We know of this due to the 30yr rule, being subject to that rule hints at some questionable or sensitive content, as the secrets of that period of govt finally get an airing there are all kinds of worms being evicted from their can.
It's laughable to suggest there are skeletons in Corbyns closet other than those placed there with no evidence, witness or reportage.

:laugh::laugh::joker::joker: FFS - The only thing laughable is that anyone can SERIOUSLY maintain the claims which I have emboldened.

I am probably likely seen as such a person but oddly enough I agree with your comment above.

I would only quantify and qualify as to it that Letwin was at the time one of Mrs Thatchers members of her policy unit,I also understand there are reports he helped blocked help for a black youth after the riots too.

He is now again involved in a strong way as to govt again, being an advisor to the PM.

Now at this time in political history, Corbyn has had really little and no influence as to his past views,rightly reported or not, in govt.
He has said, I agree many things of less than appropriate comments all through his career, however he has not had the 30 year rule hiding his thinking to protect him as Letwin has, all Corbyns possible skeletons have been there for all to hear and see as he said and did them.

I am one who does believe, what people said and wanted done in the past as to politics, should be looked on with a more flexible approach as to what they say and do at the time.
However I also have always maintained what MPs say and try to have done when they have their party in power, is what I judge them on.
One would expect a greater amount of care as to wordings and policy plans once a party and MPs are in govt.
The difference here is that was the case, the Conservative party was in govt,Letwin had influence as to the policy forum and he again has influence now with the Conservatives in govt again.

I haven't yet seen what Corbyn would do with power,maybe I would hate it and for you, maybe it will be the better thing if he never gets power.
None of this makes the comments from someone with status in govt at the time and even now, anything acceptable in my view and nor should it.

Had he made such comments as an activist or while the Conservatives were in opposition,I would be far more ready to hand greater leverage to him.

There is much I don't like as to Corbyn,they may be even valid reasons for from his past views, that he does not get power.
However, I am judging Letwin on the fact he had status in his party in 1985 and still has now too.
Therein for me lies the slight difference but you did make a valid point that has a base to it.

Perhaps it is time, for other than main security issues, the 30 year rule should be abolished and let's hear at the time what people like Letwin, from all parties really think and say and propose too as possible policy.

:clap1::clap1::clap1:I really was not referring to you Joey, but I applaud your very reasoned and balanced post, and I cannot find anything to fault in it even if I wanted to - which I genuinely do not.

I totally agree that - unless it is genuinely a matter which could jeopardise State Security - there should be no '30 year rule' or any other rule which OUR public servants can hide behind. I earnestly desire as much transparency as possible in the shenanigans of our MP's and politicians.

As for Letwin, I have stated numerous times that he is a buffoon and I add that he is not of sufficient intellect and moral calibre to be in government or advising government.

Dragging the conversation to Corbyn does nothing to diminish the impact of Letwins comments.
But for humours sake I will ask what is there from Corbyn in comparison to Letwins comments?