Psychoactive Substances: Rolling UK Politics in The Neo-Con Era

Particularly if your enemy includes most of the newspapers.

haha I really don't give a shit (like I said the angle of his bow was picked at the Remembrance Sunday ceremony, singing and bowing is standing for lots of other things), its more about Owen's re-use of it in that piece - with friends like these etc. xps

Agree with MDC and YMOF; pretty much anyone operating in UK politics at MP/above level knows they've got to sing the songs and do the traditional royal obsequies, starting with the oath to serve The Queen they give upon arriving in Westminster. Maybe Corbyn doesn't want to do the spin thing - and that's fine - but subtle things like awareness of how following customs may play out, wearing clothes that fit, and front-loading one's message so as not to be swept up in manufactured shitstorms that blatantly ignore nuance, that would be a start.

It's not even quite knowing you've got to, but knowing that if you won't, it'll be news.

He should also bow properly #neverForget xp

I think he was elected, at least partly, on a "not playing that stupid game" ticket so I think it's fair that he sticks two fingers up at singing the songs and getting the makeover. When he tried to play the game by spinning his way out of the anthem thing by claiming to be deep in reverie or w/e he fucked up imo. The people who pushed him into power would have fully accepted him saying that as an atheist/agnostic republican it would be dishonest to sing/pray to a being he doesn't believe in to save an institution he opposes.

Couldn't believe that Metro cover this morning.

FYI I didn't say he should have sung the anthem (there would have been a furore even if he had), but that he should have prepared better for it in advance.

Ultimately his aim should be to create, forcibly if need be, a situation where he is listened to on matters of substance, by people who otherwise wouldn't be listening to him. Everything he does should be in service of achieving that aim. That will require a top-class communications function and a proper functioning party machine. But I think Jones is right in saying you do need to know when to pick your battles in order to do that.

He should also be prepared to lay down the law to people pissing and whining, he has the mandate to do that, and stress that anyone publically complaining is going against the wishes of the party's members. Basically, he needs his own version of a Clause Four moment, but I think he's too devoted to a kind of woolly pluralism that allows everyone else to mouth off.

The oath to the Queen is a point of entry not a license to do this and that.

---

I think its in JC plans to change certain party rules (er bring back Clause Four) and that kind of thing (know the Unions want him to implement certain changes -- and then probably get rid of him), ultimately leading to a wider cultural change in the party.

In the 3 months or so JC is giving voice to a pacifist, anti-imperialist positions and is being heard on it just by being leader, and carrying on. Re-aligning the party right now is a challenge (probably extending the olive branch in his shadow cab appointments is looking bad but there aren't enough ppl in the PLP to back him fully idk)

Dan Hodges says party members who threaten MPs with deselection are bullying them. I imagine these MPs on the doorstep: "do I have your vote?" "no." "stop bullying me!"

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/01/labour-oldham-west-byelection-jeremy-corbyn

Disaffected voters either don’t know who he is, in which case he’s “just another politician”, or hear him speaking about socialism and solidarity and wonder what he’s blathering on about. Both groups will know full well what his and John McDonnell’s views on the IRA are.

If voters in those groups don't know who JC and JMc are then why would they know their views on the IRA? xp

If his data is so shit hot why wasn't he the lone voice calling the last election?

"The white working class in Oldham are, as we know, all racist and stupid..."

Is there any country that anyone here is aware of where the leader of the opposition would not be criticized for not singing the national anthem?

the small c conservatism, royalism, and brit/english-nat tendencies of large swathes of the british electorate are not worth alienating over frivolous matters when the same people could potentially be swung by labour positions on substantive issues such as tax credits, housing, education and the nhs.

"by labour positions on substantive issues such as tax credits, housing, education and the nhs."

but jim, pre-Corbyn they were practically indistinguishable from the Conservative party

Yes and I'm arguing that he should focus on a clearly "labour value" driven policy but with compromises over the superficialities.

I. E. Singing the vile dirge

Sorry I misread you a bit there

i don't think republicanism is a minor principle that should be tossed aside just like that? i mean it IS a substantive thing to stand firm on. republican gestures in mainstream public life have been sorely fucking needed for some time and it was excellent seeing them from corbyn

every time i think about the pro-bombing labour blairites i get actually angry, imagine using a fucking war for your own careerist internal party political manoeuvring purposes

(i don't get the sense that public opinion is pro-bombing, either)

Unconvinced that royalism is especially strong or deep-rooted as it's routinely made out to be tbh, or that 'large swathes' of the population really give that much of a fuck about the singing of God Save the Queen.

presumably the best selling daily newspapers just spout about the royals non-stop as a provocation to their readerships.

