Turn on thread page Beta

Jeremy Corbyn looking shabby / disrespectful watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    OP is just #salty
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    Because it acknowledges the political system in which he operates. The Queen is symbolically the highest person in the land, and a politician who heads up the 'most loyal' opposition should acknowledge this. Even if you separate the Monarchy from this, that song is still the national anthem. Could he not have sang it for the country, if not for the Queen?

    Look, I couldn't give less of a **** what the man does. I just think he shouldn't complain about getting 'undue' press attention when he makes a spectacle of himself.
    The Queen is the country. In fact, nothing in the shortened version that is actually played, references our country at all.

    And why would you sing a national anthem that has words in it that you don't believe in. The press would have instead picked it up and ran with how Corbyn's abandoning his principles now that he's in power.

    The media have an agenda to get Corbyn to buckle so that he is readily influenced or courts their coverage (thus providing exclusive interviews and the like) but Corbyn has come out strongly against the press so they try and smear him in an effort to make him look bad to their readership.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Don't talk **** about Obi Wan Kenobi okay?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    This is what I posted on this subject on another thread
    He could have done all that, or he could have just dressed properly and sung. It would have been a lot easier.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    He could have done all that, or he could have just dressed properly and sung. It would have been a lot easier.
    Yes, but he has to decide whether this is a red line for him. Ultimately whatever he does will never be good enough for his political opponents or even for Conservatives and he has to decide where to stand and fight. For Ramsey Macdonald it was knee breaches. For Attlee it was living in state in 10 Downing Street. For Mr Blair it was the Court Circular. In the first few weeks of his Premiership the Rt Hon. Anthony Blair MP had audiences with the Queen. Then it become the Rt Hon. Tony Blair MP
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    It's completely baffling to me that some people can make this argument presumably with a straight face.

    No, it is not illegal for him not to sing. It does, however, tell us something about his attitudes. That is important. It is not equivalent to fascism and you embarrass yourself by making that comparison. We judge people, most of all people in Corbyn's position, by what they say and do, or do not say or do, all the time. That doesn't bring into question their freedom to say or not to say, or do or not to do, whatever they please.
    You're right, It does tell us about his attitudes. It tells us he's an atheist (or an agnostic you'd have to ask him) and a republican who chose to stand in "respectful silence" whilst remembering his parents and their contribution to the war effort. None of that is bad/illegal/etc and there's nothing wrong with those attitudes.

    There are a million criticisms that can be made of QE for infrastructure spending, higher income taxation, abandoning the nuclear deterrent and so on. There should be absolutely nothing wrong with refusing to sing that song.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    Because it acknowledges the political system in which he operates. The Queen is symbolically the highest person in the land, and a politician who heads up the 'most loyal' opposition should acknowledge this. Even if you separate the Monarchy from this, that song is still the national anthem. Could he not have sang it for the country, if not for the Queen?

    Look, I couldn't give less of a **** what the man does. I just think he shouldn't complain about getting 'undue' press attention when he makes a spectacle of himself.
    As a privy councillor I'm sure Corbyn 'acknowledges' the Queen. That doesn't mean he has to chant that God should 'scatter her enemies'. The national anthem it maybe though it focuses on our subjugation to our monarch rather than the glory of the people or the country itself. Rule, Britannia would have been preferable.

    Do you actually think the press reaction has been proportional?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    You (and others) need to get a grip. If you're more worried about how an old man does his top button up or his tie... then you clearly aren't really as bothered about what the actual event or what it stands for... which is really really ironic.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    You're right, It does tell us about his attitudes. It tells us he's an atheist (or an agnostic you'd have to ask him) and a republican who chose to stand in "respectful silence" whilst remembering his parents and their contribution to the war effort. None of that is bad/illegal/etc and there's nothing wrong with those attitudes.

    There are a million criticisms that can be made of QE for infrastructure spending, higher income taxation, abandoning the nuclear deterrent and so on. There should be absolutely nothing wrong with refusing to sing that song.
    Atheists can still be expected to sing the national anthem. I am an atheist and I do. One sings for the sentiment and for the tradition of it. Whether there is anything 'wrong' with republicanism is a matter that is open for debate, and it is a matter on which your view seems to be wildly at odds with that of the average voter. It remains that refusing to sing the national anthem shows a lack of patriotism, respect for tradition, and willingness to behave as a dignified leader is expected to where ceremony is concerned. All of this is rightly important to voters.

    It is beside the point that you might not personally like the national anthem. It is the national anthem whether you like it or not. If you want to be the national leader, you sing it.

    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Yes, but he has to decide whether this is a red line for him. Ultimately whatever he does will never be good enough for his political opponents or even for Conservatives and he has to decide where to stand and fight. For Ramsey Macdonald it was knee breaches. For Attlee it was living in state in 10 Downing Street. For Mr Blair it was the Court Circular. In the first few weeks of his Premiership the Rt Hon. Anthony Blair MP had audiences with the Queen. Then it become the Rt Hon. Tony Blair MP
    It does seem to me a little bizarre that putting on a suit and fastening one's top button should be seen as a 'red line' by anyone. If it is I don't think it says anything positive about their suitability for the role of PM.

    As for the anthem, he claims he sings on other occasions and will do in the future. Further, if he put out the press release you suggested, refusing to sing on republican grounds would seem an empty gesture.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    It does seem to me a little bizarre that putting on a suit and fastening one's top button should be seen as a 'red line' by anyone. If it is I don't think it says anything positive about their suitability for the role of PM.

    As for the anthem, he claims he sings on other occasions and will do in the future. Further, if he put out the press release you suggested, refusing to sing on republican grounds would seem an empty gesture.
    From what he now says this isn't his red line but he will have to find one because otherwise he will eventually be criticised for not joining the Carlton Club and turning out with the Quorn.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Atheists can still be expected to sing the national anthem. I am an atheist and I do. One sings for the sentiment and for the tradition of it. Whether there is anything 'wrong' with republicanism is a matter that is open for debate, and it is a matter on which your view seems to be wildly at odds with that of the average voter. It remains that refusing to sing the national anthem shows a lack of patriotism, respect for tradition, and willingness to behave as a dignified leader is expected to where ceremony is concerned. All of this is rightly important to voters.

    It is beside the point that you might not personally like the national anthem. It is the national anthem whether you like it or not. If you want to be the national leader, you sing it.
    My view that republicanism isn't wrong isn't shared by the average voter? Ok.
    In fairness tradition's shouldn't be respected simply because they are traditions.
    Patriotism isn't confined to loyalty to the Queen.
    Standing in silence is dignified.
    Leadership sometimes mean standing apart from the crowd.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    From what he now says this isn't his red line but he will have to find one because otherwise he will eventually be criticised for not joining the Carlton Club and turning out with the Quorn.
    I like your posts. You always make me google things.

    I take the point.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    My view that republicanism isn't wrong isn't shared by the average voter? Ok.
    In fairness tradition's shouldn't be respected simply because they are traditions.
    Patriotism isn't confined to loyalty to the Queen.
    Standing in silence is dignified.
    Leadership sometimes mean standing apart from the crowd.
    Correct. The public is strongly in favour of the monarchy. There is a yougov poll from just last week showing this again.

    Many would disagree with your view of tradition, myself included. Continued traditions are culturally important.

    Patriotism isn't confined to loyalty to the queen, but the two are bound up, especially in the context of the national anthem. Refusal to sing shows more than disloyalty to the queen herself (which is already bad enough).

    I won't argue the point on indignity. It is not a major one. I will limit myself to saying that the effect of standing in silence is obviously context dependent.

    The suggestion that it shows leadership to refuse to behave as expected in public as a leader is not one I'll engage with either.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    He looks fine in my opinion.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    My view that republicanism isn't wrong isn't shared by the average voter? Ok.
    In fairness tradition's shouldn't be respected simply because they are traditions.
    Patriotism isn't confined to loyalty to the Queen.
    Standing in silence is dignified.
    Leadership sometimes mean standing apart from the crowd.
    What an insipid last comment. Do you seriously think it is appropriate for a man who wants to lead the country to refuse to sing that country's national anthem?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    As a privy councillor I'm sure Corbyn 'acknowledges' the Queen. That doesn't mean he has to chant that God should 'scatter her enemies'. The national anthem it maybe though it focuses on our subjugation to our monarch rather than the glory of the people or the country itself. Rule, Britannia would have been preferable.

    Do you actually think the press reaction has been proportional?
    He hasn't officially joined yet. He refused to answer a question about whether he would kneel to the Queen and kiss her hand. Though he may take a leaf out of Benn's books and kiss his thumb instead.

    The song is the national anthem. If he cannot respect the religious or monarchic aspect of the song, he should at least acknowledge and act on the fact it is the country's official anthem. You cannot posit Rule Britannia as a more suitable choice because it just isn't the national anthem (and besides, it exemplifies our joy in our imperialistic forces). If we're going by inoffensiveness, we could have been singing Python's 'Bright Side of Life' - it's not the national anthem though, is it?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm41)
    The Queen is the country. In fact, nothing in the shortened version that is actually played, references our country at all.

    And why would you sing a national anthem that has words in it that you don't believe in. The press would have instead picked it up and ran with how Corbyn's abandoning his principles now that he's in power.

    The media have an agenda to get Corbyn to buckle so that he is readily influenced or courts their coverage (thus providing exclusive interviews and the like) but Corbyn has come out strongly against the press so they try and smear him in an effort to make him look bad to their readership.
    But it's our national anthem. You can't argue it's not country-based when it's our official song.

    I'm just so tired of Corbyn's supporters expecting the media not to dig around their leader's words. You must accept that the media - especially the dying newspapers - are desperate to shift units, and an explosive quote does that. You remember the 'omnishambles budget of 2012'? You'd have thought, reading the headlines, that Osborne had summoned every elderly woman in the country to 11 Downing Street and ****ed them up the arse, or that he was stealing the only source of sustenance from the people through the pasty tax, or that he was personally smashing the windows of every single caravan in the land. They are, as a collective, a hyper and reactionary bunch, but you just have to accept that. The Tories finally understood that under Cameron and Labour did the same under that Thatcherite neocon Blair. Snubbing mainstream media by attempting to become PM through Facebook alone has so far meant he's refused to clarify his positions or give nice easy quotes. Inevitably the press will pick on something he said in the past, and without any new material from him, will pick the most explosive headline. But that's what he wants. He wants to take his supporters further and further away from the mainstream and wants to teach them to hate every thing resembling the mainstream establishment. Cultivating press hatred in his supporters is what he wants - he aims to turn them into vocal critics of everything established in our capitalist society. Unfortunately he isn't reaching out, and that will be his fatal error.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    What an insipid last comment. Do you seriously think it is appropriate for a man who wants to lead the country to refuse to sing that country's national anthem?
    I think it was appropriate.

    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    He hasn't officially joined yet. He refused to answer a question about whether he would kneel to the Queen and kiss her hand. Though he may take a leaf out of Benn's books and kiss his thumb instead.

    The song is the national anthem. If he cannot respect the religious or monarchic aspect of the song, he should at least acknowledge and act on the fact it is the country's official anthem. You cannot posit Rule Britannia as a more suitable choice because it just isn't the national anthem (and besides, it exemplifies our joy in our imperialistic forces). If we're going by inoffensiveness, we could have been singing Python's 'Bright Side of Life' - it's not the national anthem though, is it?
    He may indeed.

    I think Rule, Britannia is a much more suitable choice for an anthem - I didn't say it was the anthem. Whilst it has become associated with imperialism the lyrics are hardly imperial for the song calls on Britain to rule the waves rather than saying that it does. Its certainly a less archaic idea than the ones in GSTQ.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I think it was appropriate.



    He may indeed.

    I think Rule, Britannia is a much more suitable choice for an anthem - I didn't say it was the anthem. Whilst it has become associated with imperialism the lyrics are hardly imperial for the song calls on Britain to rule the waves rather than saying that it does. Its certainly a less archaic idea than the ones in GSTQ.
    It isn't more suitable. It has the American problem that the verses are virtually unsingable other than by a trained singer.

    When Britain first, at heaven's command,
    Arose from out the azure main,
    Arose, arose, arose from out the azure main,
    This was the charter, the charter of the land,
    And guardian angels sang this strain:
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    It isn't more suitable. It has the American problem that the verses are virtually unsingable other than by a trained singer.


    When Britain first, at heaven's command,Arose from out the azure main,Arose, arose, arose from out the azure main,This was the charter, the charter of the land,And guardian angels sang this strain:
    One could argue that for some GSTQ is unsingable.

    But on a serious note whilst I see what you mean I don't think its that bad.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.