He didn't support the IRA, for fups sake. This is like the hatchet job the right wing media did on him. Take a grain of truth and spin a load of lies and exaggeration into it to make him out to be something he isn't. He's got principles that he didn't drop just because Laura Kuenssberg or Andrew Neil goaded him. You can say he should have said "Yes" when asked if he'd retaliate if we were nuked but he was making a point that nobody wins in that scenario. His stances on conflicts is always that there's negotiable settlements and that's why he votes against bombing by the likes of NATO. He then gets portrayed, not as anti-war, but rather anti-GB or anti-NATO or whatever.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
Well, you described Corbyn as more authoritarian than Starmer quite recently, so not very sure many people would recognise your view of Corbyn.
The thing about Corbyn that some seem to miss, was that he had a history of standing by his principles. He didn't just use left wing rhetoric when it suited him.
It never had to be Corbyn, and we could all see he was a bit too wooly for many people. But in the(ongoing) absence of anyone else with a moral compass, of course he should habe been supported by anyone left leaning. Shame on those that bought into the smear campaign.
It never had to be Corbyn, and we could all see he was a bit too wooly for many people. But in the(ongoing) absence of anyone else with a moral compass, of course he should habe been supported by anyone left leaning. Shame on those that bought into the smear campaign.
"As a lefty I strongly believe that the left have too much power and the right are all great."
So you don't like the fact that he's a pacafist that campaigns for peace and human rights? And due to that he would have blown up foreign policy.
Does that suggest that our current foreign policy is maybe very auhtorative and unethical? And you prefer this?
What's the GFA precursor? I've not heard of it myself.
I presume all the innocent people which died from the British army don't matter to you? Have you ever read into the triggers of the troubles and what the catholics were marching peacefully for? Do you never find it surprising that anyone who supported equality for catholics in Northern Ireland is suddenly an IRA sympathiser. Tell me what you'd do differently if you were peacefully protesting for equal voting rights, housing equality, job equality and police reforms against sectarianism but on every peaceful march you were attacked by Loyalists and your family was getting petrol bombed out of the home you grew up in. And the police who are meant to protect you are doing nothing yet innocent catholics are losing their lives for peaceful demonstrations. Please tell us what they should be doing differently. And please explain why supporting equal rights suddenly makes you a terrorist? Unless you're going to actually sit down at a table and speak to all sides, you ain't gonna find peace. Just because jeremy was progressive doesn't make him pro IRA. Is bill Clinton pro IRA for having the balls to speak with SF and the IRA and be instrumental in creating peace? You seem to be more supportive of Thatchers approach of sending the British army in and oppress the oppressed. Yet it was people like Bill Clinton meeting SF which was the turning point to finding peace. The very thing you hold against Corbyn.
With Israel are you saying you again support oppression? Do you watch the news? Did Shireen Abu Akleh deserve to die from a bullet from Israeli forces for simply reporting on the oppression? Did the mourners at her funeral deserve to be attacked by Israeli forces with batons? Do the hundreds of thousands of people in Israel who have went out and protested against the corrupt right wing leader not deserve better? Have you looked into the reporting on these recent protests too? The right wing Jewish press such as the Jewish chronicle are very supportive of the hard right wing Israeli government, of whom the PM is due in court over corruption and wants to make changes to legislation so that he has the power to select the judges which will be marking his homework in court.
It's nearly as if... The Jewish groups and media outlets which try to push that Corbyn was antisemitic are also hard right publocisations who don't even care about what the citizens of Israel think and support a government there which the majority of Israel citizens are protesting against.
Whereas many views and opinions of left wing jewish media have been silenced and don't get heard. It's as if corbyn is portrayed as anti semetic by some because he opposes the oppressive hard right wing regime of the Israeli government. And the many left wing jewish people who support corbyn have mostly been silenced.
In terms of Russia/Ukraine you say he lives in a fairyland because he wants peace. So are you of the belief that this war will continue until Russia or Ukraine is conquered? Because if it concludes before either of those events then that would be coming to a peaceful agreement. Or do you support peace but only after a few million people have died? The Russian soldiers being forced to conscript against their will deserve to die in battle and the Ukrainian working men like you and I also deserve to die? For what? Because our "leaders" can't sit round a table and try and find a solution. None of those decision makers are dying. Just the pawns.
I'd personally be more concerned though about the donations to the Conservative party from Russia. The promotion of someone with Kremlin links to the house of Lords. The secret undocumented meetings between Boris and members of the Kremlin. But yet... In the build up to the 2019 election Corbyn was portrayed as Russian by the BBC on Question Time. And all you have for him being pro Russian is "he wants to find peace".
And talking about right wing links to Russia. What about Russians interference in American elections. And trumps relationship and friendship with Putin which he still boasts about as recently as a month ago.
In my opinion. Alot of the global leaders, particularly on the right wing, have a very cosy relationship with Russia which our media don't like to focus on. And due to the economic ripples being felt across the world from this war, alot of them are financially benefiting from the prolonging of the current events too.
Wanting to find a better way forward or a solution to meaningless deaths isn't pro Russian. It's pro humanity.
It appears your issues with corbyns foreign policy is that he's a pacafist campaigning for equality and an end to oppression and war. And for some reason you've taken issue with that because you prefer a more authroative regime so long as you're not the one being oppressed. Out of sight out of mind.
Last edited:
@ThehatchetMan
The GFA precursor was Margaret Thatcher's Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985.
Details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_Agreement
The British House of Commons voted for a motion to approve the Agreement by a majority of 426 (473 for and 47 against, the biggest majority during Thatcher's premiership).
Corbyn was part of the 47.
Corbyn voted against it and spoke against it in parliament, saying: “We believe that the agreement strengthens rather than weakens the border between the six and the 26 counties, and those of us who wish to see a United Ireland oppose the agreement for that reason.”
He had weird bedfellows in that vote, including Enoch Powell, who opposed the Agreement on the grounds that it weakened the border and made a united Ireland all the more likely.
The GFA precursor was Margaret Thatcher's Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985.
Details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_Agreement
The British House of Commons voted for a motion to approve the Agreement by a majority of 426 (473 for and 47 against, the biggest majority during Thatcher's premiership).
Corbyn was part of the 47.
Corbyn voted against it and spoke against it in parliament, saying: “We believe that the agreement strengthens rather than weakens the border between the six and the 26 counties, and those of us who wish to see a United Ireland oppose the agreement for that reason.”
He had weird bedfellows in that vote, including Enoch Powell, who opposed the Agreement on the grounds that it weakened the border and made a united Ireland all the more likely.
It seems that alot of it stemmed from Ronald Reagan also applying pressure on Thatcher to make progress.
And reading the reaction to the agreement it seems both republicans and unionists were opposed to it with neither involved in the discussion.
In the end it didn't bring peace to NI. So corbyn voting against it I don't think can be held against him.
As for the unification comments. Well Northern Ireland is just another example of British colonisation, why shouldn't it be united. And brexit delivered by the Conservative party has only fuelled that. There will be a united Ireland in our lifetimes in my opinion.
I likely said they were almost as bad as each other on that front, rather than one was bad and the other was good, but Corbyn probably does edge it for me.
I very much doubt I missed an opportunity to slate the tories in that statement, but who knows.
Correct, I don't like the fact he's a pacifist. It's naive and costs lives and causes misery. As the prime minister of a country you cannot hold such principles. I believe from your comments about the right and all the whataboutism in this post that you know this to be true.
You could sum up his foreign policy as: "I want everybody to live happily together, and am happy to complain when they don't. But I won't stand up for oppressed people around the world, they can go feck themselves while I call for peace."
