June Election UK. Which Party do you think should win the election

[Derec]

If he builds at least 300,000 affordable houses a year he will have the support of a lot more people. Thatcher, Blair, Cameron and May didn't.
It's so crowded in some flats that people have to sleep standing up.

Is it the role of government to build housing? Are builders and developers industries that are nationalized in the UK?

And you would not need so much new housing if you did something about the third world invasion.
Italian coast guard rescues 1,650 migrants from overcrowded boats
That's just one "rescue" (more like water taxi ride) on one day.

- - - Updated - - -

The are both long serving MPs who are on the left wing of the party share many views,

As are many others. What made her speciifically the choice for shadow home secretary?

and have engaged in political intercourse for a number of years.

Is that what it's called when politicians do the nasty?

- - - Updated - - -

Empty insinuations are easy for you to make, as a (possible?) serial bigamist.

Ha! As if even one woman would ever marry me!

 

[Derec]

Sure. Let me know if you have any actual evidence of that happening.

It is not disputed that it happened.
And since every time Abbott does an interview she proves she is thick as two short planks, why else would Corbyn select her? Certainly not for her intellect or command of domestic policy.

Lots of people visited East Germany and the Warsaw Pact during the cold war. That doesn't make them extremists.

Maybe not by itself, but their views on IRA, their views on Jihadists, their views on nuclear weapons etc. all show them to be extremists. Their choice to vacation in the workers' and peasants' paradise of East Germany is just cherry on top.

Your guesses are your own problem. In the absence of any reason to think your guesses are in any way connected to reality, airing them publicly makes a statement only about your rather unpleasant personality, and says nothing at all about the people you are making guesses about.

But I do have reasons for that guess. Reasons I have stated. Just because you like Old, undead, Labour, Corbyn and Abbott does not mean I am wrong.

 

[laughing dog]

It is not disputed that it happened.
And since every time Abbott does an interview she proves she is thick as two short planks, why else would Corbyn select her?

You continue to bring up a 30+ year old affair as the only possible reason for her promotion. Corbyn knows and trusts her - which is sufficient to appoint someone to a job, even if that person is not the best candidate. Your insistence that the only reason that a black woman received an appointment as shadow secretary of housing is because of her sexual favors from 30 years ago is demeaning to all fair-minded and rationale people.

 

[bilby]

He strikes me as left but not hard left.

Really?

That is to say he is left wing but not extreme left wing and certainly not Marxist but incorporating traditional labour. I may be wrong on this.

I think you are. It's not just his economic policies, but also him being rabidly anti-Israel and supportive of terrorists (be they IRA or Hamas/Hezbollah), etc.

He is anti-Israel, but not 'rabidly' so; The American position of automatic support for Israel is considered very strange in the UK, and both sides of British politics include both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian MPs.

The idea that the Israeli question divides neatly into 'good guys' and 'bad guys', and that one is either on the side of right or wrong, is very American - even in Israel, only 'rabid' extremists on both sides subscribe to this false dichotomy.

As for supporting terrorists, a government that exists at the whim of the DUP is directly supported by terrorists, and people in glass houses should definitely think twice before chucking any rocks about.

- - - Updated - - -

I've been a member of the Labour Party, on and off, for many years, and if Mr Corbyn was ever 'hard left' to anyone but Blairite careerist MPs, so was bloody Churchill!

Would Churchill ever call terrorists from Hamas and Hezbollah friends?

Churchill had a number of amiable (and less amiable) meetings with both Unionists and Republicans on the question of Home Rule, and was deeply involved in the negotiations following the revolution of 1918-21, at which time he became a close friend of Michael Collins; However by the mid-1920s, he was a favourite of the Unionists, having been instrumental in deploying the British Army to Ireland. No doubt a good many terrorists on both sides of the conflict were people he would at some point have called friends.

By all accounts he was never friends with Éamon de Valera, whose uncompromising republicanism he disliked, and who who came to despise in the 1940s for his support of Irish neutrality in WWII.

Churchill's Zionism is well known, but did not stem from any aversion to having terrorists as friends.

- - - Updated - - -

No, we've just seen. Even the leadership challenger has now conceded that he was wrong and apologised.

