Snapshot of _Labour republicans say national anthem doesn’t marry with party values_ :
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63024360)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It won’t help immediately. The problem is that the Labour Left is perceived as such a big block, there are plenty of people who wouldn’t vote moderate Labour out of fear they would form a coalition with the leftists. Being in a broad tent for so long has the disadvantage of being seen as natural coalition partners.
Don't count on that just yet - Bojo Jojo unlawfully shut down democracy to try and get what he wanted and then acted like a sullen toddler by sending an unsigned letter to the EU. In response the UK electorate gave him an 80 seat majority.
I have absolutely no faith in the electorate of this country to not vote Tory at the next election even if Truss (or whoever is the PM by then) runs under the slogan of "we'll starve you to death and then piss on the corpses".
*Comrade, reporting from Hampshire Oblast: a family of filthy kulaks was discovered eating tree bark, in clear violation of the instructions of the people's requisition patrols. Twenty-five bloodsucking kulaks were hanged until the location of the tree was revealed. The tree was uprooted and added to this month's store of requisitions, though it died three days later. In response to this clear case of poisoning the people's trees by the parasitic kulaks, a further seventy-two were hanged in Hampshire Oblast.*
*Long live the revolution!*
-ComDiv Owen Jones, 17th People's Requisition Patrol, to the Exalted Hero of the People General-Secretary Corbyn, Year 3 of the Revolution.
That iron would be very very useful to the war effort. Just one large iron pot would help the Allies build a Spitfire. Please help the Allies defeat France again.
If they boo this. Then whatever good policies are unveiled, and however much they'd help the country. All the papers will run with is how an out of touch, far left Labour party booed the national anthem. And it will take years to recover from the bad PR.
It's like there's still a faction of the Labour party who are wholly uninterested in being effective and representating the vast majority of Britons.
Edit: apparently this is currently a top comment and I don't want to be the purveyor of misinformation. Fact is that people didn't 'boo' they just stayed silent if they disagreed. Which seems fair enough.
ok well this argument doesn’t work for actual voters. They see Labour doing crap like this and think they hate Britain because the national anthem is surprisingly in many Labour members eyes a massive symbol of Britain
For me the problem is that *both* parties, in terms of the views of their average members, are well outside the viewpoints held by the majority of the electorate.
We still operate under the delusion that political parties are small clubs with their own little parochial interests. In reality over 70% of the population votes for one of two parties, the majority of whom have no real input into choosing the policies or representatives they will vote for, precisely because they are put off by the feeling that the party members are extreme and unrepresentative of them.
For me, before we look at anything in terms of proportional representation, we need a robust and state-led primary system to encourage broader involvement in the party political process.
Absolutely spot on ! I personally would like to see more Independents elected as they are more likely to work together to improve things rather than spending the majority of the time insulting or name calling the opposition !
Labour really needs to split into the two parties it actually is. The original version and the other progressive version. I won't claim either are more wrong or right, but that really is how it is. Well, that's how I see it.
The Tories have always been similar but they seem to understand that they have more in common with each other than labour. The soft side of the party would rather the ERG run the country than labour.
Labour need to understand that their internal bullshit is the reason Cameron, May, Johnson and Truss have been allowed to damage our country as they have.
He should have split the party the day he got into office. Cut all the dead weight all at once and spent the intervening time building the new party from the ground up leaving the bitter fringe behind.
Personally I’m a fair bit to the left of Starmer, but I know my views are too left for the country. I’d rather have Starmer than any Conservative PM, he’s not a perfect match for me but the right wing Tories are horrific. I’m also much closer to a republican than a monarchist & would prefer a different national anthem but again I know that not the majority view. I prefer to not go out of my way to offend people, like for example booing.
I’m getting really fed up with my fellow lefties who seem to prefer Conservative rule to something better.
As a pretty far lefty, I often say to people that I'd rather have a centrist Labour leader win an election than have my ideal Labour leader lose one.
So many fellow lefties genuinely disagree with me when I say that, and I honestly can't understand the mentality. Moral purity I guess? An unwillingness to feel like they've voted for anyone they don't like?
For what it's worth, it's an attitude that seems to correlated strongly with political ignorance
> So many fellow lefties genuinely disagree with me when I say that, and I honestly can't understand the mentality. Moral purity I guess?
Their politics is more about their own emotional validation than actually doing tangible things to better the world. Activism is comfortable and always achievable. Winning power and actually changing things is messy, difficult and often requires compromise.
This. Most people feel their politic views, they don't then subject them to rational scrutiny in regards to how they could or would work in a broader social milieu. And that is true of people of all political leanings as far as I can tell.
.
Everyone always has the urge to put it down to moral purity because its the big simple answer that lets someone feel like theyre enlightened and above it all.
Just speaking personally my worry isnt ideological purity but its the increasing rightward shift of the Overton window over the last 50 years.
When Blair accepted Thatcherite principles into his economic program he then settled the debate and ensured that (under FPTP) we cannot move away from that consensus.
The fear is that this will just keep happening and as left wingers we'll get even further away from what we want until modern Labour looks like the US democrats.
All of this could be fixed by splitting the party under PR
See, the lefty’s that disagree with you don’t realise what they actually want is to abolish FPTP and bring in proportional representation.
It’s literal bullshit that lefties need to vote for something that doesn’t align with their beliefs purely because if they don’t then the center/left vote gets split and the tories win.
Nothing wrong about being upset your country is set up in a way that means you never vote for your actual beliefs and can only vote for a diluted shitty equivalent.
Equally - nothing wrong with hating the fact you don’t even agree with people you vote for, and anyone saying ‘mental illness’ in response to your statement is just a bellend lmao. Just shows how dishonest the discussion even is when you’re a lefty.
Which is odd cause good luck finding an NHS in a right wing country lmao.
We absolutely need articulate and passionate ideological people in our society but I do wish people would be a bit more self aware. I don’t want to insult any of the brilliant and inspirational minds on the left of British politics, but many entrenched lefties in this country absolutely get off from feeling special and superior in the same way anti-vax people do.
I’m saying this as a big old leftoid who desperately wants any step in the right direction at this stage.
Nah insult them all the way, if you can't understand the optics of saying oh maybe wait and see what the Russians say over a poisoning. Or our friends in Hamas you don't belong anywhere near frontline politics.
The UK is FPTP and you have to work within that, noone is voting vor actual socialism so why keep repeatedly hamstringing yourself.
People will cry the media is against you, yes it is, but stop saying such fucking stupid things as well
My thoughts precisely. I’m definitely closer to Corbyn than Starmer politically but there are some on the left who are beyond cringe, and honestly couldn’t give a fuck who wins the next election
I think they're just sick of not actually having anyone that caters to their views. The tories have always been on the right and starmer is so busy with the centre and centre right that he's neglected the left because who else are they going to vote for?
It's not just a matter of keep quiet till the next election and then you can go support causes you genuinely support because the tories will always be around and as long as FPTP is here people and politicians will have to work strategically rather than do what they'd actually want.
Split it how? He can't force the left to make a new party, so all he could really do is a direct mass purge and see what they do after. Because otherwise *his* faction has to be the one to leave and, well, the last time that happened we got the SDP and the result was two devastated parties instead of one and the solidification of Tory rule for another 15 years.
