I think the tories will lose

Corbyn isn't saying he'd fight it strategically though is he? He's against any kind of intervention.

Hidden channels - I don't see why this is something I'd put my faith in - ISIS is retreating because it is being militarily beaten, not because of any back channels communications.

Ultimately, if you're voting Corbyn because you care more about British social issues than ISIS, I can accept that but I can't see how you can really believe his non-intervention and keeping lines of communications open will work for ISIS.

Helena and worship I am so hoping that we get a good result and this type of shameful nonsense is ended. to you and yours.

Sittinonthefloor

We need another thread! My point is about Corbyn being honest.

I don't know how these channels and negotiations work. I have no idea. I just know when you read history there they all are. All the conflicts, all the wars years after these channels and secret negotiations are mentioned.

They happen - I don't know how - but they do. So why lie about it? Do you want politicians who lie about it?

Helena
Not much learnt, re Glasgow bin lorry crash no.
My exH, is a bus driver.
Taken into hospital last Feb with suspected Heart attack.
Left on a trolley, not even given blood tests or scans, told he 'could go' 1.5hrs later, came home in a taxi.
Still on antidepressants and betablockers which make him woozy.
Although both his GP and Consultant (he has other medical issues too) signed him off the Company Dr refused to accept and he was told any more time off sick you will be fired. Jobcentre told him he couldnt claim benefits as he had been fired and was not sick enough for sickness benefits.

As for the 'swinging the lead' comments... words fail me.

NoLotteryWinYet

"this isn't a view held by any serious foreign policy expert"

Really? I was under the impression in all conflicts certain 'channels' of communication remain open. These 'channels' lead to informal then formal negotiations. Corbyn is being honest about this.

Often these 'channels' remain hidden for decades after the event. At end of WW2 the Japanese had opened negotiations with the USA, this was hidden at the time and remained secret for decades, it is still little known today. The Japanese were regarded as a suicidal and unreasonable foe.

ISIS is losing territory quite consistently, and without territory to control ISIS has no caliphate. So it's losing support; the numbers of returning fighters are growing, according to Home Office spokespeople.

It may be a case of fighting it where needed strategically, and waiting it out, which is what ended the 'War of the Running Dogs', the communist insurgency in Malaya 1948-1960. I had an uncle on the front line of that, an interesting man to talk to.

Mouse - all the groups you mention wanted either their own bit of land back (as they saw it) from 'occupiers' or a change in their own government. Isis is entirely different, I don't understand how you think we could negotiate with their ideology- please give me some examples of how you anticipate the dialogue would work? What would we offer them, what would they offer us? Would it be some kind of compromise, like 'we'll stop sending girls to school if you stop chopping people's heads off?'.

I thought Brown was quite pro Eurozone and it was Ed Balls who did the analysis and veto'd it? But even then we owe the ability to veto it not to Brown or Blair, but to Major.

This was quite interesting: www.theguardian.com/politics/wintour-and-watt/2011/nov/24/john-major-davidcameron

NoLotteryWinYet I don't think the ISIS/IRA analogy is brilliant either however I have referenced a number of other terrorist organisations a number of whom went on to form governments.

The Hilary Clinton thing would bother me more if there weren't a number of other VERY strong female candidates debating last night.

They would need to be all but militarily annihilated before they considered treaties - and is it fine for you to prop up a government that has slaves? Women and children as slaves, and the men slaughtered.

There's a view that we can stop the drones, not support any bombing campaigns and somehow, magically, ISIS will join the negotiating table - this isn't a view held by any serious foreign policy expert.

For everyone who thinks the high inflation of the late 20th century was a domestic problem, you need to inform yourselves. Start by reading Yanis Varoufakis's 'The Global Minotaur' then his 'And The Weak Suffer What They Must'. They describe the global effects of the destruction of the post-WW2 Bretton Woods agreements, that led to the creation of the IMF and the World Bank. Those agreements were deliberately destroyed by the influential economist Paul Volcker, later Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, and led directly to the financial chaos in Europe, which he knew it would. European countries' efforts to help themselves only got them further into trouble, with the exception of Germany. The historical reasons for why Germany escaped are in those books, and they're much more to do with American intervention than German economic management.