There doesn't seem to be much courage to stand up to left-wing extremism in the Labour Party after all. They remind me of the Republican Party with Trump. All bark before the election, no bite after the election.
Except that at least Trump won. Corbyn won shit.

Corbyn is not a left-wing extremist, except from the perspective of the far right; By British standards, the US Democratic Party are hard right-wing, with the lunatic right-wing of the GOP as their only serious opposition. The reason you mistake Corbyn for a left-wing extremist is that the centre in Britain is so far to the right that what used to be centrism is now seen as left-wing, and the actual extreme left hasn't existed in any serious way since the 1980s (and from the US perspective, the UK hard right Tories look like a bunch of socialists).

 

[seanie]

The left/right/centre thing is difficult to judge because different countries have different centres, and parties themselves are coalitions on a spectrum. By British standards the US democrats are not hard right-wing, they're maybe centre right-right. And though you're right that "from the US perspective, the UK hard right Tories look like a bunch of socialists", the dream of the UK hard right is align with the US perspective. They want to be more extreme, but the opportunity is not quite there.

 

[Philos]

....the dream of the UK hard right is align with the US perspective. They want to be more extreme, but the opportunity is not quite there.

seanie,

Now, that isn't fake news.

Alex.

 

[iolo]

It is pretty well impossible to compare contemporary US politics with those of any other country - the extremely rich have seized control there and present all political issues from their view-point. No other country has drifted into this absurdity - their versions of absurdity are different and nobody else is rich enough to keep the masses permanently drugged-up in that way.

 

[iolo]

But it is based in fact.

- - - Updated - - -

He strikes me as left but not hard left.

Really?

That is to say he is left wing but not extreme left wing and certainly not Marxist but incorporating traditional labour. I may be wrong on this.

I think you are. It's not just his economic policies, but also him being rabidly anti-Israel and supportive of terrorists (be they IRA or Hamas/Hezbollah), etc.

- - - Updated - - -

I've been a member of the Labour Party, on and off, for many years, and if Mr Corbyn was ever 'hard left' to anyone but Blairite careerist MPs, so was bloody Churchill!

Would Churchill ever call terrorists from Hamas and Hezbollah friends?

- - - Updated - - -

.

I don't know, but unlike the Zionist terrorists they have never murdered British troops and booby-trapped their bodies to murder more, which is what the political ancestors of those we could not conveivably call Nazis here did regularly. Churchill, of course, never considered our people friends, but sent troops against our strongest Liberal constituency when he was busy being Liberal, so he was never thought of as much better than dog-muck here.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It is pretty well impossible to compare contemporary US politics with those of any other country - the extremely rich have seized control there and present all political issues from their view-point. No other country has drifted into this absurdity - their versions of absurdity are different and nobody else is rich enough to keep the masses permanently drugged-up in that way.

I think however, we can compare Corbyn to Trump. Both were outsiders even to be considered for leadership of their parties. Both amazed the public. Corbyn came a close second (and some say he could win now) which was against all odds. Trump won against all odds. I'm sure you must be pleased at the comparison.

 

[iolo]

It is pretty well impossible to compare contemporary US politics with those of any other country - the extremely rich have seized control there and present all political issues from their view-point. No other country has drifted into this absurdity - their versions of absurdity are different and nobody else is rich enough to keep the masses permanently drugged-up in that way.

I think however, we can compare Corbyn to Trump. Both were outsiders even to be considered for leadership of their parties. Both amazed the public. Corbyn came a close second (and some say he could win now) which was against all odds. Trump won against all odds. I'm sure you must be pleased at the comparison.

Well, Mr Corbyn didn't amaze me, fair play: he stood for standard Labour Party opinion ever since I was interested, a very, very long time ago, whereas Mr Trump stood for the confused muddle that is current American ideology. I think the key different was that the enormous tory lie-machine is losing its grip with young people, and over-stepped itself badly - thinking about it, though, the Trumpite war against the Press over there may represent a confused version of the same thing.

 

[Derec]

You continue to bring up a 30+ year old affair as the only possible reason for her promotion.