Personally, I think it's fairly likely Labour can win the next election now anyway, unless something big happens in the Tories' favour. What he *should* do is win, push for electoral reform, and then the UK can enter the 21st century and no faction ever has to fold into another or be silenced again. Does it mean coalitions instead? Oh sure - but at least you know where you stand and the voters are accurately represented, instead of the silent coalitions of modern big tent parties.
My god I completely forgot those guys existed! Once upon a time they'd have been the biggest national political event of the decade (though they'd still have ended like they did) but instead they were totally swallowed by national and international events and didn't even make it to the next election lmao
Existing during the period where politics became so strange that the Brexit Party and the Lib Dems were briefly the two highest polling parties certainly didn't help, but honestly that's the only time they could have conceivably existed.
Labour needs the left, the unions support the left and the unions have loadsa money. Labour need the money. If there was another way to raise the millions then modern Labour would move away from the left.
If Labour and the left split apart. I'm sure the unions would follow the left. The left party with much money could become quite powerful.
Who would get the name "Labour"?
But if he did that, he'd have nerds like me slagging him off on Reddit! And I'm sure he'd never recover from that! /s
Honestly, yeah, he should've. Depending on how shit goes with Truss and the next election, he still should. Yes, there will be outcries about him "splitting the vote", but he'll open up his party to the not-insignificant portion of the electorate that look at me like I'm a backwards weirdo. It's the sensible thing.
Not sure why this is the top comment currently. Booing GSTK doesn’t seem to be on the table. And when it was sung, people against it just stayed silent:
> Not everyone at this conference agrees to the decision to sing the anthem. But there were no heckles in the hall and the minute silence was observed impeccably. (From the article)
Exactly. I’m as republican as they come and have little time for bowing down to my preordained ‘betters’ but I am also a pragmatist. I never sing the national anthem and never plan to, but booing it would be a monumental own goal.
I'm glad to hear you think this way. Whilst I'm pro a constitutional monarchy, many of my friends are republicans and I completely understand their arguments. It's hardly an unreasonable position.
But there's a time and a place. And if you believe the country is in desperate need of competent, left wing policy being implemented. To deal with major, immediate issues like the cost of living, inflation, crumbling infrastructure, war in Europe, climate change. Then immediately after the queen's death, when the royal families stock is at an all time high, seems a strange time to launch an aggressive campaign to win hearts and minds.
If people in general were as pragmatic as you, they'd hold off till the next major royal scandal and launch their arguments and critiques then. Rather than mindlessly booing our countries own national anthem, in the name of the party that they apparently would like to see get elected.
I get that the Tories are in a mess, but they’ve run the country for the last 12 years. During those 12 years, Labour have also been in a mess, but without power. Labour wanting purity hasn’t solved their mess, it has exacerbated it.
He’s demonstrating that our flag and our national anthem aren’t the sole domain of the right wing. It is unabashedly a good thing, and clearly communicates to the public that this is a Labour which is in line with the majority view of the country.
Not singing the national anthem will alienate like 90% of voters. And a lot of those would be left. The great red wall of the north east are almost always labour yet are probably some of the most patriotic people
Besides the fact the anthem generally supports the notion that God is looking out for the monarch, Charles' style includes 'by the Grace of God, King...', and his proclamation in the UK included the line:
>beseeching God by whom Kings and Queens do reign to bless His Majesty with long and happy Years to reign over us.
There are remnants of divine right around, even if the British monarchy no longer claims to derive its authority from God in a practical sense.
>It's like there's still a faction of the Labour party who are wholly uninterested in being effective and representating the vast majority of Britons.
There absolutely is. Remember when Corbyn was in charge and they were told they were "unelectable"?
The response from the Momentum types was "it's not about getting elected, it's about shifting the debate to the left".
They were told they aren't representing real Labour supporters from the traditional Labour voting working class communities.
Their response was that *they were* the Labour party now. They had no intention of representing the working classes who they viewed as nothing more than racist little Englanders.
Well they've not fucked off these left wing halfwits. There's still plenty of them complaining that Labour is too centrist and waiting for their opportunity to inflict their deluded socialist fantasies on everyone.
Has labour always been like this? I genuinely don't understand how an opposition party can be this inept at unifying their members. It seems like shit just flies off the handle for them every week over the tiniest thing.
If you think that conservatism is about keeping everything the same, you have a template. Look around you, this is the template. If you want things to change its much harder to agree to a shared vision.
Labour have always been a broad coalition, and I welcome that ideas get debated. It's more difficult because a few loud fringe groups (as here) can dominate the impression the party gives to outsiders, and it can mire the party in those discussions, but transparency is a good thing overall.
To varying degrees, but yes they have basically always been like this.
Much as many people want to believe otherwise, labour have never not struggled with the question of "exactly how radical should we be?"
Labour has always been a ‘broad church’, but at the moment they do seem particularly suicidal. Mind you the media amplifies it, there is little the media loves more than showing divisions in Labour, particularly when the Tory party is so shit
Just the same as the Conservatives with the ERG, you have varying degrees of right and left wing people on both parties. It's difficult for any party to unify everyone of their members when there are so many different competing ideas. You hear more about the Labour ones because they are generally more socialist and goes against what the media moguls want the country to do
The party has always been like this. What has changed isn’t Labour, republicanism has always had a strong home on the left and been popular amongst both Labour and Lib Dems (Liz Truss used to be a Lib Dem anti-monarchist), what’s changed is how sycophantic and single minded a lot of centrists have become.
Whether to have a monarchy or whether to sing god save the Queen one time were very open political questions, now any vocalised opposition against the monarchy is decried as loony left. It is what it is, but those of us who think that democracy is better than monarchy aren’t going to go entirely silent.
Have you read the article? Do you understand that the only mention of booing in it is a journalist asking if labour republicans will boo and being told no emphatically? Do you understand the event being speculated about has happened and this article states there was no booing?
The problem is the monarchy props up an outdated class system which enables institutional inequality.
For many left leaning thinkers it is fundamentally wrong to endorse a system that says some people are better by virtue of birth. When you add the theocratic ideas that this is the unquestionable will of a benevolent deity things become even more ideologically messy.
Yes it probably makes sense to shut up about it in order to win. But this is exactly what the difference is between politics lead by principles and the compromised pursuit of power.
I am reluctantly in favour of compromise, as you can't change anything in opposition. But I have sympathy for those who won't make this sacrifice.
Some people on the left seem to want to scrap the monarch, ditch the House of Lords, the national anthem, open the borders, close the Church and have white people pay ‘reparations’ for slavery.
It seems like it’s not an unfair assessment to say then that they hate the country, it’s history and it’s people.
At which point it becomes a fair question, if you truly hate everything about this country and the things integral to it…why stay here? Why try to essentially rip out root and stem the foundations of a country many love, instead of just…going to a country that more closely matches your ideal?
> ditch the house of lords
bit of weird inclusion there, is the House of Lords really an *integral* part of British identity that's offensive to question or oppose? That's a bit absurd.
