Why Jeremy Corbyn has no need to dodge Privy Council meeting with Queenie

A Privy Council, Library of Congress

There is much fluttering in the press this morning about the non-appearance of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn at a Privy Council meeting with old Queen Lizzie, at which he could be sworn into the obscure body.

It is not the first time the press has taken an interest in the republicanism of Corbyn, Fleet Street having had a shitfit over the fact he did not sing the national anthem at a Battle of Britain memorial but stood in, er, respectful silence.

Most controversial is the assertion that the Labour leader would have to take a knee before Lizzie Windsor in order to be sworn into the council, which mostly stamps rubber but also gives out secret briefings.

Folks at the Telegraph are reporting that Corbyn has dodged the meeting because of a “prior engagement”, quoting a (conveniently) anonymous sources attacking him for sedition etc.

Even the Beeb gets in on the act of quoting Tory MP Alan Duncan (Who? – Ed) who attacked the Labour leader for putting politics above the monarch, as if the needs of the citizenry were above those of the House of Windsor!

“This is not so much about snubs, insults or ceremonies: it’s more about whether Jeremy Corbyn wants to be a serious political figure or just a perpetual rebel,” Duncan told the Torygraph.

The national broadcaster does however point out that prime minister David Cameron took three months to get sworn in, and presumably wasn’t asked a battery of stupid questions about it.

Later in the Torygraph the reporters speculate that Corbyn might seek to use an Order in Council to be sworn in without bothering to meet Lizzie Windsor in the (rather aged) flesh.

Yet all this is rather pointless speculation, since there is already a convention in place by which Queenie accepts republicans into what journalist Christopher Hitchens correctly termed the “Secret Council” without the genuflection.

Last Wednesday our friends at Private Eye published the following story explaining how it all works, writing:

“There is a long-established custom for dealing with such circumstances: traditionally republicans simply feign a knee injury which prevents them assuming such an uncomfortable posture. The more theatrical have even been known to borrow a walking stick for the occasion.”

Copies of the magazine can and should be obtained at these things called “newsagents”. Try googling it.

Update: Rather embarrassingly Christopher Hope, one of the hacks behind the Torygraph story, is failing to admit that Cameron took three months before he was sworn in – rather damaging the “snub” spin on Hope’s piece.

Unfortunately the paperwork proves he is quite, quite wrong.

Image Credit – A Privy Council, Library of Congress

Ukip attack video lambasts David Cameron for EU ‘renegotiation con’

Map of Europe, October 2008 by Kevin Hale

The Kippers are finally rolling out the tanks for Britain’s upcoming referendum on membership of the European Union, launching an attack video against David Cameron on Wednesday.

The gist of the video is that the prime minister is a naughty man who is deceiving the public about his ability to renegotiate more favourable terms for Britain’s continued membership.

Many commentators have noted the lack of a defined shopping list going into negotiations, which most have interpreted as a means of hedging – if you don’t say what you want you cannot be criticised for not getting it.

Those of a mind with Mail on Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens will no doubt argue this is the latest in the long line of deceit by British politicians with regards to the European question, a view he put forward in BBC doc This Sceptic Isle.

Image Credit – Map of Europe, October 2008 by Kevin Hale

Milo Yiannopoulos and Julie Bindel ban proves feminism has a problem with free speech

Milo Yiannopoulos, June 2013 by Official LeWeb Photos

Irony has a habit of catching up with you.

And on Wednesday Manchester’s Student Union decided to ban the journalist Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking at an event aptly titled: “From Liberation to Censorship: Does Modern Feminism have a Problem with Free Speech?”

Clearly there is an economy to the student union’s decision. Not only is it faster to settle a debate by not having it, but in banning Yiannopoulos and his co-speaker and journalist Julie Bindel they have proved that feminism does indeed have a problem with free speech.

Even in explaining the decision to ban Bindel, prohibited a day before Yiannopoulos, the student union’s women’s officer Jess Lishak said it herself via a now conveniently deleted Facebook post, referenced by student paper the Mancunion here:

“This is not about shutting down conversations or denying free speech; this is about keeping our students safe. If this were about silencing people we happen to disagree with or avoiding uncomfortable conversations, we would be denying the application for Milo Yiannopoulos to speak.

“The difference in these two cases is inciting harm to a group of our students. Yiannopoulos is very careful to criticise feminist thoughts, theories and methods of research or statistics rather than calling for active discrimination against women like Bindel does to trans women.”

The authoritarian impulse can be found in almost any political group. But it’s emergence among social justice warriors has proved particularly gruesome for the universities they frequent, with Warwick’s student union attempting to stop criticism of Muslims and Islam only last week.

Attempting to justify their censorship, the cretins at Manchester’s student union said:

“We have been made aware of various comments lambasting rape survivors and trans* people, and as such we are concerned for the safety of our students on the topic of this event. He is a rape apologist and has repeatedly used derogatory and debasing ableist language when describing members of the trans* community.

”As such, this undermines the principles of liberation enshrined in the Students’ Union, as outlined in the Safe Space policy. We believe these views could incite hatred against both trans* people and women who have experienced sexual violence. As we believe it is probable these views would be aired in this discussion should he be allowed to speak on campus, we have no choice but to ban him.”

It is hard to believe that nobody involved in the Bindel decision was aware of Yiannopoulos’ pedigree as a controversialist, his criticism of the concept of rape culture or his more incendiary comments about transgender people.

So yet again the hate speech concept is used to block criticism of ideas. Instead, students must be protected from having their opinions and feelings questioned.

Update: Apparently Bindel is speaking to her lawyers about the matter.

Image Credit – Milo Yiannopoulos, June 2013 by Official LeWeb Photos

Bill Clinton denies calling up Donald Trump and asking him to run for US president

Bill Clinton, Civil Rights Summit, April 2014 by LBJ Foundation

Bill Clinton, 42nd president of the United States and potential husband of the 45th, denied convincing businessman Donald Trump to run in the latest presidential race, in what would have been one of the greatest pieces of trolling in history.

Speaking to American chat show host Stephen Colbert, Clinton disappointingly downplayed his powers of triangulation, saying that he had spoken to the Trumpster over the phone but not discussed his campaign to run for the White House on the Republican ticket.

Continue reading →

Iain Duncan Smith: 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan scuppered my leadership of the Tories

IDS and Allegra Stratton, Center for Social Justice

Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, blames the attacks on the World Trade Center in September 2001 and the lengthy wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for damaging his tenure as Tory leader between 2001 and 2003.

Speaking at a fringe meeting held by the Centre for Social Justice at the Conservative conference, Smith said:

“The day before I got elected, the Twin Towers were struck. So first of all I got no lift from my announcement. It had to be buried the following day because hardly anybody paid attention.”

He went on to complain that when a foreign war is going on it becomes hard for a leader of the opposition to gain traction in the media because of the focus abroad According to Politics.co.uk he said:

“When the nation is at war there is only one person [the public] look to. It is the prime minister because the prime minister is powerful. He is the one that directs it. And [Tony] Blair of course milked that for all it was worth. It was impossible for weeks and months to get anywhere near any domestic debate.”

Obviously no Tory prime minister has ever profited from a foreign war, and certainly nobody named Maggie Thatcher, who didn’t send the army to the Falklands Islands in 1982 and then go on to win the general election in 1983, partly because of the fervour caused by the war. No sir.

Image Credit – IDS and Allegra Stratton, by the Centre for Social Justice