No, I brought it up once. The rest is me responding to you and others who are insisting that sex could not possibly have anything to do with it.
Oh, and at least get my suspicions correctly. They were that they are still fucking or at least have been fucking a lot more recently than what is universally known. Although it is possible he is still carrying that torch for 30 years of course.

Corbyn knows and trusts her - which is sufficient to appoint someone to a job, even if that person is not the best candidate.

So using personal loyalty rather than competence for filling senior positions is fine with you? You know who else operates that way, right? His name starts with T and ends with rump. Although I do not think even he fucked anybody in his cabinet.

Your insistence that the only reason that a black woman received an appointment as shadow secretary of housing is because of her sexual favors from 30 years ago is demeaning to all fair-minded and rationale people.

First of all, it is not "shadow secretary of housing", which is a relatively low-level shadow cabinet post and you would have a point if that was the case. But Diane Abbott was shadow Home Secretary, one of the most senior shadow cabinet posts. It is the job Theresa May had before Cameron resigned and she became PM. It is a post you want one of your best people in, not just somebody you (used to) fuck!

 

[whichphilosophy]

Is it the role of government to build housing? Are builders and developers industries that are nationalized in the UK?

And you would not need so much new housing if you did something about the third world invasion.
Italian coast guard rescues 1,650 migrants from overcrowded boats
That's just one "rescue" (more like water taxi ride) on one day.

- - - Updated - - -

The are both long serving MPs who are on the left wing of the party share many views,

As are many others. What made her speciifically the choice for shadow home secretary?

and have engaged in political intercourse for a number of years.

Is that what it's called when politicians do the nasty?

- - - Updated - - -

Empty insinuations are easy for you to make, as a (possible?) serial bigamist.

Ha! As if even one woman would ever marry me!

I'm a bit late with this. Ideally the government should not have to build many houses. However given that in London and most of the UK the rents alone for a family house even for a middle income family are too prohibitive.

Government housing is cheaper and it makes money from the rents, apart from those who are on disability or on a state pension.

Police and Nurses who live in Central London have moved to the outskirts and can travel 2 hours each way. Houses in London can cost from £250,000 to £1 million.

TI tried one Building Society to look at an just below average 2 bed house on the outskirts of London which costs £400.000
A person earning £25,000 per year (slightly above average for London) would need to first put up

10% Deposit (min) £40,000
Stamp Duty/Land Tax £10,000
Legal Costs £ 1,430
Valuation £ 430

It takes a long time for a 24 year old family man to accumulate 2 years pay.
The monthly payments for a £360,000 balance would range from £1,729 to £2,125 per month

That is to say his £25,000 per per year pay would not cover that.

He would need to earn around £50,000 per year before tax or about £38,000 net per annum but live on very little after the mortgage is paid.

Few young people earn more than that, unless they are in a high position.

Thatcher sold council houses to tenants which was popular. They were well below the market price. The problem is no houses were built to replace them.

Ealing Council, London invited the most Syrian refugees into the borough and then ran out of housing due to a shortage in construction.

The Singapore model was and still is to allocate a site for huge projects, say 25,000 flats at a time but they are high rise. In the UK we haven't really adopted this concept.

The private housing market in the UK attracts foreign investors and business people but few Britons.

The real answer is affordable housing. What councils do now is assist lower income families in their boroughs who cannot afford private rents. However the Tories imposed a cap so in most cases a single pensioner who is entitled to a flat can only afford a studio or one room. There is some provision to overcome this where very old people get discretionary help.

 

[Derec]

He is anti-Israel, but not 'rabidly' so;

Oh yes, rabidly so.
He called Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists "friends" who work toward "long term peace and social justice". He laid a wreath on the grave of a Palestinian terrorist responsible for the murder of innocent Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics. He has spoken at radical anti-Israel rallies where he shared the podium with extremist Muslims and where chants of "gas, gas Tel Aviv" could be heard.

So yes, rabidly so. But thanks for at least admitting he is anti-Israel.