Your comments on ukraine are exactly the sort of naive fairytale I was talking about. If Ukraine and Her government collapsed, Russia would occupy, destroy, and wipe out her institutions. It would annex large swathes of land. And it would call for 'peace' while it rebuilt the military to do it all over again. You'd be enabling large scale genocide in Ukraine.
And his Israeli policy in government would be completely useless too. For the same reason as a policy to eradicate Canada or Australia in favour of natives would be crazily undoable. He'd carry on calling for peace while doing absolutely nothing.
Government policy would be crap like this: https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/26919 while announcing how NATO is a danger to world security. That's how much Corbyn cares about Muslim lives. Or any lives if it means putting troops on the line or entering conflict.
As to the bolded, you're not even scratching the surface. You could write a book on it. You could claim Tucker Carlson is a born again vatnik. And it'd probably be true. I've never had a kind word to say for the Tories. And Trump is quite obviously filthy.
Essentially this. I don't think he's badly intentioned, but he is fundamentally unsuited to be PM.
How do you think the British public would view a policy of no lethal aid to Ukraine?
Can you provide some examples of pacafism costing lives and causing misery please? And how war saves lives and causes joy?
What oppressed people does he not stand up for? Or are you suggesting that palestines and catholics arent/weren't oppressed?
If we had more pacafist world leaders then maybe we wouldn't all be terrified of making a wrong turn and nuclear war erupting. Something which will always hang over us now.
You speak as though the war in Ukraine is something to celebrate. 10s of thousands of people have died and it's no closer to ending. They may not be your friends or family dying but they're someone else's. But hey let's keep making more weapons and keep killing people. That'll show them Russians.
It worked brilliantly when the British kept sending the army to Northern Ireland. Fawklands another great success And let's not forget the great success of the war in Iraq either.
There appears to be a really good track record of the positive effects of military intervention in all of the above.
So wait just going back to the first bit I bolded. So can I just clarify that standing up for natives purged from their land isn't standing up for oppressed people.
And because owlo says its undoable and impossible to find a solution we should all just turn a blind eye? Because "not in my back yard, not my problem"?
The palestine issue didn't just come from nowhere. The British were key in the relocation of Jewish people to what is now Israel despite making different promises to the Arabs in return for the support.
Why is that "crap" out of interest? Is this another example of NATO/UK forces can do no wrong in your eyes? "We're the goodies"
What has it got to do with Muslim lives too? What a bizarre comment to make.
Im surprised your not more critical of the Uks response to Ukraine with you being so pro war. You'd think that being one of the original signatories to the Budapest Memorandum that our assurances to protect Ukraine security would have meant more. I think it will be a long time till we see any other countries disarming their nuclear weapons now.
And going back to Israel/Palestine. Maybe had the UK also honoured the league of nations mandate for palestine then the conflict we have in Israel wouldn't be here today.
But yes of course let's remember the propoganda we've been brought up with. British forces good. American forces good. Nato forces good. Everyone else bad. Western countries have nonprogranda and do no wrong. Only the East has propoganda and does bad.
If only it was as easy as the above paragraph.
Which in a sense makes it all quite ironic with what's going on in Ukraine given these political members and parties links to the Kremlin.
Makes you start to think that maybe everything isn't as clear as it appears on the surface.
But hey at least we all now have a very clear reason for food, gas, interest rates, fuel prices rising. Let's just take it on the chin and blame Russians conflict and turn a blind eye to the huge profits which some companies are making and the ongoing wealth redistribution to the wealthiest. Just like when the 10 richest people managed to double their wealth during the pandemic. A convenient distraction while the rich get richer.
Can't address everything at half time, but we'll start with this one.
That this House welcomes John Pilger's column for the New Statesman issue of 13th December, reminding readers of the devastating human cost of the so-termed 'humanitarian' invasion of Kosovo, led by NATO and the United States in the Spring of 1999, without any sanction of the United Nations Security Council; congratulates John Pilger on his expose of the fraudulent justifications for intervening in a 'genocide' that never really existed in Kosovo
Corbyn in tabling this motion, is explicitly denying the warcrimes of Slobodan Milosevic, and explicitly calling the genocide fraudulent and non existent. Five years after the conflict when the facts were well established.
