What no jeremy cobyn thread?

I dont think he is the enemy of war heroes I just think its disrespectful not to sing the national anthem at such events. I was more p***ed off about how scruffy he looked, thats disrespectful
 
BRASH said:
I never said I believed the dead move. The 'turning in their grave' is a standard saying, as you well know, meaning they would not approve of something. It's not a statement of a belief I may hold about life after death, which is infact a belief I do not hold but I accept the fact others do hold this belief for a variety of reasons.

I'm sure at the time it happened your grandfather wouldn't have given too much of a toss about the queens actions. Had she done it several years later then maybe his opinion would gave differed. I actually struggle to think of a time I have ever sung God Save The Queen, I could safely say never but I'm not anti royalist.
Click to expand...
Then we agree largely, except that phrase, whilst it's in common use is designed to use a sentimental notion that the war dead would all hold a view supporting what you believe about JC, which is patently not true, as well as impossible to prove or disprove.
 
andyscott said:
I dont think he is the enemy of war heroes I just think its disrespectful not to sing the national anthem at such events. I was more p***ed off about how scruffy he looked, thats disrespectful
Click to expand...
That says a lot about you ;)
 
andyscott said:
I dont think he is the enemy of war heroes I just think its disrespectful not to sing the national anthem at such events. I was more p***ed off about how scruffy he looked, thats disrespectful
Click to expand...

Anyway, from now on he will be singing the National Anthem, he has agreed to do this and his peers in the party have acknowledged it was a mistake. This is is second you turn in 24 hours.

There are certain protocols to be observed at national engagements such as this. He did look scruffy and has no idea of decorum or protocol. He probably thinks he's being clever and it's his way of sticking two fingers up at the establishment. I agree it was totally disrespectful.

As the figurative head of the Labour Party he has let himself and his party down. Seriously, if he became PM (which he won't) how could he stand on the political world centre stage and be taken seriously with other world leaders. The Labour Party have shot themselves in the foot they are a complete shambles.
 
andyscott said:
I dont think he is the enemy of war heroes I just think its disrespectful not to sing the national anthem at such events. I was more p***ed off about how scruffy he looked, thats disrespectful
Click to expand...
I think it's disrespectful to sing sycophantic songs about the queen at an event to remember people who gave their lives in the war. It has nothing to do with the queen. Why bring her into it and demand others pay respect to her?
 
BRASH said:
I think the clue is in the title.
Click to expand...

Then why make the point about it being anti-english?* I dont follow your logic at all.

*while it is about a battle against the English, theres no explicit call to arms like 'god save the queen'
 
ghoti said:
I think it's disrespectful to sing sycophantic songs about the queen at an event to remember people who gave their lives in the war. It has nothing to do with the queen. Why bring her into it and demand others pay respect to her?
Click to expand...
As pointed out previously, she is the head of the armed forces. (right or wrong)
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Anyway, from now on he will be singing the National Anthem, he has agreed to do this and his peers in the party have acknowledged it was a mistake. This is is second you turn in 24 hours.

There are certain protocols to be observed at national engagements such as this. He did look scruffy and has no idea of decorum or protocol. He probably thinks he's being clever and it's his way of sticking two fingers up at the establishment. I agree it was totally disrespectful.

As the figurative head of the Labour Party he has let himself and his party down. Seriously, if he became PM (which he won't) how could he stand on the political world centre stage and be taken seriously with other world leaders. The Labour Party have shot themselves in the foot they are a complete shambles.
Click to expand...

Thats a bit of a hysterical response!

I'm yet to hear a single convincing argument as to why it was disrespectful. And do you really think world leaders give a flying [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER] about whether a head of state sings it or not? The majority of the uk dont know all the words ffs.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
There are certain protocols to be observed at national engagements such as this. He did look scruffy and has no idea of decorum or protocol. He probably thinks he's being clever and it's his way of sticking two fingers up at the establishment. I agree it was totally disrespectful.
As the figurative head of the Labour Party he has let himself and his party down. Seriously, if he became PM (which he won't) how could he stand on the political world centre stage and be taken seriously with other world leaders. The Labour Party have shot themselves in the foot they are a complete shambles.
Click to expand...

