UKC

In reply to Shani:


Thanks for the abuse(not veryCorbynite of you ) In which case , make the case that I'm a fool then, rather than assuming that everyone who disagrees with you bases their views on regurgitating the media.


Absolutely, but in the context of discussion about Corbyn's likely success or failure. It's perfectly reasonable to note his public appearance and discuss whether it will impact upon his electoral popularity. And people of a certain age don't need the media to help them draw the comparison.
I'll at least do you the service of assuming that that you understand why this is a relevant topic.

In reply to Postmanpat:

You were making a case for your expertise based upon your bookcase. I don't find that persuasive. If you want to make some veiled appeal to authority why don't you just come out and say whether you are an economist or not?


Ok, so NOW you acknowledge the Footisation. Irrespective of appearance, the Foot episode shows that the media will engage in lying and smear to denigrate someone. Nothing new in that of course.

I am not Corbynite but I think that he has some good ideas which I would like to see explored by other political parties.

In reply to Shani:

By the way Shani, I pointed out that his advisers and the Labour Party had let down Corbyn on his appearance.He will be in a whirlwind at the moment, its his "team" that have screwed up, which hardly bodes well.

In reply to Shani:


I actually agree with you that he has some interesting (not necessarily good) ideas which should be aired more thoroughly. PQE has some potential merit, as does not renewing trident (and you can never have too many allotments). The trouble is, given his background and associates, no one is going to believe he will implement them well or rationally, or that the far left won't get significant power. If Osborne or perhaps Kendall had said the same things, they would have been taken more seriously.

In reply to Shani:

No, I was refuting your implication (and previous assertion) that my views were dependent on the media. I'm not an economist but I've spent most of my adult life following economics as part of my job and as a "hobby".That is not an appeal to authority. Its just an explanation for the sources on which I base my thinking.

>
Absolutely, I agree that much of the media treatment of Corbyn has absolutely been shite. I've never said otherwise.

In reply to MG:


Agreed. I think you might find this assessment from SPERI on the mark:

"And it is here that the real difficulty lies. Corbyn’s political label as an extreme far left candidate is preventing a mutually beneficial dialogue with broadly compatible intellectual voices. Wren-Lewis and his associates should recognise that, if they want their undoubtedly many good ideas to receive political take-up, Corbyn is probably their best bet. For their part, the Corbyn team could go beyond PQE and MMT, broaden their policy base and further grow their political appeal through such an engagement. They are certainly open to ideas and accept further debate and refinement is required.

However, for reasons of professional esteem and incentives, at least one side of that engagement is likely to be unwilling. For those wishing to shake the current political consensus on the deficit, that is a great shame."

http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/2015/09/03/political-difficulties-corbynomics/

In reply to Shani:

I think many UK war veterans would be pretty disgusted by both Corbyn's appearance and attitude, his thoughts on Nato, IRA, Falklands/Argentina, IS... will really go against everything they believe and fought for. Or even his thoughts on the cold war and Russia. I suspect the military, ex and serving won't have much, if any common ground with Corbyn. Which is why he was struggling to give that particular brief away, poisoned chalice, given JC's opinions.

In reply to Shani:

Adair Turner if I am correct put forward PQE and that was why he did not get the BofE job.

He was at the time in charge of the FCA.So was pretty mainstream.

In reply to neilh:


His was a different "helicopter money" version a la Friedman.. Here is Wren Lewis's take on it . Obviously I quote him because he shares my reservations

"As I noted above, the idea behind helicopter money is to provide a tool for the central bank to use when interest rate changes are no longer possible or effective. With an independent central bank, that means that they, not the government, get to decide when helicopter money happens. In contrast, if your goal is to increase either public or private investment (or both) for a prolonged period, then its timing and amount should be something the government decides. While QE is hopefully going to be something that is unusual and rare, the goal of an investment bank is generally thought to be more long term, and not something that only happens in severe recessions.

For that reason, Corbyn’s QE looks like one of those ideas that is superficially attractive because it seems to kill two birds with one stone, but on reflection turns out to be a bad idea. If we want to keep an independent central bank we do not want the government putting the bank under pressure to do QE because the government wants more investment, and if that does not happen we do not want the central bank deciding whether extra investment happens. Indeed some of those who dislike the idea of helicopter money have already been using Corbyn’s QE to say ‘I told you helicopter money was a slippery slope that would lead to the end of central bank independence’."

Having said that, the whole MMT approach to money is very intriguing and certainly deserves a thorough hearing. The trouble is one soon gets bogged down in very arcane articles about the definition of money and the mechanics of central bank accounting!

In reply to summo:


Well, that would depend on what they believed they were fighting for. Perhaps many veterans of the Cold War believed they were fighting so that future generations would not have to live under the shadow of a nuclear catastrophe, and veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars believed that they were fighting to bring stability to the region and prevent Saddam Hussein from developing weapons of mass destruction. I don't know, because I haven't asked them, but I do know that Harry Patch said this:

When the war ended, I don't know if I was more relieved that we'd won or that I didn't have to go back. Passchendaele was a disastrous battle – thousands and thousands of young lives were lost. It makes me angry. Earlier this year, I went back to Ypres to shake the hand of Charles Kuentz, Germany's only surviving veteran from the war. It was emotional. He is 107. We've had 87 years to think what war is. To me, it's a licence to go out and murder. Why should the British government call me up and take me out to a battlefield to shoot a man I never knew, whose language I couldn't speak? All those lives lost for a war finished over a table. Now what is the sense in that?

In reply to planetmarshall:
I think it was fair to say ww1 was a very different war in all respects, it's motives for even fighting in the first place, or the needless loss of life that followed, on both side.

WW2, which is what Corbyn was attending today, specifically the success of the Battle of Britain, without which the UK would have almost certainly seen invasion attempts from Hitler, was fully justified.

Like wise those people who fought in the falklands would be disappointed to hear that JC thinks some joint administration with Argentina is the way forward.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I've decided to protect my blood pressure, I won't think about the man anymore. He's done the TUC conference today arriving to the tune "hey big spender", promised unlimited/capped benefits, presumably paid for by those who are working... then B of B parade where he can't even show proper respect to the people who saved the UK and allowed him to grow up in the free country he did. He just isn't fit to lead any British political party and certainly not PM, rant and thread over for me.

In reply to Postmanpat:
I prefer not to get into a political slanging match cum willy waving exercise but, quite frankly, Corbyn disgusts me for this as well as many other reasons:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

Scruffy, disrespectful and apparently loathsome of British traditions. I make no apology for the Daily Mail link.

That's my sole contribution to this post.
Edit: In my experience many hard leftists seem to revel in deliberately "dumbing down" their attire when circumstances demand smart appearance. That is totally disrespectful.

In reply to summo:

And there are plenty of ex forces who have seen first hand the political mess and poisoned chalice they were sent to....me included..

In reply to FesteringSore:

To be fair to JC not singing our anthem, he probably doesn't know the words and his "team" forgot to give him a cribsheet!

I know, I know, cheap sarcasm, couldn't resist it.

In reply to Moley:
But probably true.
According to LabourHQ he "stood in respectful silence" who, with any intelligence, would believe that?

In reply to Moley:


What is so disturbing is that it's really a misunderstanding of the national anthem. Which is exactly that. Although the words sound like a hymn of praise to the monarch, it's what the monarch stands for/represents that we sing about. Otherwise we have to sing about a flag (like the Red Flag). But in that case, socialists are not singing about a flag either, but what it stands for.

I don't see how a theoretical next PM can refuse to sing the country's anthem.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Presumably he's not so keen on what he believes " the monarch stands for/represents"

In reply to Gordon Stainforth: Our national anthem is rubbish, a botched together collection of maudlin sentiments bigging up 18th C concerns and aspirations, sung to a miserable tune that must have been slightly embarrassing when it was first adopted. Personally I won't swear on a bible, I haven't been able to recite the credo since I was 15 and I don't sing the 'national anthem' either. ('National'? Check out some of the lesser sung verses.) But that really shouldn't be construed as any sort of disrespect for the poor bloody infantry in years gone by.

In reply to FesteringSore:


He wasn't raising his middle finger, was he?

I thought it was the preserve of "bleeding heart, hand-wringing lefties" to get all upset on someone else's behalf.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Pedantic point, the lesser sung verses aren't actually part of the anthem. But I agree, the French have the right idea on this one.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Worse than not singing the national anthem, not even bothering to do up his shirt collar button was disrespectful. There was no excuse for that at such an occasion.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Do you think 'The Star-Spangled Banner' is any less embarrassing, then?

You seem to have missed my point completely and utterly. I scarcely dare repeat it, in case ...

In reply to Postmanpat:

Are we always supposed to sing the anthem whenever it's played? It was always seen as a bit bonkers to sing it back in the day. Standing to attention is all that is required surely.
If he'd been chewing or something, then I'd agree that he was behaving improperly. I'm surprised somebody hasn't objected to him not putting his hand on his heart, which is what rugby players have started to do because they've seen it on the movies.
And the point about his top button; it looks fastened to me. It's just that he has such a scrawny neck he'll never look right in a shirt.
For God's sake what the hell does it matter about ties and other such nonsense. It's the policies and beliefs that matter. Far more grown up to argue about those. Unless we're all just enjoying a good old cal.

In reply to Pete Pozman:


Why are replying to me? He can stand there whistling dixie for all I care. I was simply suggesting to Gordon why he might choose not to sing.

Top rant though. Simon4 has competition

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


I absolutely agree. But then I'm not standing for PM. I think it would be great if people who thought all this anachronistic crap should be binned were in charge, but realistically there is a 'way things are done' in the UK that Corbyn doesn't do. This opens him up to charges of stuff like being unpatriotic (and of course a terrorist) and all that, adding further to his unelectability (as if his policies weren't enough!).

As much as I wish it wasn't, this is the world we live in, and if you want to be effective - or have a shot at being PM - you simply have to go along with it all, even if it's stupid. I mean the monarchy is really stupid, but you can't say it's a load of crap if you want to be PM. Telling the truth - that it's stupid but there's nothing to be gained by ousting them - isn't a sensible tactic on this kind of issue. If you want to have influence in the mainstream, you have to pretend you're on board with the daft stuff that people are sentimental about, and do it convincingly.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Maybe, just maybe... people will appreciate the real honesty. Not Farage pretend honesty. Actually sticking to your beliefs but being willing to compromise too - and saying I don't agree with this but I'm in minority and I'm willing to accept that.

Or most likely not.

But if we agree with it, lets be positive about it and there's more chance of it catching on.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Hardly

In reply to Postmanpat:

Just noticed on the BBC News still of them all singing the National Anthem, except Corbyn, that there is a woman standing behind Michael Fallon, (whose ample neck, handsomely fills his shirt collar) whose mouth is not open at the appropriate time (this is evidenced by how wide Fallon's mouth is open). Also there is a be-medalled Welsh Guards officer (think I'm right) next to her who doesn't appear to be singing. Should not these other fifth columnists be named and shamed on social media?

In reply to Pete Pozman:


Shortly someone will come along with a "Yes, but...." argument.

In reply to Shani:

Why not?

Yes, but they aren't the newly elected leader of the opposition. The media's response to this was glaringly predictable and completely avoidable.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Of course, but Corbyn's behaviour was hardly accidental - after all, he is a man of principle...except when needs must, such as joining the Privy Council. But no doubt that is quite different.

In reply to MG:

To be fair it's probably a longstanding principle that he doesn't sing the NA, he's 66, the issue will have come up for him before. But he's never been asked to join the Privy Council before so perhaps he hasn't got a principle for that.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


I think he should sing it but with his fingers crossed behind his back

In reply to Postmanpat:

Dunno about you....but i get the impulse to whistle the theme tune for 'Steptoe and Son' whenever i see the Wilfred Brambell Body double... ;~)

In reply to MG:


Yes national anthem vs an antiquated but still important committee which includes access to sensitive information.
Completely f*cking comparable.
You could look at the reasons Angus Robertson gave for joining it at roughly the same time.

In reply to KevinD:
So principled unless something is important.

In reply to MG:

ermm, no. Its just that they really aint the same thing.
Aside from anything else feel free to explain why joining the privy council would betray those principles? Even the oath can have a horse and cart driven through it.

However lets face it. It really isnt important to you is it? You will soon move on to the latest fake outrage and froth away.

Can't help laughing at the media getting all angry about a news story in which the English demand that ALL Britons sing a song commanding God to look after one person born to rule over everyone else.

In reply to KevinD:



Yep.

In reply to MG:

I am beginning to fell sorry for him, as he is being shot to pieces by the media.

More worryingly Labour HO would appear to be letting him down , as they have not got a gripe on this. I find that disturbing. Where is Alistair Campbell when you need him?

In reply to Sir Chasm:


The scandal is that membership of the Privy Council should be tied in any way to the monarchy and should be made difficult for anyone with republican views. He was elected as an MP and leader of the opposition: he has a right to see confidential state information necessary to do his job.

While they are at it they should change the name from 'Privy Council' to 'National Security Council'.

In reply to Shani:


In fairness the "English" dont. Its mostly the rabid right and even then they are doing it to attack a specific person.

In reply to KevinD:


Can you imagine the media storm if a Conservative Secretary of State for Wales turned out not to know the words to the Welsh national anthem?

youtube.com/watch?v=RIwBvjoLyZc&

In reply to Postmanpat:


Boring. He should give a clenched fist salute and sing the Red Flag instead. That would be entertaining.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Lots of things in parliament are nominally tied to the monarchy, they don't need changing just because Labour have changed leaders.

In reply to Pete Pozman:


There's also an elderly lady who crops up all the time at these events who never sings - just stands there in a fancy hat looking a bit fed up.

In reply to Postmanpat:

PMQs coming up now.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Where do politicians buy their appalling suits and jackets? They don't even fit where they touch.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


You don't think they need changing but most countries in the world have got rid of that kind of historic throwback. It is not democratic to just rule people with republican views out of positions of power or force them to lie about them. But then the whole principle of monarchy is undemocratic.

Corbyn should be given access to the secret state information shared with other senior politicians because he is the elected leader of the opposition.

In reply to Mike Highbury:

Yes, Corbyn's suit looked dreadful.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Well, we have a constitutional monarchy, in which the monarch as Head of State is apolitical and represents the whole country, which in turn is represented by a parliamentary democracy (which is where all the power lies.) Personally, I prefer the concept of a hereditary monarch with purely symbolic, ceremonial function rather than a politically appointed president.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Corbyn has already chosen to swear allegiance to the Crown.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


It isn't you know. There is nothing stopping someone standing on a republican stance. They don't of course because the majority of people are content that a monarchy no worse than a republic and many think its better.

In reply to GrahamD:


I suppose privately an MP can be have a republican stance, but a PM or potential PM (i.e. Leader of the Opposition) is duty bound to uphold the British constitution as it stands, which includes a monarchy. The constitution could only be changed by our democratic parliament, and that would probably entail a referendum. And, if there were to be a referendum I'm sure, as you say, an overwhelming majority of the people would want to keep the monarchy.

In reply to neilh:



He was first against the wall when the revolution came.

In reply to neilh:

He's being wound up by Corbynites on Twitter quite gloriously.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


I think it's contrived, like BoJo's hair and Farages tweed/pint and fag. It's to appeal to a certain mindset....and wind up another.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Republicans and atheists represent substantial groups within the UK population even if they are not (yet) a majority and they have a right to be represented by MPs who are openly republican or atheist.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Only comment here on PMQs so far seems to be the cut of his suit!

I thought he succeeded in calming much of the normal yah-boo exchanges, and I liked his use of real people's questions. Mind you, Cameron played along with this - referring to the questioners by name, and just about managing to refrain himself from his normal "don't answer the question" and "it's all labour's fault" approaches.

Interesting to see the follow up next week.

In reply to Martin Hore:

Yes, it was certainly encouraging, and may really be a start to a new style of PMQs.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


As MPs, yes. But the PM and Leader of Opp are in the awkward? position of wearing those extra 'hats'.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Potentially an opportunity for Cameron to show his more cerebral side and win with better arguments.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Gordon, go on to YouTube and Google material on North Korea and Kim Jong Un or Kim Jong Il in particular.

Monarchists love to laugh at The Dear Leader, without a hint of irony, and yet their own fawning obeisance at the feet of the UK's own hereditary head of state is somehow overlooked as being any less ridiculous.

I also find it quite inappropriate and an appalling vanity that a ceremony to honour our WAR DEAD should involve a mass song commanding God to save the QUEEN.

Perhaps it would be better sing a song demanding the government look after the survivors of war and the families of the war dead?

In reply to Shani:


That would be ridiculous if it were in any way true, at least for the majority.

In reply to Mike Highbury:


He says he buys his in charity shops, and it shows!

In reply to Postmanpat:


With a format like Gardeners' Question Time?

In reply to GrahamD:

I don't get it. I've seen so many comments that imply that if you are a monarchist you are somehow a creeping, fawning, snivveling, forelock tugging fool.

I support our monarchist model but I don't spend any time at all worrying about it, needing to defend it or even bowing and scraping to anyone - I get on with my life. I don't meet members of the monarchy and I do very well in my life thank you very much. Fawning, forelock tugging and whatnot simply don't feature, and they don't have to feature.

It's a cheap bit of imagery that anti-monarchists use to try to label those with an alternative point of view, cheap and nonsense.

In reply to GrahamD:

Oh yeah http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lkawgw/siresmond.jpg

In reply to Everyone:

For me, the most ironic thing about all this is Tories criticising and ridiculing who the Labour Party Membership chose for their new leader, rather than focusing their attention on their own leader, who could certainly do with some constructive criticism.

In reply to Rampikino:




Do you REALLY believe that the Queen was born somehow 'better' than you? That she is somehow more worthy (one assumes by celestial appointment, but we can leave the weak arguments for a god for another time)?

Your current reasoning could be applied to followers of Kim Jon Un and so I'm sure you'll understand how ridiculous monarchism now looks.

In reply to dek:

"I have this question for you Prime Minister, from Marie Curie...Islington. Dear Sir, you left your bic biro on the counter when you bought those clothes this morning. Err, hang on, my papers are mixed up "

In reply to Rampikino:


It's a p*ss take which tends to get monarchists defensive (as it has with you).

In reply to Martin Hore:


Its going to run into the problem that many MPs and the press dont really want a sensible exchange but want conflict and point scoring.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


So you would want them excluding from leadership roles? I guess whilst we are at it should block any non C of E types due to the need to approve their appointments.

In reply to Mike Highbury:




I assume Corbyn will get better at providing his own follow questions to Cameron's initial replies and so demand fuller responses.
The problem is that it can then all get a bit bogged down in detail and people get bored.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


As MPs they had to swear an oath (at least there is a non-religious version now):

"I (name of Member) do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law."

It's hard to see how working to abolish the monarchy is consistent with bearing true allegiance to it, so prima-facie republicans are prevented from being MPs.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
I'm sure that is not true. Republicans in a modern democratic monachist state are allowed to be an MP and legally work to change the law that links state to crown.

Here is a fun take on the issue:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2008/aug/08/michaelwhitespolitical...

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Good point. I'd forgotten that. So, yes, a Republican MP does seem to be a bit of a contradiction in terms.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


Defensive of my own life - not of the monarchy, or perhaps you didn't read my response?

In reply to Shani:



Never said any of that, and my "reasoning" is on this case only. You're having a good go at putting words in my mouth.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Except they're not as Jeremy Corbyn demonstrates.

What gets lost in these arguments are the many, perhaps majority, myself included, who if asked to design a constitution wouldn't start by having an hereditary head of state, but as the system has proved to be adaptable (since our ancestors cut the head off one who refused to adapt) and has resulted in rights and freedoms better than any in history we are happy to stick with it despite its absurdities. One of which is an avowedly republican leader of the loyal opposition.

(Right now though we could do with adapting the Lords)

In reply to Rampikino:


Ok. Feel free to clarify how you view the monarch. Are you happy for her to reign over you? Do you think she is your equal other than in title? I'm curious.

In reply to Shani:

No thanks - having read your various posts I don't think there is any value in conversing with you.

In reply to Rampikino:


And yet I've sought to enquire and understand you. The religious are often similarly inclined when asked about their belief.

In reply to Rampikino:

Yep read it, defensive of yourself, yep. It touches a nerve, which does say something about the monarchical system.

In reply to Martin Hore:



I thought it was the most dull PMQ's I can remember. Ok so we never learnt much we didn't already know with the Punch and Judy version but then we didn't learn anything new today. At least the old version was funny.

As for the questions, well that's really handing over democracy to the people. A whole six people, yes that's 1 in 10 million of the population, got to have their question aired. Still, I'm sure Peter from Stevenage who didn't have his question asked will be quite satisfied that Sarah from Birmingham (names made up) had a similar question asked in a way he couldn't possibly have been satisfied if Jeremy from Islington had just asked the bloody question for himself like he's paid to do. Pure gimmickry.


If its anything like today then interesting is the last way to describe it.

In reply to Shani:

Noooo you tried to put words in my mouth and inferred that I agreed with the North Korean regime.

That gave me all the knowledge about you and your approach that I needed. You may continue inferring, assuming and attempting to goad all you like from here on in, you can even click "dislike" if you prefer, but you have shown your debating colours and they are murky.

In reply to Rampikino:



First, let me unequivocally apologise if I put words in to your mouth. I thought that monarchists believed that the monarch was somehow 'better' than the rest as the position is appointed by God of someone worthy of reigning over us.

However, you are now putting words in to my mouth. I NEVER inferred you agreed with the North Korean regime. I was drawing attention to the folly of hereditary succession whether in the Uk or North Korea. It is the model that is broken but few see it inside their own bubble.

This is why I'm curious as to what quality you see in a monarch other than by virtue of indoctrination? Genuine curiosity.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

Nope you missed the point.

I resent the broad brush accusation that, just because I am comfortable with the model we have, it suddenly makes me a bowing and scraping groveller.

Tar someone else with your very broad brush.

In reply to rogerwebb:


I don't think it does. In fact most politicians who one would think of as republicans try and avoid saying anything directly against the monarchy. The oaths probably chill their free speech because it is hard to say what they believe without breaking the oath and being seen to do so.

The privy council oath is much worse than the MP oath, and people like Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon who have been First Minister as well as Corbyn as leader of the Labour party will need to take this oath to get access to information to do their job.

"You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto the Queen's Majesty, as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done, or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown, or Dignity Royal, but you will lett and withstand the same to the uttermost of your Power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will, in all things to be moved, treated, and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all Matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors, you will not reveal it unto him, but will keep the same until such time as, by the Consent of Her Majesty, or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance unto the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty, and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty. So help you God."

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

And people say politics suffers from a disconnect with the common man.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

You're right that is some oath. I would think Jeremy Corbyn might have trouble with the 'withstand' bit

In reply to Rampikino:


The literal interpretation of your post is obvious, I'm commenting on what you've done. I said it was a p*ss take, or in other words a wind up.... that fact that your only post on a thread about JC is to defend yourself against a dig not specifically aimed at you, does show it works.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


Although, you can find plenty examples of the forelock tugging, boot licking, fauning types on here as well.

In reply to Moorside Mo:


Rural deities having the body of a man and the horns, ears, tail, and sometimes legs of a goat are on UKC? I would actually tug my forelock to such a creature!

In reply to rogerwebb:

The issue with these sort of things is that we take these oaths etc out of context.

There is for the leaders of any country certain rituals and protocols you go through.You can look at it like we do as " a load of rubbish" or you can say they are part of learning statecraft and governing.One of the things JC will have to get use to his his responsibility as " Leader of the Opposition" to do things like attend State banquets and deal with Sate visits ( let us say Putin visits here). In every country there are protocols to go through.Its the same when he goes to other countrys.

So in a way these sort of things train him up to deal with this.I bet for example that John Prescott had to deal with it.Tsipras in Greece deals with it well there ( they have some strange protocols- goosestepping guards of honour).

He may as well just get used to it, and I bet there are methods of dealing with it which do not put him in an uncomfortable position.

So he will not be the first and not the last to think this is crazy.

To show how it can go wrong. Tony Blair dropped alot of protocols at cabinet meetings when first elected." call me Tony" springs to mind.it was later dropped when they understood there was a reason in calling Ministers by their State name.

In reply to neilh:


Yep. I wonder how many atheists sing God Save the Queen without thinking that they are 'really' imploring God to save the Queen. It is just a ceremonial activity.

Even if people DID believe that by singing GSTQ they were imploring God to actually save the Queen, as those that sing it come from a variety of faiths from peoples across the Commonwealth and beyond, there is nothing to ensure that the song is being sung to the same God.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

'cept it 'aint just a piss take is it? It's also a method whereby a group of people with one set of opinions attempt to demeen and belittle a different set of people because they think differently. Simple really.