What does it have to do with muslim lives? Those were the lives that Slobodan was specifically aiming to extinguish, and which NATO were defending against Christians.
(edit: bah, mistimed the game by 15 mins.)
At the end of the day this is what corbyns comments were:
And his opinion on war is the below.
So I was incorrect to call him a pacafist.
And as the war in Ukraine seems to be no closer to a resolution and the "sanctions" have done very little to defect Russia. Then I'm of agreeance that sending more military weapons doesn't seem to be getting us any closer to peace but just prolonging the ongoing conflict.
'Prolonging the ongoing conflict' could also be termed 'preventing Russia from conquering a sovereign nation'
*edit*
You've referenced sanctions a few times, but they are a non military solution, so when you talk about their ineffectiveness I'm unsure how that strengthens the case for no military support?
Assuming you accept that one side being pacifist doesn't compel the other side to do so, what steps do you feel would bring about the end to the war? What would Ukraine need to negotiate?
*edit*
You've referenced sanctions a few times, but they are a non military solution, so when you talk about their ineffectiveness I'm unsure how that strengthens the case for no military support?
Assuming you accept that one side being pacifist doesn't compel the other side to do so, what steps do you feel would bring about the end to the war? What would Ukraine need to negotiate?
Last edited:
Since this is a Corbyn-thread I assume the question can be asked here: what political or diplomatic solution does Corbyn propose for the war in Ukraine? Does it include Russia leaving occupied Ukrainian territory gained after the 2022 invasion? Or should only Ukraine make concessions? Maybe he has a great proposal so I'm genuinely interested.
There could never be a response to the Ukraine situation under international law, because Russia would simply use their UN veto to block any such motion. He knows that, he's just spouting nonsense.
Without Western weaponry there would be certainly have been a resolution by now, Russia would likely have taken the majority of Ukraine and thus Ukraine would have no negotiating power.
The art of negotiation implies there is somewhere on the venn diagram that overlaps and would be mutually acceptable to both sides. Anyone with multiple brain cells can see at the moment there is no where overlapping. It's classic Corbyn, a nice sound bite that completely disregards the factual situation.
But I'm gonna assume that kinda is the point by Corbyn and anyone else asking for peace proposals, that both sides should come together precisely to find a solution that's mutually acceptable. So again my question: what's Corbyn's proposal for Russia and Ukraine?
His proposal if I recall was for a ceasefire, followed by a peace agreement, followed by asking Russia to withdraw. I know I'm being harsh and most of you disagree with me, but I honestly find it fairytale foreign policy.
Have I really referenced sanctions multiple times? I'm simply pointing out that despite sanctions and military assistance the war carries on. Pretty sure that's the only reference I've made.
And I've given other examples of where military intervention over a prolonged period hasn't had a positive effect.
It's not even just about the direct casualties either, it's the secondary impacts to infrastructure, the climate, global systems and markets too.
Not sure why it's seen as such a bad thing to try and focus on dialogue and peace talks.
No idea. Has he went into any depth with his views on the conflict?
This is your opinion, not a fact.
The only fact is that people's family and friends are dying every day and while they may just be a number to us. I'm sure their loved ones would much prefer a peaceful resolution.
Again you're presenting your opinions as though they are facts. As if you know exactly what Russia and Ukraine may compromise on and what their limits are when in reality you really don't and all any of us can do is speculate over it.
There seems to be a real reluctance to reference other recent wars either where military intervention has made things better.
Was it worth all the needless deaths in Iraq? Are all the needles deaths in palestine and Israel worth it? What about the deaths of all the innocent people in NI from British soldiers?
@ThehatchetMan Nothing to say to this?
I really want to reply to other stuff, but best we go point by point.
