What no jeremy cobyn thread?

Blank_Canvas said:
Are yes the quotes !
Didn't Corbyn once state that he would "like to assassinate Margret Thatcher" !
No need to reply to that one it's recorded for prosperity.
Click to expand...
He (*) joked about it when asked what he would do if he could go back in time.

(*) He, being John McConnell, not Corbyn.
 
Last edited:
Rapscallion said:
Could you clarify your point JP?
Click to expand...
Not certain how much clearer it can be as I've already quoted the whole conversation to which you asked this question, and it included the words relevant to participate in the privy council. They do not match with the views of someone who is anti the monarchy.

Now whilst I a pro monarchy, although loyal to the Nassau not the Windsors, I also agree that being a member of the privy council should be possible without that constitutional agreement. Or at least access to the information disseminated through that process.

In my opinion, by accepting it as is, he will firstly be hypocritical to his own beliefs, secondly untrue to what he will agree to, and thirdly miss an opportonutity to engage in a discussion for change. As such making it much harder to engage on that in future time, and diluting in the first week his breath of fresh air already.
 
Wow just realy saw him today on BBC news he is sooooo old
 
dejongj said:
Not certain how much clearer it can be as I've already quoted the whole conversation to which you asked this question, and it included the words relevant to participate in the privy council. They do not match with the views of someone who is anti the monarchy.

Now whilst I a pro monarchy, although loyal to the Nassau not the Windsors, I also agree that being a member of the privy council should be possible without that constitutional agreement. Or at least access to the information disseminated through that process.

In my opinion, by accepting it as is, he will firstly be hypocritical to his own beliefs, secondly untrue to what he will agree to, and thirdly miss an opportonutity to engage in a discussion for change. As such making it much harder to engage on that in future time, and diluting in the first week his breath of fresh air already.
Click to expand...
So you think he should adopt the Sinn Fein model and refuse to take the oath, and thus not set foot in the Commons?
Would make PMQs a bit dull, no?

Speaker: I now call upon the Leader of the Opposition... Would the Right Honourable member for North Islington please take the floor... Hello? Hello? Anyone seen Corbyn? Corbyn? Corbyn? Corbyn? Corbyn....
 
Llamaman said:
So you think he should adopt the Sinn Fein model and refuse to take the oath, and thus not set foot in the Commons?
Would make PMQs a bit dull, no?

Speaker: I now call upon the Leader of the Opposition... Would the Right Honourable member for North Islington please take the floor... Hello? Hello? Anyone seen Corbyn? Corbyn? Corbyn? Corbyn? Corbyn....
Click to expand...
No not at all. That is not what I said and that is not what the news story is about. Doesn't anyone read it properly? This is about the privy council.
 
dejongj said:
No not at all. That is not what I said and that is not what the news story is about. Doesn't anyone read it properly? This is about the privy council.
Click to expand...
I know you are trying to make the privy council oath a special case, but you have not articulated why. You need to swear an oath of allegiance to be an MP as well. So if we're getting strict on Republicans not swearing oaths then by rights he should never have sat in the House at all.

Edit: I've reread the Privy Council oath and can see why you hold this view.
 
Last edited:
Llamaman said:
I know you are trying to make the privy council oath a special case, but you have not articulated why. You need to swear an oath of allegiance to be an MP as well. So if we're getting strict on Republicans not swearing oaths then by rights he should never have sat in the House at all.
Click to expand...
Have you actually read he oath and noted the differences? Do you actually understand what the privy council is? There are distinct differences which I already quoted God knows how many posts ago.

And, as per Phil V's quote of the link he provided the Huffington posts makes the exact same distinction. It is simple, this is not an interpretation, participation is by invitation only, and I think DC played a political blunder by inviting JC to join. the ceremony hasn't happened yet so we will see.
 
Last edited:
The MPs oath, for comparison;
I (name of Member) swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

This appears to be identical in spirit to that of the Privy Council oath.
 
Llamaman said:
The MPs oath, for comparison;
I (name of Member) swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

This appears to be identical in spirit to that of the Privy Council oath.
Click to expand...
I suggest you read them more carefully as they are distinctly different due to the level of access to data and information you get.
 
dejongj said:
I suggest you read them more carefully as they are distinctly different due to the level of access to data and information you get.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter if it only gets him access to the potting shed - either it's a disgraceful act of hypocrisy, or an acceptable pragmatic act to deal with our ancient governmental systems.

Can you really "bear true allegiance" whilst causing damage to her person?
 
I think he is a commie..... and he is sooo damned old.
 
Mr Bump said:
and he is sooo damned old.
Click to expand...
TBH if looks are the overriding factor, I'd trust someone that looked mature
over the ones that look like they are only just out of nappies.
 
He is an idiot, not singing the national anthem and do your tie up you scruffy C*&t
 
I like what he did with pmq. It will be interesting to see how that matures and develops over time. Whilst I also hear the criticism about being passive aggressive and using the public as a shield, I prefer to give him the benefit of doubt for the moment.
 
crofter said:
"old" you say ,he'll be a bloody sight older if he ever becomes PM and he'll be nine pence short of a shilling by then.
Click to expand...
He'll fit right in, it that case :thumbs:
 
mex said:
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/d...42424939-3bb2ae373d2debd1e0ef9feda714add6.jpg COzOwx2WoAAv4ey by mex on Talk Photography

Norty sweary, please linky these types of posts in future (y)
Click to expand...

Oops.....

Getting back to the latest post, with regard to JC not singing the British anthem, why do we not sing all 6 verses and p*** the Scots right off too?

To save you googling it,it reads:

6. Lord grant that Marshal Wade
May by thy mighty aid
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
And like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush.
God save the Queen!
 
mex said:
Oops.....

Getting back to the latest post, with regard to JC not singing the British anthem, why do we not sing all 6 verses and p*** the Scots right off too?

To save you googling it,it reads:

6. Lord grant that Marshal Wade
May by thy mighty aid
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
And like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush.
God save the Queen!
Click to expand...
Or even...
Thousands of working families will be worse off due to yesterdays vote to cut tax credits, meanwhile one of the richest women on the planet gets millions of £ a year of our taxes and the newspapers are horrified that some bloke not singing a song might have disrespected her.

The world has truly gone mad.
 
mex said:
Oops.....

Getting back to the latest post, with regard to JC not singing the British anthem, why do we not sing all 6 verses and p*** the Scots right off too?

To save you googling it,it reads:

6. Lord grant that Marshal Wade
May by thy mighty aid
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
And like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush.
God save the Queen!
Click to expand...

Why would you want to do that? I have no wish to upset Wales, even though they will probably beat us at rugby.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mex
Why would you want to sing a song offering deference to some other human who through arbitrary twists of fate and family has inherited more wealth and power than you?

No problem with the Queen as a human being, God knows there are worse people in the world, but why do people find value in being the subject of a hereditary monarch? Are we chronically deficient in self-esteem or self-worth in England?
I don't get royalists and monarchists at all. Someone enlighten me...what's important or respectable about the queen?
 
the more you see the guy, the more you may respect him, agree with him or not ......... but it is all going to end in tears ............. two labour parties ........ maybe a small group led by Corbin and a large group of the rest???
 
ghoti said:
Why would you want to sing a song offering deference to some other human who through arbitrary twists of fate and family has inherited more wealth and power than you?

No problem with the Queen as a human being, God knows there are worse people in the world, but why do people find value in being the subject of a hereditary monarch? Are we chronically deficient in self-esteem or self-worth in England?
I don't get royalists and monarchists at all. Someone enlighten me...what's important or respectable about the queen?
Click to expand...
You could ask that about many other people, it won't matter a single bit what anyone answers I suspect as you've made your stance quite clear.
 
BillN_33 said:
the more you see the guy, the more you may respect him, agree with him or not ......... but it is all going to end in tears ............. two labour parties ........ maybe a small group led by Corbin and a large group of the rest???
Click to expand...
Why do people find it so hard to spell someone's name correctly? I find it a real shame and quite rude to do that.

Ps. Not singling you out, there are a few here including the op.
 
dejongj said:
You could ask that about many other people, it won't matter a single bit what anyone answers I suspect as you've made your stance quite clear.
Click to expand...
No, it probably won't matter as far as my opinions are concerned. My views on the monarchy are consolidated. But I'm still interested in the value people find in it.

I suppose I get it in the sense that people may enjoy the pomp and ceremony of the royal family in the same way a fan of Motorhead may enjoy the theatre of Motorhead. Neither Motorhead nor the Monarchy is my idea of a good time but to each their own. But I do wonder why so many monarchists feel that others should defer to or respect the monarchy. It's a point of curiosity more than anything else.
 
Last edited:
ghoti said:
No, it probably won't matter as far as my opinions are concerned. My views on the monarchy are consolidated. But I'm still interested in the value people find in it.

I suppose I get it in the sense that people may enjoy the pomp and ceremony of the royal family in the same way a fan of Motorhead may enjoy the theatre of Motorhead. Neither Motorhead nor the Monarchy is my idea of a good time but to each their own. But I do wonder why so many monarchists feel that others should defer to or respect the monarchy. It's a point of curiosity more than anything else.
Click to expand...
Why stop at a monarchy? Why not just remove country borders. Or hey let's abolish tax all together.
 
dejongj said:
Why stop at a monarchy? Why not just remove country borders. Or hey let's abolish tax all together.
Click to expand...
You've lost me.
Plenty of countries manage to have borders and taxes and whatnot without a monarchy.
 
well non of the public vote for the prime minister, we have a terrible election based system, so actually the queen or monarchy is just the same.
 
ghoti said:
You've lost me.
Plenty of countries manage to have borders and taxes and whatnot without a monarchy.
Click to expand...
But country borders are just as artificial as a monarchy. Why pick on one and not the other? Sure it had all to do with land ownership, rent tax etc. you are just as selective as what you suggest you are against.

To me no thank you, I'll remain loyal to my king and have a sworn allegiance with the queen in this country.
 
andyscott said:
well non of the public vote for the prime minister, we have a terrible election based system, so actually the queen or monarchy is just the same.
Click to expand...
It's hardly the same.
The UK is a parliamentary democracy. This has flaws, sure. Every system of democracy does. One benefit is that a body of elected representatives have ultimate executive power, rather than just an individual as in, say, a presidential democracy. We could, in ideal world, go down the direct democracy route (as in Switzerland) but that also brings problems. Particularly with regard to admin.
If we want to keep the queen as some national pet, nominally presiding over government as a piece of theatre, I'm okay with that. Not something I'd get excited about but, hey, who cares? It's the idea that we should all care about the queen that gets my goat. Why? Why care about the queen?

I also find it disturbing that you seem to think that because (as you seem to misguidedly believe) the prime minister isn't directly elected then it's A-OK to have an unelected monarch for us all to defer to. Surely, if you were right (which you're not) then both the queen and the prime minister would be abominations, no? Or do you think unelected representatives are okay?
 
andyscott said:
well non of the public vote for the prime minister, we have a terrible election based system, so actually the queen or monarchy is just the same.
Click to expand...
Well some people do vote for the Prime Minister (his Tory voting constituents), our electoral system has it's problems but it sort of works. As a point of interest; how did you vote in the referendum to change the system?

The Queen is far from just the same, she has God given superiority over her subjects. How is that the same as us voting for a party who have made their choice of leader who would become Prime Minister should they get the most MP's?

David Cameron might be a supercillious arrogant a******e with a sense of privelege, but he doesn't claim God chose him to rule over us.
 
dejongj said:
But country borders are just as artificial as a monarchy. Why pick on one and not the other? Sure it had all to do with land ownership, rent tax etc. you are just as selective as what you suggest you are against.

To me no thank you, I'll remain loyal to my king and have a sworn allegiance with the queen in this country.
Click to expand...
I have no allegiances based on land borders or monarchy.
It's as entirely stupid to think you can be defined by the geographical accident of your birth as it is to swear allegiance to some arbitrary monarch.
Borders do serve a practical purpose in the sense of dividing up administrative and executive duties based on local needs, though. But I have no allegiances to the borders within which I currently find myself, be those county or country borders. I don't take psychological borders with me when I move home.
 
Phil V said:
Well some people do vote for the Prime Minister (his Tory voting constituents), our electoral system has it's problems but it sort of works. As a point of interest; how did you vote in the referendum to change the system?

The Queen is far from just the same, she has God given superiority over her subjects. How is that the same as us voting for a party who have made their choice of leader who would become Prime Minister should they get the most MP's?

David Cameron might be a supercillious arrogant a******e with a sense of privelege, but he doesn't claim God chose him to rule over us.
Click to expand...
First time I heard something like that. Since when has God (who doesn't exist) chosen the queen?
 
ghoti said:
I have no allegiances based on land borders or monarchy.
It's as entirely stupid to think you can be defined by the geographical accident of your birth as it is to swear allegiance to some arbitrary monarch.
Borders do serve a practical purpose in the sense of dividing up administrative and executive duties based on local needs, though. But I have no allegiances to the borders within which I currently find myself, be those county or country borders. I don't take psychological borders with me when I move home.
Click to expand...
But that is exactly my point, so a bit selective in what you want then. Which is fine by me and your prerogative but let's be honest about it.

Not sure whether this is the right conversation for a Corbyn thread though.
 
dejongj said:
First time I heard something like that. Since when has God (who doesn't exist) chosen the queen?
Click to expand...
You might have read the Privy Council oath, but you didn't read the oath our Monarch swears as they are crowned. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top