Only an adherent to toeing the party political line of "Us good, them bad" could ever think through the logic in that statement and think that it makes sense.

You can't be the first to arrive at a political position that ultimately proves to be a successful one and yet at the same time be wrong to arrive at that political position - the ultimate agreement may be a million miles away from what you might have agreed yourself but the fact that you were there at the start to recognise that a dialogue needed to at least commence needs some credit, go on, say it, we know its choking you but do it.

The Good Friday Agreement was possible because the time was right for it. The IRA had accepted that they werent going to achieve a united Ireland. That meant the Unionists accepted that power sharing wouldnt lead to unification.

When Corbyn intervened the IRA were still set on unification. His intervention gave the IRA false hope that terrorism would be successful. It also created further mistrust among the Unionists. It was counter productive

When precisely did being "too old" suddenly disqualify candidates for leadership? If anything we should disqualify people who are too young! I don't know anyone who seriously believes he was smarter twenty years earlier (aside from maybe people afflicted with serious brain disorders).

There's a reason just about every pre-industrial civilization (from the ancient Greeks to the North American Indians) valued the wisdom of their "Elders".

It's only in the crazy world of contemporary Western society where being old is a negative attribute. I mean, how anyone can take guys like Cameron, Clegg & Osborne seriously? They look like those smug, tish school prefects who bar the corridors in schools up and down the country.

You'd have to be completely nuts to believe thirty years of additional experience in politics counts for nothing.

As for Illuminati - you seem to know more about them than I do. But before you close the door on the possibility that "problem" politicians are rubbed out - take a peek at the list of politicians killed in "air accidents" over the past sixty years I'm compiling for the Unmediated History thread in the next few days. I had hoped to finish it before I went on my holidays - unfortunately it went on ... and on .... and on .... and on.

To say I was gobsmacked by the fatality rate bearing in mind this is supposedly the "safest form of travel" would be a something of an understatement.

Not to mention 'problem' pop singers.
lol

So, just like Chicken Licken's sky, the Good Friday agreement just fell to earth?

Now that is funny

It came about after 5 years of behind the scenes discussions initiated by Major and the Dublin PM but involving both the IRA and the Unionists. Great care was taken to ensure that trust was built up between the two opposing factions. The British and Irish governments made sure that both sides' concerns were addressed. The IRA dropped its insistence on unification ensuring that the unionists were prepared to discuss power sharing. Common ground was found. During that period there was a reduction in the incidence of bombings and murders which both the catholic and protestant communities wanted to continue. By the time formal negotiations commenced the groundwork had been laid in a manner which both Sinn Fein and the Unionists believed to be trustworthy.

By contrast, when Corbyn intervened the IRA were firmly committed to unification, the unionists were convinced that the IRA could be defeated by force without them having to make any concessions on power sharing. Both sides believed they could win the wa and achieve their objectives without negotiations.

Even if it had been possible for peace negotiations to take place in the 80's, it would have needed to be done in the same even handed manner, obtaining the trust of both sides. If Corbyn had been seriously interested in acting as a mediator he would have ensured that both sides saw him as an honest broker, someone who could be trusted to act fairly. Corbyn did nothing of the sort. He clearly aligned himself to the republican cause, was part of the Troops Out movement, made clear his support for unification, invited Adams to parliament shortly after the Brighton bombing. He was openly committed to republicanism.

Corbyn was never interested in aiding a peace process. It was all about showing solidarity with an oppressed minority, in Northern Ireland and the Middle East. His supporters should try to justify his actions on that basis rather than trying to re-invent him as some sort of peace envoy.

So your beef is that he shows solidarity to oppressed minority's ?

Seems like part of the job description for a Socialist, you know, someone who doesn't demonise minorities or use their press influence to turn the population against them.

I confess to my only interest in Corbyn is in revisiting Socialism again after a gap of at least 30 years , their could be a place for a leader with a social conscience (after a complete dearth of any) and a willingness to at least consider all points of the argument rather than stick to a dogma written by a shadow.

I dont have a beef with it. I just think he and his supporters should be honest enough to admit that was what it was and defend it on that basis. Rather than pretend he was Terry Waite

hat is tiresome is the "establishment" attacking Corbyn and not having many opinions about each other.

It seems Corbynomics has serious fans www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... are_btn_tw

It seems Corbynomics has serious fans www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... are_btn_tw

Quote McClennan="McClennan"It seems Corbynomics has serious fans www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... are_btn_tw'" But I thought Corbyn was a far left, dangerous throwback who's economic policies would be akin to Communist Russia? At least that's what most of the million/billionaire-owned media outlets keep telling me.

Quote McClennan="McClennan"It seems Corbynomics has serious fans www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... are_btn_tw'" But I thought Corbyn was a far left, dangerous throwback who's economic policies would be akin to Communist Russia? At least that's what most of the million/billionaire-owned media outlets keep telling me.