But he's not advocating it as a policy. If we are incapable of electing a republican it is as shameful as America being incapable of electing an atheist (although given how many Americans believe Obama is a Muslim perhaps they would manage that)
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
But he's not advocating it as a policy. If we are incapable of electing a republican it is as shameful as America being incapable of electing an atheist (although given how many Americans believe Obama is a Muslim perhaps they would manage that)
Ahh, so you still think Corbyn has a cat in hell's chance of leading this country?
This from wiki on the popularity of the republican idea.
MORI Polls in the opening years of the 21st century showing support for retaining the monarchy stable at around 70% of people, but in 2005, during the time of the wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles, support for the monarchy dipped with one poll showing that 65% of people would support keeping the monarchy if there were a referendum on the issue, with 22% saying they favoured a republic.[10] In 2009 an ICM poll, commission by the BBC, found that 76% of those asked wanted the monarchy to continue after the Queen, against 18% of people who said they would favour Britain becoming a republic and 6% who said they did not know.[11]
In February 2011, a YouGov poll put support for ending the monarchy after the Queen's death at 13%, if Prince Charles becomes King.[12] However, an ICM poll shortly before the royal wedding suggested that 26% thought Britain would be better off without the monarchy, with only 37% "genuinely interested and excited" by the wedding.[13] In April 2011, in the lead up to the Royal Wedding, an Ipsos MORI poll of 1,000 British adults found that 75% of the public would like Britain to remain a monarchy, with 18% in favour of Britain becoming a republic, and in May 2012, in the lead up to the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, a Ipsos MORI poll of 1,006 British adults found that 80% were in favour of the monarchy, with only 13% in favour of the United Kingdom becoming a republic. This was thought to be a record high figure in favour of the monarchy.[10] In a recent survey, for the Guardian, support for the monarchy was shown to be at least 75%.
Last edited:
Just because a newspaper commissions a poll doesnt mean that only readers of that newspaper are involved.
It's absolutely irrelevant whether people like the monarchy or not, Corbyn has come out saying getting rid of the monarchy is not on his agenda. In a country where the press were actually interested in journalism that would be the end of it. What we have is a politicised right-wing press doing everything they can to prevent someone who might actually challenge their power getting into office, and seeing people on the right of Labour playing along to the Tory-press' tune to attack their own democratically elected leader is disappointing at best and sickening at worst.
I have left the Labour party now. I find the absurd election of Jeremy Corbyn too much too take. It isn't a case of what is on his current agenda, it is what it says about the man. It will not go down well with the vast majority of the electorate and it is newsworthy, like it or not.
Last edited:
I have avoided this thread and the general leadership discussion because I believe that yet again Labour has fecked up selecting a leader. It's simply ridiculous that when new blood was needed they chose an OAP.
I was disappointed when Chukka withdrew his candidacy because he would have been perfect to steer the ship in the right direction but now there is no hope that Labour will even challenge BoJo for PM at the next election.
Conservatives till 2025 at least unless something major happens.
I was disappointed when Chukka withdrew his candidacy because he would have been perfect to steer the ship in the right direction but now there is no hope that Labour will even challenge BoJo for PM at the next election.
Conservatives till 2025 at least unless something major happens.
However, saying it now he has the job, despite having previously been fervently in support of its abolition, means he's actually dug himself into a hole, the electorate are likely to think he's either lying, or doesn't actually believe in the things he's said before. Either way, it's damaging and something the electorate will remember, hence the journalists not letting it go.
Like anyone gives a shit about what he said about the monarchy. It will make do difference to anyone come the GE.
Once the dirt campaign is in full force, it's all people are going to hear come GE!
Those of you who've left the party because of Corbyn's electoral victory - I suspect you probably joined the wrong party to begin with. Blair's direction was a diversion, not the norm. That's why you have his disciples in the PLP throwing their toys out at the audacity of the new Labour leader implementing...well traditional Labour values.
If you truly believe that then you're in for a nasty shock I think.
It's not the accuation or the content of the attack that usually matters sadly, people are led by the direction of the conversation.
Discussing polls on Corbyn right now is meaningless, it's press led opinion due to the constant barrage of news. Dust needs to settle and he needs to be given time to make his argument then we'll see.
More Telegraph propaganda. Getting tedious.
It does nothing for anyone who didn't already have preconceived ideas about Corbyn. Everyone knows he's very left wing, what will do damage is stuff that hurts him on the economy. The lines of attack for Corbyn won't be the same as they were for Miliband. Same with the military coup story, it's just foreplay to the main event.
If he does get rid of the monarchy can't we at least privatise the castles and sell them off to the highest bidder to pay back some debt
Though I suspect Corbyn would rather spend millions trying to turn them into social housing projects.
Though I suspect Corbyn would rather spend millions trying to turn them into social housing projects.
That's why in 2015 we still have a Royal Family, one man owns 80% of the British media, the Lords are unelected, our Parliamentary electoral system is grossly disproportional and we still deem it necessary to spend billions on renewing nuclear weapons?
Ironically its the Blairites who've been the reactionaries.