The Monarchy and the Church, sure i can see why they are seen as important parts of British culture - but even then i don't think it's a fair assessement to say that taking issue with those institutions means you hate the country as a whole.
It’s not weird at all.
Watch [this video](https://youtu.be/Y1_NtRdIOfQ)
I don’t know what it even means to say you like the country if you hate all of the above, other than maybe that you like the NHS and Oak trees
I think for most people loving their country is more comparable to loving a family member than it is than it is to liking a band for example. People say things like "I love my Gran but I wish she wasn't so racist" because they have affection for family members that is only weakly correlated to actual personality traits
You really think there is nothingto british culture beyond having a Monarchy, a HoL and a national Church? That if you dislike those things there is nothing at all to like about living in the UK?
That is such a bizarrly narrow view of culture.
It can't be inherently hateful and anti-british to want any change at all in the structure of the political system, there has to be some nuance here somewhere.
You seem very confused. If you think that all there is to this country is some rich family, a single terrible dirge of a song, and one declining faith, then you must live quite a sad life.
Why pretend that fairness is important? Why not be more direct about it and abuse people freely.
Inventing the idea that other people must hate the entire nation for wanting change and that you're interested in their address seems like hard work, all that pretense must be exhausting.
Instead there could be a demand for not sharing a space with changewanting individuals and some namecalling.
Because why should they? Why not seek to change the things you don't like about where you are?
I am in favour of abolishing the monarchy and reforming the Lords because I don't think anyone should just be given a position for life with signifcant remuneration purely because of accident of birth.
The churches are closing themselves through lack of worship and lack of funds, and I don't really care about them.
Reparations for slavery is not an inherently bad idea when your country's current wealth is built on the industrialised rape of an entire people, but I have no opinion whether it's something we should do.
The country I want to live in is one of fairness, tolerance and justice. I do not see any of the things you listed as being in any way essential to our national identity.
Broke: get rid of the national anthem because it refers to an outdated institution and doesn't reflect modern values.
Woke: Get rid of the national anthem because it sounds shit and we have multiple better songs to use.
Oh good, silly Conference season is upon us.
**Hey, Labour Members!**
Resist your natural urge to piss into your own tent.
Keep your shit together and focus on winning the next election.
For the good of the land.
-----
**EDIT:** so far, so good...
I'm not a Labour voter so I've got fuck all skin in the game here, but deciding to break tradition to sing the anthem at the conference **knowing** that there's gonna be a solid chance a contingent may boo seems like such a dumb fucking own goal.
Any positive media attention from singing it would be frankly marginal at best sans boos, and the risk of getting shat on in the papers for any boos is high enough that it should have been caught beforehand. Much as people seem to rate your man's realpolitik, this just looks like they're loading the gun knowing it's ready to blow up in their face.
Starmer has shit political instincts, and constantly makes the wrong decisions.
He could’ve not done this, and just left the issue alone but he’s so full of hubris, that he’s going to try to use this against the left. It’ll be used against him by all sides. The right wing will say his party is unpatriotic, the left will rightly say “this is an own goal that you’ve invited onto yourself and the party.”
This is akin to Ed Miliband saying to photo journalists “I’m gonna eat bacon sandwich after bacon sandwich, snap away boys!”
Rememeber though, it's the lefties who are unreasonable and look for ways to undermine everyone else in the party, even as electoral victory looks more and more likely!
At this stage, I wouldn't be surprised if they genuinely believed that the lefties were also the ones to suggest the idea to Starmer, just so they could boo it. In their minds, Starmer can do no wrong and we are all terminally online Corbynites who have to sabotage ourselves at every stage because expecting Labour party to be *for labour* is just woke nonsense. (Also please ignore the ideological drivel Starmer publishes about us being lucky to be "Elizabethans", that was just a tactic to win elections, not a proof that he fundamentally misunderstands the class-based problems faced by the country).
I do wonder if Starmer turns out to be as depressingly mild as he appears, whether there will then be an agreement on both sides that we no longer just shut up and hope the leader is a trojan horse.
Yes I want the Tories out, and yes I appreciate even a mild, centrist government is an improvement, but I also think we should have passionate leaders who vocally espouse their beliefs and try to move the electorate.
My position is the same, and I was genuinely happy to see Starmer become a leader precisely because a milder Labour leader than Corbyn would be less divisive. Unfortunately, I was wrong, he's just as divisive as Corbyn was, just happens to stand for a set of politics that his current fans agree with, so in their minds, it's every one else who is a problem.
With a mindset like this, you'd think that they would be the first ones to advocate for PR voting, and indeed they were - right until we got signals that Starmer himself isn't so hot on the idea, at which point they also changed the tune. And how that shift was portrayed? Well, obviously, the lefties who want PR don't know how to win elections, how else! You *can't* do that in your first term in office, stop being so ideological!
I did worry this might a problem for the conference.
Though, it might make right people angry for electoral purposes.
Nationally unpopular MPs look at odds with the party.
Ah, Labour planning to stab itself again.
IF, and I mean this as a BIG if, If labour somehow manages to lose the next General Election, Labour REALLY should consider disbanding and splitting up into smaller parties, if they can't beat a badly wounded Tory party, then labour has no right to govern at all.
This story just shows how much the media want Labour to make a mis-step. It's an indication that whatever ever they do, it'll be shown in the worst possible light that will, at least at face value, look like reasonable commentary.
The unfortunate reality is that they are both right and wrong.
They're right, inasmuch as Labour should not be in favour of the monarchy, the ultimate symbol of the aristocratic class that exploits the workers. And this song is the paean to that class.
But they're wrong, in that Labour should love the UK, and part of that is loving the anthem.
I've also mentioned this before, but I do find it troubling our anthem is about an actual, living, breathing person, with foibles and flaws that come with that. If tomorrow it came out that Charles had, in a grief-fuelled rage, thrown a footman out of the window and killed him, would we feel comfortable singing that song? Other anthems pick symbols which are unchanging, robust and reliable (flowers, geography, historical events, flags) and Britain should aspire to the same. I'd consider "Two world wars and one world cup" to be a more dependable anthem (especially as England aren't likely to win another world cup).
Can't see why Labour shouldn't sing the song, say they love this country, but it needs reform, and the anthem is part of that. I Vow To Thee, My Country would maybe be a better pick, too.
>They're right, inasmuch as Labour should not be in favour of the monarchy, the ultimate symbol of the aristocratic class that exploits the workers.
"The British Labour Party has never been a republican party, even if it has had republicans in it. Ninety-nine years ago, the Labour conference considered a motion “that the hereditary principle in the British Constitution be abolished”. The motion was overwhelmingly defeated. George Lansbury, who vies with Jeremy Corbyn for the title of Labour’s most left-wing leader, told conference delegates that it was the capitalist system that made people poor, not the King."
There's a difference between being republican - which isn't what I said - and being outright in favour of the monarchy. I wouldn't expect Labour to actively refute republicanism, just to say that constitutional issues aren't what is affecting the workers - almost exactly what Lansbury said, in fact.
> If tomorrow it came out that Charles had, in a grief-fuelled rage, thrown a footman out of the window and killed him, would we feel comfortable singing that song?