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/122/MonarchyRoyal-Family-Trends-Monarchy-v-Republic-19932013.aspx?view=wide

Actually I sometimes think they're trying to convince them of their worth and importance, though this always seems more true of the BBC's coverage of the royals.

It's not super-strong in London or in my friendship groups, but the breederish cupcakes-and-bunting generation just below mine are soppy about the Queen and royals their age - and woe betide any republican in a leadership position in British politics who challenges it because the jingo wing (jingo wings! XD) jumps on it and makes it A THING. It's just a wasp's nest you can avoid poking.

Fuck the royals but they are not even in the top fifty things that are wrong with this country at the moment. What they stand for might be, but that's embodied in many other things as well, some of which Corbyn might be in a position to actually do something about.

I don't seriously believe that there can be very many Labour MPs who think that their electoral prospects can be improved by yet another war in the Middle East, unless they think it's going to completely destroy Cameron's premiership, or unless they are complete cretins.

Fuck the royals but they are not even in the top fifty things that are wrong with this country at the moment.

And yet they will always be No.1 with a bullet for me.

Any ideas of % of labour mps would vote yes on this?

estimates started at 100, were subsequently revised down to 60 following corbyn's push back. think the current estimate lies somewhere between 30 and 60.

43% according to Corbyn but likely to be in the high 20s when it comes to the crunch.

Xp

You must admit that Elizabeth II has been exceptionally good at propping up the throne via canny public relations. Hardest working woman in show business?

LOL Lib Dems have also agreed to vote for bombing. xp

Former party leader Nick Clegg told Sky News on Tuesday evening that he and his successor, Tim Farron, felt that “on balance, it is better to take action rather than pursue a course of inaction”.

Statement might as well have read "hey, better to regret something you did than something you didn't do".

Farron was like a wince-inducing vicar on HIGNFY this week

Given that it's highly unlikely to have any impact, positive or negative, Clegg's ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ statement is about as compelling as any in favour.

David Cameron has urged Tory MPs to take a stand on fighting terror on the eve of a vote in Parliament on authorising UK airstrikes in Syria.

The prime minister called on them not to "sit on their hands" and side with Jeremy Corbyn and others he labelled "a bunch of terrorist sympathisers".

gross

hardly becoming of his office to talk shit like that on an issue that seems to have a lot of ppl honestly divided. classic david cameron, however

Behind closed doors but obv leaked on purpose.

Yes, he'll have said that at precisely 7pm so that it leaks just in time to be the lead story in tomorrow's papers. ARSEHOLE.

I would like Jeremy Corbyn to go full-on Demon Headmaster tomorrow. He probably won't, but...

like to think seumas milne & his other attack dogs cd motivate corbyn to ether cameron tomorrow but don't think JC has it in him to be honest

Christ has there ever been such an ineloquent British pm as Cameron? I thought that inept Chamberlain quip was crude enough.

It's the modern Conservative Party, they won't be happy till Corbyn is found lying beside some railway tracks somewhere in Bedfordshire.

might be time for the "i may be a terrorist sympathiser but you fucked a pig" mic-drop. been waiting for a genuinely cathartic moment in uk politics

Having had a Swedish granddad who was mild-mannered to the point of supine, but could go nuclear if it was a matter of principle, I'm hoping for some emotion. Corbyn has the right to defend himself from this bullshit, and it might be a necessity. Standing up to bullies like Cameron is intrinsically British, anyway - and it might benefit Labour if he does.

Corbyn is not a terrorist sympathiser.

Well they've won the vote anyway, all we can hope for is that they are shamed in the debate beforehand.

Corbyn is more for quiet dignity and I am happy if he is not dragged into the mud. Its not only inaccurate but its also branding Tory rebels (the few of them) as "terrorist sympathisers". Just dumb. xp

Standing up to bullies like Cameron is intrinsically British, anyway - and it might benefit Labour if he does.

People said this about Miliband as well, it didn't happen.

This looks like such an obviously ill-thought out and avoidable foreign policy blunder in the making that any blowback could be disastrous for Cameron. Is there even much in the way of overt pressure coming from the US?

Miliband's numbers went up whenever he challenged something unfair, and went down when he did stupid EdStoney things.

Some dickhead on Newsnight hiding behind Chatham House Rules to avoid comment on the 'terrorist sympathiser' insult.