I wonder did David Cameron show the same respect and decorum when at Nelson Mandella's funeral he saw fit to be quite jovial and even take 'selfies' of himself sucking upto O'bama? right smack,bang in the centre of the world stage, as the figure head of the British government he let the whole f*****g country down.
 
decigallen said:
Then why make the point about it being anti-english?* I dont follow your logic at all.

*while it is about a battle against the English, theres no explicit call to arms like 'god save the queen'
Click to expand...

The whole ethos of the song is anti English/union. The implication being we kicked your arses back home and could do it again if needs be. At least that's always been my understanding of the lyrics. I doubt if anybody is going to take them or the lyrics of gstq literally tho and start a civil war.
 
Did Liz marry twice?
 
decigallen said:
Thats a bit of a hysterical response!

I'm yet to hear a single convincing argument as to why it was disrespectful. And do you really think world leaders give a flying f*** about whether a head of state sings it or not? The majority of the uk dont know all the words ffs.
Click to expand...

Possibly, possibly not but many people in this country do. Anyway, that's all academic as he will be singing from now on. Even his labour peers agree it was a mistake.

First impressions count, And anyone looking like a bag of s*** doesn't inspire confidence and gives the visual impression of being lazy. Agree or disagree it's been scientifically proved during creditable research.
 
kendo1 said:
Did Liz marry twice?
Click to expand...
Just the once - to the German bloke that the press were quick to point out was born in Greece* :D

Thus was born 'Phil the Greek' :naughty:

*to German and Greek parents, no longer living in Germany because y'know they weren't big on royals after the first big war. His 3 sisters though married German Princes
 
Last edited:
Good.
 
jakeblu said:
Thats a bit wide of the mark JP, plenty of countries are republics but they still have borders and taxes.

edit Whoops, just noticed @ghoti reply. Thats what you get for posting on the hoof :)
Click to expand...
The serious point being, what is so great about having a president instead? Why would that be any different? Still one person. Arguably less apolitical. The reference to borders and taxes was going far back in history as after all that is has been continued, merely other people have taken over the realm. I think it is a non issue and I rather have my money spend on helping vulnerable people rather than change a system to swap it out for another whole administrative machine with associated costs.
 
Rapscallion said:
The argument is perfectly clearly reasoned. I think you may be deliberately trying to muddy the waters here!
Click to expand...
Nope, very different words were used in her response then in the question that I responded to. I may not be a native English speaker but I do know the very clear difference. I honestly can't be bother spelling it out as the anti monarchy stance is so clear that it is a futile discussion anyway.
 
Crikey, I've not visited this thread for a day or two, and I am amazed at the poor quality of the discussion recently.

@Phil V, @BRASH, you've been acting like a couple of kids. I'm surprised neither of you has claimed that your dad is bigger than his dad.

And so many contributions from others which effectively boil down to "I think I made myself perfectly clear" - "No you didn't" - "Yes I did".

Not to mention the personal insults aimed at Corbyn and others.

Could we PLEASE try to have an adult discussion? Or should we just ask a Mod to lock the thread?
 
Phil V said:
Just the once - to the German bloke that the press were quick to point out was born in Greece* :D

Thus was born 'Phil the Greek' :naughty:

*to German and Greek parents, no longer living in Germany because y'know they weren't big on royals after the first big war. His 3 sisters though married German Princes
Click to expand...
So he was born in Greece but suddenly becomes German?

Just to prove a point?
 
StewartR said:
Crikey, I've not visited this thread for a day or two, and I am amazed at the poor quality of the discussion recently.

@Phil V, @BRASH, you've been acting like a couple of kids. I'm surprised neither of you has claimed that your dad is bigger than his dad.

And so many contributions from others which effectively boil down to "I think I made myself perfectly clear" - "No you didn't" - "Yes I did".