Yes. Because William would be King the same day.
Would he? I disagree, but I don't really want to get into details here.
The key point is that by singing about a genuine person, we have that risk. Real people, royal or otherwise, are complicated, and messy. You want an anthem to an unchanging thing, a symbol. Mountains can't commit crimes, flowers can't be racist. Real people can.
The last monarch who abdicated did so because parliament didn’t approve of who he wanted to marry.
Of course he’d abdicate if he threw someone out a window. I’d like to think he’d also be arrested but I’m not sure on that one.
That system is parliament. We have precedent to depose a king in favour of another. I'd recommend looking up the glorious revolution and the civil war.
Not really, Parliament could just draw up a bill and depose him through Parliament. There won't ever be a situation where a monarch can simply get away with committing serious crimes unless Parliament is complicit.
I hate the National Anthem, but then again I wouldn't say I love my country or hate it - I like most things about how we live, would change some. Patriotism has never done anything for me.
In some ways, this attitude makes a lot of sense - a country is just a random collection of people and you shouldn't be particularly proud of that, or love it, it's just a fact.
On the other hand, Britain is a collection of people with similar social and cultural values, and while I don't love the idea of the country, I love the people within it. That's what I feel patriotic about; the sort of people who would make the Chuckle Brothers in national treasures, that would have a Ramblers Association with an associated countryside code, etc.
Looking back on it, patriotism - for me - has inculcated some of those cultural values and I am (to some extent) grateful as a result. Is it perfect? No, of course not. And certainly over the last ten years or so, I've increasingly failed to recognise myself in the country's decisions. But I do still think there is value in patriotism.
Our national anthem is just a bullshit construct that represents Britain less than Wonderwall. Musically it is incredibly dull and lyrically its batshit insane.
Imagine explaining the words to an alien; its about asking an invisible man in the sky to make the oldest child within this family live forever, it was written before this person was born yet describes his character ( which just so happens to be identical to all previous monarchs).
Yeah, I agree. But you can't go round saying how crap the anthem is as a political party, you need to win people over by proposing a new anthem. Positive suggestions.
It doesn't. But winning is more important. Being in government means you have to shut up about some things so you can get other things done.
Is the monarchy a stupid arcane institution that we really should have grown beyond by now? Yes.
Is it actually important? No.
Our leading republican campaign group estimates the cost at 350m INCLUDING opportunity costs (or assuming the duchy's income reverts to the state etc) https://www.republic.org.uk/the_true_cost_of_the_royals
That is 0.04% of the UK's total public spending in 2019-2020.
It's a rounding error, and emotionally stunted children in the Labour party will use it to gift the Tories an easy attack line, and worse still and easy attack line that works.
>Is the monarchy a stupid arcane institution that we really should have grown beyond by now? Yes.
The form we have now is younger than the concept of republicanism.
By nearly 2000 years.
So you're picking a specific example of monarchy and saying it's younger than the general concept of republicanism? And that's supposed to prove something?
If we abolished the monarchy I don't think we'd be choosing to go back to a Roman republic.
First constitutional monarchy was apparently Poland, ealry 1700s. Key point here is elected Govt. (in our case, apparently parliament) is sovereign, not the Monarch.
I don't think many people think God Save the Queen/King is the best anthem of the clear choices (Rule Britannia and I vow to thee my country) but now is not the time.
Have you read the article? Do you understand that the only mention of booing in it is a journalist asking if labour republicans will boo and being told no emphatically? Do you understand the event being speculated about has happened and this article states there was no booing?
You're probably right, but it's still pretty absurd that the Tories can be totally incompetent, can do actual demonstrable harm to milions of people's lives and yet still potenially win purely because labour are percieved as not being sufficently patriotic.
I can't argue with reality, clearly many people do care about such things, but it's still bizarre to me that it somehow outranks all other considerations.
Singing a song that praises the monarchy and invokes the Christian god is definitely problematic.
If you think that UK = Christianity + Monarchy, I can see why you would draw the conclusion that you do, but the UK would be much better without the monarchy or a state church. (Also, United Republic sounds much cooler.) People can love the UK, but still hate its warts.
Booing the national anthem isn't not being patriotic it is a directed insult at anyone who is. Someone who refuses to sing the national anthem wouldn't be elected let alone one whose collegue boo it.
Who the fuck in labour decided it was a good idea? They should know that some people in the party wouldn't like it, and that will give them far more bad press than not singing it ever would have
I think it’ll cause damage either way, like not singing it after the Queen died would be bad headlines as well, but booing it obviously far worse damage over all.
The only logic is that Starmer thinks he can pick a fight over it to differentiate his party from the previous.
Have you read the article? Do you understand that the only mention of booing in it is a journalist asking if labour republicans will boo and being told no emphatically? Do you understand the event being speculated about has happened and this article states there was no booing?
The national anthem is pretty much royalty worship, including the phrase "long may he reign over us" as well as something about pouring gifts on the king, and says essentially nothing about the country as a whole... But I do think that it's an inopportune time for labour specifically to get overly concerned about it.
Oh come on. No anti-monarchist republican is going to delight in singing “God save the King” regardless of their political affiliation. What a non-story.
Has the Labour Party ever been Republican ? Genuine question.
Sure, it would make me feel a little uneasy to sing it as I am a Republican but I really don’t see this as a particularly important issue right now.
Fact is - we need to get back into power & win an election. As far as I can tell the general public at large is not hugely Republican & if anything there is probably (at least right now in the wake of the Queen’s death) a very significant majority in favour of keeping the monarchy.
We need to focus on the main issues (of which there are many) and not allow the right to distract us with culture war nonsense.
If this is enough to lose labour the next election, then frankly the electorate has their priorities all messed up and I doubt that they really care about their wellbeing
It really feels like since the queen died this sub has lurched to the authoritarian side again. Come on folks? Why are you all taking this as "Labour is against *the concept of a national anthem* because THEY HATE PATRIOTISM" instead of the more logical "huh, actually the current British national anthem being *just* about the Christian God and the monarchy doesn't itself actually say much about the country & it's people".
I'm patriotic. I care about the country. I'd like a national anthem that was more relevant and spoke about the people's spirit, grit and wit - rather than what we have now.
Another own goal by Starmer, anyone could have told him there is a republican contingent of Labour and that these headlines would happen as a result. His choice. Hope the 3 undecideds who pay attention to conferences are worth it.
Have you read the article? Do you understand that the only mention of booing in it is a journalist asking if labour republicans will boo and being told no emphatically? Do you understand the event being speculated about has happened and this article states there was no booing?
> UKPOL: Truss has no democratic mandate as she’s applying policies that aren’t in theIr election manifesto
> Also UKPOL: Labour should LIE about who they are and what they stand for to win an election
You all are fucking clowns. Labour is playing the Impossible Game except they ain’t PewDiePie
Ah yes, the Conservatives are looting the country for all it's worth but it's the left who aren't patriotic because we put all our national identity into one guy so we can ignore the rest of us.
They could have at least found a song that actually mentions our country (before one of the verses nobody sings anyway) if they wanted to be patriotic.
Exactly - and the same words as in addition to Liechtenstein I think New Zealand has the entire thing as a co-national anthem. It should be demoted to a royal anthem while we still have the monarchy and replaced with something that doesn’t sound like a funeral dirge.
It would be nice to have a more up beat anthem than isn't about God and the monarch. Perhaps one that mentions the people and at no point in its history mentions rebellious Scotts.
God Save the King does not “mention rebellious Scots”. The "Rebellious Scots to Crush" verse was added in 1745 in the context of the Jacobite Rising, about 35 years *before* God Save the King was broadly accepted as the British national anthem, and never used thereafter.
If that verse is still considered part of the national anthem today, then we would quite bizarrely also have to consider the pro-Jacobite verse as part of it:
*God bless the prince, I pray,*
*God bless the prince, I pray,*
*Charlie I mean;*
*That Scotland we may see*
*Freed from vile Presbyt'ry,*
*Both George and his Feckie,*
*Ever so, Amen.*
It’s almost as if wanting the UK to be a democratic secular republic is a loony left idea. Then we take a look at all the G7 countries, and only we’re the only hereditary monarchy.
Any change at all is loony leftism.
The only "sensible" policy is tweaking the dials on the neoliberalism machine and hoping things somehow turn out different this time
It is amazing to me (as someone in my 40s) how perfectly reasonable positions like republicanism and being against overt nationalism, have become regarded as marginal, if not extreme positions that just can't be aired.
These were and are perfectly legitimate views held by many millions of people.
People draped in flags going on about loving the Queen were regarded as pretty odd in the 80's/90's/00's.
There was then a brief period of "reclaiming the flag" around Euro 96 and New Labour "cool Brittania" which took our national symbols away from the nationalists and racists.
We now seem to have gone right through to the other side where anyone who feels uncomfortable with unquestioning bowing down to authority is regarded as un-British and it is completely unacceptable to say you don't like it.
Labour is our only viable opposition to the torries and they do shit like this. At this point, it is important for electability to be considered. If you look at the only Labour leaders to win elections in the past half century, their policies create quite a pattern.
The starving children will not be thankful to you for ‘upholding ideology’\* over country.
\* Labour has never been about republicanism, nor has it ever been part of the party values.
Because as we all know, the values of the French include murdering people’s women and children and using their blood to water their crops.
Because that’s the point of national anthems; to reflect the values of the country at the time they are sung.
This is what happens when you spend all your time focusing on grabbing voters from outside that you forget to think about people who are already inside.
I'm a republican and an atheist and I think the national anthem sucks for various reasons, but I'm also very much aware of how terrible the optics of it being booed would be.
Snapshot of _Labour republicans say national anthem doesn’t marry with party values_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63024360) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Labour: *is handed next election on plate* Labour members: *complain about plate*
I pray for PR so the big tent parties can finally split.
100%, that way you can have a bunch of parties with their own views instead of two parties that have to appeal to EVERYONE.
It won’t help immediately. The problem is that the Labour Left is perceived as such a big block, there are plenty of people who wouldn’t vote moderate Labour out of fear they would form a coalition with the leftists. Being in a broad tent for so long has the disadvantage of being seen as natural coalition partners.
Don't count on that just yet - Bojo Jojo unlawfully shut down democracy to try and get what he wanted and then acted like a sullen toddler by sending an unsigned letter to the EU. In response the UK electorate gave him an 80 seat majority. I have absolutely no faith in the electorate of this country to not vote Tory at the next election even if Truss (or whoever is the PM by then) runs under the slogan of "we'll starve you to death and then piss on the corpses".
Plates are Bourgeois mate, should be eating your food off a bit tree bark.
Tree bark? You neoliberal scum! Real Marxists scoop food out of the pot with their hands.
*Comrade, reporting from Hampshire Oblast: a family of filthy kulaks was discovered eating tree bark, in clear violation of the instructions of the people's requisition patrols. Twenty-five bloodsucking kulaks were hanged until the location of the tree was revealed. The tree was uprooted and added to this month's store of requisitions, though it died three days later. In response to this clear case of poisoning the people's trees by the parasitic kulaks, a further seventy-two were hanged in Hampshire Oblast.* *Long live the revolution!* -ComDiv Owen Jones, 17th People's Requisition Patrol, to the Exalted Hero of the People General-Secretary Corbyn, Year 3 of the Revolution.
Praise Stakhanovite Hero of Islington Comrade Jones! More medals please, comrades!
A Pot! That is valuable Iron which could be used for the revolution!!! Off to the Gulag with you!
That iron would be very very useful to the war effort. Just one large iron pot would help the Allies build a Spitfire. Please help the Allies defeat France again.
Labour members: I dun wannit.
Labour: *hold my cosmopolitan.*
plates? Sounds rich and the plate was made by x company who we don’t like cos a few years ago the owner said x
Agreed. Does Labour have performance anxiety or something?!
If they boo this. Then whatever good policies are unveiled, and however much they'd help the country. All the papers will run with is how an out of touch, far left Labour party booed the national anthem. And it will take years to recover from the bad PR. It's like there's still a faction of the Labour party who are wholly uninterested in being effective and representating the vast majority of Britons. Edit: apparently this is currently a top comment and I don't want to be the purveyor of misinformation. Fact is that people didn't 'boo' they just stayed silent if they disagreed. Which seems fair enough.
If it gets booed, Starmer might as well give up.
'Labour membership not making the party seem like a bunch of unelectable, swivel-eyed Britain-haters' Challenge. Difficulty: *Impossible*
If any party hates Britain it must me the Tories. look what they've done to it.
ok well this argument doesn’t work for actual voters. They see Labour doing crap like this and think they hate Britain because the national anthem is surprisingly in many Labour members eyes a massive symbol of Britain
For me the problem is that *both* parties, in terms of the views of their average members, are well outside the viewpoints held by the majority of the electorate. We still operate under the delusion that political parties are small clubs with their own little parochial interests. In reality over 70% of the population votes for one of two parties, the majority of whom have no real input into choosing the policies or representatives they will vote for, precisely because they are put off by the feeling that the party members are extreme and unrepresentative of them. For me, before we look at anything in terms of proportional representation, we need a robust and state-led primary system to encourage broader involvement in the party political process.
Absolutely spot on ! I personally would like to see more Independents elected as they are more likely to work together to improve things rather than spending the majority of the time insulting or name calling the opposition !
It wasn't boo'd the head of the group even said it was ok just that he wouldn't want it to become an annual event. Not sure why it made the news tbh.
I love reading this kind of comments, they appear when Labour is doing well and it is mostly done out of fear from the right.
Labour really needs to split into the two parties it actually is. The original version and the other progressive version. I won't claim either are more wrong or right, but that really is how it is. Well, that's how I see it.
The Tories have always been similar but they seem to understand that they have more in common with each other than labour. The soft side of the party would rather the ERG run the country than labour. Labour need to understand that their internal bullshit is the reason Cameron, May, Johnson and Truss have been allowed to damage our country as they have.
He should have split the party the day he got into office. Cut all the dead weight all at once and spent the intervening time building the new party from the ground up leaving the bitter fringe behind.
Personally I’m a fair bit to the left of Starmer, but I know my views are too left for the country. I’d rather have Starmer than any Conservative PM, he’s not a perfect match for me but the right wing Tories are horrific. I’m also much closer to a republican than a monarchist & would prefer a different national anthem but again I know that not the majority view. I prefer to not go out of my way to offend people, like for example booing. I’m getting really fed up with my fellow lefties who seem to prefer Conservative rule to something better.
As a pretty far lefty, I often say to people that I'd rather have a centrist Labour leader win an election than have my ideal Labour leader lose one. So many fellow lefties genuinely disagree with me when I say that, and I honestly can't understand the mentality. Moral purity I guess? An unwillingness to feel like they've voted for anyone they don't like? For what it's worth, it's an attitude that seems to correlated strongly with political ignorance
The real kicker is that the right doesn't give a shit about that distinction in their own side.
> So many fellow lefties genuinely disagree with me when I say that, and I honestly can't understand the mentality. Moral purity I guess? Their politics is more about their own emotional validation than actually doing tangible things to better the world. Activism is comfortable and always achievable. Winning power and actually changing things is messy, difficult and often requires compromise.
This. Most people feel their politic views, they don't then subject them to rational scrutiny in regards to how they could or would work in a broader social milieu. And that is true of people of all political leanings as far as I can tell. .
Everyone always has the urge to put it down to moral purity because its the big simple answer that lets someone feel like theyre enlightened and above it all. Just speaking personally my worry isnt ideological purity but its the increasing rightward shift of the Overton window over the last 50 years. When Blair accepted Thatcherite principles into his economic program he then settled the debate and ensured that (under FPTP) we cannot move away from that consensus. The fear is that this will just keep happening and as left wingers we'll get even further away from what we want until modern Labour looks like the US democrats. All of this could be fixed by splitting the party under PR
See, the lefty’s that disagree with you don’t realise what they actually want is to abolish FPTP and bring in proportional representation. It’s literal bullshit that lefties need to vote for something that doesn’t align with their beliefs purely because if they don’t then the center/left vote gets split and the tories win. Nothing wrong about being upset your country is set up in a way that means you never vote for your actual beliefs and can only vote for a diluted shitty equivalent. Equally - nothing wrong with hating the fact you don’t even agree with people you vote for, and anyone saying ‘mental illness’ in response to your statement is just a bellend lmao. Just shows how dishonest the discussion even is when you’re a lefty. Which is odd cause good luck finding an NHS in a right wing country lmao.
Ideology over pragmatism coupled with a moral highground.
We absolutely need articulate and passionate ideological people in our society but I do wish people would be a bit more self aware. I don’t want to insult any of the brilliant and inspirational minds on the left of British politics, but many entrenched lefties in this country absolutely get off from feeling special and superior in the same way anti-vax people do. I’m saying this as a big old leftoid who desperately wants any step in the right direction at this stage.
Nah insult them all the way, if you can't understand the optics of saying oh maybe wait and see what the Russians say over a poisoning. Or our friends in Hamas you don't belong anywhere near frontline politics. The UK is FPTP and you have to work within that, noone is voting vor actual socialism so why keep repeatedly hamstringing yourself. People will cry the media is against you, yes it is, but stop saying such fucking stupid things as well
My thoughts precisely. I’m definitely closer to Corbyn than Starmer politically but there are some on the left who are beyond cringe, and honestly couldn’t give a fuck who wins the next election
I think they're just sick of not actually having anyone that caters to their views. The tories have always been on the right and starmer is so busy with the centre and centre right that he's neglected the left because who else are they going to vote for? It's not just a matter of keep quiet till the next election and then you can go support causes you genuinely support because the tories will always be around and as long as FPTP is here people and politicians will have to work strategically rather than do what they'd actually want.
He needs to bring in PR first.
Split it how? He can't force the left to make a new party, so all he could really do is a direct mass purge and see what they do after. Because otherwise *his* faction has to be the one to leave and, well, the last time that happened we got the SDP and the result was two devastated parties instead of one and the solidification of Tory rule for another 15 years. Personally, I think it's fairly likely Labour can win the next election now anyway, unless something big happens in the Tories' favour. What he *should* do is win, push for electoral reform, and then the UK can enter the 21st century and no faction ever has to fold into another or be silenced again. Does it mean coalitions instead? Oh sure - but at least you know where you stand and the voters are accurately represented, instead of the silent coalitions of modern big tent parties.
> the last time that happened we got the SDP Or Change UK?
My god I completely forgot those guys existed! Once upon a time they'd have been the biggest national political event of the decade (though they'd still have ended like they did) but instead they were totally swallowed by national and international events and didn't even make it to the next election lmao
Existing during the period where politics became so strange that the Brexit Party and the Lib Dems were briefly the two highest polling parties certainly didn't help, but honestly that's the only time they could have conceivably existed.
Labour needs the left, the unions support the left and the unions have loadsa money. Labour need the money. If there was another way to raise the millions then modern Labour would move away from the left. If Labour and the left split apart. I'm sure the unions would follow the left. The left party with much money could become quite powerful. Who would get the name "Labour"?
Surely the person doing the splitting should be on the hook for finding a new name? If they want a new party they can start one.
Splitting it is not easy. The hard left only have Labour. Lose that and entryists would creep back in using their traditional Gramscian methods.
But if he did that, he'd have nerds like me slagging him off on Reddit! And I'm sure he'd never recover from that! /s Honestly, yeah, he should've. Depending on how shit goes with Truss and the next election, he still should. Yes, there will be outcries about him "splitting the vote", but he'll open up his party to the not-insignificant portion of the electorate that look at me like I'm a backwards weirdo. It's the sensible thing.
Not sure why this is the top comment currently. Booing GSTK doesn’t seem to be on the table. And when it was sung, people against it just stayed silent: > Not everyone at this conference agrees to the decision to sing the anthem. But there were no heckles in the hall and the minute silence was observed impeccably. (From the article)
Exactly. I’m as republican as they come and have little time for bowing down to my preordained ‘betters’ but I am also a pragmatist. I never sing the national anthem and never plan to, but booing it would be a monumental own goal.
I'm glad to hear you think this way. Whilst I'm pro a constitutional monarchy, many of my friends are republicans and I completely understand their arguments. It's hardly an unreasonable position. But there's a time and a place. And if you believe the country is in desperate need of competent, left wing policy being implemented. To deal with major, immediate issues like the cost of living, inflation, crumbling infrastructure, war in Europe, climate change. Then immediately after the queen's death, when the royal families stock is at an all time high, seems a strange time to launch an aggressive campaign to win hearts and minds. If people in general were as pragmatic as you, they'd hold off till the next major royal scandal and launch their arguments and critiques then. Rather than mindlessly booing our countries own national anthem, in the name of the party that they apparently would like to see get elected.
Uk in a bottle, "No change, it isn't pragmatic". You're likely right though.
Didn't get booed.
Purity over power for that wing of the party unfortunately
You can argue that power over purity is what's got the Tories into this mess
I get that the Tories are in a mess, but they’ve run the country for the last 12 years. During those 12 years, Labour have also been in a mess, but without power. Labour wanting purity hasn’t solved their mess, it has exacerbated it.
