Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With a possible LAB leadership in prospect Laura Pidcock could

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With a possible LAB leadership in prospect Laura Pidcock could be the one to get Jezza’s backing

Of all the political betting markets available one that we haven’t looked at for a very long time is on who will succeed Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party. He has looked totally secure in his position even though he has recently seen his personal poll ratings dropped to record lows.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,945
    LOL!!!!!!
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    If she holds her seat........
  • Surely too young?
  • Engaging? Hardly.

    She is not a consensus builder. She thrives on hate.

    There is nothing engaging about her.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited September 2019
    edit
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,883
    I don’t think she’ll ever be Prime Minister.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,526
    edited September 2019
    When you thought they couldn't find anyone to annoint more unappealling than Long-Bailey....

    Whoever is the Chosen One, they will come in for as much stick as Corbyn, because they are by dint of being his successor, Continuity-Corbyn. And that stick will be coming from inside the Labour Party. Still lots of thwarted ambitions inside Labour....
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,526
    If Labour DO decide today to become an unambiguous Party of Remain - will Corbyn stilll be trying to even get his renegotiation with the EU? Will that have unravelled? Is Britain's top fudge maker going under today too?
  • eekeek Posts: 15,837

    If she holds her seat........

    It's Durham North West - the odds of Labour losing that seat are roughly 0
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,491
    On topic, she'd be an excellent choice - he says noting his £12 at 50-1 on top of a little under £1k net laying the field generally.
  • Nuke the party from orbit.

    It's the only way to be sure.
  • Roger said:

    LOL!!!!!!

    I agree. It is descending into farce.

    ATM, the only serious contenders seem to be Tom Watson or Kier Starmer. The rest are lightweights.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    eek said:

    If she holds her seat........

    It's Durham North West - the odds of Labour losing that seat are roughly 0
    They are on 52% and have scored 42% as recently as 2010 here, the Tories are on 34% in second, labour are polling just over half their vote in 2017 and the north is more leave. It's an outsider for a shock but '0' is a ludicrously optimistic assessment of its safety with labour in complete meltdown. Theres at least a 20% chance this one falls if labour poll under 25% nationally
  • Mrs C, I wonder if Watson would be reluctant as there would then be a deputy leadership election which could see a far left loon win it.
  • Surely too young?

    And the lack of experience? You might as well just pick anybody off the street...
  • Wrong market imo. Rather than next leader, Pidcock might be a contender for next prime minister of a month-long Labour minority government for extending and calling an election, for which she'd need Corbyn's approval and to meet Jo Swinson's and the ex-Tories' ABC criterion.

    If such a government still looks viable after the Labour conference and necessary after the Conservative one, and if parliament ever sits again, then I'd look for Pidcock, RLB and Dawn Butler as compromise short-term PMs, with Corbyn remaining party leader.

    But if Corbyn does resign, as speculated a couple of threads back, then the case for Laura Pidcock is far less compelling. Even if she gets Corbyn's blessing, and he'd probably want to stay above the fray (shades of Brexit!) then he has only one vote.
  • eek said:

    If she holds her seat........

    It's Durham North West - the odds of Labour losing that seat are roughly 0
    In the long term the seat is trending away from Labour (like many ex-mining seats) but she ought to be safe for now.
  • ParistondaParistonda Posts: 1,816
    Amongst Labour's top team, the only two who have seemed impressive in their roles are John McDonnell and Emily Thornberry.

    McDonnell has been doing a lot to drop his Marxist image, no Lenin caps for him but cuddly grandpa jumpers on Sunday morning instead. He's also less associated with Hamas etc then Jeremy - his main baggage has been the IRA comments which I don't think would damage him that much in an election campaign.

    Thornberry is the more 'compromise' choice she would probably be a much softer left leader than Corbyn, and I think she's got a decent level of charisma and generally comes over confident and well in interviews and when in the HOC.

    On the basis that the next leader will come from the pro Corbyn circle and won't be Yvette Cooper or Jess Phillips etc, which seems likely, it should be one of those two (I would say Thornberry perhaps more likely).
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,491
    eek said:

    If she holds her seat........

    It's Durham North West - the odds of Labour losing that seat are roughly 0
    This is the sort of seat/analysis that makes Labour dropping below 180 or so mind bendingly hard to imagine when you look in terms of specific seats no matter what they're polling. It is Labour seat 174 in the "ordered list".
  • A lot of plates shifting this week - Boris has caused a lot of pressure to bubble up in all sort of unexpected ways. We could be in a very different reality come Friday.......
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,883
    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    If she holds her seat........

    It's Durham North West - the odds of Labour losing that seat are roughly 0
    This is the sort of seat/analysis that makes Labour dropping below 180 or so mind bendingly hard to imagine when you look in terms of specific seats no matter what they're polling. It is Labour seat 174 in the "ordered list".
    It could all come crumbling down in 1 election like in Scotland.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,883

    A lot of plates shifting this week - Boris has caused a lot of pressure to bubble up in all sort of unexpected ways. We could be in a very different reality come Friday.......

    Lib Dems on 40%? :D
  • Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    If she holds her seat........

    It's Durham North West - the odds of Labour losing that seat are roughly 0
    This is the sort of seat/analysis that makes Labour dropping below 180 or so mind bendingly hard to imagine when you look in terms of specific seats no matter what they're polling. It is Labour seat 174 in the "ordered list".
    The Economist correctly summarised the British Labour party as "too weak to win, too strong to die"
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 20,883
    What has she said or done of note? Is she a Shadow spokesperson?
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786

    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    If she holds her seat........

    It's Durham North West - the odds of Labour losing that seat are roughly 0
    This is the sort of seat/analysis that makes Labour dropping below 180 or so mind bendingly hard to imagine when you look in terms of specific seats no matter what they're polling. It is Labour seat 174 in the "ordered list".
    It could all come crumbling down in 1 election like in Scotland.
    Certainly on current polling anyone with less than a 20% start isn't 100% safe. And that cuts the same for Tories in the south where LDs have presence
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,213
    nichomar said:

    Scott_P said:
    Point and laugh at the Labour Party.
    The most astonishing thing i have come across is the Mainstream polling of labour members by Yougov which found only 10% happy to sing the national anthem, - that is amazing.
    Why amazing ?i don’t support labour and am very uncomfortable singing it. It’s not about a country or it’s people it’s about a hereditary monarch. The other four verses are quite enlightening as well. The only time it sounds anywhere near uplifting is when it is fully orchestrated but that doesn’t change the words. As an aside England shouldn’t use it as their anthem at sports events either as it implies England are the nation state.
    I think that for one of the two main political parties to have only 10% of its membership happy to sing the national anthem is amazing. A quick google on the subject finds a Guardian article from the last year saying general support for monarchy is above 70%. That is a massive difference.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,837

    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    If she holds her seat........

