All things Labour Party

Just clarify - how is Corbyn speaking to the IRA worse than Thatcher speaking and making concessions to them?

Because Corbyn was a doe-eyed drooling fan-boy with a right-on hatred of, like, the evil empire.

Thatcher was trying to stop the cu nts killing our soldiers and innocent people.

This stuff is the most pathetic whataboutery I think I've ever seen. The history of the troubles and the peace process has been written. Jeremy Corbyn had fu ck all to so with it.

Because Corbyn was a doe-eyed drooling fan-boy with a right-on hatred of, like, the evil empire.

 

Thatcher was trying to stop the cu nts killing our soldiers and innocent people.

 

This stuff is the most pathetic whataboutery I think I've ever seen. The history of the troubles and the peace process has been written. Jeremy Corbyn had fu ck all to so with it.

You're bright, so its a pity your vain desire to be a polemicist sometimes overrules that.

Nolan's point, such as it was, is that it was wrong to talk to the IRA. If no-one had talked to them then the peace process wouldnt have started. I'm not saying Corbyn made any contribution to the process, but to pretend he is somehow evil for talking to them whilst Thatcher is heroic is facile.

Just clarify - how is Corbyn speaking to the IRA worse than Thatcher speaking and making concessions to them?

Go to a library, do some reading from real books, not biased click bait articles from Canary and Novara.

Corbyn actively supported the aims and means of the Republican terrorists.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Go to a library, do some reading from real books, not biased click bait articles from Canary and Novara.

Says the most vacuous ill read twerp stalking the thread.

Says the most vacuous ill read twerp stalking the thread.

The sign that someone had lost an Arguement. The Insults start flying out.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

The sign that someone had lost an Arguement. The Insults start flying out.

Its 'argument'. No capital, no 'e'.

Its 'argument'. No capital, no 'e'.

Go to a library, do some reading from real books, not biased click bait articles from Canary and Novara.

Would you like me to find you the codes for the history section?

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

You're bright, so its a pity your vain desire to be a polemicist sometimes overrules that.

 

Nolan's point, such as it was, is that it was wrong to talk to the IRA. If no-one had talked to them then the peace process wouldnt have started. I'm not saying Corbyn made any contribution to the process, but to pretend he is somehow evil for talking to them whilst Thatcher is heroic is facile.

So Lord Haw Haw was a f'ing hero in his contributuion making the peace. Neother had the permission of HM Government to go and talk

I like the idea that in a free democracy you need permission to talk to people. Isnt that more typical of who Lord Haw Haw worked for?

Go to a library, do some reading from real books, not biased click bait articles from Canary and Novara.

 

Corbyn actively supported the aims and means of the Republican terrorists.

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

My bold.

It has been well established that he had dialogue with senior Sinn Fein members during the 1980s. But to my knowledge, nobody has yet been able to provide evidence that he actively supported the use of terrorism as a means to achieve their aims. I'm pretty certain that if such evidence existed, it would have been splashed all over the tabloid front pages well before now.

Perhaps you could provide a source to support your claim?

You're bright, so its a pity your vain desire to be a polemicist sometimes overrules that.

 

Nolan's point, such as it was, is that it was wrong to talk to the IRA. If no-one had talked to them then the peace process wouldnt have started. I'm not saying Corbyn made any contribution to the process, but to pretend he is somehow evil for talking to them whilst Thatcher is heroic is facile.

So just talking to the IRA is intrinsically a good thing regardless of your starting position or what you talk about or how it might balls up any process of actually trying to negotiate a ceasefire peace process? Okay.

As far as I can see there is no evidence that anything Corbyn did had any impact whatsoever in delivering towards ceasefire or peace, and there are some accounts describing his intervention as being counter-productive. But any talk is just dandy.

Comments on Hansard like the below from 7/2/1985 are easily found.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

I like the idea that in a free democracy you need permission to talk to people. Isnt that more typical of who Lord Haw Haw worked for?

We were at war (their words)with the IRA and so he was undermining our forces and giving them (in their minds) some extra impetus.

My bold.

 

It has been well established that he had dialogue with senior Sinn Fein members during the 1980s. But to my knowledge, nobody has yet been able to provide evidence that he actively supported the use of terrorism as a means to achieve their aims. I'm pretty certain that if such evidence existed, it would have been splashed all over the tabloid front pages well before now.