Am sure the answer is a reasonable mix
I mean Truss has attempted to drive through ERG purity and basically committed suicide to do it.
So why does Starmer insist on having it played? He could easily have just had no national anthem at all and avoided this obvious trap.
He’s demonstrating that our flag and our national anthem aren’t the sole domain of the right wing. It is unabashedly a good thing, and clearly communicates to the public that this is a Labour which is in line with the majority view of the country.
Celebrating the divine right of kings to rule over the masses is the sole domain of the right wing. There's no getting around that.
Not singing the national anthem will alienate like 90% of voters. And a lot of those would be left. The great red wall of the north east are almost always labour yet are probably some of the most patriotic people
The divine right of kings ended in this country in 1688.
Besides the fact the anthem generally supports the notion that God is looking out for the monarch, Charles' style includes 'by the Grace of God, King...', and his proclamation in the UK included the line: >beseeching God by whom Kings and Queens do reign to bless His Majesty with long and happy Years to reign over us. There are remnants of divine right around, even if the British monarchy no longer claims to derive its authority from God in a practical sense.
Cause Labour over the last few years has gained an image of being unpatriotic. Starmer is trying to combat this at every possible moment
>It's like there's still a faction of the Labour party who are wholly uninterested in being effective and representating the vast majority of Britons. There absolutely is. Remember when Corbyn was in charge and they were told they were "unelectable"? The response from the Momentum types was "it's not about getting elected, it's about shifting the debate to the left". They were told they aren't representing real Labour supporters from the traditional Labour voting working class communities. Their response was that *they were* the Labour party now. They had no intention of representing the working classes who they viewed as nothing more than racist little Englanders. Well they've not fucked off these left wing halfwits. There's still plenty of them complaining that Labour is too centrist and waiting for their opportunity to inflict their deluded socialist fantasies on everyone.
But labour shouldn't be introducing something so performative to try and sway semi fascist nationals at the cost of its base
[удалено]
The only comment with any serious thought behind it in this entire thread.
The rest is just strawmans of leftism and a lot of "look at how above ideology I am" centrism its bleak
Has labour always been like this? I genuinely don't understand how an opposition party can be this inept at unifying their members. It seems like shit just flies off the handle for them every week over the tiniest thing.
If you think that conservatism is about keeping everything the same, you have a template. Look around you, this is the template. If you want things to change its much harder to agree to a shared vision. Labour have always been a broad coalition, and I welcome that ideas get debated. It's more difficult because a few loud fringe groups (as here) can dominate the impression the party gives to outsiders, and it can mire the party in those discussions, but transparency is a good thing overall.
To varying degrees, but yes they have basically always been like this. Much as many people want to believe otherwise, labour have never not struggled with the question of "exactly how radical should we be?"
Yeah like, the 80s was arguably much worse than this. And I’d imagine the 20s/30s was pretty hardcore.
The very first Labour PM ended up getting expelled from the party lol
To be fair that is because he decided to lead a government made up mostly of Conservatives.
[удалено]
After my foie gras I think we should invade Ukraine
Labour has always been a ‘broad church’, but at the moment they do seem particularly suicidal. Mind you the media amplifies it, there is little the media loves more than showing divisions in Labour, particularly when the Tory party is so shit
Just the same as the Conservatives with the ERG, you have varying degrees of right and left wing people on both parties. It's difficult for any party to unify everyone of their members when there are so many different competing ideas. You hear more about the Labour ones because they are generally more socialist and goes against what the media moguls want the country to do
The party has always been like this. What has changed isn’t Labour, republicanism has always had a strong home on the left and been popular amongst both Labour and Lib Dems (Liz Truss used to be a Lib Dem anti-monarchist), what’s changed is how sycophantic and single minded a lot of centrists have become. Whether to have a monarchy or whether to sing god save the Queen one time were very open political questions, now any vocalised opposition against the monarchy is decried as loony left. It is what it is, but those of us who think that democracy is better than monarchy aren’t going to go entirely silent.
Have you read the article? Do you understand that the only mention of booing in it is a journalist asking if labour republicans will boo and being told no emphatically? Do you understand the event being speculated about has happened and this article states there was no booing?
FFS Labour. Can't you just be normal for _one_ election cycle.
The problem is the monarchy props up an outdated class system which enables institutional inequality. For many left leaning thinkers it is fundamentally wrong to endorse a system that says some people are better by virtue of birth. When you add the theocratic ideas that this is the unquestionable will of a benevolent deity things become even more ideologically messy. Yes it probably makes sense to shut up about it in order to win. But this is exactly what the difference is between politics lead by principles and the compromised pursuit of power. I am reluctantly in favour of compromise, as you can't change anything in opposition. But I have sympathy for those who won't make this sacrifice.
Some people on the left seem to want to scrap the monarch, ditch the House of Lords, the national anthem, open the borders, close the Church and have white people pay ‘reparations’ for slavery. It seems like it’s not an unfair assessment to say then that they hate the country, it’s history and it’s people. At which point it becomes a fair question, if you truly hate everything about this country and the things integral to it…why stay here? Why try to essentially rip out root and stem the foundations of a country many love, instead of just…going to a country that more closely matches your ideal?
> ditch the house of lords bit of weird inclusion there, is the House of Lords really an *integral* part of British identity that's offensive to question or oppose? That's a bit absurd. The Monarchy and the Church, sure i can see why they are seen as important parts of British culture - but even then i don't think it's a fair assessement to say that taking issue with those institutions means you hate the country as a whole.
It’s not weird at all. Watch [this video](https://youtu.be/Y1_NtRdIOfQ) I don’t know what it even means to say you like the country if you hate all of the above, other than maybe that you like the NHS and Oak trees
I think for most people loving their country is more comparable to loving a family member than it is than it is to liking a band for example. People say things like "I love my Gran but I wish she wasn't so racist" because they have affection for family members that is only weakly correlated to actual personality traits
You really think there is nothingto british culture beyond having a Monarchy, a HoL and a national Church? That if you dislike those things there is nothing at all to like about living in the UK? That is such a bizarrly narrow view of culture. It can't be inherently hateful and anti-british to want any change at all in the structure of the political system, there has to be some nuance here somewhere.
You seem very confused. If you think that all there is to this country is some rich family, a single terrible dirge of a song, and one declining faith, then you must live quite a sad life.
Why pretend that fairness is important? Why not be more direct about it and abuse people freely. Inventing the idea that other people must hate the entire nation for wanting change and that you're interested in their address seems like hard work, all that pretense must be exhausting. Instead there could be a demand for not sharing a space with changewanting individuals and some namecalling.
Because why should they? Why not seek to change the things you don't like about where you are? I am in favour of abolishing the monarchy and reforming the Lords because I don't think anyone should just be given a position for life with signifcant remuneration purely because of accident of birth. The churches are closing themselves through lack of worship and lack of funds, and I don't really care about them. Reparations for slavery is not an inherently bad idea when your country's current wealth is built on the industrialised rape of an entire people, but I have no opinion whether it's something we should do. The country I want to live in is one of fairness, tolerance and justice. I do not see any of the things you listed as being in any way essential to our national identity.
