[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Can't agree with this. At the present time, the UK constitution is based around a monarchy. The queen opens parliament. The leader of the governing party goes to see the queen prior to starting government and resigns to the queen when finishing.

Every country has an anthem. It is a song to celebrate the nation. I am not a royalist, I will be much happier when we become a republic, but until that time, that is the fundamental basis of our constitution. Corbyn's refusal to sing the anthem is him sticking 2 fingers up at the people of this country, as it is THEIR constitution until THEY decide its time for change.

Your stance is identical to mine - I am not a Royalist and will feel glad when this anachronism is gone for good, but as you so eloquentky put it: "But until that time, that is the fundamental basis of our constitution."

We are also in full agreement of JUST WHY Corbyn did not sing the National Anthem.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I naturally assume you include me in it because I have a large ego. Deal with it.

And Yes kirk I was saying it's always trash, whether it's Farage, Corbyn or Simon Cowell... I was acknowledging that Farage gets plenty of it. Just because my own opinions of the man are not good (because of his policies and manner, not because of the press) doesn't mean I don't know when the press is jabbering ****.

Though the focus now seems to have switched to Corbyn in general.



Now see, this I just can't get on board with. It's a political catch 22... A monarchy monopoly. Essentially it's saying that you can't be properly engaged in UK politics if you refuse to acknowledge the monarchy as a valid political system. And so if you believe there shouldn't be one? Tough. Because then you're not a proper politician and so will never be in a position to try to change it. No. It's 2015 and major political factions should be able to (and just SHOULD, in my opinion) openly reject the monarchy.

I mean just look at the national anthem if you want to know why I will never sing it. It's about precisely three things. Elitism, War-mongering, and a fictional man in the sky. Not for me, thanks, not any of it. I get that some people love the cuddly old Queen, are "proud" of our country's history as bloodthirsty conquerors, and believe in said men in the sky... And that's fine... But kindly don't force your prayers upon others with the caveat that they're "treasonous" or "anti-patriotic" if they won't comply.

You are missing the whole point T.S. - I am not saying that as a private individual Corbyn should support the monarchy, but that as a STATESMAN and Leader of one of Her Majesty's political parties he should comply with protocol -- especially on such a public and very solemn occasion.

The idiot will hoist himself on his own petard - you will see.

[user104658]

Right but if all statesmen must fall in line with protocol - legitimising the monarchy - then how does one make a (meaningful) political stand against that monarchy?

I for one have had enough of cardboard cut-out politicians playing along with these outdated charades.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Right but if all statesmen must fall in line with protocol - legitimising the monarchy - then how does one make a (meaningful) political stand against that monarchy?

I for one have had enough of cardboard cut-out politicians playing along with these outdated charades.

By lawfully CHANGING the constitution - in Corbyn's case ONCE he has attained the office of PRIME MINISTER.

Wait: I hear music.... Someone singing. I can see two figures on horseback approaching....

"To dream, the impossible dream..."

[user104658]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

By lawfully CHANGING the constitution - in Corbyn's case ONCE he has attained the office of PRIME MINISTER.

But then you're fighting to change something that you have already legitimised by playing along with it to get into that position, massively weakening the argument against it and all but ensuring that your campaign will fail.

I'm sure that's the point, of course. A nefarious and self-sustaining system of privilege and control.

[Tom4784]

The whole national Anthem point is stupid, how many people actually know the words to it without googling them? Not ****ing many.

It's easy to act offended but most people don't even know the actual words to the first verse, never mind the song itself. It's just a very desperate stick to beat him with.

[Livia]

He IS unelectable and I exercise my right to say to. If it's unpalatable to some, tough. That seems to be the way discussions go on this forum now.

[JoshBB]

Originally Posted by Livia

He IS unelectable and I exercise my right to say to. If it's unpalatable to some, tough. That seems to be the way discussions go on this forum now.

Nobody ever questioned your freedom of speech.

You can think he's unelectable and I can say that I don't like the use of that word for reasons I've already mentioned. Seems like you've completely ignored the point if I'm being completely honest.. just throwing your arms up in the air yelling 'i have a right to say this!!' instead of putting some explanation to your points.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

Nobody ever questioned your freedom of speech.