The American position of automatic support for Israel is considered very strange in the UK,

US does not automatically support Israel. US is opposed to settlements, won't move the embassy to Jerusalem already (despite promises!) and every time there is a military engagement with the terrorists, US urges restraint that inevitably means Israel has to end the operation before the job is done, leaving the terrorist with significant capabilities to terrorize Israel again.
But why is it considered acceptable for there to be many countries to be 100% pro-Palestinian but "strange" that one country is partially pro-Israel? Yet another double standard.

and both sides of British politics include both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian MPs.

The problem is that usually, like in the case of Corbyn himself, pro-Palestinian becomes pro-terrorism and anti-Israel.

The idea that the Israeli question divides neatly into 'good guys' and 'bad guys',

Sometimes it is that easy. Hamas and Hezbollah are bad guys. Hamas is more interested in terrorizing Israel than in governing the people of Gaza.
UN condemns Hamas for tunnel under schools in Gaza
Hamas could easily solve Gaza’s electricity crisis, but prefers to finance tunnels and rockets
And Hezbollah has taken to defending Assad's murderous regime and is overall just a puppet of Iran's Revolutionary Guards.

and that one is either on the side of right or wrong, is very American - even in Israel, only 'rabid' extremists on both sides subscribe to this false dichotomy.

I appreciate that morality is gray, but some things are so far on one end of the grayscale that you can round them down to "black".

As for supporting terrorists, a government that exists at the whim of the DUP is directly supported by terrorists, and people in glass houses should definitely think twice before chucking any rocks about.

Blame LibDems (and especially their fickle voters) for that. But if DUP are "terrorists", then so are Sin Fein, that Comrade Jezza is quite chummy with. So he has no grounds whatsoever to oppose Tory-DUP collaboration.

Churchill had a number of amiable (and less amiable) meetings with both Unionists and Republicans on the question of Home Rule, and was deeply involved in the negotiations following the revolution of 1918-21, at which time he became a close friend of Michael Collins; However by the mid-1920s, he was a favourite of the Unionists, having been instrumental in deploying the British Army to Ireland. No doubt a good many terrorists on both sides of the conflict were people he would at some point have called friends.

That was not my question. My question was about Hamas and Hezbollah.

Corbyn is not a left-wing extremist, except from the perspective of the far right;

Bullshit. He is left-wing extremist from the perspective of the last 20 years of UK politics as well.

(and from the US perspective, the UK hard right Tories look like a bunch of socialists).

A shameless exaggeration ...

 

[Derec]

don't know, but unlike the Zionist terrorists they have never murdered British troops

No, just British civilians.
Palestinian Terrorist Who Murdered British Student to Receive Monthly PA Stipend
And quite recently too, not 70 years ago.

Churchill, of course, never considered our people friends, but sent troops against our strongest Liberal constituency when he was busy being Liberal, so he was never thought of as much better than dog-muck here.

Churchill fought against actual Nazis and were he alive today, he'd advocate fighting Islamofascists as well, instead of calling them "friends".

 

[bilby]

Oh yes, rabidly so.
He called Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists "friends" who work toward "long term peace and social justice".

THE HORROR!!!

He laid a wreath on the grave of a Palestinian terrorist responsible for the murder of innocent Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics.

Oh, no! He has respect for the dead too!!!

He has spoken at radical anti-Israel rallies where he shared the podium with extremist Muslims and where chants of "gas, gas Tel Aviv" could be heard.

And it's well known that if you see or hear an extremist, you become one yourself.

So yes, rabidly so. But thanks for at least admitting he is anti-Israel.

Yeah, not rabidly so, more, reasonably so, given the ongoing atrocities for which Israel is responsible.

The American position of automatic support for Israel is considered very strange in the UK,

US does not automatically support Israel. US is opposed to settlements, won't move the embassy to Jerusalem already (despite promises!) and every time there is a military engagement with the terrorists, US urges restraint that inevitably means Israel has to end the operation before the job is done, leaving the terrorist with significant capabilities to terrorize Israel again.

The UN security council has considered over 200 resolutions regarding the Israel/Palestine issue; on what proportion of these has the US either opposed the Israeli position, or abstained? (Hint, it's a very small number indeed)

But why is it considered acceptable for there to be many countries to be 100% pro-Palestinian but "strange" that one country is partially pro-Israel? Yet another double standard.

