Topic: General Election on June 8th

[oldfordie]

He want's multilateral disbarment,? he argued for unilateral disarmament when debating this with Smith.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

I think he's done alright actually, dodged some difficult questions and some decent soundbites for people to pick up.

This is from someone who thought he'd struggle.

was decent, no real car crash moment that would go viral, maybe that bit with his eyes at the end

Doubt it win him many off that but probably not lose for good any on that

[Bunter]

Addressed certain issues, stumbled a bit on others but on the whole dealt with Neil well and got his point across. Did much better than May who looked deranged and visibly irritated being questioned.

[Alan_X]

was decent, no real car crash moment that would go viral, maybe that bit with his eyes at the end

Doubt it win him many off that but probably not lose for good any on that

I'd agree with that but the IRA stuff will be all across the usual media sources tomorrow. I think the most damaging statements were that he had fuck all to do with the peace process. Interesting that Neil didn't bring up the Hamas/Hezbollah 'friends' stuff.

[Cliff Bastin]

Car crash with the IRA. He should pay journalists not to ask before interviews happen. Lied too.

[TheShanklyGates]

Thought he did much better than expected to be honest. Neil threw a lot at him but I'm not sure much of it stuck.

Not sure if he'll have convinced many people who weren't already inclined to vote for him though.

[Trada]

Enjoyed the interview, it was always going to be like that.he threw everything at him.

but he answered all the questions got the policies and what he stands for across well and got in a put down at the end.

Next its Paxman.

[Team Sleep]

Pretty reasonable responses from a variety of people on the Guardian live updates.

[killer-heels]

Corbyn was much better than May.

Were they all interviewed on the same day?

[redalways]

Actually impressed with Corbyn. Surprised. He got the better of Andrew Neil which is very difficult to do. Much more comfortable and dare I say it more statesman like than May.

[Millie]

I have to say I was impressed

[Conocinico]

Perhaps not, it does initially appear to be a reasonable and an attractive explanation.

But as some have been at pains to attempt to explain, the connection is not as clear cut or simple as it doesn't explain the outrages in Brussels or Paris or Stockholm or Madrid.

Should we somehow change the part of our foreign policy that apparently offends, whatever that is, and that is claimed to be the driving force for these people, what excuse will there be if the outrages continue?

It's surely worth a bit of thought.

No-one should pander to the motives of these primitives, I think everyone agrees with that. Instead some argue that causing instability over the whole MENA region leads to a situation where extremists become organised and militarised and additionally causes an influx of refugees into this country, a percentage of which, will undoubtedly be those same radicals.

[Zeb]

I thought Corbyn did ok. Same with what bits I've seen of his speech. Today could have been an absolute shambles. It wasn't. I am making some allowances for his past and his inability to give a truly coherent account of the positions he's taken.

[TepidT2O]

No-one should pander to the motives of these primitives, I think everyone agrees with that. Instead some argue that causing instability over the whole MENA region leads to a situation where extremists become organised and militarised and additionally causes an influx of refugees into this country, a percentage of which, will undoubtedly be those same radicals.

But this guy was form Manchester...

And why is Belgium being bombed, or Spain??

[Conocinico]

But this guy was form Manchester...

And why is Belgium being bombed, or Spain??

I don't understand why either of those objections contradict anything I said.

[Bunter]

But this guy was form Manchester...

And why is Belgium being bombed, or Spain??

Spain deployed troops in OP Telic in Iraq and Belgium supplied troops in Afghanistan, they were part of the Western intervention. They are seen in exactly the same light as every other NATO/European country by those nutters.

[Alan_X]

Spain deployed troops in OP Telic in Iraq and Belgium supplied troops in Afghanistan, they were part of the Western intervention. They are seen in exactly the same light as every other NATO/European country by those nutters.

Ah that makes sense. Leave Europe and leave NATO.

[Bunter]

Ah that makes sense. Leave Europe and leave NATO.

So baby out with the bath water? No inbetween ground? I don't think I really understand what you're getting it.