    It's Durham North West - the odds of Labour losing that seat are roughly 0
    This is the sort of seat/analysis that makes Labour dropping below 180 or so mind bendingly hard to imagine when you look in terms of specific seats no matter what they're polling. It is Labour seat 174 in the "ordered list".
    The Economist correctly summarised the British Labour party as "too weak to win, too strong to die"
    That definitely is the problem - Labour have permanently lost Scotland so can't win a majority (too weak to win) but have a lot of seats like this one where culturally a Tory could never win....
  • Mrs C, I wonder if Watson would be reluctant as there would then be a deputy leadership election which could see a far left loon win it.

    There are loons everywhere Mr Dancer. He might as well go down in a blaze or glory and return to the backbenches until the hard-left infection burns itself out. Then he can always try again.

    Alternatively he could back Starmer as the Starmer/Watson dream ticket.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Are we expecting a Supreme Court judgement sometime today?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,491
    My most recent move in the Labour leader market was to reback Thornberry. She was supposed to put out an "amazing" speech, though I have no idea if she did or not.
    Nevertheless she looks like the "moderates" choice and since Labour has bottled its moves against Watto she's probably live and OK at around 11-1 or so.

    David Miliband at ~33-1 is crackers OTOH, mus be the same people backing Clinton at ~25-1 for Dem nominee.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    AndyJS said:

    Are we expecting a Supreme Court judgement sometime today?

    Last night was said no decision but an update on timing lunchtime
  • Shouldn't this be the main political story of the day? If the allegations are true, surely it is a political scandal of the highest order?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/23/boris-johnson-repeatedly-declines-to-comment-on-claims-he-awarded-public-funds-to-friend
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    Amongst Labour's top team, the only two who have seemed impressive in their roles are John McDonnell and Emily Thornberry.

    McDonnell has been doing a lot to drop his Marxist image, no Lenin caps for him but cuddly grandpa jumpers on Sunday morning instead. He's also less associated with Hamas etc then Jeremy - his main baggage has been the IRA comments which I don't think would damage him that much in an election campaign.

    Thornberry is the more 'compromise' choice she would probably be a much softer left leader than Corbyn, and I think she's got a decent level of charisma and generally comes over confident and well in interviews and when in the HOC.

    On the basis that the next leader will come from the pro Corbyn circle and won't be Yvette Cooper or Jess Phillips etc, which seems likely, it should be one of those two (I would say Thornberry perhaps more likely).

    That’s expecting the labour membership to think logically so look outside logical sane choices to true socialist and willing to remain true to the cause even if it means not winning elections. They could do a lot worse than JMcD who is impressive on TV.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,526
    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    If she holds her seat........

    It's Durham North West - the odds of Labour losing that seat are roughly 0
    This is the sort of seat/analysis that makes Labour dropping below 180 or so mind bendingly hard to imagine when you look in terms of specific seats no matter what they're polling. It is Labour seat 174 in the "ordered list".
    The Economist correctly summarised the British Labour party as "too weak to win, too strong to die"
    That definitely is the problem - Labour have permanently lost Scotland so can't win a majority (too weak to win) but have a lot of seats like this one where culturally a Tory could never win....
    Doesn't seem that long ago that a Tory MP for Stoke or Mansfield was a pipe-dream.

    A crack pipe at that.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 4,844
    Brexit is the big uncertainty.

    In normal times it is hard to see how Johnson would beat Starmer or maybe even Thornberry in an election. It's hardy surprising that UNITE would favour someone like Pidcock, it would be interesting to see if they take electability seriously when the time comes.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Shouldn't this be the main political story of the day? If the allegations are true, surely it is a political scandal of the highest order?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/23/boris-johnson-repeatedly-declines-to-comment-on-claims-he-awarded-public-funds-to-friend

    It would be ironic if after all the fuckups over Brexit he loses his job because of his actions as Mayor.

    Funny though... :)
  • Cyclefree said:

    What has she said or done of note? Is she a Shadow spokesperson?

    She is loyal to the cause. No other qualifications are required.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Sky News: head of Momentum expresses his displeasure on Twitter at how Labour's latest Brexit policy has been constructed.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 4,844
    I think the Tories would be much more worried by someone like AOC.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,491
    edited September 2019

    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    If she holds her seat........

    It's Durham North West - the odds of Labour losing that seat are roughly 0
    This is the sort of seat/analysis that makes Labour dropping below 180 or so mind bendingly hard to imagine when you look in terms of specific seats no matter what they're polling. It is Labour seat 174 in the "ordered list".
    The Economist correctly summarised the British Labour party as "too weak to win, too strong to die"
    There doesn't look to be an obvious SNP analogue in England and Wales but hopefully a bit of Boris/Farage populism combined with the Lib Dems seizing the soft left can squeeze them.

    There has been a tendency in the Labour leave heartlands (Barnsley/North East/Bolsover) for voters to desert the party to Lib Dem, Brexit, Britain First, independents in local elections - notably not the Tories mind. But right now there seem to be enough GE only voters to dig them out in GEs or at least there was in 2017. I expect there may be plenty of "safe" seats where Labour manage to squeak through on ~35% with split opposition at the next election.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    F

    nichomar said:

    Scott_P said:
    Point and laugh at the Labour Party.
    The most astonishing thing i have come across is the Mainstream polling of labour members by Yougov which found only 10% happy to sing the national anthem, - that is amazing.
    Why amazing ?i don’t support labour and am very uncomfortable singing it. It’s not about a country or it’s people it’s about a hereditary monarch. The other four verses are quite enlightening as well. The only time it sounds anywhere near uplifting is when it is fully orchestrated but that doesn’t change the words. As an aside England shouldn’t use it as their anthem at sports events either as it implies England are the nation state.
    I think that for one of the two main political parties to have only 10% of its membership happy to sing the national anthem is amazing. A quick google on the subject finds a Guardian article from the last year saying general support for monarchy is above 70%. That is a massive difference.
    I was referring to the anthem and it’s focus on the monarchy, in itself that is not an anti monarchy line but an anti anthem line because the nation is about an awful lot more than HMQ.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,945
    edited September 2019
    I don't think Long Bailey is the answer but I'd put her above Laura Pidcock. Oddly enough they were both students of Manchester Metropolitan University which used to be the Regional art college. I occasionally lectured to the photography department which was very good. They produced more than their fair share of talented photographers including Martin Parr Daniel Meadows and Brian Griffin. It's art departmet was very good but academicaly it wasn't rated
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,026
    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    If she holds her seat........