"..is considered very strange in the UK," I am making a comparison between UK and US attitudes, in a (futile) attempt to help you to grasp why the UK public don't behave the way you seem to think they should. I am not espousing a double standard, I am pointing out that more than one standard exists, and that you are using the wrong one in your assessment if your goal is to understand the actions of the British electorate.

and both sides of British politics include both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian MPs.

The problem is that usually, like in the case of Corbyn himself, pro-Palestinian becomes pro-terrorism and anti-Israel.

Citation needed. anti-Israel is not the same as pro-terrorism (and in many cases is an anti-terrorism position).

The idea that the Israeli question divides neatly into 'good guys' and 'bad guys',

Sometimes it is that easy.

No.

Hamas and Hezbollah are bad guys. Hamas is more interested in terrorizing Israel than in governing the people of Gaza.

And Hezbollah has taken to defending Assad's murderous regime and is overall just a puppet of Iran's Revolutionary Guards.

and that one is either on the side of right or wrong, is very American - even in Israel, only 'rabid' extremists on both sides subscribe to this false dichotomy.

I appreciate that morality is gray, but some things are so far on one end of the grayscale that you can round them down to "black".

No.

As for supporting terrorists, a government that exists at the whim of the DUP is directly supported by terrorists, and people in glass houses should definitely think twice before chucking any rocks about.

Blame LibDems (and especially their fickle voters) for that. But if DUP are "terrorists", then so are Sin Fein, that Comrade Jezza is quite chummy with. So he has no grounds whatsoever to oppose Tory-DUP collaboration.

Yes, he does; Two wrongs don't make a right.

Churchill had a number of amiable (and less amiable) meetings with both Unionists and Republicans on the question of Home Rule, and was deeply involved in the negotiations following the revolution of 1918-21, at which time he became a close friend of Michael Collins; However by the mid-1920s, he was a favourite of the Unionists, having been instrumental in deploying the British Army to Ireland. No doubt a good many terrorists on both sides of the conflict were people he would at some point have called friends.

That was not my question. My question was about Hamas and Hezbollah.

Who you are unable to even consider might not be the embodiment of pure evil. There's no point in trying to debate with you, you are an extremist.

Corbyn is not a left-wing extremist, except from the perspective of the far right;

Bullshit. He is left-wing extremist from the perspective of the last 20 years of UK politics as well.

The last 20 years is a VERY short period of time; and a period in which UK politics has been extraordinarily shifted to the right, by historical standards.

(and from the US perspective, the UK hard right Tories look like a bunch of socialists).

A shameless exaggeration ...

Well, by your own logic, you have no grounds whatsoever to oppose shameless exaggeration.

 

[iolo]

No, just British civilians.
Palestinian Terrorist Who Murdered British Student to Receive Monthly PA Stipend
And quite recently too, not 70 years ago.

Churchill, of course, never considered our people friends, but sent troops against our strongest Liberal constituency when he was busy being Liberal, so he was never thought of as much better than dog-muck here.

Churchill fought against actual Nazis and were he alive today, he'd advocate fighting Islamofascists as well, instead of calling them "friends".

Who was convicted of this, in what Palestinian court? You live in a total Zionist dreamworld, child. Stop making a public fool of yourself - you're beginning to resemble the great trump!

 

[whichphilosophy]

Oh yes, rabidly so.
He called Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists "friends" who work toward "long term peace and social justice". He laid a wreath on the grave of a Palestinian terrorist responsible for the murder of innocent Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics. He has spoken at radical anti-Israel rallies where he shared the podium with extremist Muslims and where chants of "gas, gas Tel Aviv" could be heard.

So yes, rabidly so. But thanks for at least admitting he is anti-Israel.

The American position of automatic support for Israel is considered very strange in the UK,

US does not automatically support Israel. US is opposed to settlements, won't move the embassy to Jerusalem already (despite promises!) and every time there is a military engagement with the terrorists, US urges restraint that inevitably means Israel has to end the operation before the job is done, leaving the terrorist with significant capabilities to terrorize Israel again.
But why is it considered acceptable for there to be many countries to be 100% pro-Palestinian but "strange" that one country is partially pro-Israel? Yet another double standard.

and both sides of British politics include both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian MPs.