Unfortunately you're probably right, Blair's level of electoral success was unprecedented for the party. And with people like you around actively encouraging people to leave the party and join the Tories, the future looks pretty bleak as well.
But he's never said he suddenly changed his position, he's just said he understands it's not something the nation wants so he wont try and force it on them. It's a case of damned if he does damned if he doesn't. If he came out wanting to dissolve the monarchy he'd be lambasted, when he doesn't do so he's accused of being duplicitous.
On the contrary I've always valued the party as a broad church, but only when all views are respected and taken into account.
Trouble is, the 'new labour' wing refuse to respect the overwhelming democratic mandate of the new leader, instead choosing the defect to parties which sit on the other end of the ideological spectrum. Not sure how that'll sit with the constituents who've elected them as the 'labour' candidate.
As for Labour voters bailing, well that's their perogative, but I do find it peculiar how they consider social democratic values as being a deal-breaker for their support.
That's what it looks like to me. Why even get involved?
I don't bother reading the nonsense. I couldn't care less if he sings the anthem or likes the queen, I just want to know how he plans on running the country.
Sadly, people do seem to care about the nonsense though, so he is doing himself and Labour no favours.
And that's something he has to be clever in how he deals with all that.
Anyway, apparently 62,000 people have joined since last Saturday so it's not all doom and gloom. So much for most of the £3 voters being infiltrators or Tories.
Exactly, that's the issue you'll have with him as a leader, he has previously done some things which will be incredibly damaging in the future if he wants to be taken seriously, it just creates more & more hurdles that have to be overcome if the Labour party truly think he can become PM. It's fine by me, I'm a born & bred Conservative supporter and monarchist
The media’s attack on Jeremy Corbyn will eventually backfire
It’s been a long week for Jeremy Corbyn. Each day has brought a new, increasingly desperate attack. Britain’s newspapers have been relentless in their coverage of the new Labour leader, and almost none of it positive. With no end in sight, the question is beginning to be asked: will it actually work?
We know their aim. The press seek to bully and torment Corbyn until he can stand it no longer. They want a resignation, and they want it to arrive as soon as possible. The Tory press will be impressed with what they think has been achieved so far. But what they fail to acknowledge is that Jeremy Corbyn has just been given a once in a lifetime opportunity to adjust the narrative of British politics; a narrative that has been moving increasingly right for several years. He isn’t going to simply give this opportunity up, especially after being elected with such a commanding mandate.
Jeremy Corbyn knew this would happen. He’s probably been preparing for it for some time now. His plan is a sensible and calculated one. Rather than responding blisteringly and irrationally now, he is sitting it out; waiting for the storm to pass. After all, the Telegraph and the Mail, among others, can’t simply print anti-Corbyn headlines everyday for five years. They’ll most likely attempt it, but the public will eventually tire and crave real policy debate. At one point, the storm will subside. It’s then that Corbyn can truly thrive.
He will point out just how terrified the establishment truly are, with the Tories labelling him a ‘threat to national security,’ and he will begin to use the attacks to his advantage. People will look back on this period with amusement. The Tories will be forced to debate his policies, and it will be then when they begin to struggle. Rejecting austerity is not radical, it’s mainstream economics. And nor is renationalising the railways or raising the percentage of tax those who earn over £1m contribute. The media is labelling Corbyn a radical, but when people hear his policies they’ll realise they agree with much of what he has to offer.
It’s not Corbyn who is out of touch with the British public, it’s the media. Soon, they’ll realise that.
It’s been a long week for Jeremy Corbyn. Each day has brought a new, increasingly desperate attack. Britain’s newspapers have been relentless in their coverage of the new Labour leader, and almost none of it positive. With no end in sight, the question is beginning to be asked: will it actually work?
We know their aim. The press seek to bully and torment Corbyn until he can stand it no longer. They want a resignation, and they want it to arrive as soon as possible. The Tory press will be impressed with what they think has been achieved so far. But what they fail to acknowledge is that Jeremy Corbyn has just been given a once in a lifetime opportunity to adjust the narrative of British politics; a narrative that has been moving increasingly right for several years. He isn’t going to simply give this opportunity up, especially after being elected with such a commanding mandate.
Jeremy Corbyn knew this would happen. He’s probably been preparing for it for some time now. His plan is a sensible and calculated one. Rather than responding blisteringly and irrationally now, he is sitting it out; waiting for the storm to pass. After all, the Telegraph and the Mail, among others, can’t simply print anti-Corbyn headlines everyday for five years. They’ll most likely attempt it, but the public will eventually tire and crave real policy debate. At one point, the storm will subside. It’s then that Corbyn can truly thrive.
He will point out just how terrified the establishment truly are, with the Tories labelling him a ‘threat to national security,’ and he will begin to use the attacks to his advantage. People will look back on this period with amusement. The Tories will be forced to debate his policies, and it will be then when they begin to struggle. Rejecting austerity is not radical, it’s mainstream economics. And nor is renationalising the railways or raising the percentage of tax those who earn over £1m contribute. The media is labelling Corbyn a radical, but when people hear his policies they’ll realise they agree with much of what he has to offer.
It’s not Corbyn who is out of touch with the British public, it’s the media. Soon, they’ll realise that.
Exactly, that's the issue you'll have with him as a leader, he has previously done some things which will be incredibly damaging in the future if he wants to be taken seriously, it just creates more & more hurdles that have to be overcome if the Labour party truly think he can become PM. It's fine by me, I'm a born & bred Conservative supporter and monarchist
My statement was more a reflection on the right-wing media than Corbyn. Their agenda is to destroy and undermine him, as they did with Miliband (more so, in fact). They'll accuse him of disrespecting the Queen and criticise him for not trying to dissolve the monarchy in the same breath - it's pathetic.
How can you be a monarchist? What's the rationale behind that one?t's fine by me, I'm a born & bred Conservative supporter and monarchist
In fairness, Corbyn hasn't really put a foot wrong yet. The singing of the anthem is about the only thing you could criticise him over (and that's a stretch made by a very conservative press establishment).
And that's my point too, you've chosen a leader who the media can get after before he's even really said a word because he brings so much historical stuff with him that they can use to beat him up.
In this situation, I mean monarchist in terms of keeping the Royal family, they do far more good for the country than they cost IMO. Perhaps Royalist would have been a more appropriate term to use.
But he is doing these things. It's ridiculous the nonsense around it all of course, but that's the way it goes right now.
It'll be very interesting how he deals with it all long term. If he can weather the storm and start giving real policies that actually show he's in touch, then maybe people will start paying attention properly.
Fair enough (though I disagree completely, and would question the notion that the monarchy contribute more than they take).
I agree with this, it's all about weathering the storm for now.
@Kaos
Disregard that article, it comes from the left wing press. Let's maintain standards please.
I was never a through and through Labour man anyway. Where is the logic in staying in one party in an ever changing world when as an individual you grow and evolve?
Whilst I agree with a lot of what you say. I don't believe the hard left are the political entity to change things. They are too extreme, generally unlikeable and too entrenched in their own ideals to play the game effectively.
Disregard that article, it comes from the left wing press. Let's maintain standards please.
I was never a through and through Labour man anyway. Where is the logic in staying in one party in an ever changing world when as an individual you grow and evolve?
Whilst I agree with a lot of what you say. I don't believe the hard left are the political entity to change things. They are too extreme, generally unlikeable and too entrenched in their own ideals to play the game effectively.
The full article:
And from his resignation letter:
This is not a media manufactured story, it is a response to the deliberate actions of the new Labour leader. For some years now the moral authority of the STWC has been in question (even by the trade union movement as far back as 2004), yet Corbyn has never in his support. You would have to be naive in the extreme to suppose its statements wouldn't be levelled at the man. He is Chair of the organisation for the period in which the above was released, then belatedly and in a half-baked fashion attempts to distance himself. One might go so far as to raise concerns about this paragon's judgement.
And from his resignation letter:
This is not a media manufactured story, it is a response to the deliberate actions of the new Labour leader. For some years now the moral authority of the STWC has been in question (even by the trade union movement as far back as 2004), yet Corbyn has never in his support. You would have to be naive in the extreme to suppose its statements wouldn't be levelled at the man. He is Chair of the organisation for the period in which the above was released, then belatedly and in a half-baked fashion attempts to distance himself. One might go so far as to raise concerns about this paragon's judgement.
Last edited:
Blair's direction wasn't simply a diversion it was a new direction, a move in the right direction ninetheless and that's why his government won an overwhelming majority that wasn't seen since pre-WW2.
Blair would have beaten Cameron in 2010 no doubt and it was only because that pumpkin Brown was in charge the reason why there was a hung parliament which allowed them to come into power through the coalition. With the recovery being under Labour there would have been no way Conservatives could have had any momentum to muster a win in the 2015 GE whoever was in charge at Labour.
Electing Corbyn was a step in the opposite direction and everyone has a right to revolt.
Correct. The UK (Royals playing a leading role) facilitated one of the worst human rights violations in recent history -- that doesn't really describe it properly, it was genocide. It's often forgotten.
Here's a question - do we think Corbyn is more in tune with the "working class" core vote of Labour than previous recent leaders?
I don't... I think he has a very London centric view of things and I certainly can't see his views being capable of bringing back those traditional labour voters who turned to UKIP
Will probably bring in a few hipster votes but I can't see him reversing the labour fortunes in those northern towns where they suffered last time
As much as Blair's approach certainly did help Labour gain a majority, he did spend some of his time up against incredibly weak opposition. He was against a scandal ridden Tory party in 1997, and the Tories even had a spell with IDS as their dreadful leader.
Blair barely escaped with a majority in 2005, and I don't think it's a stretch to say he'd have lost by 2010. Look at him now: much of the general public speak about Blair with incredibly negative undertones, referring to him as a war criminal etc. His history with Iraq would've caught up with him eventually. There's no way he'd still be in power today if he'd stayed on.
The election for leader shows just there that the Blair era is dead. Liz Kendall was viewed as the most Blairite type candidate, and yet she performed hopelessly, with odds of about 100/1 by the end. Corbyn may not be right for Labour, but a Blair-type figure isn't going to do much for the party either.