    It's Durham North West - the odds of Labour losing that seat are roughly 0
    This is the sort of seat/analysis that makes Labour dropping below 180 or so mind bendingly hard to imagine when you look in terms of specific seats no matter what they're polling. It is Labour seat 174 in the "ordered list".
    The Economist correctly summarised the British Labour party as "too weak to win, too strong to die"
    That definitely is the problem - Labour have permanently lost Scotland so can't win a majority (too weak to win) but have a lot of seats like this one where culturally a Tory could never win....
    It's been like that since 1950 Blair excepted
  • Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    If she holds her seat........

    It's Durham North West - the odds of Labour losing that seat are roughly 0
    This is the sort of seat/analysis that makes Labour dropping below 180 or so mind bendingly hard to imagine when you look in terms of specific seats no matter what they're polling. It is Labour seat 174 in the "ordered list".
    If Labour polls around 25% and the Tories about 35%, there are a number of very heavily Leave seats where the Conservatives are up to 15% behind Labour but Labour could still be very vulnerable. However, this isn't a very heavily Leave seat - Remain secured 45% in 2016.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786

    I think the Tories would be much more worried by someone like AOC.

    I cant imagine anyone is worried by someone like AOC and her world will end in 12 years swivel eyed madness
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    Brexit is the big uncertainty.

    In normal times it is hard to see how Johnson would beat Starmer or maybe even Thornberry in an election. It's hardy surprising that UNITE would favour someone like Pidcock, it would be interesting to see if they take electability seriously when the time comes.

    One member one vote so no block votes
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,915

    Amongst Labour's top team, the only two who have seemed impressive in their roles are John McDonnell and Emily Thornberry.

    McDonnell has been doing a lot to drop his Marxist image, no Lenin caps for him but cuddly grandpa jumpers on Sunday morning instead. He's also less associated with Hamas etc then Jeremy - his main baggage has been the IRA comments which I don't think would damage him that much in an election campaign.

    Thornberry is the more 'compromise' choice she would probably be a much softer left leader than Corbyn, and I think she's got a decent level of charisma and generally comes over confident and well in interviews and when in the HOC.

    On the basis that the next leader will come from the pro Corbyn circle and won't be Yvette Cooper or Jess Phillips etc, which seems likely, it should be one of those two (I would say Thornberry perhaps more likely).

    McDonnell would be a way better PM than Thornberry just because of his greater appetite for transforming the country.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382

    Shouldn't this be the main political story of the day? If the allegations are true, surely it is a political scandal of the highest order?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/23/boris-johnson-repeatedly-declines-to-comment-on-claims-he-awarded-public-funds-to-friend

    What is the problem ?
    Surely using taxpayers money to help a friend , is Tory policy.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    I think the Tories would be much more worried by someone like AOC.

    I cant imagine anyone is worried by someone like AOC and her world will end in 12 years swivel eyed madness
    AOC?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,945

    Roger said:

    LOL!!!!!!

    I agree. It is descending into farce.

    ATM, the only serious contenders seem to be Tom Watson or Kier Starmer. The rest are lightweights.
    I'd leave Tom Watson out of this party of all the talents . He soiled himself over the Leon Britten affair. Realistically It's Keir Starmer.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    If Laura can persuade the former shadow chancellor and MP for Morley and Outwood to be her deputy then that would be a dream ticket for leadership and one that could tackle the problems of the country.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    nichomar said:

    I think the Tories would be much more worried by someone like AOC.

    I cant imagine anyone is worried by someone like AOC and her world will end in 12 years swivel eyed madness
    AOC?
    Ocasio Cortez, the American barmaid turned socialist poster girl
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    edited September 2019
    Cyclefree said:

    What has she said or done of note? Is she a Shadow spokesperson?

    She hates Tories. She went on holiday during a Commons vote on a subject allegedly close to her heart. The puppeteers think that she can be manipulated and will be no more than a cypher for their views.

    [I have no idea whether she has free will, that is an opinion, the others are facts]
  • Is Labour really proposing to actually abolish private schools, nationalise them or just make life very hard for them? It's not clear.

    Surely the consequences of this policy must have a lot of negative knock-on effects. Seems daft to me

    I can;t afford to buy a brand new NIssan, only a richer few can, so will Labour be campaigning to close the factory down in Sunderland?

    Surely this bunch cannot win
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,526
    nichomar said:

    I think the Tories would be much more worried by someone like AOC.

    I cant imagine anyone is worried by someone like AOC and her world will end in 12 years swivel eyed madness
    AOC?
    Any Old C***........
  • Roger said:

    Roger said:

    LOL!!!!!!

    I agree. It is descending into farce.

    ATM, the only serious contenders seem to be Tom Watson or Kier Starmer. The rest are lightweights.
    I'd leave Tom Watson out of this party of all the talents . He soiled himself over the Leon Britten affair. Realistically It's Keir Starmer.
    Kier Starmer would be far too sensible a choice for Labour.
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,213
    nichomar said:

    F

    nichomar said:

    Scott_P said:
    Point and laugh at the Labour Party.
    The most astonishing thing i have come across is the Mainstream polling of labour members by Yougov which found only 10% happy to sing the national anthem, - that is amazing.
    Why amazing ?i don’t support labour and am very uncomfortable singing it. It’s not about a country or it’s people it’s about a hereditary monarch. The other four verses are quite enlightening as well. The only time it sounds anywhere near uplifting is when it is fully orchestrated but that doesn’t change the words. As an aside England shouldn’t use it as their anthem at sports events either as it implies England are the nation state.
    I think that for one of the two main political parties to have only 10% of its membership happy to sing the national anthem is amazing. A quick google on the subject finds a Guardian article from the last year saying general support for monarchy is above 70%. That is a massive difference.
    I was referring to the anthem and it’s focus on the monarchy, in itself that is not an anti monarchy line but an anti anthem line because the nation is about an awful lot more than HMQ.
    You are right to point out that people not being happy singing the national anthem could be for a reason other than republicanism, however I still thought it was striking. Pretty sure the numbers would be the other way around at the Tory conference.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,981
    edited September 2019

    I think the Tories would be much more worried by someone like AOC.