The problem is that usually, like in the case of Corbyn himself, pro-Palestinian becomes pro-terrorism and anti-Israel.

The idea that the Israeli question divides neatly into 'good guys' and 'bad guys',

Sometimes it is that easy. Hamas and Hezbollah are bad guys. Hamas is more interested in terrorizing Israel than in governing the people of Gaza.
UN condemns Hamas for tunnel under schools in Gaza
Hamas could easily solve Gaza’s electricity crisis, but prefers to finance tunnels and rockets
And Hezbollah has taken to defending Assad's murderous regime and is overall just a puppet of Iran's Revolutionary Guards.

and that one is either on the side of right or wrong, is very American - even in Israel, only 'rabid' extremists on both sides subscribe to this false dichotomy.

I appreciate that morality is gray, but some things are so far on one end of the grayscale that you can round them down to "black".

As for supporting terrorists, a government that exists at the whim of the DUP is directly supported by terrorists, and people in glass houses should definitely think twice before chucking any rocks about.

Blame LibDems (and especially their fickle voters) for that. But if DUP are "terrorists", then so are Sin Fein, that Comrade Jezza is quite chummy with. So he has no grounds whatsoever to oppose Tory-DUP collaboration.

Churchill had a number of amiable (and less amiable) meetings with both Unionists and Republicans on the question of Home Rule, and was deeply involved in the negotiations following the revolution of 1918-21, at which time he became a close friend of Michael Collins; However by the mid-1920s, he was a favourite of the Unionists, having been instrumental in deploying the British Army to Ireland. No doubt a good many terrorists on both sides of the conflict were people he would at some point have called friends.

That was not my question. My question was about Hamas and Hezbollah.

Corbyn is not a left-wing extremist, except from the perspective of the far right;

Bullshit. He is left-wing extremist from the perspective of the last 20 years of UK politics as well.

(and from the US perspective, the UK hard right Tories look like a bunch of socialists).

A shameless exaggeration ...

Israel has a right of existence, but occupation of Palestinian lands in excess of agreements didn't help much to prevent a backlash, namely Hamas. The recognition of Israel and its interaction with Arab countries in trade and travel will be beneficial to the Arab world in terms of advanced technology and innovation.

When it invaded Lebanon and allied itself with some Christian factions, Hezbollah grew popular.

However a peaceful solution is the only option. In Ireland former foes formed a reasonably successful coalition that apart from a few problems has not erupted into war.

As far as the UK is concerned we have a government that is useless and does virtually nothing in the face of excess immigration, housing shortages and now BREXIT.

The people voted narrowly for BREXIT last year. Then several months later article 59 was triggered. Then 5 months later nothing.#

As for the Video Corbyn it's not so important who he supports if he is seeking peace in the region. In this case the parties who we don't like but represent their people if the long term is peace, should be part of the discussions.

 

[Derec]

THE HORROR!!!

Yes it is. Hamas and Hezbollah are murderous terrorists and Corbyn seeing himself as their "friend" says a lot about him.

Oh, no! He has respect for the dead too!!!

He has respect for dead terrorists but not their victims.

And it's well known that if you see or hear an extremist, you become one yourself.

No, it is well known that extremists love to flock together.

Yeah, not rabidly so, more, reasonably so,

There is nothing "reasonable" about Corbyn's extremist positions, which you seem to share.

given the ongoing atrocities for which Israel is responsible.

Like what?

The UN security council has considered over 200 resolutions regarding the Israel/Palestine issue; on what proportion of these has the US either opposed the Israeli position, or abstained? (Hint, it's a very small number indeed)

That's because UN is hugely biased against Israel. Again, why it is acceptable for there to be many countries (to the extent that they dominate UN now) that are 100% pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel, but somehow a bad thing for US to be even partially pro-Israel?

"..is considered very strange in the UK," I am making a comparison between UK and US attitudes, in a (futile) attempt to help you to grasp why the UK public don't behave the way you seem to think they should.

My point is that it is ridiculous to think 100% support for Palestinians is perfectly fine but even partial support of Israel is somehow "strange".

