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"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"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.

With the majority of the press in over-drive warning of the dire consequences of Corbyn becoming Labour leader, the main effect of his election (should that occur) will be to allow the Tories to do a significant right-shift and still be seen as the only electable party of reason.

You really do miss the target with precision at times.

Not much chance (unless they rig the contest)of backflip Burnham getting anywhere near now. He was supposed to be the biggest threat.

He does have a valid point, If the press supported a donkey, we would face a strong possibility of that donkey entering number 10 Downing Street.

The electorate always gets the government it deserves.

I don't believe for one moment that Corbyn can effect any kind of substantive change for the positive in this country - even if some miracle occurs and he somehow finds himself occupying No. 10 Downing Street.

Suffice to say that the breaking "refugee crisis" all but seals his downfall.

From start to finish this has been an engineered crisis executed masterfully in conjunction with the mainstream media.

Stoke up racial tensions for a few years so every third person sees Muslims hiding under the bed. Then turn down the heat for a period whilst you bomb Middle Eastern & North African nations back to the stone age - thus creating a surge of terrified refugees desperate to escape hell back home.

But the real genius was in damming up the flow so that when you allow it to break it literally drowns Europe under a torrent of exiles. Make sure you have plenty of cameras there to film it. Ensure every third story in the newspapers is about our "obligations" to these people - knowing full well that the seeds sown earlier mean this can only result in outrage.

Corbyn is too nice a guy for the sheetstorm which is about to break on Britain. He'll be pilloried for being "too soft" whilst the ultra-right wing parties go gangbusters.

Tory success for decades.

Hasn't the rise of Scottish nationalism guaranteed Labour will struggle to get elected for a long time anyway?

It's pleasing to know that the Tories can now put together a 10+ year plan. Continuity can't be a bad thing, surely.

I think the rise of Scottish nationalism will fall just as quickly once the Scots realize they've been hustled like a wide-eyed kid playing "Hook A Duck" at the fairground.

Is anything in your weird and paranoid world NOT the result of years/decades of government conspiracy and black ops?

Odd little fellow. Getting more ridiculous every day.

Tory success for decades. Not for the potty teenage reasons you claim but because the Labour Party has shown and continues to show itself incompetent and unelectable, and vast swathes of the population remember the irretrievable mess they've left us in, economically and demographically.

Yes we remember what that woman and her dogma driven illogical poodles did and look at the mess the country is in now. The same applies across the pond thanks to the idiot actor and the shrubs who followed.

The whole thing is now blooming as was foretold but then some find it convenient to forget whilst others struggle with joined up thinking allied to a global economy based on greed with little humanity. They planted the seeds.

Strange then that the right wing apologists blame those that suffer the consequences of their actions for the situation occurring in the first place.

We're in a worse mess now, than we were in 2010.

Keep the faith, bro.

I have the feeling the SNP dominance of Scotland will last for a while, particularly if they can wangle "special Socttish" things from the UK government. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it all falls apart eventually, but isn't the real challenge for Labour to get itself elected in England and Wales?

Can't really blame a global recession on Labour.

Good to see the Tories making the people who caused the recession pay for it though. The poorest and most vulnerable in our society, rightly paying for their actions in the global markets via austerity. That'll show em.