g. voted against outlawing the glorification of terror - what, when?

And then you say

Not good is it?

When you say "close down debate" what do you mean? I said:

Asking questions is the opposite of "shutting down debate". These aren't rhetorical questions, I actually want to know. If you haven't got an adequate response, that's not because I'm "shutting down debate", it's because you haven't got an adequate response - and that's your problem.

I won't defend him as a suitable PM, or say that he hasn't told lies in the campaign (he has). But I think that the cut-and-paste from social media of a bunch of tabloid headlines saying that he supports terrorism and ISIS is shit. So I've said it's shit. Because it's shit.

I'll ask again:

What is it that you guys think Corbyn is going to do? Are you able to articulate seriously what you're actually frightened of in terms of the consequences for yourselves, your families, etc.?

So what.

Not really. Momentum are a populist far-left organization that support him - he isn't a puppet. The problem with him is that he's incompetent and won't bend to political pressure when in fact that would be wise (e.g. it would be much better to pretend he supports the monarchy when he doesn't).

May well do: Canada, Australia or New Zealand are appealing.

I've given reasons for being negative. I need reasons to cheer up. just saying "don't be negative" is the kind of thing useless managers come out with when they introduce something shit in an office that pisses everyone off for perfectly good reasons. It portrays a lack of thought.

The whole of politics is about the reasons people vote. That's why we're having this conversation. 

Not really but I do think that anyone who thinks Corbyn is a suitable candidate to lead this country is an absolute idiot.

I love the way you put together your arguments!

So we get a  2 minute snatch ( I used the word on purpose) of a conversation some Tory friend of Jon's posted to a Tory troll site, and you expect us to believe everything that was said on it, your'e as daft as the BBC.

If these News organisations and media outlets had anything about them they'd have played the whole conversation, not just Jon's bits, they wouldn't have disguised the other blokes voice, and they'd have done it when it happened not three f*cking weeks later.

Don't you realise you're being played?

Or don't you care?

I know he's a proper cnut isn't he, facts, and reasoned arguments, what a despicable f*cking shitbag!

Do you have any argument to explain why Boris is not an equally bad or worse candidate for PM?

As long as they used an actor to speak his words, for 6 years or so.

Also, there's not much in the Labour manifesto essentially promising to criminalise ethnic groups, or to increase the power of the government to escape scrutiny by parliament or the law, or to suppress voter turnout with unnecessary voter ID laws.

But to be honest, even ignoring all that and despite not being a massive fan of Corbyn on a personal level, I'd be fairly happy to vote Labour tomorrow purely because they've put together a manifesto that actually recognises that poverty, homelessness, healthcare funding and climate change are serious issues that we'll need to take positive action to deal with, rather than ignoring them or finding people to blame them on. I doubt that this'll win the election, because ignoring problems or blaming them on other people seems to be pretty much how Britain rolls in the 21st century, but it's there for us to choose if we want it.

There's a difference between "being heard" (they were) and "being agreed with".  

The reason the IRA did not get their wish for a united Ireland (and still have not) is: (1) the majority of NI voters have (so far) voted against that idea, and (2) we're basically a democracy.

That is not sufficient excuse for turning to terrorism. 

You really are a cock aren't you.

As a general principle, and again approaching from the standpoint of decency in conflict resolution, I think the underdog (those who are being bullied, disempowered, and whose voices are effectively unheard) are commonly engaged first. It is fair and ethical to do so, because from the start it effectively equalises the voices of those who are being bullied, with those doing the bullying. If talking is the route to a peaceful and long lasting resolution, there needs to be that form of equality.

So it is with the Palestinian people. They are the bullied underdog, and they defend themselves against the might of US-backed Israeli juggernaut by fighting back, like for like, as much as their meagre resources allow. Groups wanting the annihilation of Israel is tit-for-tat bullying, and therefore just as harmful. Nonetheless, those groups also have to be engaged and listened to, at, or near the beginning of the negotiation process.