It's fact. https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/02/1112802
They've both pretty much set out their negotiating positions. They are so far apart, if there was an obvious middle ground it would be being pushed for. There will always be the fundamental problem that Ukraine is not going to trust anything Russia says. Signing a piece of paper is not going to change that. Ukraine are going to want assurances of their security, be that via NATO membership or another mechanism. Russia is not going to accept that. There is nothing really contestable in those sentences.
I don't understand what Iraq (which I am very much against) etc has to do with this? Because Corbyn has been right before doesn't make him right here.
I may have misread, I thought you had also referenced it in previous conversations. I was just surprised that you would seem to conflate sanctions and military action, whereas I thought that the ability to implement sanctions would be if anything more important if someone wanted to avoid military intervention but still be able to influence outcomes. Apologies for my misunderstanding on that though.
I'm aware you are being asked to come up with answers to hypothetical situations here but I think Ukraine is one area where Corbyn would have been absolutely hammered in the media, and in this instance, I think that his position does run contrary to the stance of the voting public as well.
I don't necessarily agree with your views on the conflict in terms of providing weapons or the effectiveness of sanctions (I would be interested in a separate discussion about your views on the potential impact of BDS with regards to Israel/Palestine) however this is a thread about Jeremy Corbyn and I assume a hypothetical about general electability is fair. So how do you think he would have positioned things to the media and the public? Do you think this could have been an area of weakness in terms of getting votes? What tools would be available if we took 'sending materiel that could be used for an invasion of Russia' off the table. Do you think he would have supported sanctions (this was more your one off quote, so I wouldn't want to attribute a position to him)? What kind of tools would he have had available to bring people to the negotiating table?
Don't be ridiculous. I'm one of many who remembers corbyns sympathies with Irish republicanism during the Troubles. People with a moral compass who supported a united Ireland supported the SDLP, not sinn fein, in those days.
Sorry mate I will reply soon. Going to walk the dog here and have a few bits at home to sort but will try to reply in an hour or so.
I enjoy the debate even if we disagree. The Ukraine conflict is far from something I'd say I have strong knowledge on though and the conversation seems to have focused on this area suddenly. But I'll try.
Damn, that's a lot of people in Ireland without a moral compass.
Well me and my family grew up in the troubles in a protestant estate which was under threat from the IRA. We can agree to disagree with our opinions on Corbyn and the troubles.
[
Since sinn fein polled only about 1.5% of the vote in the south of Ireland until peace, yes, a lot of people did in fact have a moral compass.
Since sinn fein polled only about 1.5% of the vote in the south of Ireland until peace, yes, a lot of people did in fact have a moral compass.
I grew up in Northern Ireland during the troubles myself and had family under threat so yes, I remember too.
I'm aware that you're being hit from all sides here, so understand that you may not reply but in what way do you consider Corbyn to be authoritarian? I get you don't like him or his policies but to consider him authoritarian, especially relative to Starmer, is bewildering to me.
Interesting page or two. Seperate from Corbyn how do you go about advocating for peace and ceasefires and negotiations and it not be political suicide and geopolitically naive? Is it possible? Or is it just a bad strategy and the threat of violence is almost a requirement of peace.
I guess the political suicide part is kind of unavoidable as your almost guaranteed to be dealing with at least one murderous scumbag.
I guess the political suicide part is kind of unavoidable as your almost guaranteed to be dealing with at least one murderous scumbag.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding it but from the same url you've provided of the tabled motion it states:
"President Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen claimed, entirely without foundation, that 'we've now seen about 100,000 military-aged [Albanian] men missing.....they may have been murdered' and that David Scheffer, the US ambassador-at-large for war crimes, announced with equal inaccuracy that as many as '225,000 ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59' may have been killed"
Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm presuming that it was due to these alleged numbers that Nato intervened?
Yet in actual fact the number of deaths was closed to 1% of the last figure tabled?
