UK Labour Leadership election

FTA69 · 16-09-2015 1:28pm

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.

True. If you're shelling out a bomb for childcare (another rip off), have a disabled child, are a carer etc then you might get a small amount if you're earning a good wage - it's akin to child benefit etc. It certainly isn't comparable to the Working Tax Credit you get when you're being paid below the poverty line e.g. working a full time minimum wage job in the South East.

FTA69 · 16-09-2015 1:28pm

jank wrote: »

On the working Tax credit, when was this introduced?

I'm pretty sure Blair brought it in during the late 1990s.

ancapailldorcha · 16-09-2015 1:33pm

Regarding being silent during the anthem:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34268442

FTA69 · 16-09-2015 1:47pm

Good article. I don't think people are enraged at him not singing, rather some people are enraged at a caricature and a strawman being constructed by the right-wing press.

On another note, I think Corbyn did well today in Westminster, injecting the concerns of real people into the debate is precisely what's needed. It's better than grandstanding and braying like a shower of whipped donkeys anyway.

Sam Russell · 16-09-2015 2:01pm

I think he brought a level of honesty and gravitas that is normally missing. Of course, Cameron spoilt it by continuously not answering the question but trying to score political points. For example, on the question of cutting the tax credits, costing £1300 per family, he said they will be better off (on the minimum wage) by £20 per week. [Perhaps his arithmetic skills are lacking]

Corbyn certainly came out ahead (of where he was expected to come).

jank · 16-09-2015 2:08pm

Reading out letters in PMQ seemed a bit 'Joe Duffy' to me tbh.

LordSutch · 16-09-2015 2:11pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Corbyn certainly came out ahead (of where he was expected to come).

Agreed.

ancapailldorcha · 16-09-2015 4:01pm

jank wrote: »

Reading out letters in PMQ seemed a bit 'Joe Duffy' to me tbh.

I thought that it was a nice change to see actual people's concerns being represented rather than being used as a political football.

BoJack Horseman · 16-09-2015 4:45pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I thought that it was a nice change to see actual people's concerns being represented rather than being used as a political football.

It was, but as a stunt, can only last for so long.

If he continues to concede his role to "Jane, pensioner, Stoke-on-trent", Jez will start to look unwilling or unable to take on the much more polished Cameron.

It's really easy to plead the case for perpetual deficit to a room of adoring fans, much harder when the PM will throw it back as nonsense.

karma_ · 16-09-2015 5:51pm

LordSutch wrote: »

Wrong man, wrong leader, wrong gig...

I'm beginning to wonder how long Corbyn will last as Labour leader, and that's even before today's speakers questions!

In the rough and tumble of the house of Commons I fear JC will be cut to shreads, specially if Cameron shows no mercy.

I honestly think JCs position as Labour leader is untenable, and I can't see him lasting more than about three weeks, before he hands in his resignation........or is ousted by his own party!

He just shouldn't be in the spotlight.

How could a left-wing leader possibly be elected to what should ostensibly be a left leaning party?

Cut to shreds? you nailed that one as per usual. Frankly, your analysis is just rubbish.

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

It was, but as a stunt, can only last for so long.

If he continues to concede his role to "Jane, pensioner, Stoke-on-trent", Jez will start to look unwilling or unable to take on the much more polished Cameron.

It's really easy to plead the case for perpetual deficit to a room of adoring fans, much harder when the PM will throw it back as nonsense.

Yes Cameron is polished, but it's a bit like buying timber, Cameron is just a veneer, looks great but scratch the surface and what is there? Corbyn appears to be the real deal, a fine piece of Oak, if you will.

I think it's fantastic there is a swing back to what I would call traditional left/right politics and corbyn is the first politician in some time I have genuine respect for, I wish him a lot of success in his leadership.

Very Bored · 16-09-2015 6:40pm

@Lemming Except its not the same thing is it. Amrhan na bhFfiann is a song about Ireland, celebrating Irishness and commemorating those who fought for Ireland. God Save The Queen is an ode to a person and a role so if you don't agree with that role why would you sing your support of it? Its also absolute BS that it was disrespectful to those who fought in World War Two. GSTQ has absolutely zilch to do with the war. I also can't wait to read the rubbish on here next Easter when Sinn Fein supporters are "caught" singing The Boys of the Old Brigade outside the GPO. Now that's a song which actually commemorates the event which will be being celebrated though I doubt that will be enough to stop the hypocrisy of those who are throwing their toys out of their pram over Corbyn not singing changing their tune when the aforementioned happens.