Engagement with Israel remains extremely difficult if any attempt at negotiation is to equalise the voice of Palestine in the way described. Like the US, Israel has little desire for parity at the negotiating table. That is the only reason I can think of as to why Corbyn has not engaged with the Israelis, and why he is not antisemitic, yet is anti Zionist.

I think negotiators of Corbyn's ilk recognise that despite the omnipotence of bully-boy states, this way of resolving conflict (as well as its important chronology), is the only way forward we will ever have in achieving world peace. The problem is that it looks like connivance with the 'enemy' (which the UK media pick up on and sensationalise out of all recognition), when in fact it is actually a feasible means to a peaceful end.

There's also a massive assumption, that the way to negotiate is to be strong and stable and not back down, this was what was reported happened in the Cuban crisis 1960s, but it wasn't what happened in reality, this was a negotiated peace, and both sides backed down.

This bluster has been a falsehood that's perpetuated through he years, probably costing more and more lives though the passage of time.

Well that's a well thought out response. 

If I'm a cock you must be a complete fud for coming out with that.

Again, Corbyn has "engaged" with groups wanting the annihilation of Israel for 20 or 30 years now.    If he was genuinely trying to play honest broker he's had plenty of time to engage with the other side.

I don't think that that sort of one-sided presentation of a complex situation and complex history is at all helpful --  though it is in-line with Corbyn's strategy.   It is not how an honest broker thinks, it's how a partisan thinks.

I am not for one second saying that I think their actions are excusable, and I think you know that. But that doesn’t mean it’s not worth trying to find a peaceful solution, no matter how unlikely it seems. How did the good Friday agreement come about? Might it have involved someone talking to people that they didn’t agree with?

It came about by talking to *all* sides*.

Corbyn makes no attempt to talk to all parties, he acts as a partisan mouthpiece for one side. 

You may be right.

Alternatively somebody else would be the right person to be speaking to loyalist terrorists. For example Tories have close links with DUP which has support of UDA and DUP founder tried to form a 'defensive militia'.

Anyway, the choice for the middle ground is anybody but Johnson versus anybody but Corbyn there's not been much here to recommend Johnson.

His role is campaigner for Palestinian rights. Who in the Israeli regime is going to invite him in for a chat? 

I think it's totally ridiculous to deny that a nuclear power with US backing isn't bullying a stateless people. Denial of the reality we can all see is dishonesty. The situation is complicated, but that does not mean that the denial of the reality of the resources available to each side is justified. 

"If he was genuinely trying to play honest broker he's had plenty of time to engage with the other side."

I don't think it is a question of time. It is more a question of premeditated character assassination. Accusations of antisemitism knowingly and cynically whipped up by the popular media would not exactly endear Corbyn to the Israelis (or the UK electorate for that matter). With that in mind, it's quite possible that it is actually Israel refusing to negotiate, rather than Corbyn. It doesn't matter that antisemitism accusations are false - he is now tarred (probably indefinitely) with that particular brush, thus rendering it impossible for him to be honest broker. Such ubiquitous falsehoods can act as powerful drivers of non-negotiation, rather than what we are told to believe - Corbyn's reluctance. He has effectively been shut out by the persistent machinations of the media.

"I don't think that that sort of one-sided presentation of a complex situation and complex history is at all helpful --  though it is in-line with Corbyn's strategy.   It is not how an honest broker thinks, it's how a partisan thinks."

Yes, it's complex. And no, I'm not a one-sided partisan. What I'm trying to do is to give the man the benefit of doubt. Why? Mainly because of the profound dissonance that exists between Corbyn's inherent decency, with the media's portrayal of him as an antisemitic, trotskyite lunatic. It doesn't stack up, and I want to know what lies behind it.

No, of course not but as I've already said, that was the job of the government to do in secret, not for self appointed backbenchers pushing their own agenda publicly supporting one terrorist organisation and in such crass insensitive ways which only caused anger and more division.

The problem is Corbyn has only ever spoken to people he did agree with.

And the evidence for this is... that he met them? Or is it the presence of photos that proves his passionate agreement? I fear that we may be mistaking opinions for facts.