The economic situation in UK even now is better than the Eurozone countries, and that's due to Gordon Brown who recognised the Eurozone for what it was going to be, with all the dire effects the world has experienced in past decades: a return to the gold standard, just without the gold reserves. It was a crazy French idea from the start, and he knew it. Refusing to join it did this country a huge favour.

The only fully costed manifesto in this election, is Labour's.

Does it matter whether they're analogous or not? Military intervention alone isn't going to make them go away.

Gah! You do Know that....*

I was also thinking we had a Hilary Clinton effect going on with May. The IRA mostly went for political targets -where is the evidence of them raping and murdering children? Where is the ideology saying they will not sign treaties with corrupt western powers and where is the ideology saying that they want maximum terror against civilian targets to conquer them as fast as possible?

I don't think the IRA/ISIS analogy holds up.

Pearly You do not that not all Muslims are Isis supporters?

Sittinonthefloor

Mouse - you THINK negotiation with Isis will happen. It isn't an 'absolute truth'. There aren't really any parallels to be drawn from history either because it's a new kind of group

I am basing my statement on historical facts - as did Corbyn I imagine. All groups are 'new and different' to the age that encounters them. But let's look PLO, ANC (regarded as terrorists), IRA, Irgun, RAF, Tamil tigers the list is endless. Unfortunately.

All different, all negotiated with, all 'new' at the time.

In regards to Corbyn do you want political honesty or not? You can't claim to want honest politicians and then lambast them when they are honest.

I just did. I'm getting a figure of 4.4% of the UK population.

really christina? stating fact is inflammatory on mumsnet now? go check it out. and while you are at it check out the £ tanking.

If I could work out which one you are user I'd ask what you mean.

Don't be daft, Vango.

The tax thing is absolutely true. I've given an example before from a few years ago where I flogged myself raw one year and earned an exceptional performance bonus of £10k. I mean, I worked about 14-18 hours a day; I worked most weekends; I cancelled 2 holidays; I did several stints of 48 hours without going home. At 40% tax that felt worth it. The following year I fell into the 62% tax band. It was not worth it, so I didn't do it. Instead of £4,000 tax, the treasury got nil. If you decentivise people, they won't do it. Or they'll go elsewhere and do it.

I think that I'm going to report your post pearly for the 'Muslims will be the majority' comment. It comes across as very inflammatory.

The young vote has no knowledge of a true labour government and the 30-40s group remember the Blair years that were capitalist with a nod to metropolitan socialist causes.
Both groups will be shocked by what they might vote in.
Its well and good promising free tuition fees and free money for all but what a pull factor especially with open borders, that will be leaking investment in the opposite direction of travel.
And re Isis negotiations, there soon won't be a need, demographics will ensure that muslims are in the majority and law and policy will be slanted accordingly.

On tax, there's plenty of solid research that says taxes on income become self-defeating at about 50%. So taxation needs to be a balance between being on income and spending, with better calculated gradation. What has been fully acknowledged that we don't do, is make big international companies pay tax on their earnings in this country. I've searched for information on how much various companies would pay if that were so, but it doesn't seem to be collated anywhere. It's a research topic I don't have time for if I'm to carry on supporting the organisations I do, and they come first, but it's vital to know this if we are to make a judgement on what this country's income could be.

On this, we'd be far better off in the EU, with all that clout on our side and the same policies applied across all 28 countries. If this were the case, those companies would know there's no running away if they want to trade in Europe, and we'd get our fair share. This is one of their high priority projects. Otherwise all these companies will simply headquarter themselves in Jean-Claude Junker's lowest-tax Luxembourg.

Anyone suggesting that we should expect a return to the 1970s should google the global economy at the time rather than relying on selective memory.