Jeremy Corbyn

[visage]

Depends on whether you think access to the national security council or the cobra meetings are relevant or not.

The concerning part is that the Leader of the Opposition has to literally kiss the queens hand before he can be allowed access to info that is important when it comes to holding the government to account.

What century are we in again?

 

[Premier Quality]

I don't think I've ever read the express in my life. So Corbyn is going to join the privy council at some point, which is good - he can start being a bit more of a grown up politician rather than just trying to be a back bencher opposing everything but with a cooler title.

 

[Premier Quality]

The concerning part is that the Leader of the Opposition has to literally kiss the queens hand before he can be allowed access to info that is important when it comes to holding the government to account.

What century are we in again?

To be honest I don't know if they would force him to do it - but he has to show he's serious about the whole thing, will commit to the level of secrecy required and not act the prat if told about anything he's told, and given his whole career so far - best mates with the ira, anti war etc has to be a concern.

If he comes up with a statement of 'my personal principles haven't changed, but I intend to conduct the duties of the Labour Party leadership and properly represent all the people who voted for the party, and won't allow my personal principles to get in the way of that duty', I can't imagine they'll put too many obstacles in his way.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

When did being anti-war become a bad thing?

 

[visage]

To be honest I don't know if they would force him to do it - but he has to show he's serious about the whole thing, will commit to the level of secrecy required and not act the prat if told about anything he's told, and given his whole career so far - best mates with the ira, anti war etc has to be a concern.

If he comes up with a statement of 'my personal principles haven't changed, but I intend to conduct the duties of the Labour Party leadership and properly represent all the people who voted for the party, and won't allow my personal principles to get in the way of that duty', I can't imagine they'll put too many obstacles in his way.

So after thirty years of active public service, and having fought and won the leadership of his party, he can't be considered serious until he plants a kiss on the frauleins knuckles?

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

This actually raises an interesting constitutional issue for me.

As the leader of either the party of government or opposition is a committed republican for the first time since Oliver Cromwell, you have to ask whether it is more important that the party leader in general should genuflect to something he doesn't believe in just to get in the door, or whether being privy to the information to which he is entitled to by way of his political position is actually the key here.

For me, I think Corbyn should be on the privy council end of story. The kow-towing to the royal head of state is window dressing, and basically the least important of the two points.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

There is a procedure should he choose it whereby he does not have to take the normal procedures for the Privy Council. What concerns me is that perfectly legitimate personal opinions such as republicanism and being against war are being presented as somehow un-British, un-democratic even.

So eager are people to criticise they don't take the time to consider the absurdity of their arguments.

 

[arklowolf]

There is a procedure should he choose it whereby he does not have to take the normal procedures for the Privy Council. What concerns me is that perfectly legitimate personal opinions such as republicanism and being against war are being presented as somehow un-British, un-democratic even.

So eager are people to criticise they don't take the time to consider the absurdity of their arguments.

I think he should be allowed to do what he wants rather than keep u turning. Let's see how far he gets.
Give him (and Labour) enough rope and hopefully they'll hang themselves.

 

[Premier Quality]

When did being anti-war become a bad thing?

Because in government sometimes you may need to do something you'd rather not if its in the interests of the country. There's nothing wrong with being blindly wedded to a principle as such, but it makes certain jobs pretty tricky...

 

[Doctor Doog]

Unlike the pig shagger, who would no doubt declare war on his own children if it meant staying in power.

 

[Parkins left foot]

Unlike the pig shagger, who would no doubt declare war on his own children if it meant staying in power.

Not an apologist for the Tories as I am decidedly a floating voter, but seeing as how he has said that he is going before the next election (& in such a way that he could not sensibly do a U turn on that) that's a fairly extreme view

 

[Paul]

Doctor Doog, What a bizarre thing to say ! Are you a Labour supporter, do you know where this sentence is going ?

 

[arklowolf]

Unlike the pig shagger, who would no doubt declare war on his own children if it meant staying in power.

Good Lord.

 

[Doctor Doog]

The man clearly has few morals, as shown by his policies and the incident with the pig. I don't suppose he would declare war on his own family, but I'm not sure how my exaggeration is any different to other posters views that Corbyn wouldn't declare war if it was the right thing to do. I'm fairly apolitical, but as far as morals go, I'm much more in line with Corbyn than Cameron.

 

[Parkins left foot]

The man clearly has few morals, as shown by his policies and the incident with the pig. I don't suppose he would declare war on his own family, but I'm not sure how my exaggeration is any different to other posters views that Corbyn wouldn't declare war if it was the right thing to do. I'm fairly apolitical, but as far as morals go, I'm much more in line with Corbyn than Cameron.

Have no idea as to his real morals, but pretty sure that the pig incident is yet to be proved to be more than the ramblings of a disappointed party funder. To use that as a description of the man (whatever your politics) does nothing to advance any sensible discussion.

 

[Doctor Doog]

Have no idea as to his real morals, but pretty sure that the pig incident is yet to be proved to be more than the ramblings of a disappointed party funder. To use that as a description of the man (whatever your politics) does nothing to advance any sensible discussion.

I think that nicely makes the point. The media and the partisans on here have no idea of Corbyn's intentions either, but they are keen to exaggerate what he may do, in order to vilify him.

 

[Parkins left foot]

I think that nicely makes the point. The media and the partisans on here have no idea of Corbyn's intentions either, but they are keen to exaggerate what he may do, in order to vilify him.

From what I read this forum is more likely to be nearer to Corbyn's viewpoint than the other side - and I have always seen it as a more intelligent forum than the average and suspect that most on here are capable of forming their own opinion and do not rely on the media to do it for them

 

[Doctor Doog]

From what I read this forum is more likely to be nearer to Corbyn's viewpoint than the other side - and I have always seen it as a more intelligent forum than the average and suspect that most on here are capable of forming their own opinion and do not rely on the media to do it for them

I'm not sure how that addresses the point I've made or takes the debate forward. If you want to debate the intelligence of the forum's posters versus those on other forums, I'm not your man.

 

[Parkins left foot]

I'm not sure how that addresses the point I've made or takes the debate forward. If you want to debate the intelligence of the forum's posters versus those on other forums, I'm not your man.

Wouldn't disagree that the media will accentuate any issue they can re either leader, depending on which side they sit, though most on here I think are capable of seeing past their rhetoric. As to whether I answered your point it was you that brought in the concept of 'the partisans on here'.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Well. Not quite sure how to comment on the last few posts. Saying that "pig shagger" is just so classy. I would like to point out that, much as most believe that is truth it has not been proven at all. Hilarious and worthy of attack, but not proven. How that then means he "would declare war on his own children to stay in power" is totally beyond me. In his time as Prime Minister, Cameron has declared war on nobody. Unlike Tony Blair, who did so without the mandate from parliament at all.

Cameron isn't perfect. Fuck it, he isn't even good. He is surrounded by people like the delightful May. But he has never been a Blair war-mongerer.