So you didn't actually listen to clip I posted? It was 11 minutes long and it was actually Jon Ashworth speaking on it, he isn't denying it, in fact he's admitted it. He says it made him look like a "right plonker" look:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50726592

What are you talking about? They did play the other blokes bits, try listening to it. Does it matter why they disguised his voice? You can still tell what he says and it doesn't alter what Jon Ashworth actually said.

Why would they have done that instead of releasing it at the moment of maximum impact, you know, like Labour released their "NHS for sale" leaked documents right after Corbyn had a car crash interview.

You don't get how campaigning works do you, like a lot of other things.

What am I being played exactly? When I click "play" I'm played a recording of Jon Ashworth saying Corbyn is f***ing useless (to paraphrase) and he's not even denying he said any of it.

The evidence for this is that he only ever met people who represented issues he publicly campaigned in favour of and never met ones he actively opposed FFS.

I listened to the entire nonsense. To me, JA is one of these people who'll take the piss whilst keeping a straight face/voice, which in this case, he clearly was.

He was just taking the piss out of Baker, see quote below taken from: https://www.conservativehome.com/localgovernment/2019/12/greig-baker-in-can...

"The third thing to mention is that, partly as a cover for those more extreme Corbyn fans down here, the Labour candidate is going around telling anyone who will listen that there’s no chance of Corbyn winning."

It's completely NON NEWS!

JA is probably apologising for having such a shit friend that records their phone calls.

That really is a generalisation.

Your preferred media source would love you to believe that, wouldn't they?

And the Queen met Martin Mcguiness so is she a threat to national security also?

Billionaire BS.

Vote Tory, vote for billionaires. 

Yes, he is a campaigner for Palestinian rights -- nothing wrong with that -- but he's also friends with and in cahoots with terrorist groups. 

Now, if his contacts with terrorist groups were as honest broker, trying to find a solution, then yes, that's laudable. But that's not the role he's playing.

But there is a vast amount more to say about the situation than that.  It's not fair to summarise the situation as though the fault were all on one side.

So just flicking through Oceanrower’s list again, when has Corbyn publicly campaign for a holy war against the UK? Or just Islamic fundamentalism in general?

I know the above is cherry picking but I think there may be more complicated contextual factors involved in the meetings and comments listed. And I think that even the list above alone can quite easily be interpreted in different ways depending on your chosen narrative, as we have seen here. Personally I think that the “terrorist supporter” narrative is one of the less likely candidates for the truth, if only because of the pretty consistent pacifism thing. 

I haven't looked into this whole Corbyn and anti-Semitism issue myself, but some commentators that I regard as sensible and reliable -- people including Nick Cohen, David Aaronovitch, and  Maajid Nawaz -- are adamant that the accusations are true and are severely condemnatory of Corbyn over it. 

None of those three are Tories simply out to smear Corbyn.

Let's think critically about this idea of being a "terrorist sympathiser" or "in cahoots with terrorist groups". What this really means is that he supports certain non-state actors in violent conflicts. We know from every civil war anywhere that where there is rebellion against a state, that state labels the rebels as "terrorists".

What's Assad doing in Syria, according to Assad. He's "tackling terrorism" isn't he? Are they "terrorists" according to the Western powers who want rid of Assad? Of course not, they're "rebel fighters". Why are China locking up Muslims in prison camps? They're dealing with "terrorism" right? Who are the Saudis bombing in Yemen? Oh yes, it's "terrorists" again, isn't it?

So what is a terrorist? It's someone engaged violent conflict, but crucially they are:

a) a non-state actor; and 

b) politically opposed to the speaker's view.

That's it. If b) doesn't apply, they're a "rebel fighter" or even a "freedom fighter". This argument is of course as old as the hills, and yet nothing changes.