"the International War Crimes Tribunal, a body de facto set up by NATO, announced that the final count of bodies found in Kosovo's 'mass graves' was 2,788"
And as part of this motion. They wanted the UK government to assist Kosovo with cleaning up the mess from NATOs invasion?
"believes the pollution impact of the bombing of Kosovo is still emerging, including the impact of the use of depleted uranium munitions; and calls on the Government to provide full assistance in the clean up of Kosovo."
I don't think it's that bad?
I'm struggling to follow the conversation here.
You quoted my post where I provided 1 quotation in relation to corbyns view on providing further arms to Ukraine.
And another totally unrelated quote related to his opinion on war in general. From before the Ukraine conflict even existed.
And I feel like you've taken the international law phrase which wasn't used in the context of Ukraine and applied that as an example of Corbyn talking shit in your opinion about Ukraine?
When he was talking about international law that was in relation to his views on war where he was saying he supports military intervention which complies with international law as a last resort. The quote is from 2018.
I think it's also worth you reading the quote I provided again to. He isn't saying every nation should stop giving Ukraine arms or that giving then arms was a huge mistake.
He's saying that by contually pouring in more arms it's just going to exaggerate and prolong the war and that he wish world leaders would put more focus and emphasis on peace and trying to find solutions rather than on war.
I agree with it.
In regards to Iraq. It's relevant because you responded to my post where I provided 2 quotes. One on corbyns views on Ukraine. One of corbyns views on war in general.
If someone supports prolonged military intervention in the Ukraine war then it's fair to draw comparisons to other recent conflicts and to judge whether prolonged military intervention had a positive or negative impact in those.
What emphasis and focus on peace do you mean? Is it; Ukraine conceding territory and land in spite of the wishes of it's people?
Don't get me wrong I think sanctions are generally a much better route than war. But it's still a form of conflict which has consequences on many innocent people and can indirectly lead to loss of life.
I can't remember the original post you quoted but I believe I was simply making reference to the fact that despite sanctions and military intervention we're still no closer to a resolution.
He's not a dictator though and I disagree when people say he's unable to look past his own views/principles.
I think just like with brexit, to his failure, where he took a more neutral stance despite historically being a euro sceptic. In terms of Ukraine I think he'd have been diplomatic and followed the parties views too. Many of his closest allies support the prolonged military support, and the original quotes I provided doesn't say he opposes it. Just that he worries it will prolong war and that more focus should have been put on peace.
And I agree the media would slaughter him simply because they see his political views as a threat to the elite. So they'll always find a way to attack him just like they did in 2019.
I think he would have tabled his views in parliament but ultimately a democratic vote would have taken place as well as bills going through the lord's. And as a result I believe our initial reaction would likely have been similar to what we've already seen. An international one. I don't think he'd oppose the majority of his parties or members views. Just like he took a neutral stance on brexit despite historically being a eurosceptic.
With the above said though, I think he would have pushed for more talks and discussions with Putin and would have possibly even met him in person. Something I think is essential to finding a peaceful resolution. And something I'd support from any western leader.
I think given his parliamentary record and views on previous conflicts that he would be much better positioned to negotiate and have progressive talks with pro/neutral Russia countries such as China/Pakistan/India/Russia/NKorea/Oraq/Brazil (?) etc.. And I think they'd be more open to dialogue with him too than the historic old guard.
I think the cost of living crisis is an indirect effect of both covid and Ukraine and I think alot of the things on corbyns 2019 manifesto would have indirectly improced this such as his pledge to bring energy under public ownership again.
I think instead of energy price caps which effectively universally discount the rate of energy for all, that more targeted support would be provided. I don't think we'd have the same large companies making windfalls off the back of this conflict and for those which are I believe a proper fair tax would be applied.
As Ukraine is seen as an international issue and conflict, it's not Corbyns responsibility to resolve it. In the same sense that neither tory leader has done much in terms of finding a solution so far.
Again though looking at indirect effects, another one is unions and pay strikes. Again I expect corbyn would have been much more pro active in this space and I imagine he'd have more negotiating power and respect from the unions and resolutions would have been found rather than the recurring cycles of strikes were currently experiencing.