Not to mention the personal insults aimed at Corbyn and others.

Could we PLEASE try to have an adult discussion? Or should we just ask a Mod to lock the thread?
Click to expand...
Your comments say nothing relevant. For the record my father is dead and I find your reference offensive, metaphorical or not.
 
StewartR said:
Crikey, I've not visited this thread for a day or two, and I am amazed at the poor quality of the discussion recently.

@Phil V, @BRASH, you've been acting like a couple of kids. I'm surprised neither of you has claimed that your dad is bigger than his dad.

And so many contributions from others which effectively boil down to "I think I made myself perfectly clear" - "No you didn't" - "Yes I did".

Not to mention the personal insults aimed at Corbyn and others.

Could we PLEASE try to have an adult discussion? Or should we just ask a Mod to lock the thread?
Click to expand...
Oh the irony of a post like that. It is exactly posts like that which mark the count down. How about actually trying to discuss instead of sniping at others?
 
I thought Phil and I had a mature, meaningful discussion based on opinions and beliefs which are evidently poles apart, all constructed around the subject of this thread or matters arising from it. We'll probably never agree on many things but I think we reached a point where we respect each other's right to have differing points of view and our respective entitlement to express these. Pretty much what forums are for I reckon.
 
Last edited:
And on a different note, this must have been the quietest Corbyn day for weeks....
 
Llamaman said:
Attitudes like these are at risk of judging past generations by the standards of today. Whilst the British Empire was maintained often by brutality, and greed was a contributory factor in that, there was also a genuine belief that Britain was bringing civilization to the darkest corners of the globe, and doing everyone a favour. Hindsight is a wonderful thing - I wonder what future generations will think of our efforts at forging a better world.
Click to expand...
I don't believe for one minute the east india company thought hey were bringing civilisation to India.
 
dejongj said:
The serious point being, what is so great about having a president instead? Why would that be any different? Still one person. Arguably less apolitical. The reference to borders and taxes was going far back in history as after all that is has been continued, merely other people have taken over the realm. I think it is a non issue and I rather have my money spend on helping vulnerable people rather than change a system to swap it out for another whole administrative machine with associated costs.
Click to expand...

A presidential system would be massively different to our system. You could end up with a Tory legislature and Labour President. The president would be held to account by the legislature so, unlike our current system, the president would need the backing of the legislature to pass policy. Checks and balances. Separation of powers.

Personally, I'd abolish the monarchy and reform the Lords. Both are hopelessly outdated bi-products of another age.

Preferring to spend money on vulnerable people is really just a platitude when the current government and electoral process doesn't serve their needs.
 
kendo1 said:
So he was born in Greece but suddenly becomes German?

Just to prove a point?
Click to expand...
Direct descendant of the German royal family, his mum was Greek royal family. Technically that makes him much more German than Greek, where he was born is far from relevant.
 
Last edited:
LOL
 
jakeblu said:
I don't believe for one minute the east india company thought hey were bringing civilisation to India.
Click to expand...
Maybe not, but the MPs in Parliament that granted them a license (most of whom would barely have left England, let alone got as far as India) might have believed the rhetoric.
 
decigallen said:
A presidential system would be massively different to our system. You could end up with a Tory legislature and Labour President. The president would be held to account by the legislature so, unlike our current system, the president would need the backing of the legislature to pass policy. Checks and balances. Separation of powers.
Click to expand...
You mean like the US system, where no meaningful reform of anything can ever be carried out, and government has to routinely shut down because the toddlers masquerading as statesmen are squabbling over who can get the best kickback out of the budget?
No thanks.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
He did look scruffy and has no idea of decorum or protocol. He probably thinks he's being clever and it's his way of sticking two fingers up at the establishment. I agree it was totally disrespectful.
Click to expand...