 

Perhaps you could provide a source to support your claim?

Someone who is heavily involved with editing Labour Briefing...

"After the Brighton Bomb, in which the IRA murdered five people, London Labour Briefing published a reader's letter stating: 'What do you call four dead Tories? A start!' Next to a picture of Lord Tebbit, who was seriously hurt (and whose wife would be wheelchair-bound for life) it added: 'Try riding your bike now, Norman!'"

He had ample occasion to condemn the actions of the IRA explicitly. He took every opportunity to skirt around the issue.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Well it depends if it is undermining the Government or nations interests. I assume it would be ok for Farage to go over and start negotiating with the EU.

We were at war (their words)with the IRA and so he was undermining our forces and giving them (in their minds) some extra impetus.

Thatcher authorised back-door talks with the IRA in 1990 despite her supposedly hard-line stance. So was she undermining her own government?

Thatcher authorised back-door talks with the IRA in 1990 despite her supposedly hard-line stance. So was she undermining her own government?

do you reckon she/the government spoke to both sides or just cheered one on killing brits?

all matters not now anyway. He is not PM and will never ben PM and for some weird reason, Labour have resorted to a heavy beating like a victory

Thatcher authorised back-door talks with the IRA in 1990 despite her supposedly hard-line stance. So was she undermining her own government?

The absolute state of this.

But Yeah, let's compare an actual leader making actual decisions and brave enough to take actual responsibility with a life long back bench irrelevance who has still yet to squeak out of his own comfortable bubble of surrounding himself with and talking to only those that completely agree with him.

The absolute state of this.

 

But Yeah, let's compare an actual leader making actual decisions and brave enough to take actual responsibility with a life long back bench irrelevance who has still yet to squeak out of his own comfortable bubble of surrounding himself with and talking to only those that completely agree with him.

Corbyn is obviously a pacifist, keep trying to convince yourself he was cheering people's deaths if it makes you happy but most people have the intelligence to realise that he sympathised with the cause and that he knew the only way to sort the problem was though talking.

And get problem was resolved through talking.

Corbyn is obviously a pacifist, keep trying to convince yourself he was cheering people's deaths if it makes you happy but most people have the intelligence to realise that he sympathised with the cause and that he knew the only way to sort the problem was though talking.

 

And get problem was resolved through talking.

Patronising horsesh it. Well done you.

So now you're saying Jeremy Corbyn pioneered the idea of speaking to your enemy? He didn't, and crucially they weren't his enemy when he spoken them - he was a giddy, gooey fan of them. He was on their side in the struggle against the crown.

Just as crucially he had fu ck all. Nothing. Nothing at all to do with the northern Ireland peace process. No role at all. None. Just an pitifully pointless backbencher family hoping Gerry Adams might ring him while the actual grown up politicians had the guts to take the huge risks to make peace happen.

You utter clown.

Patronising horsesh it. Well done you.

 

So now you're saying Jeremy Corbyn pioneered the idea of speaking to your enemy? He didn't, and crucially they weren't his enemy when he spoken them - he was a giddy, gooey fan of them. He was on their side in the struggle against the crown.

 

Just as crucially he had fu ck all. Nothing. Nothing at all to do with the northern Ireland peace process. No role at all. None. Just an pitifully pointless backbencher family hoping Gerry Adams might ring him while the actual grown up politicians had the guts to take the huge risks to make peace happen.

 

You utter clown.

He has made it pretty clear that he is against violence of any sort, just because he sympathised with the plight of Catholics at the time doesn't mean he was applauding violence.

It's the same with Hamas, he recognises the plight of the Palestinians so talks to them. The only way we are going to sort the Iraq/Syria problem out is by talking.

Just because he wasn't part of Tony Blair's peace process, doesn't mean his intentions were not for a peaceful solution. Just means Blair chose his own people to do the talking.

On the subject of terrorists - you don't seem too bothered about the Tories inviting a group backed by the UDA into our country's government, or are they OK?

Its 'argument'. No capital, no 'e'.

 stick to your Xbox Nolan.

He has made it pretty clear that he is against violence of any sort.