I think giving Americas and Bidens special relationship with Ireland, and corbyns positive effect on bringing peace to NI that this would help to strengthen relationships with America. I also think we'd have Stormont up and running and operating rather than the current stalemate where Sunak has changed legislation basically extending the time required for an election after one party doesn't nominate a minister.
But despite all the above the media is and always will be a huge problem for him to tackle. However actions speak louder than words and with time I think his actions would silence his critics.
I meant from a position of leader of the opposition, sorry again for confusion but useful to see how you feel he would do if in charge and a lot will carry across.
I'm not so sure how his position on Nato would go down with the US, and I think the main barrier to Stormont being in session is the DUP. I'm not sure they are really positively disposed to him. Still, work in the morning so better call it here. Thanks for coming back to me.
Where have I suggested Ukraine should coded territory? You keep mentioning this.
My point is that a continued flow of arms just prolongs the war and increases the death toll.
A good start would be meeting Putin in person.
Nevermind me though. Let's flip this on to you instead for a bit:
- How many more weapons need to be provided till the war ends?
- How many more deaths till it ends?
- Do you think eventually Russia will just give up?
- What stops them from invading Ukraine again a year later? How do you know they won't?
- So is your solution just:
- Wait for Russia to attack > Refugees leave and spread across Europe > Key infrastructure destroyed > Western countries provide billions of arms to Ukrainian constricted civilians > people die > repeat last 2 steps until Russia give up > bring back refugees and rebuild infrastructure > wait x years for next Russia invasion and repeat the same cycle.
Last edited:
As leader of the Opposition he would struggle due to the media like last time. However the attacks only really ramp up around election time. I think like it has been under Starmer, alot more focus would slowly have been shifted back toward the tories.
I'm not bothered that JC is not leader anymore and there are many labour MPs I would support as leader. I liked JC political ideology alot more than most though and particularly Starmers.
With regards to Nato I think Corbyn is often misquoted and misunderstood as someone who wanted to pull out of Nato despite never saying this. He simply recognised it as an organisation which potentially had too much power and could threaten world peace. And unsurprisingly alot of Putins actions have often been reactions to moves by Nato. Such as the current conflict in Ukraine which occurred shortly after N Macedonia joining Nato.
The main barrier is the electoral system which requires 2 partirs of equal power from either side of the community. And where one party can abstain from parliament and effectively bring the assembly down with them.
We need urgent reforms on this but the DUP oppose it as the status quo suits them and the tories like to please the DUP as they give them their support in Westminster. Such as in 2017 when they propped up Mays government. We should have had an election in November sfger the DUP failed to nominate a DFM. The alliance parry have also made big gains on the DUP in recent years. That election should have happened and could have made a change. Sunak changed legislation to prevent it from happening. I don't believe Corbyn would have made the same change to help the DUP out.
Well fair enough not all of my family will share my exact views either.
Personally I tend to sway towards SDLP/UUP/Alliance in NI politics as both SF and DUP benefit from conflict and segregation in my eyes and only look to serve their respective sides of the community. SDLP/UUP/Alliance I find to be a bit more middle ground when it comes to tribalism along with green and pbp too.
While I'm no fan of the IRA or some of the crimes they committed. I have to remember that at the root of it all was an initial peaceful movement for equality and that catholics were being oppressed and descriminated against. And that is a sad part of Northern Ireland's history which I have to accept as a protestant.
Now as a pacafist I don't agree with the terrorist acts in any way against innocent people on all sides. And ive got alot of respect for politicians like John Hume who were instrumental in negotiating peace in a honourable manner.
But fundamentally when the GFA was finally signed in 1998 it was when the British and irish government would sit around the table with parties from all sides of Northern Ireland. Maybe had the British government been willing to meet with SF when JC was willing to a peaceful conclusion could have maybe been discovered sooner.