    Nah. She’s had her metaphorical fifteen minutes of fame, is probably going to get primaried by her own party next year.
  • Looking at some Youtube clips she seems like a fairly weak communicator; Labour has some strong performers, some from the left, so I don't see how she gets through a contested leadership election.

    Is there a practical path to doing this with a coronation?
  • Is Labour really proposing to actually abolish private schools, nationalise them or just make life very hard for them? It's not clear.

    Surely the consequences of this policy must have a lot of negative knock-on effects. Seems daft to me

    I can;t afford to buy a brand new NIssan, only a richer few can, so will Labour be campaigning to close the factory down in Sunderland?

    Surely this bunch cannot win

    It is a totemic issue for the left. Much like banning fox hunting. It gets their membership salivating and causes them to forget that basically, their leadership, and ideology is a pile of shit.
  • nichomar said:

    F

    nichomar said:

    Scott_P said:
    Point and laugh at the Labour Party.
    The most astonishing thing i have come across is the Mainstream polling of labour members by Yougov which found only 10% happy to sing the national anthem, - that is amazing.
    Why amazing ?i don’t support labour and am very uncomfortable singing it. It’s not about a country or it’s people it’s about a hereditary monarch. The other four verses are quite enlightening as well. The only time it sounds anywhere near uplifting is when it is fully orchestrated but that doesn’t change the words. As an aside England shouldn’t use it as their anthem at sports events either as it implies England are the nation state.
    I think that for one of the two main political parties to have only 10% of its membership happy to sing the national anthem is amazing. A quick google on the subject finds a Guardian article from the last year saying general support for monarchy is above 70%. That is a massive difference.
    I was referring to the anthem and it’s focus on the monarchy, in itself that is not an anti monarchy line but an anti anthem line because the nation is about an awful lot more than HMQ.
    Surely most people will go their entire lives without singing the national anthem. It is only recently we've expected the England football team to sing it rather than stand there chewing gum while it is played.
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,213
    I think it is unfair posting that. You need to wait and see if there is an islamophobic banner for Tory conference first.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,981
    LOL, Labour must be happy that Thomas Cook is keeping these things out of the mainstream news today.
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,213

    nichomar said:

    F

    nichomar said:

    Scott_P said:
    Point and laugh at the Labour Party.
    The most astonishing thing i have come across is the Mainstream polling of labour members by Yougov which found only 10% happy to sing the national anthem, - that is amazing.
    Why amazing ?i don’t support labour and am very uncomfortable singing it. It’s not about a country or it’s people it’s about a hereditary monarch. The other four verses are quite enlightening as well. The only time it sounds anywhere near uplifting is when it is fully orchestrated but that doesn’t change the words. As an aside England shouldn’t use it as their anthem at sports events either as it implies England are the nation state.
    I think that for one of the two main political parties to have only 10% of its membership happy to sing the national anthem is amazing. A quick google on the subject finds a Guardian article from the last year saying general support for monarchy is above 70%. That is a massive difference.
    I was referring to the anthem and it’s focus on the monarchy, in itself that is not an anti monarchy line but an anti anthem line because the nation is about an awful lot more than HMQ.
    Surely most people will go their entire lives without singing the national anthem. It is only recently we've expected the England football team to sing it rather than stand there chewing gum while it is played.
    I am in my 40s and we learnt it at school - a comprehensive. Isn’t it something everyone learns?
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786

    nichomar said:

    F

    nichomar said:

    Scott_P said:
    Point and laugh at the Labour Party.
    The most astonishing thing i have come across is the Mainstream polling of labour members by Yougov which found only 10% happy to sing the national anthem, - that is amazing.
    Why amazing ?i don’t support labour and am very uncomfortable singing it. It’s not about a country or it’s people it’s about a hereditary monarch. The other four verses are quite enlightening as well. The only time it sounds anywhere near uplifting is when it is fully orchestrated but that doesn’t change the words. As an aside England shouldn’t use it as their anthem at sports events either as it implies England are the nation state.
    I think that for one of the two main political parties to have only 10% of its membership happy to sing the national anthem is amazing. A quick google on the subject finds a Guardian article from the last year saying general support for monarchy is above 70%. That is a massive difference.
    I was referring to the anthem and it’s focus on the monarchy, in itself that is not an anti monarchy line but an anti anthem line because the nation is about an awful lot more than HMQ.
    Surely most people will go their entire lives without singing the national anthem. It is only recently we've expected the England football team to sing it rather than stand there chewing gum while it is played.
    My Dad delights in telling me how they used to try and sneak out of the cinema during the credits so they didn't have to stand for the national anthem at the end. Different times!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225
    FPT (Electric Cars)

    I replaced our Skoda last year, and when doing so asked about electric etc. Told mid 2020, probably/almost certainly. Agent didn't know about prices, but that was Nov. 2018.

    150 miles round trip does me 95+% unless we're talking about visiting bro-in-law; would have to have a probably fairly lengthy coffee stop. On the other hand, of course......... excuses, excuses.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225

    nichomar said:

    F

    nichomar said:

    Scott_P said:
    Point and laugh at the Labour Party.
    The most astonishing thing i have come across is the Mainstream polling of labour members by Yougov which found only 10% happy to sing the national anthem, - that is amazing.
    Why amazing ?i don’t support labour and am very uncomfortable singing it. It’s not about a country or it’s people it’s about a hereditary monarch. The other four verses are quite enlightening as well. The only time it sounds anywhere near uplifting is when it is fully orchestrated but that doesn’t change the words. As an aside England shouldn’t use it as their anthem at sports events either as it implies England are the nation state.
    I think that for one of the two main political parties to have only 10% of its membership happy to sing the national anthem is amazing. A quick google on the subject finds a Guardian article from the last year saying general support for monarchy is above 70%. That is a massive difference.
    I was referring to the anthem and it’s focus on the monarchy, in itself that is not an anti monarchy line but an anti anthem line because the nation is about an awful lot more than HMQ.
    Surely most people will go their entire lives without singing the national anthem. It is only recently we've expected the England football team to sing it rather than stand there chewing gum while it is played.
    I am in my 40s and we learnt it at school - a comprehensive. Isn’t it something everyone learns?
    Scouts, etc sing it. Not sure about the Woodcraft Folk, though.
    We used to sing it, back in the 50's, at least once a term at school.
  • Meanwhile, this sounds like it could herald China sending in the troops:
    https://twitter.com/MRJKilcoyne/status/1176077540471054336
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    FPT (Electric Cars)

    I replaced our Skoda last year, and when doing so asked about electric etc. Told mid 2020, probably/almost certainly. Agent didn't know about prices, but that was Nov. 2018.