I think that targeting innocent people is immoral. But if you don't have an army, because you don't have the resources of a government, there is no option of fighting a state in a morally acceptable way. You're f*cked, because the state, with the army, has all the resources. So you could choose not to fight, and lose everything (what might motivate a state to bend to your demands? nothing) or you can fight through terrorism and be condemned as immoral but at least keep your cause alive. People who are under serious pressure aren't going to be as sensitive as you or I about targeting innocent people, so the terrorists are always going to maintain support from the people who've been backed into that corner. If I was the mother of boys who'd been blown to bits by the IDF, would I sympathise with the innocent Israelis threatened by Hamas rockets - probably not.

The only way out from terrorism is to find the backing of a powerful state. Then you've got resources to pursue a different strategy.

If we, as voters in the powerful Western states, collude with this intellectually and morally  dismal idea that if you've got an army you can kill innocent people as collateral damage and that's fine; whereas if you don't have any resources and you engage in violent conflict in the only way you can, your cause cannot be supported, then there can never be a successful rebellion. The state always wins because it is legitimate, and the rebels are always terrorists. 

That's a brutal form of conservatism. If there's a state regime, we back it, because it's already won. If anyone tries to rebel, crush them, they're terrorists. The order will be conserved.

I agree. I think attempts to frame him as a "broker" are disingenuous. He's a campaigner for Palestinian rights, and the facts of the world are such that if you pick that side, you've picked the sides of terrorists (and there's no getting away from the fact that Hamas are horrendous Jew-hating psychopaths who want nothing more than to blow up innocent Jewish mothers and children). 

The question is, which shows moral courage: to pick the side of the Palestinians in spite of Hamas, because the endgame of equality of Jews and Arabs is worth it? Or backing the Israeli de-Arabizing machine in its efforts to expand the Jewish state to the River Jordan? I know where I stand. I can see the difference between political conviction, and a political excuse.

There's a lot to say. But on the topic of underdog or bully, we're talking about resources and there's only one honest answer, which you want to deny.

Do they actually think he's antisemitic, or do they criticise him for the way he's dealt with the issue? There's a difference.

There is no evidence that he is antisemitic. If he was antisemitic, we would see that he has a problem with Jews on the basis of them being Jewish. What we see instead is that he has a problem with Israel, because it's a state that pursues policies which deny people human rights on ethnic grounds. If you look at how he feels about Jews critical of Israel, we can see that it's not the Jewishness that bothers him, it's the racist policies of Israel.

So, I think you can do a little bit better than "oh, you know, I don't know anything about this, but these people said something and that's all I need to know".

What are you asking me for?

You're adamant that he's a "terrorist sympathiser". Surely you've got a view?

Do you think that his primary motivation is that he likes terrrorism, so no matter what the cause is, as long as it's terroristic, he's into it?

It matters. Basically, anyone who supports Palestinian rights is a "terrorist sympathiser" by some definition. I sympathise with a mother whose children are blown to bits by the IDF, who then allows Hamas fighters into her home. What does that make me? And do you sympathise with her, or is she just a "terrorist"?

Can you answer these questions?

 Mostly because of your claim that “The evidence for this is that he only ever met people who represented issues he publicly campaigned in favour of”. I was just looking at some of the people he has met and wondering if you were able to back this up. Shall I take your answer as a no?

But Jon has raised the question far more eloquently, so I’ll just leave that there. 

Nick F*cking Cohen, come on FFS!! He hates Corbyn and always has, if you regard him as sensible and reliable, then I've lost a lot of respect for you, I don't often agree with what you write, but I've often found what you write interesting and has some valid points, Cohen though FFS!! Again.

You're right I didn't, I tried but I couldn't understand a word the Tory back-stabbing wanker was saying, we also don't know what had been said before the "recording" we can hear.

At the end of the day, it make no difference what so ever what I think or what I write here, you seem convinced it's worth voting for the lying bastard Party, while I'll be voting for the party who have presented they manifesto, and their costings, while you are free to vote for the party who have only been able to snipe and rubbish the opposition, while presenting sound bite of bullshit, and hiding in the fridge.