I hear this often, and I have no idea where it comes from. In Ireland, Corbyn sought not peace but the victory of the Republican side - a Republican side led by the IRA, with its penchant for bombs, bullets and kneecappings. It is not a necessary condition of siding with the Palestinians to talk to the hyper-violent Hamas, although it probably IS a necessary condition to talk to the other side. Peace, after all, can't be declared unilaterally when there are two warring sides. So I challenge you to find a single instance of Corbyn talking to Protestant leaders in NI or Jewish leaders in Israel. Just one link will do...

But to give just one specific instance of Corbyn's predilection for siding with violent extremists, here's an incident from 1984. There's a famous photo of Corbyn being arrested at an anti-Apartheid protest in London. All very worthy, you might think. Except that this protest was organised not by the official anti-Apartheid movement, which had Mandela's blessing and support. It was organised by something called the 'City of London AAM', which was actually expelled from the official movement. This splinter group was well known for being a front for the Workers' Revolutionary Party - a fringe Trotskyist organisation financed by Gaddafi and noisily supportive of Saddam Hussein. The WRP has since been exposed as a cult in which rape was used systematically as a means of control. This group for which Corbyn was marching supported the Pan African Congress and its slogan of 'one settler, one bullet'.

Some pacifist.

Everyone' entitled to a past they regret, and shouldn't be held accountable to it forever more - and Corbyn himself has come close to apologising for referring to Hamas and Hezbollah as 'friends.' However, when false claims are made for his lifelong pacifism, it's only right they should be called out - right?

He has made it pretty clear that he is against violence of any sort, just because he sympathised with the plight of Catholics at the time doesn't mean he was applauding violence.

 

It's the same with Hamas, he recognises the plight of the Palestinians so talks to them. The only way we are going to sort the Iraq/Syria problem out is by talking.

 

Just because he wasn't part of Tony Blair's peace process, doesn't mean his intentions were not for a peaceful solution. Just means Blair chose his own people to do the talking.

 

On the subject of terrorists - you don't seem too bothered about the Tories inviting a group backed by the UDA into our country's government, or are they OK?

1. Tony Blair didn't start the peace process, it started long before then. And if Corbyn wanted to be part of a government that wanted to, and did, make life better for huge numbers of people then he could have, but he chose to snipe and rebel and gripe from the sidelines, to narrow minded and arrogant actually try and drive any real change through. He could have 'sat down and talked to those he disagreed with' like Tony Blair. That way he could have got involved in the peace process rather than cheerleading one side of it in his own little bubble. He was never brave enough to play any role in any process for anything. Why bother retreating from the cosiness of the echo chamber?

2. I'm nearly 40, have voted in every election since 1997 in about six different constituencies and not once have I ever even considered voting for the Tories. So fu ck knows what May going into bed with the orangemen nutcases has got to do with me, don't support it, nothing I've ever said here suggests I would. You trying to call me a hypocrite? Nice fu cking try but I'll call the UDF/UDA/UFF a bunch of murderous cu nts all day long. Both sides exactly the same. Easy as ****ing pie.

Just you swooning about the "plight of catholics" in your dreamy hero worship. He talked to the freedom fighters that St Jeremy did. Hypocrite me right up.

I hear this often, and I have no idea where it comes from. In Ireland, Corbyn sought not peace but the victory of the Republican side - a Republican side led by the IRA, with its penchant for bombs, bullets and kneecappings. It is not a necessary condition of siding with the Palestinians to talk to the hyper-violent Hamas, although it probably IS a necessary condition to talk to the other side. Peace, after all, can't be declared unilaterally when there are two warring sides. So I challenge you to find a single instance of Corbyn talking to Protestant leaders in NI or Jewish leaders in Israel. Just one link will do...

 

But to give just one specific instance of Corbyn's predilection for siding with violent extremists, here's an incident from 1984. There's a famous photo of Corbyn being arrested at an anti-Apartheid protest in London. All very worthy, you might think. Except that this protest was organised not by the official anti-Apartheid movement, which had Mandela's blessing and support. It was organised by something called the 'City of London AAM', which was actually expelled from the official movement. This splinter group was well known for being a front for the Workers' Revolutionary Party - a fringe Trotskyist organisation financed by Gaddafi and noisily supportive of Saddam Hussein. The WRP has since been exposed as a cult in which rape was used systematically as a means of control. This group for which Corbyn was marching supported the Pan African Congress and its slogan of 'one settler, one bullet'.