    150 miles round trip does me 95+% unless we're talking about visiting bro-in-law; would have to have a probably fairly lengthy coffee stop. On the other hand, of course......... excuses, excuses.

    See also fleet and company car schemes - currently the tax applied doesn’t make choosing an electric car very attractive - cheaper to stick with an ICE.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    I am in my 40s and we learnt it at school - a comprehensive. Isn’t it something everyone learns?

    I was taught it at primary school. In Scotland.

    And it really, really irritates me that no England team in any sport appears to know the words, despite them being the name of the song.

    God Save THE Queen.

    How hard is that?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225

    nichomar said:

    F

    nichomar said:

    Scott_P said:
    Point and laugh at the Labour Party.
    The most astonishing thing i have come across is the Mainstream polling of labour members by Yougov which found only 10% happy to sing the national anthem, - that is amazing.
    Why amazing ?i don’t support labour and am very uncomfortable singing it. It’s not about a country or it’s people it’s about a hereditary monarch. The other four verses are quite enlightening as well. The only time it sounds anywhere near uplifting is when it is fully orchestrated but that doesn’t change the words. As an aside England shouldn’t use it as their anthem at sports events either as it implies England are the nation state.
    I think that for one of the two main political parties to have only 10% of its membership happy to sing the national anthem is amazing. A quick google on the subject finds a Guardian article from the last year saying general support for monarchy is above 70%. That is a massive difference.
    I was referring to the anthem and it’s focus on the monarchy, in itself that is not an anti monarchy line but an anti anthem line because the nation is about an awful lot more than HMQ.
    Surely most people will go their entire lives without singing the national anthem. It is only recently we've expected the England football team to sing it rather than stand there chewing gum while it is played.
    My Dad delights in telling me how they used to try and sneak out of the cinema during the credits so they didn't have to stand for the national anthem at the end. Different times!
    There was, once, a song about an usherette who 'was killed in the rush for the exit/as the orchestra played The Queen.'
  • Is Labour really proposing to actually abolish private schools, nationalise them or just make life very hard for them? It's not clear.

    Surely the consequences of this policy must have a lot of negative knock-on effects. Seems daft to me

    I can;t afford to buy a brand new NIssan, only a richer few can, so will Labour be campaigning to close the factory down in Sunderland?

    Surely this bunch cannot win

    It is a totemic issue for the left. Much like banning fox hunting. It gets their membership salivating and causes them to forget that basically, their leadership, and ideology is a pile of shit.
    My wife went to a private school, and I went on a tour once. The facilities were astonishing and part of me did think "this is not fair". But just getting rid...well that won't end well surely. You can't just make everything better by levelling down. The state will have to find more cash for more state school places for a start. house prices near good schools will rise yet more, unemployment, loss of facilities, the list of why this is a bad idea is long and i know nothing in particular about it really. bizarre
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,467
    edited September 2019

    nichomar said:

    F

    nichomar said:

    Scott_P said:
    Point and laugh at the Labour Party.
    The most astonishing thing i have come across is the Mainstream polling of labour members by Yougov which found only 10% happy to sing the national anthem, - that is amazing.
    Why amazing ?i don’t support labour and am very uncomfortable singing it. It’s not about a country or it’s people it’s about a hereditary monarch. The other four verses are quite enlightening as well. The only time it sounds anywhere near uplifting is when it is fully orchestrated but that doesn’t change the words. As an aside England shouldn’t use it as their anthem at sports events either as it implies England are the nation state.
    I think that for one of the two main political parties to have only 10% of its membership happy to sing the national anthem is amazing. A quick google on the subject finds a Guardian article from the last year saying general support for monarchy is above 70%. That is a massive difference.
    I was referring to the anthem and it’s focus on the monarchy, in itself that is not an anti monarchy line but an anti anthem line because the nation is about an awful lot more than HMQ.
    Surely most people will go their entire lives without singing the national anthem. It is only recently we've expected the England football team to sing it rather than stand there chewing gum while it is played.
    I am in my 40s and we learnt it at school - a comprehensive. Isn’t it something everyone learns?
    I never learned it at school - also a comprehensive, same kind of era as you. But in Scotland, maybe that was a factor. I still don't know the words 100%. I hate it. The tune is a dirge, the words mean nothing to me. Perhaps it reflects the multi-national nature of the British state, that the monarchy is all we have in common. An independent England should have Jerusalem as its anthem, that is a cracking tune with great lyrics. Don't know about Scotland, I always found Flower of Scotland a bit embarrassing.
  • Dura_Ace said:

    Amongst Labour's top team, the only two who have seemed impressive in their roles are John McDonnell and Emily Thornberry.

    McDonnell has been doing a lot to drop his Marxist image, no Lenin caps for him but cuddly grandpa jumpers on Sunday morning instead. He's also less associated with Hamas etc then Jeremy - his main baggage has been the IRA comments which I don't think would damage him that much in an election campaign.

    Thornberry is the more 'compromise' choice she would probably be a much softer left leader than Corbyn, and I think she's got a decent level of charisma and generally comes over confident and well in interviews and when in the HOC.

    On the basis that the next leader will come from the pro Corbyn circle and won't be Yvette Cooper or Jess Phillips etc, which seems likely, it should be one of those two (I would say Thornberry perhaps more likely).

    McDonnell would be a way better PM than Thornberry just because of his greater appetite for transforming the country.
    I'd vote for him if he brought in lifetime jail sentences for asshats who drive at 100MPH+ on public roads ... ;)
  • On topic, I agree with Mike. I think we are moving towards a phase of increasing focus on the Labour succession as the Corbyn era fades.

    However, true believers will blame the man and not the message (and to be fair, many of Labour's policies are relatively popular in isolation), and so will seek to elect Corbynism-without-Corbyn.

    The problem with that is that Corbynism isn't just a set of policies, it's a way of political life; it's an attitude, a culture; it means never compromising with the Tories (and 'Tories' extends far beyond MPs taking the Conservative whip); it revels in glorious defeats as marks of purity (note the latest nonsense on wanting to refight Orgreave).

    On that basis, Pidcock is well-placed, despite being absurdly under-qualified to become PM. She may well get Corbyn's nod and that would be hugely powerful - though I still think Dawn Butler is a contender for that too though, and McDonnell name-checking her - and not Pidcock - as potential successors should be taken seriously.
  • nichomar said:

    F

    nichomar said:

    Scott_P said:
    Point and laugh at the Labour Party.
    The most astonishing thing i have come across is the Mainstream polling of labour members by Yougov which found only 10% happy to sing the national anthem, - that is amazing.
    Why amazing ?i don’t support labour and am very uncomfortable singing it. It’s not about a country or it’s people it’s about a hereditary monarch. The other four verses are quite enlightening as well. The only time it sounds anywhere near uplifting is when it is fully orchestrated but that doesn’t change the words. As an aside England shouldn’t use it as their anthem at sports events either as it implies England are the nation state.
    I think that for one of the two main political parties to have only 10% of its membership happy to sing the national anthem is amazing. A quick google on the subject finds a Guardian article from the last year saying general support for monarchy is above 70%. That is a massive difference.
    I was referring to the anthem and it’s focus on the monarchy, in itself that is not an anti monarchy line but an anti anthem line because the nation is about an awful lot more than HMQ.
    Surely most people will go their entire lives without singing the national anthem. It is only recently we've expected the England football team to sing it rather than stand there chewing gum while it is played.
    I am in my 40s and we learnt it at school - a comprehensive. Isn’t it something everyone learns?
    Not at school but in the Scouts. I think they gave me a badge for learning all the verses.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786

    nichomar said:

    F

    nichomar said:

    Scott_P said:
    Point and laugh at the Labour Party.
    The most astonishing thing i have come across is the Mainstream polling of labour members by Yougov which found only 10% happy to sing the national anthem, - that is amazing.
    Why amazing ?i don’t support labour and am very uncomfortable singing it. It’s not about a country or it’s people it’s about a hereditary monarch. The other four verses are quite enlightening as well. The only time it sounds anywhere near uplifting is when it is fully orchestrated but that doesn’t change the words. As an aside England shouldn’t use it as their anthem at sports events either as it implies England are the nation state.
    I think that for one of the two main political parties to have only 10% of its membership happy to sing the national anthem is amazing. A quick google on the subject finds a Guardian article from the last year saying general support for monarchy is above 70%. That is a massive difference.
    I was referring to the anthem and it’s focus on the monarchy, in itself that is not an anti monarchy line but an anti anthem line because the nation is about an awful lot more than HMQ.
    Surely most people will go their entire lives without singing the national anthem. It is only recently we've expected the England football team to sing it rather than stand there chewing gum while it is played.
    I am in my 40s and we learnt it at school - a comprehensive. Isn’t it something everyone learns?
    I never learned it at school - also a comprehensive, same kind of era as you. But in Scotland, maybe that was a factor. I still don't know the words 100%. I hate it. The tune is a dirge, the words mean nothing to me. Perhaps it reflects the multi-national nature of the British state, that the monarchy is all we have in common. An independent England should have Jerusalem as its anthem, that is a cracking tune with great lyrics. Don't know about Scotland, I always found Flower of Scotland a bit embarrassing.
    Jerusalem would be a terrible choice for a multi cultural nation
  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,945

    Shouldn't this be the main political story of the day? If the allegations are true, surely it is a political scandal of the highest order?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/23/boris-johnson-repeatedly-declines-to-comment-on-claims-he-awarded-public-funds-to-friend

    Yes it should be. But Johnson's behaviour is so far off the scale and he supports Brexit so no one gives a shit. Maybe Gina Miller or Stormy Daniels can bring a private prosecution
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786

    nichomar said:

    F

    nichomar said:

    Scott_P said:
    Point and laugh at the Labour Party.
    The most astonishing thing i have come across is the Mainstream polling of labour members by Yougov which found only 10% happy to sing the national anthem, - that is amazing.
    Why amazing ?i don’t support labour and am very uncomfortable singing it. It’s not about a country or it’s people it’s about a hereditary monarch. The other four verses are quite enlightening as well. The only time it sounds anywhere near uplifting is when it is fully orchestrated but that doesn’t change the words. As an aside England shouldn’t use it as their anthem at sports events either as it implies England are the nation state.
    I think that for one of the two main political parties to have only 10% of its membership happy to sing the national anthem is amazing. A quick google on the subject finds a Guardian article from the last year saying general support for monarchy is above 70%. That is a massive difference.
    I was referring to the anthem and it’s focus on the monarchy, in itself that is not an anti monarchy line but an anti anthem line because the nation is about an awful lot more than HMQ.
    Surely most people will go their entire lives without singing the national anthem. It is only recently we've expected the England football team to sing it rather than stand there chewing gum while it is played.
    I am in my 40s and we learnt it at school - a comprehensive. Isn’t it something everyone learns?
    Not at school but in the Scouts. I think they gave me a badge for learning all the verses.
    Did you learn the General Wade/Scots crushing verse? Cant imagine why it's not a popular tune in Scotland!
  • Scott_P said:

    I am in my 40s and we learnt it at school - a comprehensive. Isn’t it something everyone learns?

    I was taught it at primary school. In Scotland.

    And it really, really irritates me that no England team in any sport appears to know the words, despite them being the name of the song.

    God Save THE Queen.

    How hard is that?
    It's going to be really difficult to get it right when it stops being God Save the Queen.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225

    nichomar said:

    F

    nichomar said:

    Scott_P said:
    Point and laugh at the Labour Party.
    The most astonishing thing i have come across is the Mainstream polling of labour members by Yougov which found only 10% happy to sing the national anthem, - that is amazing.
    Why amazing ?i don’t support labour and am very uncomfortable singing it. It’s not about a country or it’s people it’s about a hereditary monarch. The other four verses are quite enlightening as well. The only time it sounds anywhere near uplifting is when it is fully orchestrated but that doesn’t change the words. As an aside England shouldn’t use it as their anthem at sports events either as it implies England are the nation state.
    I think that for one of the two main political parties to have only 10% of its membership happy to sing the national anthem is amazing. A quick google on the subject finds a Guardian article from the last year saying general support for monarchy is above 70%. That is a massive difference.
    I was referring to the anthem and it’s focus on the monarchy, in itself that is not an anti monarchy line but an anti anthem line because the nation is about an awful lot more than HMQ.
    Surely most people will go their entire lives without singing the national anthem. It is only recently we've expected the England football team to sing it rather than stand there chewing gum while it is played.
    I am in my 40s and we learnt it at school - a comprehensive. Isn’t it something everyone learns?
    I never learned it at school - also a comprehensive, same kind of era as you. But in Scotland, maybe that was a factor. I still don't know the words 100%. I hate it. The tune is a dirge, the words mean nothing to me. Perhaps it reflects the multi-national nature of the British state, that the monarchy is all we have in common. An independent England should have Jerusalem as its anthem, that is a cracking tune with great lyrics. Don't know about Scotland, I always found Flower of Scotland a bit embarrassing.
    There's a verse which is almost never sung today, of course, which could have been anathema at your school:
    Lord, grant that Marshall Wade
    May, by Thy mighty aid,
    Victory bring.
    May he sedition hush,
    And like a torrent rush,
    Rebellious Scots to crush.
    God save the Queen
  • nichomar said:

    F

    nichomar said:

    Scott_P said:
    Point and laugh at the Labour Party.
    The most astonishing thing i have come across is the Mainstream polling of labour members by Yougov which found only 10% happy to sing the national anthem, - that is amazing.
    Why amazing ?i don’t support labour and am very uncomfortable singing it. It’s not about a country or it’s people it’s about a hereditary monarch. The other four verses are quite enlightening as well. The only time it sounds anywhere near uplifting is when it is fully orchestrated but that doesn’t change the words. As an aside England shouldn’t use it as their anthem at sports events either as it implies England are the nation state.
    I think that for one of the two main political parties to have only 10% of its membership happy to sing the national anthem is amazing. A quick google on the subject finds a Guardian article from the last year saying general support for monarchy is above 70%. That is a massive difference.
    I was referring to the anthem and it’s focus on the monarchy, in itself that is not an anti monarchy line but an anti anthem line because the nation is about an awful lot more than HMQ.
    Surely most people will go their entire lives without singing the national anthem. It is only recently we've expected the England football team to sing it rather than stand there chewing gum while it is played.
    I am in my 40s and we learnt it at school - a comprehensive. Isn’t it something everyone learns?
    I never learned it at school - also a comprehensive, same kind of era as you. But in Scotland, maybe that was a factor. I still don't know the words 100%. I hate it. The tune is a dirge, the words mean nothing to me. Perhaps it reflects the multi-national nature of the British state, that the monarchy is all we have in common. An independent England should have Jerusalem as its anthem, that is a cracking tune with great lyrics. Don't know about Scotland, I always found Flower of Scotland a bit embarrassing.
    Jerusalem would be a terrible choice for a multi cultural nation
    The current anthem features "God" fairly heavily, eg it is the first word of the title and is repeated endlessly. I don't really see Jerusalem as a religious song, it's more about wanting to make England a better place isn't it?
  • Scott_P said:

    I am in my 40s and we learnt it at school - a comprehensive. Isn’t it something everyone learns?

    I was taught it at primary school. In Scotland.

    And it really, really irritates me that no England team in any sport appears to know the words, despite them being the name of the song.

    God Save THE Queen.

    How hard is that?
    It's going to be really difficult to get it right when it stops being God Save the Queen.
    It would be a good time to change it. I wonder what unsuitable jingle would replace it?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225

    Scott_P said:

    I am in my 40s and we learnt it at school - a comprehensive. Isn’t it something everyone learns?

    I was taught it at primary school. In Scotland.

    And it really, really irritates me that no England team in any sport appears to know the words, despite them being the name of the song.

    God Save THE Queen.

    How hard is that?
    It's going to be really difficult to get it right when it stops being God Save the Queen.
    The change the other way was quite easy back in 1952!
  • nichomar said:

    F

    nichomar said:

    Scott_P said:
    Point and laugh at the Labour Party.
    The most astonishing thing i have come across is the Mainstream polling of labour members by Yougov which found only 10% happy to sing the national anthem, - that is amazing.
    Why amazing ?i don’t support labour and am very uncomfortable singing it. It’s not about a country or it’s people it’s about a hereditary monarch. The other four verses are quite enlightening as well. The only time it sounds anywhere near uplifting is when it is fully orchestrated but that doesn’t change the words. As an aside England shouldn’t use it as their anthem at sports events either as it implies England are the nation state.
    I think that for one of the two main political parties to have only 10% of its membership happy to sing the national anthem is amazing. A quick google on the subject finds a Guardian article from the last year saying general support for monarchy is above 70%. That is a massive difference.
    I was referring to the anthem and it’s focus on the monarchy, in itself that is not an anti monarchy line but an anti anthem line because the nation is about an awful lot more than HMQ.
    Surely most people will go their entire lives without singing the national anthem. It is only recently we've expected the England football team to sing it rather than stand there chewing gum while it is played.
    I am in my 40s and we learnt it at school - a comprehensive. Isn’t it something everyone learns?
    I never learned it at school - also a comprehensive, same kind of era as you. But in Scotland, maybe that was a factor. I still don't know the words 100%. I hate it. The tune is a dirge, the words mean nothing to me. Perhaps it reflects the multi-national nature of the British state, that the monarchy is all we have in common. An independent England should have Jerusalem as its anthem, that is a cracking tune with great lyrics. Don't know about Scotland, I always found Flower of Scotland a bit embarrassing.
    Jerusalem would be a terrible choice for a multi cultural nation
    Indeed. It is a shame because politically Jerusalem appeals to both the right (green and pleasant land) and left (building the new Jerusalem among the dark satanic mills). Schrodinger's anthem.
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760
    Scott_P said:
    Fallen off all the front pages and bbc website. Poor Niall.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,981

    Scott_P said:

    I am in my 40s and we learnt it at school - a comprehensive. Isn’t it something everyone learns?

    I was taught it at primary school. In Scotland.

    And it really, really irritates me that no England team in any sport appears to know the words, despite them being the name of the song.

    God Save THE Queen.

    How hard is that?
    It's going to be really difficult to get it right when it stops being God Save the Queen.
    One of my favourite pub quiz questions: What was the national anthem before it was God Save the Queen?

    Hint: it last changed in 1952.
  • On the Labour civil war, I think Labour Remainers need to either get rid of Corbyn or if they can't, which they probably can't, STFU. We Diehard Remainers (TM) need two things from Labour:
    1) Wiggle-proof commitment for a second referendum (done)
    2) Don't lose too many seats to Con.

    That's it. It doesn't really matter whether Jeremy Corbyn is for or against what, hardly anybody listens to him anyhow.