You can think he's unelectable and I can say that I don't like the use of that word for reasons I've already mentioned. Seems like you've completely ignored the point if I'm being completely honest.. just throwing your arms up in the air yelling 'i have a right to say this!!' instead of putting some explanation to your points.

The point is you hate it when people say he's unelectable. But in many people's opinion, he is. He's like Farage: a novelty. And the two of them are at opposite ends of the same scale.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Livia

The point is you hate it when people say he's unelectable. But in many people's opinion, he is. He's like Farage: a novelty. And the two of them are at opposite ends of the same scale.

There IS one fundamental but collossal difference Liv - Farage is a patriot.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

Nobody ever questioned your freedom of speech.

You can think he's unelectable and I can say that I don't like the use of that word for reasons I've already mentioned. Seems like you've completely ignored the point if I'm being completely honest.. just throwing your arms up in the air yelling 'i have a right to say this!!' instead of putting some explanation to your points.

Are you really being serious with Liv Josh?

[Tom4784]

Meh, the Media and the Tories wouldn't be ****ting themselves like they currently are if he was unelectable. They'll try their hardest to convince the easily led that he is with their desperate little smear campaigns though.

All Corbyn has to do is wait, the Tories aren't going to be lucky enough to have the anti-tory vote split between three parties in the next election.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Meh, the Media and the Tories wouldn't be ****ting themselves like they currently are if he was unelectable. They'll try their hardest to convince the easily led that he is with their desperate little smear campaigns though.

All Corbyn has to do is wait, the Tories aren't going to be lucky enough to have the anti-tory vote split between three parties in the next election.

The anti tory vote will have all but disappeared, so they will have no worries on that score. No one is ****ting themselves, pissing themselves laughing is more accurate.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

The anti tory vote will have all but disappeared, so they will have no worries on that score. No one is ****ting themselves, pissing themselves laughing is more accurate.

Then why are the Tories putting out desperate attack videos? Not exactly the sign of a confident party is it?

We've only had a few months of a Tory majority and they've already gone back to their old tricks. With UKIP dead in the water after Farage's 'attempt' at resigning and the SNP looking like a damp squib if they can't get another Referendum rolling, there's not going to be anyone else to split the vote.

The smear tactics are a sign of a desperation, the Tories know that Corbyn could very well spell the end of their reign.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Then why are the Tories putting out desperate attack videos? Not exactly the sign of a confident party is it?

We've only had a few months of a Tory majority and they've already gone back to their old tricks. With UKIP dead in the water after Farage's 'attempt' at resigning and the SNP looking like a damp squib if they can't get another Referendum rolling, there's not going to be anyone else to split the vote.

The smear tactics are a sign of a desperation, the Tories know that Corbyn could very well spell the end of their reign.

they are not smear tactics, they are highlighting the person that labour has chosen to be their new leader and informing the voting public. There is no false information being spread, just factual information highlighting the behaviour of Corbyn over his political life.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

they are not smear tactics, they are highlighting the person that labour has chosen to be their new leader and informing the voting public. There is no false information being spread, just factual information highlighting the behaviour of Corbyn over his political life.

Absolutely accurately said BitOnTheSlide. Facts are facts. I'm afraid we are are swimming against a tide of blindness in a sea of delusionists.

[Jack_]

They are absolutely smear tactics and fear mongering. The video the Conservatives posted on the Twitter account is both incredibly embarrassing and ****ing hilarious.

They have taken all of his quotes completely out of context and underlaid the video with a sinister bed. It looks like it's been made on Windows Movie Maker and just about sums up the state of politics in this country, fear and smear, divide and rule, etc etc. The Russian Embassy was right to point out that if Putin were calling opposition parties a 'threat to national security' and making such videos, there would be outrage in both the UK and the US, and rightly so. If Jeremy Corbyn or the Labour Party were genuinely a threat to national security they would have been arrested and would be being interrogated right now.

It's like a Nazi propaganda video and it would be disturbing if it wasn't so shambolically produced.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Jack_

They are absolutely smear tactics and fear mongering. The video the Conservatives posted on the Twitter account is both incredibly embarrassing and ****ing hilarious.

They have taken all of his quotes completely out of context and underlaid the video with a sinister bed. It looks like it's been made on Windows Movie Maker and just about sums up the state of politics in this country, fear and smear, divide and rule, etc etc. The Russian Embassy was right to point out that if Putin were calling opposition parties a 'threat to national security' and making such videos, there would be outrage in both the UK and the US, and rightly so. If Jeremy Corbyn or the Labour Party were genuinely a threat to national security they would have been arrested and would be being interrogated right now.

It's like a Nazi propaganda video and it would be disturbing if it wasn't so shambolically produced.

Then perhaps you could post in their entirety, the speeches Corbyn made from which all these 'smears' were ' taken out of context'?

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Then perhaps you could post in their entirety, the speeches Corbyn made from which all these 'smears' were ' taken out of context'?

"Bin Laden's death was a 'tragedy'", the rest of the sentence that preceded that remark:

Youtube video

i.e., it was a tragedy he did not face trial for the crimes he had committed. Which is correct.

'Claims Hamas and Hezbollah are friends'

Youtube video

Invited them to a forum to discuss peace. If you're inviting people up for a civilised, mature debate (something this forum seems to be lacking of late, how ironic) you describe and introduce the participants in a respectful manner. He was hardly going to say 'and I've invited the ****ing c**** from Hamas' was he?

The quotes about trident are the only ones that stand true, and that's a political issue that different people disagree on. Nothing wrong with that.

The Conservatives video they tweeted was nothing more than a disturbingly hilarious, shoddy piece of propaganda that has more place in 1940's Germany than in a Western democracy. This is precisely the reason why people are so turned off of politics. Fact.

But sadly we are swimming against a tide of sensationalism, smearing and propaganda in a sea of reactionary, hysterical, Daily Mail reading, immigrant fearing, poverty bashing, narrow minded, heartless, backwards, borderline racists that are scared to leave the house cause of those 'hoodies, gays and blacks down the road'. I'm doing it right aren't I? This is how political discussions are supposed to work, right?

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Jack_

"Bin Laden's death was a 'tragedy'", the rest of the sentence that preceded that remark:

Youtube video

i.e., it was a tragedy he did not face trial for the crimes he had committed. Which is correct.

'Claims Hamas and Hezbollah are friends'

Youtube video

Invited them to a forum to discuss peace. If you're inviting people up for a civilised, mature debate (something this forum seems to be lacking of late, how ironic) you describe and introduce the participants in a respectful manner. He was hardly going to say 'and I've invited the ****ing c**** from Hamas' was he?

The quotes about trident are the only ones that stand true, and that's a political issue that different people disagree on. Nothing wrong with that.

The Conservatives video they tweeted was nothing more than a disturbingly hilarious, shoddy piece of propaganda that has more place in 1940's Germany than in a Western democracy. This is precisely the reason why people are so turned off of politics. Fact.

But sadly we are swimming against a tide of sensationalism, smearing and propaganda in a sea of reactionary, hysterical, Daily Mail reading, immigrant fearing, poverty bashing, narrow minded, heartless, backwards, borderline racists that are scared to leave the house cause of those 'hoodies, gays and blacks down the road'. I'm doing it right aren't I? This is how political discussions are supposed to work, right?

Thanks for responding. I am 'full on' at work today and would not want to respond to this Jack without carrying out extensive research, so I will reply later.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Jack_

"Bin Laden's death was a 'tragedy'", the rest of the sentence that preceded that remark:

Youtube video

i.e., it was a tragedy he did not face trial for the crimes he had committed. Which is correct.

'Claims Hamas and Hezbollah are friends'

Youtube video

Invited them to a forum to discuss peace. If you're inviting people up for a civilised, mature debate (something this forum seems to be lacking of late, how ironic) you describe and introduce the participants in a respectful manner. He was hardly going to say 'and I've invited the ****ing c**** from Hamas' was he?

The quotes about trident are the only ones that stand true, and that's a political issue that different people disagree on. Nothing wrong with that.

The Conservatives video they tweeted was nothing more than a disturbingly hilarious, shoddy piece of propaganda that has more place in 1940's Germany than in a Western democracy. This is precisely the reason why people are so turned off of politics. Fact.

But sadly we are swimming against a tide of sensationalism, smearing and propaganda in a sea of reactionary, hysterical, Daily Mail reading, immigrant fearing, poverty bashing, narrow minded, heartless, backwards, borderline racists that are scared to leave the house cause of those 'hoodies, gays and blacks down the road'. I'm doing it right aren't I? This is how political discussions are supposed to work, right?

I do not anticipate that this response will please you, convince you or even make you think a little, but out of courtesy, here it is:

OK, I have spent hours last night into the wee small hours, researching and reading and watching just about all the articles and videos on this subject that I could find - from both pro-Corbyn and anti-Corbyn sources - and I'm afraid, that I can find nothing which changes my opinion of Corbyn or which allays my fears should he ever become Prime Minister.

I was not referring specifically or exclusively to the so-called; 'Tory Tape, when I made my adverse posts about Corbyn, but whilst I agree that it is piss-poor regarding production quality, and whilst I concede that the 'Osama Bin Laden' clip WAS taken out of context - like MTVN - I do not feel that such minor 'cheating' actually alters the truth about Corbyn's highly questionable pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, leanings.

Regardless of the 'Tory Tape' and any reason behind its production, Corbyn HAS said the things he's said and DONE the things he's done, and as I stated in my earlier post, no-one FAKED the newsreel footage and videos of him, so talk of smearing is pure baloney.

"..Invited them to a forum to discuss peace. If you're inviting people up for a civilised, mature debate (something this forum seems to be lacking of late, how ironic) you describe and introduce the participants in a respectful manner. He was hardly going to say 'and I've invited the ****ing c**** from Hamas' was he?"

No, he wasn't, but there are better words to use which would not have offended people - especially all the victims of the many Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist atrocities and their families.

He COULD and SHOULD have said 'Representatives', but I believe that he deliberately used the words 'our friends' because THAT is how he GENUINELY regards these terrorist scum and he was deliberately, arrogantly, and contemptuously using that phrase to 'cock-a-snook' at anyone who is offended or who disagrees with him.

Indeed, he uses the word 'FRIENDS' to describe Hamas and Hezbollah THREE times in such a short clip and the relevance of this is highlighted by the fact that he refrains from using such a descriptor when mentioning the Israelis, being content to use just that phrase; "The Israelis"

Further; he actually and skilfully uses the 'cold' term 'The Israelis' in a clever subliminally prejudicial manner by stating that: "..but The ISRAELIS wouldn't allow them to travel" - thereby conjuring up images of the Israelis as repressors stopping 'OUR/HIS FRIENDS' from travelling to such an innocent and worthy function.

Further corroboration of Corbyn's cleverness can be evidenced from his opening lines; "...my PLEASURE and my HONOUR" to host an event in Parliament..."

Now; Did he mean that HOSTING the event was the reason for his PLEASURE and HONOUR? Or because his FRIENDS Hamas and Hezbollah were attending?

I think the last part of the VT will settle any doubts for any impartial, honest, reasonably intelligent viewer, because only an out and out unbalanced terrorist sympathiser would describe these murdering bastards as: "..dedicated to bringing long-term PEACE and SOCIAL justice and POLITICAL justice...." .

Finally; To criticise the British Government fot "labelling" Hamas and Hezbollah as "terrorist organiations" and actually pleading with them to "..think again", shows what the UK is in for if this dangerous idiot ever becomes PM.

God forbid it.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I do not anticipate that this response will please you, convince you or even make you think a little, but out of courtesy, here it is:

OK, I have spent hours last night into the wee small hours, researching and reading and watching just about all the articles and videos on this subject that I could find - from both pro-Corbyn and anti-Corbyn sources - and I'm afraid, that I can find nothing which changes my opinion of Corbyn or which allays my fears should he ever become Prime Minister.

I was not referring specifically or exclusively to the so-called; 'Tory Tape, when I made my adverse posts about Corbyn, but whilst I agree that it is piss-poor regarding production quality, and whilst I concede that the 'Osama Bin Laden' clip WAS taken out of context - like MTVN - I do not feel that such minor 'cheating' actually alters the truth about Corbyn's highly questionable pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, leanings.

Regardless of the 'Tory Tape' and any reason behind its production, Corbyn HAS said the things he's said and DONE the things he's done, and as I stated in my earlier post, no-one FAKED the newsreel footage and videos of him, so talk of smearing is pure baloney.

"..Invited them to a forum to discuss peace. If you're inviting people up for a civilised, mature debate (something this forum seems to be lacking of late, how ironic) you describe and introduce the participants in a respectful manner. He was hardly going to say 'and I've invited the ****ing c**** from Hamas' was he?"

No, he wasn't, but there are better words to use which would not have offended people - especially all the victims of the many Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist atrocities and their families.

He COULD and SHOULD have said 'Representatives', but I believe that he deliberately used the words 'our friends' because THAT is how he GENUINELY regards these terrorist scum and he was deliberately, arrogantly, and contemptuously using that phrase to 'cock-a-snook' at anyone who is offended or who disagrees with him.

Indeed, he uses the word 'FRIENDS' to describe Hamas and Hezbollah THREE times in such a short clip and the relevance of this is highlighted by the fact that he refrains from using such a descriptor when mentioning the Israelis, being content to use just that phrase; "The Israelis"

Further; he actually and skilfully uses the 'cold' term 'The Israelis' in a clever subliminally prejudicial manner by stating that: "..but The ISRAELIS wouldn't allow them to travel" - thereby conjuring up images of the Israelis as repressors stopping 'OUR/HIS FRIENDS' from travelling to such an innocent and worthy function.

Further corroboration of Corbyn's cleverness can be evidenced from his opening lines; "...my PLEASURE and my HONOUR" to host an event in Parliament..."

Now; Did he mean that HOSTING the event was the reason for his PLEASURE and HONOUR? Or because his FRIENDS Hamas and Hezbollah were attending?

I think the last part of the VT will settle any doubts for any impartial, honest, reasonably intelligent viewer, because only an out and out unbalanced terrorist sympathiser would describe these murdering bastards as: "..dedicated to bringing long-term PEACE and SOCIAL justice and POLITICAL justice...." .

Finally; To criticise the British Government fot "labelling" Hamas and Hezbollah as "terrorist organiations" and actually pleading with them to "..think again", shows what the UK is in for if this dangerous idiot ever becomes PM.

God forbid it.

I agree with this.When the feck did any serious politician ever describe terrorists as 'friends'?
I never heard Thatcher or Major say 'our friends from the IRA'.
Or Blair ever say 'our friends from Al Qaeda'.
Corbyn at best chose his words drastically wrong or at worst actually has some sympathy with these terrorists.

[joeysteele]

Well it may be true that he is unlikely to win an election bit it rather odd to say anyone is unelectable,no matter what party they are from.

What he has already done is made Labour the bigger party as to membership,he has also attracted people who paid a small sort of donation to be able to vote for a party leader and also has attracted many young people too.

I cannot bear George Osborne or Theresa May or Boris Johnson for that matter,however no way do I see, even with their heartless and severe extreme views as unelectable.
To say here and now almost 5 years from a general election that anyone is unelectable is rather a clouded view.
We, I certainly haven't, have no idea what voters will be looking for in 5 years time,or indeed what state the UK will be in.
Will we be coming out of the EU, will there be another vote,maybe already held, as to Scottish independence.

Just because someone is not liked by some does not in anyway mean they are unelectable, Winston Churchill and Conservative supporters may well have thought that of Attlee and labour in 1945, which they got a massive shock on in the end.

I have already come to expect the unexpected in politics,anything can happen and if an idea is plausible and the message conveyed right then really no one,especially as to the main parties is unelectable.
So overall on here I am more with JoshBB who for someone also really young, has good, strong and healthy open views as to politics.
Not seeing the political process as the possession of only the extreme hardline far right politicians and voters,as to the rights of winning elections.

[smudgie]

The Labour MP's that put his name forward thought he was unelectable...and look where that has got them

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by smudgie

The Labour MP's that put his name forward thought he was unelectable...and look where that has got them

Exactly and he has pulled in new members of the party to vote for him so he appealed to those who had become really disenchanted as well as those who had stayed in the party too.

As well as pulling in many young people too.