PMQs
 

Day off today, so looking forward to this. :thumb:

Whilst it might be a breath of fresh air to have someone like Corbyn in mainstream politics, I find his refusal to sing the national anthem quite disturbing.
Not suggesting for one minute he's a traitor or subversive. But if he's going to represent the country as a leader of one of the two main political parties, then he needs to do exactly that first and foremost imo.

He's a republican! :confused:

He's also a privy councillor

Perhaps, but we are not (yet) a Republic. It's a national anthem, not a statement of belief in a political doctrine.
If he starts defending the IRA (as did one of his minions a while back), does that enhance his position as a representative of our country?

He has every right not to sing the national anthem and he (and his minions) have every right to defend the IRA. I'm not aware of any dogma that says Corbyn must be "representative of our country". He's not out to enhance "his position", he's out to realise his ideals.

As a country we've become so used to the status quo, a scrap for the middle ground and a steady boat that we're genuinely concerned when it's challenged, ignored or rocked. Perhaps, just perhaps, he's the one to shatter the illusion created by the top 1% - the illusion that says they should have and are entitled to a disgustingly disproportionate share of the world's wealth. The illusion that says peace isn't an option. The illusion that says we must grow, grow, grow despite the damage that policy does to our beautiful planet.

I'm a natural Conservative and voted as such at the last election, but boy am I relieved to see a bona fide socialist in opposition...who knows, perhaps there is a world where equality is the defining principle. Perhaps I could support that principle.

So?

It means he has to be prepared to bow before the Queen.

Why did he not refuse the role?

How could he affect change without being a member of the Privy Council? As Hodgy mentions in the other thread, he can be polite without having to be overtly deferent and obsequious. Singing the national anthem does endorse monarchist and nationalist principles, he chose not to.

A truly excellent post James :thumb:

Funny to see Martin who claims not to be a Conservative sh1tting himself when a bona fide socialist shows up :lol1:

OK so we agree that he's compromised his principles then?

BTW - PMQ thus far has been really good, and Corbyn's approach is a breath of fresh air.

I'm not sure he has, but I do need to do more homework on it to see how it sits with his republicanism and how he demonstrates it.

He seems to be representing the people. Very odd. Cameron's playing a good game, though.

Because like most politicians, he'll sacrifice his convictions to get the power he needs.

He has every right not to sing the national anthem and he (and his minions) have every right to defend the IRA. I'm not aware of any dogma that says Corbyn must be "representative of our country". He's not out to enhance "his position", he's out to realise his ideals.

As a country we've become so used to the status quo, a scrap for the middle ground and a steady boat that we're genuinely concerned when it's challenged, ignored or rocked. Perhaps, just perhaps, he's the one to shatter the illusion created by the top 1% - the illusion that says they should have and are entitled to a disgustingly disproportionate share of the world's wealth. The illusion that says peace isn't an option. The illusion that says we must grow, grow, grow despite the damage that policy does to our beautiful planet.

I'm a natural Conservative and voted as such at the last election, but boy am I relieved to see a bona fide socialist in opposition...who knows, perhaps there is a world where equality is the defining principle. Perhaps I could support that principle.



I would be interested to hear how you would juggle the shameful support of the IRA (or any other similarly warlike group) with the desire for peace. And exactly how equal would you like everyone to be? Equally capable? Equally intelligent? Equally hard working? We have no control over any of these human qualities. Those blessed with them will inevitably make their way in the world in a more substantial way than those less fortunate. Or must the bright ones maintain a slower pace so their lesser bretheren can keep up to ensure equality?

He's a socialist republican who naturally opposes imperialism, how could he not have sympathy with the IRA? He believes in jaw-jaw, not war-war, and so will do what he can to speak with leaders of the sidelined and disenfranchised and at the other end of the spectrum, the Queen. Because he talks with terrorists does not mean he supports their methods, though he may support their politics. The Good Friday agreement would never have happened without jaw-jaw.

Those blessed by God with particular gifts have a duty to share those gifts with others, not claim them as their own and pursue an individualist, selfish agenda. This is true equality: the knowledge that privileges ought to be paid forward and not jealously guarded.

He will have to make compromises, that doesn't mean he'll have to give up his ideals. To reintroduce socialism will require a quiet revolution, and sometimes that involves a bit of give and take.

About time this theatrical childish sham was actually sorted out. Rehersed questions and answers with petty snides purely for sakes and benefit of getting extra jeers from the primary scoolboys on the back benches.

I bet the only reason why the Commons is full on that days is becuase these people who alledgely represent us just want to "see the show", and contribute NOTHING beneiicial for the public barring token jeers and here heres. Pathetic.

Please tell me you're kidding? There should be no incentive at all for anyone capable of doing so to work twice as hard as the average person does, they should expect to get paid exactly the same regardless?

Is this some obscure bilbical or banking terminology, or are you just getting your prepositions mixed up?

Those blessed by God with particular gifts have a duty to share those gifts with others, not claim them as their own and pursue an individualist, selfish agenda. This is true equality: the knowledge that privileges ought to be paid forward and not jealously guarded.[/QUOTE]


I try to be unabusive in these threads (to most posters) but this is utter rubbish. Are you seriously suggesting that the talented and hard working should hand over the rewards for their efforts to those less gifted or perhaps to the downright idle? Unless you live in a cardboard box under a bridge then you're not living up to your own professed ideals. But I suspect you own a car, a house and probably a few luxury goods to fill it. Should you be posting from said box then of course I withdraw my comments.

Does your partner have a pair of t1ts? If so, does she share them with the guys in town?

Hard work should be rewarded, of course, and people ought to be given incentives for that hard work. What I no longer accept is a society where someone with a gift for care or protection should receive staggeringly less of everything than somebody who, for example, manipulates markets for a living.

It's not Biblical, but it does assume that talents are gifts from God and that they ought to be shared for the greater good. I'm surprised the notion is so alien to you, Mark.

Perhaps humans are all greedy and corrupt and selfish, in which case we're stuck with this post-modern, materialist dystopia where it's every man for himself. But I don't believe that, I think we can do better.

The talented and hardworking should share with others - we were taught that as kids, weren't we? It's really not that radical! And the idea that one should be destitute in order to uphold socialist ideals is a bit odd. I do, however, accept how nauseating champagne socialism is. I guess the charge of hypocrisy can be levelled readily at those with a social conscience in an age like ours.

I think what is resonating with people is his assertion that poverty and inequality are a political choice (and by extension and economic one)

that our current system has poverty and inequality "baked in" so to speak

that opportunity is literally crushed out of so many

actually and ironically in the end it is bad for capitalism

And yet in the other thread you said you respect him for holding onto his values at a completely inappropriate time... Hmmmmm :wonder:

I respect his honesty, but I'm not naïve. I know an uncompromising ideologue will at best stumble and more than likely fall at the first hurdle. As I said, and I trust you understand this, his revolution will be a quiet one. There'll be no storming of the Winter Palace.

As a child I certainly was not taught that we share everything we have with others, that would be very radical. But perhaps I went to the wrong school. Of course if you can name a single established society in history where this concept has prevailed and succeeded I will be pleased to hear of it.

I didn't say everything.

So what were you saying? Just sweets and pieces of cake perhap? Surely you were alluding to something slightly more radical than tuck box fodder, or is that it? Not much for Corbyn to base his 'New Labour' on really.

Are you of the view that a redistribution of wealth would be a bad thing?

the man does have a point about the redistribution of wealth, until such times as companies/big corperations are forced to pay a decent living wage, we will always have a problen in this country,is it right that we as a family get more child benefit than i pay in tax & ni NO
is it right that we get more ctc than i get wages, NO
is it right that i am expected to work for just 35pence per hour more than i would get on just benefits NO
but heres the catch uk plc is in effect sponsering brammer to employ me why because 6 different departments are involved in my pay packet each month, tax, ni, ctc, wtc, cb and dla and guess what all the people involved are in a goverment sponsered job all paying tax and ni, the people at the top love this as it created jobs for the system, and as a added bonus they all vote to feather their nest, even the unemployed when they get the max £500 a week only actually get £400 because of 20% vat, and the £400 is spent with companies in the uk who all probably have ministers as shareholders, he is never going to sort all this out