    The seats they have to not lose to Con are mostly leave-ish. I don't know whether holding these seats requires them to tilt to Remain or tilt to Leave or sit on the fence or what. But it's probably best to leave it to the leadership and those incumbents to work that one out, rather than forcing them into our favourite corner.
  • nichomar said:

    F

    nichomar said:

    Scott_P said:
    Point and laugh at the Labour Party.
    The most astonishing thing i have come across is the Mainstream polling of labour members by Yougov which found only 10% happy to sing the national anthem, - that is amazing.
    Why amazing ?i don’t support labour and am very uncomfortable singing it. It’s not about a country or it’s people it’s about a hereditary monarch. The other four verses are quite enlightening as well. The only time it sounds anywhere near uplifting is when it is fully orchestrated but that doesn’t change the words. As an aside England shouldn’t use it as their anthem at sports events either as it implies England are the nation state.
    I think that for one of the two main political parties to have only 10% of its membership happy to sing the national anthem is amazing. A quick google on the subject finds a Guardian article from the last year saying general support for monarchy is above 70%. That is a massive difference.
    I was referring to the anthem and it’s focus on the monarchy, in itself that is not an anti monarchy line but an anti anthem line because the nation is about an awful lot more than HMQ.
    Surely most people will go their entire lives without singing the national anthem. It is only recently we've expected the England football team to sing it rather than stand there chewing gum while it is played.
    I am in my 40s and we learnt it at school - a comprehensive. Isn’t it something everyone learns?
    Not at school but in the Scouts. I think they gave me a badge for learning all the verses.
    Did you learn the General Wade/Scots crushing verse? Cant imagine why it's not a popular tune in Scotland!
    Yes we did. That was the best bit.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,915

    Scott_P said:

    I am in my 40s and we learnt it at school - a comprehensive. Isn’t it something everyone learns?

    I was taught it at primary school. In Scotland.

    And it really, really irritates me that no England team in any sport appears to know the words, despite them being the name of the song.

    God Save THE Queen.

    How hard is that?
    It's going to be really difficult to get it right when it stops being God Save the Queen.
    It would be a good time to change it. I wonder what unsuitable jingle would replace it?
    Heartland by The The
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786

    nichomar said:

    F

    nichomar said:

    Scott_P said:
    Point and laugh at the Labour Party.
    The most astonishing thing i have come across is the Mainstream polling of labour members by Yougov which found only 10% happy to sing the national anthem, - that is amazing.
    Why amazing ?i don’t support labour and am very uncomfortable singing it. It’s not about a country or it’s people it’s about a hernd shouldn’t use it as their anthem at sports events either as it implies England are the nation state.
    I think that for one of the two main political parties to havect finds a Guardian article from the last year saying general support for monarchy is above 70%. That is a massive difference.
    I was referring to the anthem and it’s focus on the monarchy, in itself that is not an anti monarchy line but an anti anthem line because the nation is about an awful lot more than HMQ.
    Surely most people will go their entire lives without singing the national anthem. It is only recently we've expected the England football team to sing it rather than stand there chewing gum while it is played.
    I am in my 40s and we learnt it at school - a comprehensive. Isn’t it something everyone learns?
    I never learned it at school - also a comprehensive, same kind of era as you. But in Scotland, maybe that was a factor. I still don't know the words 100%. I hate it. The tune is a dirge, the words mean nothing to me. Perhaps it reflects the multi-national nature of the British state, that the monarchy is all we have in common. An independent England should have Jerusalem as its anthem, that is a cracking tune with great lyrics. Don't know about Scotland, I always found Flower of Scotland a bit embarrassing.
    Jerusalem would be a terrible choice for a multi cultural nation
    The current anthem features "God" fairly heavily, eg it is the first word of the title and is repeated endlessly. I don't really see Jerusalem as a religious song, it's more about wanting to make England a better place isn't it?
    Any song with God in is a poor choice. Jerusalem is about whether the Christ child visited England with his uncle, and 'building Jerusalem' here, it's about the glorification of Christianity and given the status of Jerusalem as the centre of religious strife and war in the middle east it's not a great ditty for the minority religions of the UK.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 35,924
    edited September 2019
    Unison's Brexit break with Corbyn is huge. It clears the way for breaks on other issues and may mean it playing a much bigger role in the next leadership election. Pidcock - who I have been talking about on here for a while as the chosen Corbyn constinuity candidate - is close to Unite. But Unison now has more members than Champagne Len's crew. It may be looking closely at who is close to Unison as a result. One name stands out: Angela Rayner.

    https://www.unison.org.uk/news/article/2017/02/from-a-council-estate-to-the-houses-of-parliament/
  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,945
    edited September 2019
    Scott_P said:
    Talented articulare funny intelligent. I've got the perfect Labour leader and someone not afraid to call a trollop a trollop

    .....Fleabag!
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,553
    edited September 2019

    nichomar said:

    F

    nichomar said:

    Scott_P said:
    Point and laugh at the Labour Party.
    The most astonishing thing i have come across is the Mainstream polling of labour members by Yougov which found only 10% happy to sing the national anthem, - that is amazing.
    Why amazing ?i don’t support labour and am very uncomfortable singing it. It’s not about a country or it’s people it’s about a hereditary monarch. The other four verses are quite enlightening as well. The only time it sounds anywhere near uplifting is when it is fully orchestrated but that doesn’t change the words. As an aside England shouldn’t use it as their anthem at sports events either as it implies England are the nation state.
    I think that for one of the two main political parties to have only 10% of its membership happy to sing the national anthem is amazing. A quick google on the subject finds a Guardian article from the last year saying general support for monarchy is above 70%. That is a massive difference.
    I was referring to the anthem and it’s focus on the monarchy, in itself that is not an anti monarchy line but an anti anthem line because the nation is about an awful lot more than HMQ.
    Surely most people will go their entire lives without singing the national anthem. It is only recently we've expected the England football team to sing it rather than stand there chewing gum while it is played.
    I am in my 40s and we learnt it at school - a comprehensive. Isn’t it something everyone learns?
    Not at school but in the Scouts. I think they gave me a badge for learning all the verses.
    Me too - Cub Scouts I think more precisely. Also had to make up a scrapbnook re the doings of HM and her Royal Family. About 1990 I had a chat with an Akela [Cubs' packmistress] who complained that that part of the syllabus had become problematical as too many members of the RF had turned out not to be the upstanding examples of personal morality that were suitable for Cub Scout fodder! I have no idea what they do now.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,526
    Roger said:

    Scott_P said:
    Talented articulare funny intelligent. I've got the perfect Labour leader

    .....Fleabag!
    I suspect the LibDems might get there first.....
This discussion has been closed.