Anyway I answered his question fairly.

[Peabee]

Ah that makes sense. Leave Europe and leave NATO.

Eh? 

[Trada]

Brilliant Just proves they were just given a message to repeat.

 Hicham Yezza‏ @HichamYezza

Wow. Michael Fallon flattened. He attacks Corbyn's words...

until he's told they're Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson's. Bravo

Video

https://twitter.com/HichamYezza/status/868182862415228929

[Jiminy Cricket]

And the question asked by several others already: how do you explain terrorist attacks on countries who have not been involved in military interventions?

Well, presumably, they are softer targets. Few countries put in the kind of effort the UK does to counter terrorism. The more prone a country, the more effort/expense will be committed to prevent such acts. In this scenario, it would not be surprising to find a balance where terrorists will sometimes target less 'desirable' countries simply because they are more likely to succeed. Yes, foreign policy can be overstated as the cause - I'd suggest that past foreign policy (over decades and centuries) are probably more significant than recent/present policy. So, whatever the cause, and whatever the 'fix', it will take considerable time to take effect (if it takes effect). I don't know what I'm really arguing here, except that people (on both ends of the political spectrum) can take a narrow, simplistic approach to the problem. I think, in the short to medium term, the problem is intractable and all we can do is manage it as best we can.

[Peabee]

Brilliant Just proves they were just given a message to repeat.

 Hicham Yezza‏ @HichamYezza

Wow. Michael Fallon flattened. He attacks Corbyn's words...

until he's told they're Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson's. Bravo

Video

https://twitter.com/HichamYezza/status/868182862415228929

Hahaha.  Brilliant by Krishnan Guru-Murthy.

[The North Bank]

Brilliant Just proves they were just given a message to repeat.

 Hicham Yezza‏ @HichamYezza

Wow. Michael Fallon flattened. He attacks Corbyn's words...

until he's told they're Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson's. Bravo

Video

https://twitter.com/HichamYezza/status/868182862415228929

Haha, the back pedaling there and stuttering was brilliant

[It's Jimmy Corkhill]

Brilliant Just proves they were just given a message to repeat.

 Hicham Yezza‏ @HichamYezza

Wow. Michael Fallon flattened. He attacks Corbyn's words...

until he's told they're Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson's. Bravo

Video

https://twitter.com/HichamYezza/status/868182862415228929

Stick that on the news.

[Billy Elliot]

Brilliant Just proves they were just given a message to repeat.

 Hicham Yezza‏ @HichamYezza

Wow. Michael Fallon flattened. He attacks Corbyn's words...

until he's told they're Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson's. Bravo

Video

https://twitter.com/HichamYezza/status/868182862415228929

That is amazing.

[Outer Mongolian Red]

I thought Corbyn did OK actually, Andrew Neil is a tough interviewer for the best of them.

He certainly did a lot better than May.

[Wabaloolah]

I thought Corbyn did ok. Same with what bits I've seen of his speech. Today could have been an absolute shambles. It wasn't. I am making some allowances for his past and his inability to give a truly coherent account of the positions he's taken.

he is running a decent campaign, Abbott not being seen for ages certainly helps him.

I still can't see him winning or even stopping the Tories getting an OM and the downside to a close election will be Labour will be stuck with Corbyn

[TepidT2O]

he is running a decent campaign, Abbott not being seen for ages certainly helps him.

I still can't see him winning or even stopping the Tories getting an OM and the downside to a close election will be Labour will be stuck with Corbyn

I'm hoping for a labour win.

Best chance to get rid of Corbyn.

[Trump's tiny tiny hands]

Brilliant Just proves they were just given a message to repeat.

 Hicham Yezza‏ @HichamYezza

Wow. Michael Fallon flattened. He attacks Corbyn's words...

until he's told they're Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson's. Bravo

Video

https://twitter.com/HichamYezza/status/868182862415228929

Nailed the gormless idiot

[ShakaHislop]

I'm hoping for a labour win.

Best chance to get rid of Corbyn.

How?

[Wabaloolah]

I'm hoping for a labour win.