If Corbyn is a republican, don't you think that his approach so far, whether there's a U-Turn later or not, has started a discussion nationally about what people believe in and why we have some of these traditions. Perhaps he's wiser than he's being given credit for and unless people start talking and questioning things then there will be no change. Perhaps the Establishment should see a lot more 2 fingered salutes on more issues but because they are the Establishment and say s'omething is traditional and not doing it in a particular way shows disrespect' doesn't necessarily make it so.

I think this can be summed up from an extract from No Gods (and precious few heroes) by Brian MacNeill

Farewell to the heather in the glen
They cleared us off once and they'd do it all again
For they still prefer sheep to thinking men
Ah, but men who think like sheep are even better
 
Llamaman said:
Maybe not, but the MPs in Parliament that granted them a license (most of whom would barely have left England, let alone got as far as India) might have believed the rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Now were back to the monarchy. The original license was granted not by MP's but by Elizabeth in 1600 and im sure there was no rhetoric- plain profit motive by licensee and licensor
 
kendo1 said:
LOL
Click to expand...
Glad you find it amusing.

When his Uncle moved to Britain they changed the family name to Mountbatten in order to distance themselves from their German ancestry (there'd be no need to do this if he had a Greek family name)

You could look up the Queens family history too for yet more German royal bloodlines.

This is something the British far right were interested in as it proved that the British had close ties to the wonderful Aryan race.
 
Jim_Tod said:
If Corbyn is a republican, don't you think that his approach so far, whether there's a U-Turn later or not, has started a discussion nationally about what people believe in and why we have some of these traditions. Perhaps he's wiser than he's being given credit for and unless people start talking and questioning things then there will be no change. Perhaps the Establishment should see a lot more 2 fingered salutes on more issues but because they are the Establishment and say s'omething is traditional and not doing it in a particular way shows disrespect' doesn't necessarily make it so.

I think this can be summed up from an extract from No Gods (and precious few heroes) by Brian MacNeill

Farewell to the heather in the glen
They cleared us off once and they'd do it all again
For they still prefer sheep to thinking men
Ah, but men who think like sheep are even better
Click to expand...

I think his approach and that of the new shadow cabinet is an incompetent one and playing right into the hands of the other parties. McDonnell is apologising over his IRA comments this morning but that damage is already done. All the conservatives have to do is humour him and keep him in toe and the next election will be a conservative landslide.

One random uninspiring song about Scotland isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference. Labour is a complete shambles at the moment and they have a lot of work to do to regain some credibility.
 
Jim_Tod said:
Now were back to the monarchy. The original license was granted not by MP's but by Elizabeth in 1600 and im sure there was no rhetoric- plain profit motive by licensee and licensor
Click to expand...
But the right of the EIC to acquire territory, raise armies and make war were granted by Charles II around 1670, when he was still heavily constrained by Parliament.
 
re: Labour.
Anyone placing a bet on the first Labour MP to defect to the Lib Dems? Chuka Umunna? Liz Kendall?
 
Llamaman said:
You mean like the US system, where no meaningful reform of anything can ever be carried out, and government has to routinely shut down because the toddlers masquerading as statesmen are squabbling over who can get the best kickback out of the budget?
No thanks.
Click to expand...

No. I mean a republic. Certain things about the American systems would appeal - Checks and balances from the separation of powers - but the implementation of those things in a UK government would be very different due to culture and country size. Head of state could be by executive committee rather than a single person (I mentioned presidential system as your original post infered a president taking up the queen's role). David Cameron is PM because he is the leader of his party, he wasn't voted as leader of the country directly. A directly elected executive would have a better mandate and be more representative of the will of the people. It would also, theoretically, allow us to break from party politics - an independent presidential candidate in the UK wouldn't need heavy party funding for a campaign so you'd unlikely get the 2 candidate system of the USA and instead, more independents. The head of state doesn't have to be the head of a party.

You talk of the stalemate in the budget (the negative), but the system of separation of powers has done an awful lot of good. There's unfavourable policies in the UK that could've been stopped or ammended for the better, if we were a republic. The stalemate can serve to get the best possible policies from government, rather than having flip flop right/left wing politics from election to election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top