 

Some pacifist.

 

Everyone' entitled to a past they regret, and shouldn't be held accountable to it forever more - and Corbyn himself has come close to apologising for referring to Hamas and Hezbollah as 'friends.' However, when false claims are made for his lifelong pacifism, it's only right they should be called out - right?

Just by associating with these sort of people doesn't mean he is not trying to get them to further their cause through peaceful means. From what I have seen he has been pretty consistent in his opposite to war and violence, happy to be proven wrong, I am not even a big fan of Corbyn.

I just don't like the typical flag waving loons who **** their pants when they read that he has actually spoken with people like Hamas or the IRA.

Mr Fry and others on here could learn from this guy:

https://www.indy100.com/article/matthew-goodwin-corbyn-polls-ate-his-book-general-election-hung-parliament-7783576

There's a slight difference between inviting the IRA to parliament a few weeks after they've tried to assassinate the British Cabinet and holding talks with a legitimate party standing in a democratic election nearly 20 years after the GFA.

The issue I have with Corbyn is the rewriting of history. The narrative that he was somehow seeking peace & a solution. We've had Martin Mcguiness as eduction Sec for NI for ****s sake, the GFA meant that you have to hold your nose when dealing with NI politicians. But Corbyns fan boys won't accept his role in this, they have to lie. If Corbyn wasn't leading the Labour Party I'm sure he'd use the same weasel words that Adams and others use when talking about the loss of lives & the armed struggle. Instead he insults our intelligence by making out he was some sort of peace maker.

It wasn't just the Tory press hammering him. Kinnock, Mowlem, The Guardian, SDLP’s Seamus Mallon, former deputy first minister of Northern Ireland and one of the architects of the peace process, said ‘I never heard anyone mention Corbyn at all. He very clearly took the side of the IRA and that was incompatible, in my opinion, with working for peace.’ Ex-IRA terrorist Sean O’Callaghan said he ‘played no part ever, at any time, in promoting peace in Northern Ireland’ and any suggestion otherwise is ‘a cowardly, self-serving lie

So labour leaders, Leftie newspapers, the leader of the mainstream Republican Party and even an IRA terrorist say Corbyn had nothing to do with peace, yet his fan boys insist he was.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/labour-surrendered-corbynism/

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/labour-surrendered-corbynism/

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

A nice balanced and not-at-all-biased opinion piece from a Daily Mail columnist there.

A nice balanced and not-at-all-biased opinion piece from a Daily Mail columnist there.

Guess what? There are lots of different opinions. Try considering more than yours.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

A nice balanced and not-at-all-biased opinion piece from a Daily Mail columnist there.

Says the guy who cited The Canary!

Guess what? There are lots of different opinions. Try considering more than yours.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Of course there are but they can be discussed and challenged like any other point of view. Where's the evidence that moderates have abandoned their opposition? It's been all of 3 days since the election result. Some have expressed hope that this is a new start, conditional on Corbyn's willingness to compromise and reach out to the rest of the party.

Note the article, in drawing a comparison with Trump and the right in the US, refers to intellectuals and journos, not politicians who've happily served under Trump and refused to criticise his most controversial policies. It also massively overstates the backlash to Trump on the right. It's been a tiny minority - when Trump won the presidency, it also put down its arms for a brief period to give him a chance to see if things would change.

The article reads like sour grapes to be fair. As for you, you're incapable of engaging in an argument - you can only post links like a performing monkey, blabber on about diversity of opinion yet refuse to defend said link or the fill in the gaps when challenged, a slap in the face of diversity of opinion.

Of course there are but they can be discussed and challenged like any other point of view. Where's the evidence that moderates have abandoned their opposition? It's been all of 3 days since the election result. Some have expressed hope that this is a new start, conditional on Corbyn's willingness to compromise and reach out to the rest of the party.

