Corbyn's Republicanism, The Privy Council and national security

[mikeyjh]

It's only the Telegraph & Mail reporting this 'story'. The truth seems to be a lot more muddled. He hasn't attended a meeting because he took a holiday, and it doesn't seem as though he's been given the title yet, to have it taken away. Believe me, I'm no Corbyn fan, but I don't believe everything I read in the press either.

https://www.rt.com/uk/318357-corbyn-title-privy-council/

Interesting choice of source!

Can you imagine the world looking in though, removing 'Right Honourable' is a big deal? FFS

 

[alfredmizen]

You would have thought so wouldn't you but you've only got to look at posts from people like alfredmizen on this thread to see how much people take notice of this stuff. 1 in 4 people voted Tory at the last election which shows the influence the press have and also the effect of the conservative spin machine have, people genuinely believe this stuff.

Excuse my arrogance in not recognising your powerful intellect and the inate superiority of your point of view.

 

[jakarta]

1 in 4 people voted Tory at the last election which shows the influence the press have and also the effect of the conservative spin machine have, people genuinely believe this stuff.

That doesn't make sense, surely if only 1 in 4 people voted Tory then that proves how little influence the press have?

 

[alfredmizen]

That doesn't make sense, surely if only 1 in 4 people voted Tory then that proves how little influence the press have?

Shhhh, don't spoil it for him

 

[Soulman]

That doesn't make sense, surely if only 1 in 4 people voted Tory then that proves how little influence the press have?

Yes, that does make sense.

 

[beorhthelm]

1 in 4 people voted Tory at the last election which...

...was more than voted Labour so they lost. and about the same proportion as voted Labour in 2001, but more than voted Labour in 2005 where there had bearly 21% of the vote (and 1.8million less voters). i dont recall this fuss over those elections.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Interesting choice of source!

Can you imagine the world looking in though, removing 'Right Honourable' is a big deal? FFS

I simply Googled Corbyn Privy Council. Apart from the Mail & Telegraph, that was the only other mention apart from Nsc!

 

[Machiavelli]

I really wasnt taking a swipe, I hadnt known what might have been Corbyns official position on this, beyond the unilateralist and likely pacifist, your own interpretation with the 'non deployment outside of territory' bit then came the caveat with exceptions which seemed to invalidate the territory bit anyway.

It all seemed a bit of a muddle, which seems to be Corbyns problem at the moment.

I'm obviously causing further muddles.
I was justifying my own position in regard to how states should conduct their defence and military affairs, as the argument developed.
The initial point about Corbyn is something that he's stated about how he'd tackle such affairs (non-deployment outside the territory). He hasn't provided any caveats to that position, as far as I'm aware.

 

[mikeyjh]

I simply Googled Corbyn Privy Council. Apart from the Mail & Telegraph, that was the only other mention apart from Nsc!

Which probably supports your point pretty well......

 

[beorhthelm]

I simply Googled Corbyn Privy Council. Apart from the Mail & Telegraph, that was the only other mention apart from Nsc!

hardly an accurate guide. i've done the same and its covered by all the major news outlets, BBC, Inde, Guardian, Spectator blog, various local newspapers. NSC doesnt appear in the first three pages. The FT reports a spokesman saying he will be joining, while Yahoo news makes his holiday the headline of the matter.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

The initial point about Corbyn is something that he's stated about how he'd tackle such affairs (non-deployment outside the territory). He hasn't provided any caveats to that position, as far as I'm aware.

If that is his position how does that sit with continued NATO membership ? I know he was very luke warm about them in the past but thought he'd rowed back on that after pressure from the PLP.

 

[Machiavelli]

If that is his position how does that sit with continued NATO membership ? I know he was very luke warm about them in the past but thought he'd rowed back on that after pressure from the PLP.

I think he's yielded to his Cabinet colleagues in terms of NATO.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I think he's yielded to his Cabinet colleagues in terms of NATO.

Which would rather undermine his original stance as NATO deploys forces all around the world.It is very difficult to know where they stand on a range of policies at the moment. Oh well early days I suppose.

 

[mikeyjh]

Which would rather undermine his original stance as NATO deploys forces all around the world.It is very difficult to know where they stand on a range of policies at the moment. Oh well early days I suppose.

Not sure I'd say undermine, he's the Labour Party leader, not dictator, he will have to lead with consensus from the party. That said, given the amazing growth in membership, it's definitely a party shifting away from the centre....

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Not sure I'd say undermine, he's the Labour Party leader, not dictator, he will have to lead with consensus from the party. That said, given the amazing growth in membership, it's definitely a party shifting away from the centre....

Isn't that part of the problem, currently he has at best tentative support in the shadow cabinet, even less support in the PLP so he has to lead by consensus. The exception being the Trident issue where he called for democratic debate then undermined it by his 'not press the button' statement. Yes well away from the centre leaving it vacant for their political opponents.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

It does beg the questions, why does the queen or her officers get to exert such influence? IF we're a functionaing democracy why should someone unelected get those powers. For those who say her role is only ceremonial take note.

This.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Which would rather undermine his original stance as NATO deploys forces all around the world.It is very difficult to know where they stand on a range of policies at the moment. Oh well early days I suppose.

Early days indeed but it is a little frustrating not to know anything about current labour policy.

Corbyn is in a dilema. He needs to stick to his policies that got him elected, but also not hack off too much of the electorate.

Hence the fence-sitting silence on foreign policy and defence, and some other issues.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Early days indeed but it is a little frustrating not to know anything about current labour policy.

Corbyn is in a dilema. He needs to stick to his policies that got him elected, but also not hack off too much of the electorate.

Hence the fence-sitting silence on foreign policy and defence, and some other issues.

Agreed, but his first challenge is keeping the party intact. Can you see any way the views of many in the shadow cabinet and the PLP can be reconciled with his views and those of the membership, without an almighty bust up ? ... I can't.

 

[neilbard]

The OP wanted to hear what Labour supporters with monarchist sympathies think about his actions, or lack thereof. I can't see how refusing to sing the National Anthem at a Battle of Britain memorial service or take an oath which is part of the job he applied for is going to add to his popularity amongst the wider public. Considering his past links to terrorist groups the 'right wing' press were always going to go after him, his current actions continue to give them plenty of ammunition.

Say no more end of thread!

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Say no more end of thread!

Right O I'm off to bed then