@ancapailldorcha

My goodness, the Brits really are precious about their anthem, aren't they? Eoin Morgan didn't sing it! Shock horror! Wait... could... it... be... because... he's... not... British???

Lemming · 16-09-2015 6:54pm

Very Bored wrote: »

@Lemming Except its not the same thing is it. Amrhan na bhFfiann is a song about Ireland, celebrating Irishness and commemorating those who fought for Ireland. God Save The Queen is an ode to a person and a role so if you don't agree with that role why would you sing your support of it? Its also absolute BS that it was disrespectful to those who fought in World War Two. GSTQ has absolutely zilch to do with the war. I also can't wait to read the rubbish on here next Easter when Sinn Fein supporters are "caught" singing The Boys of the Old Brigade outside the GPO. Now that's a song which actually commemorates the event which will be being celebrated though I doubt that will be enough to stop the hypocrisy of those who are throwing their toys out of their pram over Corbyn not singing changing their tune when the aforementioned happens

It's. The. National. Anthem. of the UK. If an Irish politician refused to sing Amrhan na bfFhiann at the 1916 commemoration for example, how exactly do you think it would go down? Like a lead balloon.

He doesnt' believe in monarchy. Fine. He doesn't like the UK military. Fine. He wants the top job of the UK, representing the UK, not fine. He at least needs to understand when and where to pick his battles & make his "principled" stands. This was not one of them, and all it says to me is if this is what he's like with matters concerning his own nation, what will he be like when stood next to someone he detests or disagrees with fundamentally on the international stage?

I get the sense that a lot of people here don't seem to understand that it's not just a song he refused to sing. It's not a single from this week's charts; it's the song that is the official representation of his country, and whilst he may well not believe in it, those people that he claims to want to represent do. And for that, he needs to grin and bear it. He needs to show that he's a leader, not a petulant child.

Sam Russell · 16-09-2015 7:10pm

Lemming wrote: »

It's. The. National. Anthem. of the UK. If an Irish politician refused to sing Amrhan na bfFhiann at the 1916 commemoration for example, how exactly do you think it would go down? Like a lead balloon.

He doesnt' believe in monarchy. Fine. He doesn't like the UK military. Fine. He wants the top job of the UK, representing the UK, not fine. He at least needs to understand when and where to pick his battles & make his "principled" stands. This was not one of them, and all it says to me is if this is what he's like with matters concerning his own nation, what will he be like when stood next to someone he detests or disagrees with fundamentally on the international stage?

I get the sense that a lot of people here don't seem to understand that it's not just a song he refused to sing. It's not a single from this week's charts; it's the song that is the official representation of his country, and whilst he may well not believe in it, those people that he claims to want to represent do. And for that, he needs to grin and bear it. He needs to show that he's a leader, not a petulant child.

Actually there is no 'official' national anthem. GSTQ is traditionally the national anthem, and is accepted as such by everyone but it is not official. [Incidentally the air is the same as Lichtenstein's] There is no name for the country referred variously as Britain, Great Britain, The United Kingdom, The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, plus a few more variations. They do not have any name on their postage stamps - usually a source for the name of a country. The other source would be their national soccer team. Neither is foolproof though - for example Ireland in neither on the stamps nor is it the name of our soccer team.

I remember the fuss about Blatter and all the votes he got from the various football associations around the world - some quite small remote islands. A guy from the FA (England's FA) was complaining and saying 'some of them are not even members of the United Nations' forgetting that England, Scotland Northern Ireland and Wales all have FAs, and not one is a member of the UN. They really are up themselves.

BoJack Horseman · 16-09-2015 7:11pm

karma_ wrote: »

Yes Cameron is polished, but it's a bit like buying timber, Cameron is just a veneer, looks great but scratch the surface and what is there

I assume someone the English found more trustworthy than Len McCluskey's man.

Len v2.0 1977 edition is unlikely to fare better.

corbyn appears to be the real deal, a fine piece of Oak, if you will

Real what?
He's a trot throwback, as he'll happily admit.

I've never seen a convincing argument that his old school far-leftism is better for any country, let alone Britain.
Eastern Europe, 1945-89 made a great example that it isn't.

Lemming · 16-09-2015 7:22pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Actually there is no 'official' national anthem. GSTQ is traditionally the national anthem, and is accepted as such by everyone but it is not official.

Actually you'll find that there's no "authorised version" of the national anthem as the wording changes depending on Queen/King, etc but it is the national anthem and has been since the start of the ninteenth century, having been introduced in the mid eighteenth century.

A Dub in Glasgo · 16-09-2015 7:30pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9nnnM-__JQ

Very Bored · 16-09-2015 7:31pm

Lemming wrote: »

It's. The. National. Anthem. of the UK. If an Irish politician refused to sing Amrhan na bfFhiann at the 1916 commemoration for example, how exactly do you think it would go down? Like a lead balloon.

He doesnt' believe in monarchy. Fine. He doesn't like the UK military. Fine. He wants the top job of the UK, representing the UK, not fine. He at least needs to understand when and where to pick his battles & make his "principled" stands. This was not one of them, and all it says to me is if this is what he's like with matters concerning his own nation, what will he be like when stood next to someone he detests or disagrees with fundamentally on the international stage?

I get the sense that a lot of people here don't seem to understand that it's not just a song he refused to sing. It's not a single from this week's charts; it's the song that is the official representation of his country, and whilst he may well not believe in it, those people that he claims to want to represent do. And for that, he needs to grin and bear it. He needs to show that he's a leader, not a petulant child.

Of course people know what song it is, and what it represents. Your comment about it not being a single from this week's chart is ludicrous.

However, the point is he followed his principles. People not sticking up for principles is how despotic regimes end up being successful. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" (Edmund Burke). OK, it might be stretching it a bit to call the modern British monarch evil (though the cap would have fit well in the not so distant past), but the sentiment remains the same. Frankly, the whole idea that he MUST sing is in itself fascist. You MUST conform to national norms or you're out. Sick.

Furthermore, your comparison between Amrhán na bhFiann and God Save The Queen is absolutely disingenuous. I'll spell it out here to be clear:

Read the lyrics to Amrhán na bhFiann here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amhr%C3%A1n_na_bhFiann#Lyrics

And God Save The Queen here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Save_the_Queen#Standard_version_in_the_United_Kingdom

One is pledging oneself to the COUNTRY through song, the other is pledging oneself to a PERSON through song. There is an absolute world of difference. You can sing Amrhán na bhFiann and be any type of Irishman you want. A Sinn Féiner (Republican), a Fianna Failer (a "soft" Republican for want of a better term), a Fine Gaeler (26 county stater, again for want of a better term) or any other hue can sing it and not betray their beliefs in any way. A British Republican cannot sing God Save The Queen, thereby pledging themselves to the monarchy, without betraying their principles. Now please tell me you can see the STARK difference.

Thargor · 16-09-2015 8:22pm

An excellent thorough analysis of Corbyn's prospect of victory if he even manages to make it to 2020:

http://publicpolicypast.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/the-wrongness-of-corbynism.html?m=1

(Spoiler: he's utterly fcuked)

karma_ · 16-09-2015 8:59pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I assume someone the English found more trustworthy than Len McCluskey's man.

Len v2.0 1977 edition is unlikely to fare better.

Real what?
He's a trot throwback, as he'll happily admit.

A real trot as you say although I fail to see the problem with that in itself. A real politician is what I had intended though. How long has politics been ruled by people like Cameron? endless unadulterated spin, not to mention the flat out lying or saying one thing and then doing the opposite. Politics has become a pantomime and Corbyn just shatters that illusion.

I've never seen a convincing argument that his old school far-leftism is better for any country, let alone Britain.
Eastern Europe, 1945-89 made a great example that it isn't.

You have to be joking, a solid argument could be won on the basis that socialist policies saved Britain post World War 2.

Just a quick note on the anthem thing, I've never sang the Irish anthem in my life I don't think. A politician or anyone in fact not singing an anthem is, for me at least a complete non-issue.

karma_ · 16-09-2015 9:01pm

Very Bored wrote: »

Of course people know what song it is, and what it represents. Your comment about it not being a single from this week's chart is ludicrous.

However, the point is he followed his principles.

Probably the most salient point on the anthem issue I've seen in this thread.

KingBrian2 · 16-09-2015 9:11pm

On the issue of Corbyn not sing the British anthem nothing wrong with that. Over here hey if Gerry or Varadkar decided not to sing the national anthem I would not think any less of them. Exercising their rights. For all we know Corbyn was doing the Vets a favour.

KingBrian2 · 16-09-2015 9:14pm

Thargor wrote: »

An excellent thorough analysis of Corbyn's prospect of victory if he even manages to make it to 2020:

http://publicpolicypast.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/the-wrongness-of-corbynism.html?m=1

(Spoiler: he's utterly fcuked)

Don't let the opposition drag your down Corbyn.

Benny_Cake · 16-09-2015 9:17pm

karma_ wrote: »

A real trot as you say although I fail to see the problem with that in itself. A real politician is what I had intended though. How long has politics been ruled by people like Cameron? endless unadulterated spin, not to mention the flat out lying or saying one thing and then doing the opposite. Politics has become a pantomime and Corbyn just shatters that illusion.

I think that if people are calling Jeremy Cornyn a "trot" then they don't actually know what they're talking about. It's patently obvious that he's a democratic socialist of the old school rather than a disciple of Leon Trotsky or the SWP. For some on the right calling people "Trots" has become similar to the way that some on the left use the word "fascist": overused to the point that it no longer holds any meaning.

Dohnjoe · 16-09-2015 9:33pm

We get it, Corbyn has principles.. but so does Trump

He will need more than that to stand a chance at the next election

BoJack Horseman · 16-09-2015 9:52pm

karma_ wrote: »

A real trot as you say although I fail to see the problem with that in itself.

Ask any of our polish or eastern european friends if they would rather their country revert to it..... obviously the answer is no.

A real politician is what I had intended though

Meaningless.... all politicians are real, they aren't ethereal.

How long has politics been ruled by people like Cameron?

May 2010

Politics has become a pantomime and Corbyn just shatters that illusion.

Again, meaningless.
Jez we can', aside from being a career politician, hasn't done a thing in politics, nor is he ever likely to.
One has to win to do something.

a solid argument could be won on the basis that socialist policies saved Britain post World War 2.

Jezza, being born in 1949 wouldnt know.... His more soviet brand of socialism is of the 70's

A Dub in Glasgo · 16-09-2015 10:06pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

.. but so does Trump

and what are they?

Very Bored · 16-09-2015 10:10pm

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I think that if people are calling Jeremy Cornyn a "trot" then they don't actually know what they're talking about. It's patently obvious that he's a democratic socialist of the old school rather than a disciple of Leon Trotsky or the SWP. For some on the right calling people "Trots" has become similar to the way that some on the left use the word "fascist": overused to the point that it no longer holds any meaning.

If he was a communist, which I don't really believe he is, it would actually also be far more likely that he's a Leninist if anything, though to those screaming "red" at him the distinction between Leninism and Trotskyism is unlikely to mean much.

KingBrian2 · 16-09-2015 10:29pm

Whatever he is I like the guy, he has real gusto and comes across as a real I hate to say reformer so I will say statesman. Does not come across as holier than thou not like the reactionaries we see so often in politics. Lets see more politicians like him on both sides of the Irish Sea. Other politicians like him are Alex Salmond and Boris Johnson so lets not forget personality is very important to a politicians success. Boris was so admired he could have become PM.;)

BoJack Horseman · 16-09-2015 10:29pm

Very Bored wrote: »

the distinction between Leninism and Trotskyism is unlikely to mean much.

And why should it?

All those -isms' in reality meant was generations of human misery on an unequaled scale in modern times & millions of deaths.

Like distinguishing two slightly differing pieces of poo.

Very Bored · 16-09-2015 10:42pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

And why should it?

All those -isms' in reality meant was generations of human misery on an unequaled scale in modern times & millions of deaths.

Like distinguishing two slightly differing pieces of poo.

If you actually cared you'd realise it was the Stalinist -ism which brought "human misery on an unequaled scale in modern times & millions of deaths" (your words, not mine). The Leninist -ism brought a revolution, and bloody though it may have been, it didn't bring what you're talking about. As the Trotskyist -ism never led a state that accusation is difficult to lay at its door.

However, whilst we're on the juvenile subject of pooh and the differences between them, the prize for King Turd must go to the capitalist -ism.

UK Labour Leadership election

Comments