 

Note the article, in drawing a comparison with Trump and the right in the US, refers to intellectuals and journos, not politicians who've happily served under Trump and refused to criticise his most controversial policies. It also massively overstates the backlash to Trump on the right. It's been a tiny minority - when Trump won the presidency, it also put down its arms for a brief period to give him a chance to see if things would change.

 

The article reads like sour grapes to be fair. As for you, you're incapable of engaging in an argument - you can only post links like a performing monkey, blabber on about diversity of opinion yet refuse to defend said link or the fill in the gaps when challenged, a slap in the face of diversity of opinion.

The evidence is that the same mps who gave a vote of no confidence, are saying they may accept to be in the shadow cabinet.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

The evidence is that the same mps who gave a vote of no confidence, are saying they may accept to be in the shadow cabinet.

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

They may accept. And your great hope, Theresa May, may see out the next five years

Of course, should they enter the cabinet, nothing will be settled until one knows the terms on which they accept any position and whether Corbyn is willing to compromise or rein in the less savoury parts of the left. Still early days.

Alas, you can't see the article for the disingenuous strawman that it is. Ultimately any form of cooperation with Corbyn will be viewed as a betrayal of principle because once upon time Corbyn 'sympathised' with terrorists. As the past cannot be changed, so nothing Corbyn does today or going forward will be sufficient to change your or the article's views on him. That might work in your rancid little echo chamber; most normal people will see straight through it.

Corbyn will not change his manifesto for the next election unless he can offer even more inducements to get votes, I'm bloody sure the Tories wont fight the next election on their present one.

The result has shown that a large number of people will vote for freebies, the Tories had better offer some lovely options, perhaps a holiday for all, they could borrow for the next generations to pay as well

Corbyn will not change his manifesto for the next election unless he can offer even more inducements to get votes, I'm bloody sure the Tories wont fight the next election on their present one.

The result has shown that a large number of people will vote for freebies, the Tories had better offer some lovely options, perhaps a holiday for all, they could borrow for the next generations to pay as well

I think the Tories should raise the annual ISA allowance (again).

Corbyn will not change his manifesto for the next election unless he can offer even more inducements to get votes, I'm bloody sure the Tories wont fight the next election on their present one.

The result has shown that a large number of people will vote for freebies, the Tories had better offer some lovely options, perhaps a holiday for all, they could borrow for the next generations to pay as well

Tory cuts in Corporation Tax since 2010 are costing £16.5bn pa - enough to wipe out the budget deficit.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9207

Says the guy who cited The Canary!

I'm well aware of the political leanings of their editorial team, and I'm quite capable of reading their content with objectivity thanks. At least the article I shared was presenting evidence to show that what was printed in the Mail and the Sun on election day was factually incorrect. Whereas the link Nolan provided was just the turgid, speculative ramblings of a man with an apparent history of controversy and a staunch pro-Israel, anti-Palestine stance. It's little wonder he has an axe to grind with Corbyn, being that he wants to seek a peaceful settlement in their situation.

https://athousandflowers.net/2015/10/25/weekly-w*nker-058-stephen-daisley/

Edit: Dammit, Saintsweb won't allow you to follow this link because it has a swear word in the URL. You'll have to google 'Stephen Daisley weekly w*nker' yourselves

Tory cuts in Corporation Tax since 2010 are costing £16.5bn pa - enough to wipe out the budget deficit.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9207

That blows George Osborne's whole economic strategy out of the water and explains why the Tories have nearly tripled the national debt in 7 years. Disgusting.

So the lefties are getting their knickers in a twist with the tories doing a deal with the DUP.

Im not surprised, because I remember when they got upset when Blair, Brown and Milibland did the same ... oh, wait a minute...

So the lefties are getting their knickers in a twist with the tories doing a deal with the DUP.

 

Im not surprised, because I remember when they got upset when Blair, Brown and Milibland did the same ... oh, wait a minute...

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

The only politician on earth permitted to speak to unsavoury or questionable people is Jeremy Corbyn. When he does it he's, like, a brave trailblazer and pretty much invented peace and unity and peace and stuff. Talking to people one disagrees with is what true heroes do and he was so brave to do it. It's so wonderful.

Any other politicians speaking to unsavoury or questionable people with are scum and it's a disgrace and why is anyone talking to those people. Speaking to people one disagrees with is what opportunistic weasels do and they should be ashamed to do it. It's so disgusting.

