According to The Independent’s editorial yesterday, Jeremy Corbyn's speech questioning our level of responsibility in terrorist attacks shouldn't have been made two weeks before a general election.
Instead, Corbyn should apparently have allowed the terrorist attack in Manchester to determine our democratic process down to the content and timing of a key speech by the leader of the opposition. Irrespective of when Corbyn said it, the right-wing media would willfully have misinterpreted what he was saying when he made the blindingly obvious point that our Government's interventions in Iraq and Libya have made us less safe.
Rather than criticising Corbyn for making the speech, we’d do far better to consider what was going on when the BBC's programmed attack robot Andrew Neil was let loose on Corbyn in the “interview”. Corbyn's calm and rational responses in the face of Neil's embarrassingly obtuse attempts to bully and provoke him was truly statesmanlike.
D Maughan Brown
If there's anything we've learned from this campaign, it's that neither Corbyn nor May are up to the job of Prime Minister. Theresa May's manifesto makes zero sense and as for Jeremy Corbyn, while the heart is there, the timing is not. I cannot fault his statement per se, but I wish he could have waited until after the election. Such as it is, it vaguely echoes David Steel’s infamous speech about preparing for government.
Corbyn is the real ‘strong and stable’ leader
I am pro-European and was very disillusioned with Labour over its stance on the issue, but the choices now facing this country are even bigger than that. Forget any single issue. Policies on health, education and the economy matter, but each on their own does not make an election.
What matters is integrity, stability and strength. Theresa May claims to be strong and stable, yet she has changed her mind so often that stability is somewhat of a misnomer. Stability to her means doing whatever the tabloids tell her to. She no doubt can be strong, but strong in ways that harm others. As for integrity, I'm not convinced she understands the meaning of the concept.
Corbyn, however, has held the same views throughout his career, and has stated them even when it was not popular or in his best interests to do so. Never more so than on the issue of security. When the country was off fighting wars he was almost a lone voice in both parliament and his party saying that those wars would lead to terrorism threats. He has stood side by side with causes that at times were not popular yet now are more and more becoming mainstream: history is proving him right.
Given the nature of the challenges this nation faces, we must choose real strength and stability over sound bites and slogans. That is the choice facing us now.
Courts must take autism into consideration during sentencing
The level of ignorance shown in the sentencing of Damon Smith, the student jailed for 15 years for leaving an explosive on the Tube, is a damning indictment of the police and courts' inability or unwillingness to understand autism.
Smith's world view does not, and cannot, equate to that of someone without autism, as he is unable to understand the true nature of his planned actions. To either pretend or imagine that he does is proof of a mentality that brings the criminal justice system into disrepute. What kind of society are we that allows this to happen?
It's the ‘will of the people’ to keep fox hunting illegal, and MPs need to listen
The overwhelming majority of our elected MPs wanted to remain in the EU, but we were told they had to support Brexit as it was “the will of the people”.
Politicians of all parties place great store and invest large sums of money in opinion polls as a way of determining the wishes of the electorate, so I can only hope that in the promised “free” vote on the reintroduction of fox hunting our MPs will similarly wish to support the will of the people, which shows 84 per cent of the population is in favour of keeping the ban, and not be swayed by a minority of self-interested lobby groups.
Getting married shouldn't be a financial decision
It is sad that many people decide not to marry because they think it is too expensive. Marrying is not expensive at all; it is the cost of the accompanying partying and dressing up that runs up the bills, and this is not essential, however enjoyable they may be.
Register for free to continue reading
Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism
By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists
Already have an account? sign in
Join our new commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies