What no jeremy cobyn thread?

dejongj said:
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.
Click to expand...

Of course people are selective about what they want, why wouldn't they be?
 
dejongj said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I understand? In what respect was I selective? I said that I think borders have value where they have practical benefits, but I see no sense in identifying with them. Much the same as my views on the queen and the monarchy. As I said, if you want the queen as a national pet then have at it. Enjoy yourself. Knock yourself out. My original question was about why so many monarchists think that other people should care about the queen.
 
Phil V said:
You might have read the Privy Council oath, but you didn't read the oath our Monarch swears as they are crowned. ;)
Click to expand...
Ah so you do recognise that you misinterpreted me earlier? Or were wrong ;) you were very silent about that one.

And yes he/she gets presented with a rethorical question. But not chosen. I mean that would be fantasticly exciting if there was an actual response and a denial would it not? No, succession is clearly defined and not randomly chosen by a God.
 
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...
By tradition, the leader of the majority party is prime minister. Since most people vote not for their local candidates, but on the basis of party leaders, the PM has an effective mandate as the head of parliament.
I don't like FPTP, but illegitimacy of the PM role is the least of the complaints that can be levelled against it.

And it is certainly more democratic than a Head of State determined by accident of being a descendant of an invader 1,000 years ago, in a system arbitrarily prejudiced against all faiths but one, and with a preferred gender to boot.
 
Rapscallion said:
Of course people are selective about what they want, why wouldn't they be?
Click to expand...
I agree, and I even acknowledged that. Not sure of your point to point that out again without acknowledging that I said that already.
 
dejongj said:
No, succession is clearly defined and not randomly chosen by a God.
Click to expand...
God backed his horse at Hastings and he's sticking with it. Still dieu et mon droit 1,000 years later.
 
dejongj said:
Ah so you do recognise that you misinterpreted me earlier? Or were wrong ;) you were very silent about that one.

And yes he/she gets presented with a rethorical question. But not chosen. I mean that would be fantasticly exciting if there was an actual response and a denial would it not? No, succession is clearly defined and not randomly chosen by a God.
Click to expand...
Well no I didn't want to labour the point - IMHO there's no real difference - if someone is a Pacifist Republican, I really don't see a huge leap.

But Yes our Monarch is head of our church which is granted by God. No separation of Church and State here.
 
Can anyone give me a good reason why I should show the queen more respect than my boss, or the guy I buy a coffee from each morning, or any of the homeless people I pass on my way to the train? Maybe I should regale my boss with dirge-like tunes about his superiority (though he'd probably laugh, make me a coffee and ask if I'd had a heavy night).
I honestly have no more respect for the queen than I do for any individual I pass on the street and I really don't understand why some people think she deserves more.
 
dejongj said:
I agree, and I even acknowledged that. Not sure of your point to point that out again without acknowledging that I said that already.
Click to expand...

I quoted the post where you said it!
The reason for my pointing that out is that it is obvious that people can be selective about what they wants, so not sure why you felt the need to raise the issue that Ghoti was being selective. A very curious line of reasoning.
 
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...

Because it boils down to the left believe everyone is equal and the right do not. That's why you hear words like swarms and scroungers, and why they've been dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century, apposing just about every civil rights movement along the way.

But of course the left are the dinosaurs.
 
Last edited:
ghoti said:
Can anyone give me a good reason why I should show the queen more respect than my boss, or the guy I buy a coffee from each morning, or any of the homeless people I pass on my way to the train? Maybe I should regale my boss with dirge-like tunes about his superiority (though he'd probably laugh, make me a coffee and ask if I'd had a heavy night).
I honestly have no more respect for the queen than I do for any individual I pass on the street and I really don't understand why some people think she deserves more.
Click to expand...
I don't understand your point, nobody suggests anything about more respect nor superiority. She just is the queen, she is a person. I don't see her as superior and find that an alien concept to view it like that.
 
rjbell said:
Because it boils down to the left believe everyone is equal and the right do not. That's why you hear words like swarms and scroungers, and why they've had to have been dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century, apposing just about every civil rights movement along the way.

But of course the left are the dinosaurs.
Click to expand...
Fully disagree, and in my opinion a rather thwarted view, or at best a wrongly comprehended interpretation of those on the right of politics whatever that may be these days.
 
Llamaman said:
Google "Divine Right of Kings".
This is why the royal motto is dieu et mon droit.

Good old wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings
Click to expand...
Yup fully aware of it; especially as my family in 1647 moved away from Wales for such related matters.

However we were talking about the queen and hopefully in current day and how she became the monarch. That had nothing to do with a choice of God beyond any symbolic reference. The same good be argued for a republic president as a head of state. I like it that these days the monarch, the head of state is a-political. It is good for a country to have such separation in such a recognisable and cost effective manner. Let me ask you, how would you like to replace it, and what would the benefit be?

Isn't the real issue here birthright and inheritance? And not just limited to royalty, but for everyone. Isn't it a case where many left leaning would prefer to see any advantages through inheritance from their families redistributed for the benefit of all rather than the very few?
 
Phil V said:
Well no I didn't want to labour the point - IMHO there's no real difference - if someone is a Pacifist Republican, I really don't see a huge leap.

But Yes our Monarch is head of our church which is granted by God. No separation of Church and State here.
Click to expand...
But God doesn't exist, he can't choose. And succession rights are documented clearly. Heck even in RC church God doesn't choose either. I mean he can't as he doesn't exist, but even when people do belief there are yet again rules around how their head of church gets chosen. It's a symbolic and rethorical reference opposed to an actual decision.
 
dejongj said:
Fully disagree, and in my opinion a rather thwarted view, or at best a wrongly comprehended interpretation of those on the right of politics whatever that may be these days.
Click to expand...
What bit do you disagree?
 
rjbell said:
Because it boils down to the left believe everyone is equal and the right do not.
Click to expand...
Do you really believe that? If you do, I think you'll find that you're in a very very small minority. But it would help the debate if you could clarify your definition of "equal". And "left" and "right" whilst you're at it.

I would never be able to compete with Mo Farah or Usain Bolt, because I simply do not have the genetics. I suspect you probably don't either. I would never be able to compete against Roger Federer because I don't have whatever it is he's got, and I suspect you probably don't either. So in what way are we "equal"?

If I ever need brain surgery, I would hope that it's performed by somebody who has the necessary intelligence and training - an extremely high level of both - rather than some random bloke picked off the street. I suspect you probably would too. In what way are the brain surgeon and the random bloke "equal"? The brain surgeon is handsomely rewarded for his endeavours and I don't have a problem with that. Do you?

But I, and you, are equal to these people in the sense that we can, if we so choose, make the most of whatever abilities we have in whatever law-abiding way we wish. We are their equal in the sense that the laws of the country apply to all of us just the same. We are their equal in that we have the right to hold whatever beliefs we wish without fear of prejudice or persecution.

So... you presumably identify with the "left", whatever that is, and so presumably you believe all people are "equal". In what way?

You would probably regard me as on the "right", whatever that is, and so presumably my perception that I believe people are equal in all the important respects is somehow misguided. In what way?
 
Last edited:
andyscott said:
Then I would suggest you don't go to that kind of memorial service.
Click to expand...

I don't sing hymns in church at weddings and funerals either. Do you suggest I stop going to those too?


StewartR said:
The brain surgeon is handsomely rewarded for his endeavours and I don't have a problem with that. Do you?
Click to expand...

Seems reasonable to me. However, some of the most important jobs which have a direct bearing on our health are sewage workers and dustmen. I don't think they are rewarded as handsomely as they should be.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
I am surprised how divisive he sounds with regard to the population of the UK when discussing his policies. He really only has time for certain groups of the population and because of this I cannot see him getting anywhere near enough votes for the Labour Party to be elected at a general election ......

it sounds like that anyway to me when I listen to what he says, this surprises me

Clearly he would make a good leader of a small break away group of like minded Labour MP's as some of what he believes in is interesting, worthy of consideration and important to debates in Parliament
 
Last edited:
StewartR said:
Do you really believe that? If you do, I think you'll find that you're in a very very small minority. But it would help the debate if you could clarify your definition of "equal". And "left" and "right" whilst you're at it.

I would never be able to compete with Mo Farah or Usain Bolt, because I simply do not have the genetics. I suspect you probably don't either. I would never be able to compete against Roger Federer because I don't have whatever it is he's got, and I suspect you probably don't either. So in what way are we "equal"?