And so it begins.

A kinder gentler type of politics, provided you don't critique Jezza.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p055mbhy

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

... and lefties kicking off about the DUPs stance on gay marriage. Meanwhile Hamas and Jezbollah go around murdering gay people. I guess in their eyes, throwing them off buildings isnt half as bad as stopping them from getting married.

I am getting sick of everyone having a go at DUP. Free speech and democracy and all that. Yeah you disagree but that is life.cc

... and lefties kicking off about the DUPs stance on gay marriage. Meanwhile Hamas and Jezbollah go around murdering gay people. I guess in their eyes, throwing them off buildings isnt half as bad as stopping them from getting married.

You're right, it's hypocritical, although I don't think Hezbollah have become so enamoured of St Jeremy that they've renamed themselves Jezbollah.

But the real problem with the DUP is that any alliance - even the informal one that's been announced - throws the Good Friday Agreement under a bus. Central to the durability of the GFA was the idea that the British government would always be rigorously impartial between the two sides. Getting into bed with DUP is anything but impartial.

https://twitter.com/Barristerblog/status/873860720491995136

You're right, it's hypocritical, although I don't think Hezbollah have become so enamoured of St Jeremy that they've renamed themselves Jezbollah.

 

But the real problem with the DUP is that any alliance - even the informal one that's been announced - throws the Good Friday Agreement under a bus. Central to the durability of the GFA was the idea that the British government would always be rigorously impartial between the two sides. Getting into bed with DUP is anything but impartial.

 

https://twitter.com/Barristerblog/status/873860720491995136

As you state, the issue is the GFA but most dont seem to see that. Theyre too busy selling their principles for good old jezza

But the real problem with the DUP is that any alliance - even the informal one that's been announced - throws the Good Friday Agreement under a bus. Central to the durability of the GFA was the idea that the British government would always be rigorously impartial between the two sides. Getting into bed with DUP is anything but impartial.

 

I am struggling to give a sh !t about what the Irish Republic thinks of the British Governments perceived impartiality with regard to the Good Friday agreement. It will be a cold day in hell that the republican child killers and the Irish government that supported them, dictate how the UK government runs the country.

Throwing the Good Friday agreement under a bus? At least we aren't blowing one up...

I am getting sick of everyone having a go at DUP. Free speech and democracy and all that. Yeah you disagree but that is life.cc

The DUP's fatal mistake is that they are propping up the Tory party, much to the ire and disgust of generation snowflake.

Jeremy Corbyn's Labour now has a six point lead over the Conservatives as one in two voters think the Prime Minister should resign, a poll shows. Theresa May's party slipped three points to 39 per cent with Labour up five from the election on 45 per cent, according to a Survation poll for the Mail on Sunday.The Lib Dems were on seven per cent, while Ukip was up one on three per cent.

Survation was one of the few polling companies to predict the closeness of last week's General Election which returned a hung parliament.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/general-election-polls-jeremy-corbyns-labour-now-have-six-point-lead-as-one-in-two-voters-say-a3562166.html

The DUP's fatal mistake is that they are propping up the Tory party, much to the ire and disgust of generation snowflake.

Instead of propping up a Labour Government.

http://www.irishnews.com/news/2015/09/02/news/hillary-clinton-emails-labour-sought-dup-election-pact-248668/

Fair play to Caroline Flint , not only is she pretty fit, but she's straight talking.

https://m.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=161524687249992&story_fbid=1307339502668499

No surprise who the biggest way anchor over this, Mr dodgy dossier himself. Had a rant on tv yesterday , surprise surprise he sat in meetings trying to cobble together deal with DUP.

Ian Paisley Jnr has even claimed that Ed Milliband tried to wow the party in 2015. Although that's probably a smear from a Tory paper.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/27/dup-the-party-with-no-natural-bedfellows

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lefties, gotta luv em.

Just watching little Owen Jones on Dateline London. Talking about his disgust over dealing with the DUP. According to him decent people should have nothing to do with a party that is supported by terrorists. Ordinary people should be horrified.

In case you don't know who this moralistic, decent upstanding bloke is, here's a picture of him addressing a summer school last June

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk