UK Labour Leadership election

Very Bored

So Jeremy Corbyn is a threat to the national security of a country which considers itself a democracy. Then that same democratic state pours scorn on him for standing respectfully for but not joining in with the singing of its national anthem.

Jeremy Corbyn is a British Republican and his choice not to give voice to a song calling for God to protect the monarch should be self explanatory. So how about those concerned for national security actually start behaving like in a democratic way and accept that someone has the freedom of choice to believe what they wish.

ancapailldorcha

While on the other hand we've got the likes of Dave Cameron keeping an eye out for the cameras so he doesn't miss a PR opportunity. If this is the best they can do to discredit the man I'll not get too worried.

Good point raised on Radio 5 this morning, at this stage Corbyn's indelicacies can't yet be attributed to his policies or his inexperience as a leader / in the spotlight.

Considering the National Anthem 'news', it's difficult to be certain that this was a protest or if it was just a blooper (or more realistically a storm in a teacup).

jank

Even the very supportive Independent has come out and called for the new Labour leader to perhaps show a more subtle touch in the media.
http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/CO-NXJ3XAAA8oP-.jpg

Not singing the national anthem... at a WWII Battle of Britain ceremony.. seriously how stupid can one get. The guys lives in a bubble of inner north London where this stunt might get him some kudos but in the wider UK people will look at it with bemusement and disappointment.

And it is only Day two...
I think its going to be short tenure but very interesting if not entertaining.

jank

Very Bored wrote: »

So Jeremy Corbyn is a threat to the national security of a country which considers itself a democracy. Then that same democratic state pours scorn on him for standing respectfully for but not joining in with the singing of its national anthem.

Jeremy Corbyn is a British Republican and his choice not to give voice to a song calling for God to protect the monarch should be self explanatory. So how about those concerned for national security actually start behaving like in a democratic way and accept that someone has the freedom of choice to believe what they wish.

No body is saying that he should 'not be allowed' to stay silent or that he does not have the freedom of choice, however people in a free country can criticise those decisions and choices. One does not negate the other.

Very Bored

It was neither a protest nor a blooper. It was a man choosing not to lend his voice to a cause in which he doesn't believe. Corbyn is a British Republican, he has said so himself on numerous occasions, though he has also said that tackling the monarchy is not amongst his current targets. That doesn't make him a national security threat, it just means he is a human being who has an opinion on something. His not singing along was simply him believing in his opinion, which in a democratic state he has every right to do so. If he had refused to stand, or if he had looked disheveled whilst standing then there might be some scope to say it was a protest. However, he behaved impeccably, he just simply didn't choose to sing. And I respect him for having the guts to follow through on his opinion. Somewhat different to David Cameron who, committed unionist though he claims to be, would happily sing along to Scots Wha' Hae, Yma O Hyd or The Rifles of the IRA if he thought it would be a good PR move.

Sudden Valley

Is it not the case that Labour can only get enough seats to form a government if they win seat up in Scotland? Perhaps corbyn is attractiive to a certain segment of the Scots that don't like God Save the Queen. He may be unelectable but unlike the Labour leaders here he does seem to stick to his principles.

FTA69

Well it's clear the media are gunning for him to no end anyway which shouldn't be a shock to anyone. Despite some people being deluded in thinking that we have a free press, the reality is that the majority of it is controlled by oligarch types who have a lot to lose if Corbyn's policies ever come into effect. As such prepare for any and all character assassinations, misquotes and general partisan rubbish.

Very Bored

Exactly, Sudden Valley. He sticks to his principles and for that he's called a bigot. Though, in terms of him being unelectable, I doubt that's true. The Conservatives and the right wing press in the UK are hyperventilating over the smallest little thing to try to discredit him which leads me to believe that they are worried.

Lemming

Very Bored wrote: »

It was neither a protest nor a blooper. It was a man choosing not to lend his voice to a cause in which he doesn't believe. Corbyn is a British Republican, he has said so himself on numerous occasions, though he has also said that tackling the monarchy is not amongst his current targets. That doesn't make him a national security threat, it just means he is a human being who has an opinion on something. His not singing along was simply him believing in his opinion, which in a democratic state he has every right to do so. If he had refused to stand, or if he had looked disheveled whilst standing then there might be some scope to say it was a protest. However, he behaved impeccably, he just simply didn't choose to sing. And I respect him for having the guts to follow through on his opinion. Somewhat different to David Cameron who, committed unionist though he claims to be, would happily sing along to Scots Wha' Hae, Yma O Hyd or The Rifles of the IRA if he thought it would be a good PR move.

Sorry., but hang on just one second there. Swap out Corbyn with any Irish political leader refusing to sing the Irish national anthem whilst gunning for the job of leader of the nation and see how far it would get. People would rightly take a very dim view of them. it's day two and he's already shown an ability to pick his battles very poorly and doesn't seem to understand when to shut up and play along vs. make his proverbial stand. At a WW2 commemorative event was not the moment to do so and comes across as petty, unsophisticated, crude, and deeply insulting.

Politics is the art of compromise. Being able to say "I stick to my principles and fvcks to what everyone else thinks" is all well and good, but it wont get you very far in the grand scheme of things.

Sam Russell

Maybe he cannot sing. He was not seen singing the Red Flag the other day.

ancapailldorcha

Incidentally, while the newspapers have pretended to be offended by Corbyn not singing the national anthem the House of Commons has voted to cut tax credits for the lowest earners (1, 2, 3).

Harry Palmr

Very Bored wrote: »

Exactly, Sudden Valley. He sticks to his principles and for that he's called a bigot. Though, in terms of him being unelectable, I doubt that's true. The Conservatives and the right wing press in the UK are hyperventilating over the smallest little thing to try to discredit him which leads me to believe that they are worried.

They are not worried they are merely being red in tooth and claw which is the hallmark of the British press. Someone like Corbyn is Christmas every day for them.

Carlos Orange

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Incidentally, while the newspapers have pretended to be offended by Corbyn not singing the national anthem the House of Commons has voted to cut tax credits for the lowest earners

Those tax credits are very different to Irish tax credits (unless I grossly misunderstand our tax system which is very possible).

Carlos Orange

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Incidentally, while the newspapers have pretended to be offended by Corbyn not singing the national anthem the House of Commons has voted to cut tax credits for the lowest earners

Those tax credits seem to be very different to Irish tax credits (unless I grossly misunderstand our tax system which is very possible).

Dohnjoe

PMQ's in less than hour, it's already trending on twitter

Wondering if Cameron will sidestep Corbyn and ask the labour frontbench directly if they support the removal of Trident

ancapailldorcha

psinno wrote: »

Those tax credits are very different to Irish tax credits (unless I grossly misunderstand our tax system which is very possible).

If you're income is below a certain threshold, you can claim a tax refund. In effect, an employee's wages are subsidised by the government.

Very Bored

Yes, British tax credits are a payment to those on low incomes. So families who work but don't get paid enough to make up a basic living standard can afford to feed their families. The very people Cameron said he supported, working families, very principled I don't think.

FTA69

psinno wrote: »

Those tax credits are very different to Irish tax credits (unless I grossly misunderstand our tax system which is very possible).

They were a subsidy for poverty wages paid by companies. Osbourne has now hijacked (very astutely) the premise of a Living Wage by raising the minimum wage a few pence an hour while simultaneously withdrawing credits, thus plunging low paid workers into even more poverty. At the same time the Tories have passed a trade union bill compounding Britain's status as most anti-trade Union country in Europe and scuppering attempts for workers to improve their lot.

But of course what's important is Corbyn's top button.

ancapailldorcha

Jeremy, along with his close friends and family are in for a very rough few years by the looks of things. Funny how Prince Harry gets a pass for wearing a Nazi Uniform though.

Carlos Orange

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

If you're income is below a certain threshold, you can claim a tax refund. In effect, an employee's wages are subsidised by the government.

It isn't a tax refund since you don't need to pay tax to receive it.


What are tax credits?
Don't be fooled by the name: they are little to do with tax. Unlike tax "reliefs", people need not be paying any tax to receive tax "credits". Tax credits are essentially a means of re-distributing income by paying money to a) families raising children and b) working people on low incomes. To their critics, they are a handout. To supporters, vital to relieving poverty.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Jeremy, along with his close friends and family are in for a very rough few years by the looks of things. Funny how Prince Harry gets a pass for wearing a Nazi Uniform though.

Prince Harry's position is pretty much as relevant as Katie Price's when it comes to British Politics.

FTA69

In effect, because the minimum wage was so low; the tax payer had to step in and pay a sort of part-dole to those working in these jobs. While it was necessary to stop millions falling into penury, it also had the effect of allowing massively profitable companies to pay poverty and exploitation wages as they knew the public purse would subsidise them. Thus despite the narrative of those "on benefits" being work shy scroungers, two thirds of those receiving them were hard working people getting paid bugger all by the likes of Starbucks, McDonald's and Vodafone who are worth billions.

Because of the above situation, people called for a Living Wage so that those working would have a fair day's pay and the public wouldn't have to subsidise private profit. What Osbourne did however, was hijack this long standing concept and pass off a paltry wage increase as a Living Wage, which of course it isn't; all the while immediately withdrawing the lifeline these low paid workers have in the form of credits.

And while doing this, the Tories get to portray themselves as champions of a "living wage" for the working poor. Not that anyone in the cabinet would realise that considering the majority of them are actual millionaires. They are an absolutely abominable bunch.

LordSutch

Corbyn Vs Cameron @Midday today!

BBC PARLIAMENT, BBC NEWS, SKY NEWS, BBC Radio Five Live . . .

Not quite Ali Vs Frazier, but still ....

Carlos Orange

FTA69 wrote: »

In effect, because the minimum wage was so low; the tax payer had to step in and pay a sort of part-dole to those working in these jobs. While it was necessary to stop millions falling into penury

You can earn up to €45K and be eligible. Not exactly penury

ancapailldorcha

psinno wrote: »

You can earn up to €45K and be eligible. Not exactly penury

Is that an Irish figure? I'm on a lot less than £45,000 and I can't claim. It must depend on how many dependents one has and other factors.

Carlos Orange

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Is that an Irish figure? I'm on a lot less than £45,000 and I can't claim. It must depend on how many dependents one has and other factors.

I suspect the details are really over complicated. I had a quick look at an online calculator but it asked way too many questions. The figure quoted in the article I read was £32,969 but that isn't going to mean a lot to most people here so I did a quick online conversion. I presume it is a criteria that is necessary but not sufficient i.e. if you earn more you can't get a tax credit but if you earn less you may or may not be eligible.

ancapailldorcha

Anyway, here's a link to Gov.uk:

https://www.gov.uk/working-tax-credit

jank

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Jeremy, along with his close friends and family are in for a very rough few years by the looks of things. Funny how Prince Harry gets a pass for wearing a Nazi Uniform though.

Can you define 'gets a pass' as I remember a **** storm over that incident, more then 15 years ago may I add and people still bring it up.

jank

On the working Tax credit, when was this introduced?