If that's the sort of party you want then good luck to you, f*ck the rest of society, they'll carry on bleeding the NHS, f*cking the poor, and looking after their mates. You're welcome to it, but please stop posting such wanky f*cking posts and expecting normal people, with working minds to believe any of it.

We know who the party is which is honest and compassionate, with some integrity, and we know who the liars are.

Being adamant about something is not the same as evidence. I'd like to see the reasons why the three journalists are so severely condemnatory of Corbyn. In the absence of evidence to back such claims, it is quite likely to be what you suggest it isn't - smearing.

Is it not more that the Labour party is seen as anti semetic rather than Corbyn in particular. Corbyn was seen as being tolerant of some of the anti semetic behaviour of some of the members and as the party leader was very slow to do anything about. As much as I dislike Corbyn and his politics I dont think he is anti semetic. 

Those three think that he, personally, is anti-Semitic. 

For example, Maajid Nawaz, as you'll likely know, is a former Islamist who is now a moderate reformer (and founder of the Quilliam think tank). He is thus fully aware of the rampant anti-Semitism in the Islamic world.  And his assessment is that Corbyn joins in that. 

For the three I've named, their opinions and assessment and the reasons for it are all in the public domain.  I'm aware of it since I've followed their writings/tweets for years.   It's not the sort of thing that can be summarised in a paragraph or two, since it is the accumulation of a large number of things. 

In my last comment I stated who Maajid Nawaz is, for those unfamiliar with him (he's also a Lib Dem voter and previously stood as a Lib Dem candidate). Nick Cohen is a left-wing Labour supporter (and is Jewish). David Aaronovitch has a long track record as being left wing and a Labour supporter (I think he was a speech writer for Blair?), though he seems pretty much centrist these days (and is Jewish). 

OK, so your assessment of Nick Cohen may vary!   He is indeed from the not-Corbyn faction of Labour.  (And is even more vehemently opposed to Boris and Brexit.)

I personally do value his writings, including his books "What's Left?" and "You Can't Read This Book: Censorship in an Age of Freedom".

What are their reasons? Maybe they're indulging in the tired old crap that the "disproportionate" interest in Israel-Palestine is all antisemitic; or that "different standards" of not half-annexing your neighbours and building an ethnostate on top of them are being applied? 

​​​​​​Really. I wonder how he explains his selective antisemitism according to people's support for Israeli policy? 

Nice one Jon, once again you post what I was thinking. Keep up the good work

They have written on this topic extensively.  As I said, one could not fairly summarise it in a paragraph or two.

Well no, there's a lot more to it than that. 

Well thanks for your illuminating contribution! Someone you like says corbyn is antisemitic, but you can't explain why. 

I don't know about anyone else, but that's certainly convinced me. 

I can explain why, but it would take an hour or so to write a fair explanation.

And I can't be bothered -- unless the polls are badly wrong, Corbyn will be history come tomorrow morning  (though if Labour are really dumb he may continue walking-dead, zombie-style for a while).

The problem with that though, is if Corbyn has been brought down but slander and media attacks, where does that leave our society? There has so far been no evidence to prove Corbyn AA in fact there is much evidence to the contrary, but people only get to hear the accusations, which they then assume must be true.

It shouldn't be about Corbyn, but Labour policies, which are a better bet for society than the empty promises and lies of the Tory party.

I want someone to tell me where these 40 new hospitals are going to be built, tell me that and I'll vote Tory.

Corbyn, represented a real opportunity for change in our society, as sweeping away of Tory / Tory-lite options and some proper policies for the disadvantaged and the less well off, a move away from greed is good and "trickle down" economics, which is about as useful as the trickle down my leg after I've had a piss. More employment than every before, as long as you're on less than 18 hours a week and zero hours contracts, it's bullshit and we should all be raging against the pap we're fed and the expectation we should believe it.

"Working poor" should be a phase we should all be ashamed of.

I too hope to see the back of Corbyn. But I'll be even more glad to see the back of otherwise intelligent people parroting fatuous drivel from the right wing press about him being antisemitic and a terrorist sympathiser. It should be beneath you.

You need to shake a bit more vigorously