Best chance to get rid of Corbyn.

If he wins we'll never get rid of him, if he gets close the same I think, that said a Corbyn led government is more palitable to a May led one

[ShakaHislop]

If he wins we'll never get rid of him, if he gets close the same I think, that said a Corbyn led government is more palitable to a May led one

It will be fascinating to see if there will be a leadership election in the aftermath of a close defeat, let alone whether Corbyn will win or not. Unfortunately, I think his chances of winning after a close election defeat would be even greater than they were last summer after Brexit.

[cloggypop]

I'm hoping for a labour win.

Best chance to get rid of Corbyn.

Why would you want to?

[richiedouglas]

Im on holiday for the vote, so postals gone in for Jezza.

After the brexit vote ive been more interested in peoples voting intentions rather than presuming. Theres very little positive feeling for corbyn despite this being an ex mining community. When i ask about his policies theyre nearly always positive.

[gqP6w]

But this guy was form Manchester...

And why is Belgium being bombed, or Spain??

The world isn't black and white, no one is saying the only reason we are being attacked is because of our foreign policy. Trying to break a highly complex situation down into simplistic binary options helps nothing.

[Red Beret]

Im on holiday for the vote, so postals gone in for Jezza.

After the brexit vote ive been more interested in peoples voting intentions rather than presuming. Theres very little positive feeling for corbyn despite this being an ex mining community. When i ask about his policies theyre nearly always positive.

Still waiting for mine.  Hope it turns up soon.

[redmark]

Did fairly well on the questions on the speech. Just about got away with Ireland (Neill went a little easy on him at one point). Got very rattled when interrupted on NATO. Poor answers on Trident. Wobbled on the IFS criticism, but responded well with the 'investing in the future' point. Brushed off Labour criticism quite well with the manifesto.

A couple of his bizarre, slightly unsettling facial expressions where it looks like he's bottling up the urge to kill the interviewer.

[redmark]

if he just answered the trident one with a simple 'I'm against it but parliament voted for it' rather than the 'everybody knows what I think on...' stuff

"The Labour Party is a democratic party. We had a discussion on the issue of renewal, my personal view is well known, but I accept and support the party and parliamentary democratic decisions to renew Trident."

[Rob Dylan]

I don't totally agree with what Corbyn has said about terror attacks - or at least, I don't think it's a point he needed to be making now - but Theresa May' response is appalling: "Jeremy Corbyn has said that terror attacks in Britain are our own fault." Those are her actual words. That's not even spin, it's just a flat out lie.

But on the other hand, it brings me back to my original point. If we're having a detailed discussion about the historical causes of terrorism, about how we got to where we are, then Western foreign policy is bound to get a mention and is worth discussing. But in the middle of an election campaign, when you know that things you say are going to get twisted and reduced down to soundbites, it's not even something that is worth bringing up. It's only ever going to end one way.

[redmark]

I have a fundamental problem with this criticism of foreign policy.

A country's foreign policy cannot (and must not) be decided on the policy of 'don go there they might bomb us'.  It's fundamentally a wrong, unjust and unsustainable policy.

I don't think that's quite a fair portrayal of what Corbyn is saying.

The argument is that intervention kills civilians. Intervention leads to resentment against the west, widening the pool of potential recruits to radicalisation. Intervention leads to broken societies, leaving extremists to fill the vacuum. Intervention, in short, rarely delivers on it's aims and does much harm to innocents in the target country and elsewhere.

Of course, one result of that is an increase in terrorism - generally, and perhaps specifically against the interventionists, but mostly infact again within the target of the intervention.

Corbyn isn't saying we shouldn't intervene because they might bomb us: he is against intervention in almost all cases, and for many reasons - and on this particular area of policy, I think genuinely the main reason being civilian casualties within the target country.

The discussion this week of course starts at the other end: why have we been bombed? Therefore it seems as though his focus is on 'stop intervening to prevent terror'. But he has a million reasons for opposing intervention. I agree with some, but not all of them. But let's not distort his reasoning.