Ge 2017

I'm struggling to keep up with all this but, taking all posts so far at face value, clearly Douglas Hurd wasn't a member of the government in 1977?

And in Gerrard FitzGerald's memoirs he said that those meetings prolonged the conflict as it gave the IRA false hope that the British govt wanted to negotiate.
 
And in Gerrard FitzGerald's memoirs he said that those meetings prolonged the conflict as it gave the IRA false hope that the British govt wanted to negotiate.

Hurd, Corbyn or both? What other meetings were going on?

And are the actions of a relatively young man in the 70s and 80s all that significant nowadays? Or are our memories too short?
 
Yes, unless invited to do so by the govt of the day. What could Corbyn offer to the IRA, apart from giving them a platform? He couldn't say we'll reduce the number of troops or restrict the RUC's powers if you promise the give up xxx...

Both the government ministers of the day and shadows in the opposition, not insignificant back benchers like Corbyn who had no standing in his own party and surprise surprise has since admitted not being involved.
 
Looking on the bright side, at least by ensuring we are fixated by what Corbyn may or may not have done a few decades ago, it means the tories can avoid any serious questions and debate about what their manifesto will do to our public services such as school, the NHS and the police force.
 
Hurd, Corbyn or both? What other meetings were going on?

And are the actions of a relatively young man in the 70s and 80s all that significant nowadays? Or are our memories too short?

Both.

There were official, behind the scenes, meetings going on from the late 60's.

In many respects you're right, what does it matter who was doing what back then, apart from has that individual learned from their meddling and would they be just as likely to be cavalier now.

Surprisingly, the person to come out of all of this with at least a shred of dignity is Diane Abbott. She's admitted to meetings and comments, and said she's grown up now. Neither Corbyn nor McDonnell have admitted anything, even when political commentators have quoted known facts to them. They give a deflecting, weasly answer.
 
Looking on the bright side, at least by ensuring we are fixated by what Corbyn may or may not have done a few decades ago, it means the tories can avoid any serious questions and debate about what their manifesto will do to our public services such as school, the NHS and the police force.

Unless we are going to raise substantially more in the way of taxes labour aren't going to fair any better according to independent sources and having to continually bail out Scotland because of the inability of the SNP to want to raise the taxes to do what they want to do it will only get worse.
 
Unless we are going to raise substantially more in the way of taxes labour aren't going to fair any better according to independent sources and having to continually bail out Scotland because of the inability of the SNP to want to raise the taxes to do what they want to do it will only get worse.

Which is fair enough. But at least it is a debate over how we still fund public services (for example do we need to raise taxes) which I imagine will impact more people than if Corbyn met the IRA decades ago.
 
Which is fair enough. But at least it is a debate over how we still fund public services (for example do we need to raise taxes) which I imagine will impact more people than if Corbyn met the IRA decades ago.

Agreed if you also taking into account that he lied to try and justify it and if your happy for him as a story teller to be leader of the country.
 
Agreed if you also taking into account that he lied to try and justify it and if your happy for him as a story teller to be leader of the country.

As opposed to Mrs 'No snap election' May....

Whilst the leaders are important and I totally agree that Corbyn is more of a liability than an asset to Labour, to be honest I'll look at what kind of country each party is trying to represent and also their policies.
 
What is the point in debating with you? *draws breath and tries again*

Hurd met the IRA as part of a sanctioned government negotiation, and Corbyn did what? Went off on one of his apologist meetings, not even sanctioned by his own party.

Or put another way; what would be your reaction if Ruth Davidson went and had negotiations with a 3rd party, not even terrorist, on behalf of the SNP?

Let's not forget that the Tory Government were meeting with the IRA long, long before they had agreed to 'lay down their arms'

Secretary of State for Northern Ireland William Whitelaw met IRA leader Sean MacStiofain and other Republicans at Channon's house in Chelsea on 7 July 1972.[2] The talks ended in failure,


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Channon
 
As opposed to Mrs 'No snap election' May....

Whilst the leaders are important and I totally agree that Corbyn is more of a liability than an asset to Labour, to be honest I'll look at what kind of country each party is trying to represent and also their policies.

Besides - a Leader is only a Leader as long as he is followed. Corbyn can quite easily become ex-Leader - even as PM (that being an unlikely event). After all - the Tories did it when Thatcher had served her purpose and done her stint.
 
Let's not forget that the Tory Government were meeting with the IRA long, long before they had agreed to 'lay down their arms'

Secretary of State for Northern Ireland William Whitelaw met IRA leader Sean MacStiofain and other Republicans at Channon's house in Chelsea on 7 July 1972.[2] The talks ended in failure,


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Channon

The clue is in the word Government
 
The clue is in the word Government

Stop being sensible!!

Everyone knows its ok for everyone and their dog to get involved in delicate negotiations, especially inconsequential nobodies who haven't a clue what the Cabinet of the day is trying to achieve.
 
Stop being sensible!!

Everyone knows its ok for everyone and their dog to get involved in delicate negotiations, especially inconsequential nobodies who haven't a clue what the Cabinet of the day is trying to achieve.

Sorry Bri, tend to agree with most of your posts and maybe it wasn't the case with Corbyn, but sometimes dealing with a 3rd person or intermediate with no direct involvement is more acceptable to both sides in some conflicts.
 
Stop being sensible!!

Everyone knows its ok for everyone and their dog to get involved in delicate negotiations, especially inconsequential nobodies who haven't a clue what the Cabinet of the day is trying to achieve.

I don't care who negotiates provide the outcome results in peace.
As the government had not achieved that in decades I am inclined to agree with Paul
 
Top