Corbyn supported the ceasefire in Northern Ireland, Labour's policy of 'unity by consent' regarding nationalists, and the opening of diplomatic connections between the British government and the political unit of the IRA, Sinn Fein. This, is undeniably comparable to Thatcher's position, the main difference being that Thatcher was a unionist and Corbyn a nationalist.

Regarding Trident, Corbyn ceded to the party vote on Trident, which was to maintain it. But since the leaked manifesto he has spoken repeatedly against Trident and about pushing to renounce it in party policy. Do you think he should've just fully taken over all policy decisions or something? Aren't leader's meant to be tolerant and inclusive in democracies?

Disagree with his stance, by all means, on Irish nationalism and Trident. I can accept that. But why do you peddle bullsh*t about him which is just factually untrue?

Like I say, there are huge parts of the Establishment who would rather a military dictatorship in this country than a man in charge who wants to work mulitlaterally towards world peace. I only have one more question: why do you think none of the mainstream media outlets mention the factthat one of the two favourites for this upcoming election has almost no chance of taking power, even if his party won? Don't you think that it deserves at least to be mentioned?

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

What source do you credit for the last paragraph? Which 'huge parts' of establishment do want a military dictatorship instead of Jezza? Have they gone on record with this stance?

Very interested in whom these people are.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

General Hughton... [Link]

Echoing this in the Times... [Link]

And if you think it's implausible, read about these... [Link]

And...

[Link]

These are important things I believe everyone should know about the state of our democracy. Again, all I'll do is ask the question: why do you think this isn't reported, when it affects the election we are heading towards so dramatically?

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Conservatives are the party of high borrowing. Get your facts straight. Osborne austerity and tax policy was a disaster.

I haven't peddled any bulls***. He stood on multiple platforms supporting the IRA. That is a fact. Dress it up how you want but he supported the IRA, terrorists who were killing British policemen, prison officers and civilians.

My point about Trident was simply to illustrate that you cannot say how he would have reacted to the multiple scenarios you listed as demonstrated regarding his position on Trident. Like I said it is easy to protest from the back benches. I mentioned God knows how many pages earlier that a good politician will change their mind depending on the situation and change of circumstances. It is about adapting. However some changes are harder to sell than others, especially if they go against the previous 30 years.

As for your last paragraph care to expand?

Not sure the general really said much that is controversial except you could argue whether a general should be commenting at all. Maria Eagle seemed OK with it.

As for the coup, that would be a worry, if I remember correctly there was genuine concern about Wilson being a spy and only (relatively) recently he has finally been cleared? On the back of someone dying Iirc?

Imagine not mentioning Thatcher on this forum.

"Everything is air-droppable at least once."

"When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."

An interesting take on today's manifesto launch

[Link]

No, it is up to you to provide reliable evidence to back up your position.

Until you do so, your 'position' will be automatically dismissed as paranoid, politically driven drivel.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Our services clearly lack resources. You only have to experience it to know that many key services are underfunded and cannot cope. Labour are raising tax by a modest amount to provide funding to areas of our society we all hope we never have to rely on, but essentially it's almost inevitable that at some point in time we will, or a member of our family will. It's all good to tell us "yeah but we're building for the future", well when do we start investing again? This is the problem I've always had with tories, they ALWYS have money to provide for causes that seem so insignificant to the ordinary but the argument is "well yeah but this will help our economy and if we don't do it well all be f***ed anyway", yet they never seem to sort anything out that those worse off can actually benefit from. How many more years of austerity do we face? When do we have enough money? When are the tories going to actually help those who rely on help the most?

We're the Arthur over ere!