If I ever need brain surgery, I would hope that it's performed by somebody who has the necessary intelligence and training - an extremely high level of both - rather than some random bloke picked off the street. I suspect you probably would too. In what way are the brain surgeon and the random bloke "equal"? The brain surgeon is handsomely rewarded for his endeavours and I don't have a problem with that. Do you?

But I, and you, are equal to these people in the sense that we can, if we so choose, make the most of whatever abilities we have in whatever law-abiding way we wish. We are their equal in the sense that the laws of the country apply to all of us just the same. We are their equal in that we have the right to hold whatever beliefs we wish without fear of prejudice or persecution.

So... you presumably identify with the "left", whatever that is, and so presumably you believe all people are "equal". In what way?

You would probably regard me as on the "right", whatever that is, and so presumably my perception that I believe people are equal in all the important respects is somehow misguided. In what way?
Click to expand...

I went on to talk about what I mean by equal. Civil or human rights that the right wing still seem to struggle with and always have.

If you need explaining which partied are to the left and which are to the right we really are in trouble aren't we.
 
Last edited:
Blank_Canvas said:
Apart from being The Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces - hardly a nominal role !
Click to expand...
Of course it's a nominal role! Or do you think the queen is making military decisions?
If she is, we need a republican revolution immediately.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mex
BillN_33 said:
I am surprised how divisive he sounds with regard to the population of the UK when discussing his policies. He really only has time for certain groups of the population and because of this I cannot see him getting anywhere near enough votes for the Labour Party to be elected at a general election ......

it sounds like that anyway to me when I listen to what he says, this surprises me

Clearly he would make a good leader of a small break away group of like minded Labour MP's as some of what he believes in is interesting, worthy of consideration and important to debates in Parliament
Click to expand...

Interesting POV Bill, however the labour party membership has increased at a rate not seen since prior B-Liar, he swept the leadership election with nearly 60% of votes cast, I fail to see why he should lead "a small breakaway group".

How was he being divisive regarding the population of the UK? I fancy no more divisive than IDS with his reforms?
 
dejongj said:
I don't understand your point, nobody suggests anything about more respect nor superiority. She just is the queen, she is a person. I don't see her as superior and find that an alien concept to view it like that.
Click to expand...
Nobody suggests anything about respect or superiority? Really? Apart from half the country lambasting Corbyn for not singing a sycophantic song about her? And the fact things like "royal protocol" exist?
If you think the queen is just a person, deserving of no special respect, great, I agree. But you can't seriously be suggesting that "nobody" thinks the queen is especially important?
 
mex said:
Interesting POV Bill, however the labour party membership has increased at a rate not seen since prior B-Liar, he swept the leadership election with nearly 60% of votes cast, I fail to see why he should lead "a small breakaway group".

How was he being divisive regarding the population of the UK? I fancy no more divisive than IDS with his reforms?
Click to expand...

He may have the majority support of Labour Party members but will he have the support of enough non party members who normally vote labour for the party to win a general election, and that's ignoring the lack of support of a majority of Labour MP's and their influence

Obviously all left and right wing politicians tend to me more divisive than anyone in the centre, and I see this in what he has generally said so far .......... he clearly wants to support certain groups of people more than others, (I am not saying that it is a good or a bad thing) ...... just that it will prevent him from having a majority in the country.

I do not think it will "pan out" well for the Labour Party over the next 18 months, from a number of standpoints, but I do think that he is good for the Labour Party nationally at the present time as part of a change that is necessary if they are to be a credible opposition force in a few years time. Hopefully his policies will cause better debate as they do challenge the Tories more than the previous Miliband/Balls led opposition.

The Labour Party have had a tendency to "shoot themselves in the foot" in recent years

so it is a really interesting situation
 
Last edited:
ghoti said:
Apart from half the country lambasting Corbyn for not singing a sycophantic song about her? And the fact things like "royal protocol" exist?
Click to expand...


The Tory propaganda machine has made sure the message got out there. Had it not been highlighted by every newspaper and Sky news, I doubt very much that we would even be talking about it.

EDIT : The Times is now reporting that Jeremy Corbyn and Dianne Abbott were 'getting it on' !! So chuffing what!
 
Last edited:
mex said:
The Tory propaganda machine has made sure the message got out there. Had it not been highlighted by every newspaper and Sky news, I doubt very much that we would even be talking about it.