If that is really the attitude of the UK public maybe you deserve Corbyn as PM as well as becoming an Islamic country in a matter of decades (as you are well on your way to becoming if pro-Islam policies do not change).

I am not espousing a double standard, I am pointing out that more than one standard exists, and that you are using the wrong one in your assessment if your goal is to understand the actions of the British electorate.

I.e. one standard for Palestinians, and a much stricter standard for Israel. Palestinians can terrorize and murder innocent civilians all they want and are still considered "friends" of the UK Left, but Israel is condemned every time they kill a guilty terrorist.
UK condemns Hamas leader killing

Citation needed. anti-Israel is not the same as pro-terrorism (and in many cases is an anti-terrorism position).

I provided the video where Corbyn says he considers terrorists from Hamas and Hezbollah "friends". How can that be interpreted as anything but a pro-terrorism position?

No.

Yes.

Yes, he does; Two wrongs don't make a right.

Two wrongs might not make a right, but the guy who has been committing one of the wrongs for 30+ years has no grounds to complain when the other side starts doing something similar. That's why Labour needs a more credible leader to go after the Tory/DUP alliance. Not somebody who has been cozying up to Sin Fein/IRA for 30+ years and whose former shadow Home Secretary and (former?) paramour infamously declared, referring to the North Ireland conflict, that "every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us".

Who you are unable to even consider might not be the embodiment of pure evil. There's no point in trying to debate with you, you are an extremist.

Just because I see Hamas and Hezbollah for what they really are does not make me an "extremist". Extremists are those who see terrorist scum like that as "friends".

Just some of Jeremy Corbyn's friends. Does the Labour Party have a position on using child soldiers, or it is yet another case of "it's ok when Palestinians do it"?

The last 20 years is a VERY short period of time; and a period in which UK politics has been extraordinarily shifted to the right, by historical standards.

But shifted it has been. Which makes Jeremy Corbyn a left-wing reactionary, not a progressive.

Well, by your own logic, you have no grounds whatsoever to oppose shameless exaggeration.

Why?

 

[Derec]

Who was convicted of this,

As the article says, the terrorist responsible is Jamil Tamimi. He has not been convicted yet, but he has been charged.

in what Palestinian court?

Why does it have to be a "Palestinian court? Palestinian courts can't be expected to go after Palestinian terrorism any more than Volksgerichtshof could be expected to go after Nazi crimes. Quite the contrary! Palestinian Authority rewards terrorists and their families monetarily. For murdering this young British woman Tamimi will receive $1000/month payments from PA. Since UK participates in funding PA, some of your (and mine, since US does the same) tax moneys will go to fund him and other terrorists.

US and EU should block all payments and aid to PA until these terrorism subsidies are ended once and for all.

You live in a total Zionist dreamworld, child. Stop making a public fool of yourself - you're beginning to resemble the great trump!

You live in your anti-semitic dreamworld, where even those who murder your fellow Brits are exonerated because they are Palestinian and anti-Israel.

 

[laughing dog]

No, I brought it up once. The rest is me responding to you and others who are insisting that sex could not possibly have anything to do with it.

Splitting those hairs doesn't help your case.

Oh, and at least get my suspicions correctly. They were that they are still fucking or at least have been fucking a lot more recently than what is universally known. Although it is possible he is still carrying that torch for 30 years of course.

Repeating your pathetic conjectures is not helping your case.

So using personal loyalty rather than competence for filling senior positions is fine with you?

Shifting the goal posts is not helping your case. I did not say it was fine with me. I pointed out there were other explanations for the choice other than intercourse.

First of all, it is not "shadow secretary of housing", which is a relatively low-level shadow cabinet post and you would have a point if that was the case. But Diane Abbott was shadow Home Secretary, one of the most senior shadow cabinet posts. It is the job Theresa May had before Cameron resigned and she became PM. It is a post you want one of your best people in, not just somebody you (used to) fuck!

Pedantry is not helping your case.
Your insistence that the only reason that a black woman received an appointment as shadow home secretary is because of her sexual favors from 30 years ago is demeaning to all fair-minded and rational people. You are not fooling anyone.