In reply to icnoble:

Perhaps he's a bit like me, and finds that the only shirts that are a good fit on him will strangle him if he does the collar button up?

In reply to Rampikino:


That is not a piss take, it comes from the very real, historical tradition of genuflecting before the monarch. One assumes that as a monarchist you similarly defer at some level to the monarch at an cognitive level if not at a physical level should you ever meet her?

I've no desire to belittle you but your failure to engage in discussion of your motivations makes it hard for either of us to progress, understand or accommodate, one another's ideas. I can only go on historical and factual evidence of the grovelling (in subservience or humility), that has gone on, and still goes on, before the monarch.

In reply to MG:
The Telegraph have opened up a line of interest in Corbynomics:

"Overt monetary financing of deficits - the technical term - is exactly what the world will need if the global economy tips into another recession with interest rates already at zero and debt ratios stretched to historic extremes.

Governments that do not have such a contingency plan in place to combat a potential deflationary shock from East Asia should be hauled before their respective parliaments to account for their complacency.

HSBC's chief economist, Stephen King, argues such drastic measures may be our last resort in a "Titanic" world with few lifeboats left, if anything goes wrong. He is not alone in the City of London."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11869701/Jeremy-Corbyns-QE-for...

In reply to Shani:


Reminds me of something heard elsewhere, where is it? Hmm, "I'm not racist, but..." I wonder if you can appreciate the language you use in your so-called debating - superior and with undertones of demeening.

Also, "your failure..."

I see what you did there - your murky language again. Failure implies that I have not met some target or requirement. I've not failed anything. I've refused to engage with you for this very reason - your murky approach. No failure here. I will let you go on assuming.

In reply to Rampikino:


This is the crux and highly ironic. Monarchists, those willing to genuflect before the monarch ARE belittling themselves. Further irony as I am suggesting that we, and this includes YOU, are equal to the monarch. It is you who is belittling yourself by endorsing a hereditary principle of rule.



You are right. Apologies for my failure to use appropriate language - my use of language can lack precision at times. Please understand that no offence was intended. I should have said 'your refusal'.

In reply to Shani:

Nice try, but there you go again, putting words in my mouth. Additional proof that you are not worth the effort.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


...it might not matter much, as he could well only hold the title in name only, as he is unlikely to pass security clearance to give him full and open access to everything some of the military members or the PM see, given some of his previous alliances and political history he simply couldn't be trusted. If he was just a standard civil servant worker, they wouldn't even give him clearance to enter the building with his history.

In reply to Rampikino:


Where did I do that? I guess I can only make myself 'worth the effort' by self improvement. I am trying to do this by engaging in an understanding of your monarchic sympathies.

In reply to Shani:


No you are not, and this is my last post on this.

You already have your argument, you are intransigent on it. What you are actually trying to do is find a monarchist patsy to knock down with your well-practiced arguments. That's not debating.

You have spent time knocking down straw men that you have attributed to me and my opinions when my only complaint is that those of us who are comfortable with the status quo are not all boot-licking, bowing, scraping forelock tuggers. You don't actually know any of my views on the monarchy - none of them. My views are staying with me because your approach is murky and as a result you blew any chance of actually debating it. You're going to have to find your patsy somewhere else.

In reply to summo:


The thing is he isn't a standard civil servant, he's the elected leader of the main opposition party who controls a block of MPs large enough to significantly influence votes on things like military intervention on Syria. There's a public interest in someone with that level of power having access to information relevant to their decisions.

As a republican Corbyn should refuse to take the Privy Council oath but offer to sign the Official Secrets Act.

In reply to Rampikino:



So my willingness to understand your motivation constitutes 'intransigence'?


Correct, which is why I have asked you to state them.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I can well imagine that if you looked down the list of people who have been on the Privy Council there will have been members who have equally strong views as JC.After all his stance is hardly anything new, its been around in other politicians before now.

There will I am sure be a typical diplomatic way of getting round this to tick the requirements and satisfy both sides.

Its a fuss over nothing.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Signing it changes nothing, it's the vetting procedure; what is uncovered or declared and the levels of risk the analysts thinks he would pose, that would dictate what level he is cleared to. He can sign anything, but still doesn't mean he'll be trusted.