EDIT : The Times is now reporting that Jeremy Corbyn and Dianne Abbott were 'getting it on' !!
Click to expand...

God, not Dianne Abbott surely she is now passed he Labour "sell by date" .. maybe she should move to Sky rather than back into Labour mainstream
 
Last edited:
ghoti said:
Of course it's a nominal role! Or do you think the queen is making military decisions?
If she is, we need a republican revolution immediately.
Click to expand...

Of course not, that's the Prime Minister, Secretary of State for Defence and the Cabinet. However, HM the Queen has "ultimate authority" of the Armed Forces as Commander-in-Chief hence that is why serving members of the forces swear an Oath of Allegiance to her, That is why she takes the salute at these events. That is why it's not just a 'nominal role' as you seem to think
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
Obviously all left and right wing politicians tend to me more divisive than anyone in the centre, and I see this in what he has generally said so far .......... he clearly wants to support certain groups of people more than others, (I am not saying that it is a good or a bad thing) ...... just that it will prevent him from having a majority in the country.
Click to expand...

Surely because these groups are the ones who most need help.
 
mex said:
The Tory propaganda machine has made sure the message got out there. Had it not been highlighted by every newspaper and Sky news, I doubt very much that we would even be talking about it.

EDIT : The Times is now reporting that Jeremy Corbyn and Dianne Abbott were 'getting it on' !! So chuffing what!
Click to expand...

Parliament voted for taking almost £2k of the British working poor on the same day, yet this nonsense makes the front pages.
 
rjbell said:
Surely because these groups are the ones who most need help.
Click to expand...

I did not agree or disagree with that - but, in order to implement your policies you need to be elected ...... in order to be elected you need to be electable ......... the Labour Party will go around full circle (again) almost back to the days of Tony Blair and IMHO this "Corbyn" period is as far over to the left as the pendulum will swing........ it will have to move back significantly in the opposite direction if it wants to form the next Government or even the Government after that, just IMHO
 
Last edited:
rjbell said:
Parliament voted for taking almost £2k of the British working poor on the same day, yet this nonsense makes the front pages.
Click to expand...

To be rather cynical and this is not my view before I get slatted, do you feel that the majority of the British people support helping such "disadvantaged" groups so much over their own personal gain, I said majority ........ and do you feel that the majority of British people believe what is reported about many of such disadvantaged groups is true......... abuse by minorities in such groups has a big influence on public opinion .... and there is certainly abuse, which will always get reported

Would your typical Sky subscriber give up his subscription and pay the same amount in income tax to help social reform ...... my guess in no they would not

Would the majority of British people pay 10% more in income tax or social charges to help such groups of people?

( I am not a Sky subscriber and never have been - so it's not personal to me)
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
I don't sing hymns in church at weddings and funerals either. Do you suggest I stop going to those too?
Click to expand...

Yes in a word

As the person getting married has asked for the hymns to be sang, which is showing a total disregard for their wishes if not.

Just like the person who has died and their family. Its there wishes, why not just sing for them?

Do you not wear ties at funerals either?
 
ghoti said:
Nobody suggests anything about respect or superiority? Really? Apart from half the country lambasting Corbyn for not singing a sycophantic song about her? And the fact things like "royal protocol" exist?
If you think the queen is just a person, deserving of no special respect, great, I agree. But you can't seriously be suggesting that "nobody" thinks the queen is especially important?
Click to expand...

The monarchy is hugely important, even if you disregard all of the powers (and yes she does have a few) Remember the PM has to ask her permission to form a government, she has to open parliment etc etc.

The soveriegn brings in a huge amount of income to the country, and makes a lot more than they cost.
 
rjbell said:
Parliament voted for taking almost £2k of the British working poor on the same day, yet this nonsense makes the front pages.
Click to expand...
Already mentioned it, no one cares.

Phil V said:
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.
Click to expand...

Have I mentioned before how we have allowed a very small number of megalomaniacs to set the political agenda?

No one 'reads the papers' so the don't see it as important. But the last couple of pages of this thread are a brilliant testament to the current state of news / opinion in this country.

It's so much simpler to discuss a trivial occurrence and pretend it's a sign of something important than to actuall discuss the complicated important issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top