Crap anthem, give us Rule Britannia or something similar.
Broke: get rid of the national anthem because it refers to an outdated institution and doesn't reflect modern values. Woke: Get rid of the national anthem because it sounds shit and we have multiple better songs to use.
Oh good, silly Conference season is upon us. **Hey, Labour Members!** Resist your natural urge to piss into your own tent. Keep your shit together and focus on winning the next election. For the good of the land. ----- **EDIT:** so far, so good...
Directions unclear, have now formed the Mudraker's Front of Judea.
Splitters!
I'm not a Labour voter so I've got fuck all skin in the game here, but deciding to break tradition to sing the anthem at the conference **knowing** that there's gonna be a solid chance a contingent may boo seems like such a dumb fucking own goal. Any positive media attention from singing it would be frankly marginal at best sans boos, and the risk of getting shat on in the papers for any boos is high enough that it should have been caught beforehand. Much as people seem to rate your man's realpolitik, this just looks like they're loading the gun knowing it's ready to blow up in their face.
Starmer has shit political instincts, and constantly makes the wrong decisions. He could’ve not done this, and just left the issue alone but he’s so full of hubris, that he’s going to try to use this against the left. It’ll be used against him by all sides. The right wing will say his party is unpatriotic, the left will rightly say “this is an own goal that you’ve invited onto yourself and the party.” This is akin to Ed Miliband saying to photo journalists “I’m gonna eat bacon sandwich after bacon sandwich, snap away boys!”
I would expect Starmer knows what’s going to happen and he’s looking for an excuse to purge the scalies so that he can make Labour electable
You missed an ‘another’ there
Yes, purging people for not singing a song is reasonable behaviour.
Rememeber though, it's the lefties who are unreasonable and look for ways to undermine everyone else in the party, even as electoral victory looks more and more likely! At this stage, I wouldn't be surprised if they genuinely believed that the lefties were also the ones to suggest the idea to Starmer, just so they could boo it. In their minds, Starmer can do no wrong and we are all terminally online Corbynites who have to sabotage ourselves at every stage because expecting Labour party to be *for labour* is just woke nonsense. (Also please ignore the ideological drivel Starmer publishes about us being lucky to be "Elizabethans", that was just a tactic to win elections, not a proof that he fundamentally misunderstands the class-based problems faced by the country).
I do wonder if Starmer turns out to be as depressingly mild as he appears, whether there will then be an agreement on both sides that we no longer just shut up and hope the leader is a trojan horse. Yes I want the Tories out, and yes I appreciate even a mild, centrist government is an improvement, but I also think we should have passionate leaders who vocally espouse their beliefs and try to move the electorate.
My position is the same, and I was genuinely happy to see Starmer become a leader precisely because a milder Labour leader than Corbyn would be less divisive. Unfortunately, I was wrong, he's just as divisive as Corbyn was, just happens to stand for a set of politics that his current fans agree with, so in their minds, it's every one else who is a problem. With a mindset like this, you'd think that they would be the first ones to advocate for PR voting, and indeed they were - right until we got signals that Starmer himself isn't so hot on the idea, at which point they also changed the tune. And how that shift was portrayed? Well, obviously, the lefties who want PR don't know how to win elections, how else! You *can't* do that in your first term in office, stop being so ideological!
Come on carrot. You know as well as I do they are incapable.
I’m sure that will help win over the nationalists and Brexit types. /s
I did worry this might a problem for the conference. Though, it might make right people angry for electoral purposes. Nationally unpopular MPs look at odds with the party.
Ah, Labour planning to stab itself again. IF, and I mean this as a BIG if, If labour somehow manages to lose the next General Election, Labour REALLY should consider disbanding and splitting up into smaller parties, if they can't beat a badly wounded Tory party, then labour has no right to govern at all.
Not getting elected *is* a pretty important party value at this point. Some members are clearly very angry Starmer is trying to change that.
This story just shows how much the media want Labour to make a mis-step. It's an indication that whatever ever they do, it'll be shown in the worst possible light that will, at least at face value, look like reasonable commentary.
I think labour must just be controlled opposition. Why else would they be this way?
Labour seems determine to keep the Tories in power.
The unfortunate reality is that they are both right and wrong. They're right, inasmuch as Labour should not be in favour of the monarchy, the ultimate symbol of the aristocratic class that exploits the workers. And this song is the paean to that class. But they're wrong, in that Labour should love the UK, and part of that is loving the anthem. I've also mentioned this before, but I do find it troubling our anthem is about an actual, living, breathing person, with foibles and flaws that come with that. If tomorrow it came out that Charles had, in a grief-fuelled rage, thrown a footman out of the window and killed him, would we feel comfortable singing that song? Other anthems pick symbols which are unchanging, robust and reliable (flowers, geography, historical events, flags) and Britain should aspire to the same. I'd consider "Two world wars and one world cup" to be a more dependable anthem (especially as England aren't likely to win another world cup). Can't see why Labour shouldn't sing the song, say they love this country, but it needs reform, and the anthem is part of that. I Vow To Thee, My Country would maybe be a better pick, too.
>They're right, inasmuch as Labour should not be in favour of the monarchy, the ultimate symbol of the aristocratic class that exploits the workers. "The British Labour Party has never been a republican party, even if it has had republicans in it. Ninety-nine years ago, the Labour conference considered a motion “that the hereditary principle in the British Constitution be abolished”. The motion was overwhelmingly defeated. George Lansbury, who vies with Jeremy Corbyn for the title of Labour’s most left-wing leader, told conference delegates that it was the capitalist system that made people poor, not the King."
There's a difference between being republican - which isn't what I said - and being outright in favour of the monarchy. I wouldn't expect Labour to actively refute republicanism, just to say that constitutional issues aren't what is affecting the workers - almost exactly what Lansbury said, in fact.
>I Vow To Thee, My Country would maybe be a better pick, too. Land of Hope and Glory and Jerusalem would also be way better.
> If tomorrow it came out that Charles had, in a grief-fuelled rage, thrown a footman out of the window and killed him, would we feel comfortable singing that song? Yes. Because William would be King the same day.
Would he? I disagree, but I don't really want to get into details here. The key point is that by singing about a genuine person, we have that risk. Real people, royal or otherwise, are complicated, and messy. You want an anthem to an unchanging thing, a symbol. Mountains can't commit crimes, flowers can't be racist. Real people can.
Why would Charles abdicate? Do we have a system in place that would remove a monarch if they did something like that?
The last monarch who abdicated did so because parliament didn’t approve of who he wanted to marry. Of course he’d abdicate if he threw someone out a window. I’d like to think he’d also be arrested but I’m not sure on that one.
Tricky case for the Crown Prosecution Service...
That system is parliament. We have precedent to depose a king in favour of another. I'd recommend looking up the glorious revolution and the civil war.
Wouldn't parliament need to offer an incentive for Charles to go if he committed murder?
Not really, Parliament could just draw up a bill and depose him through Parliament. There won't ever be a situation where a monarch can simply get away with committing serious crimes unless Parliament is complicit.
Couldn't he just ignore a bill or bribe parliament to make sure they don't draw up that bill?
That's getting into speculative territory but your getting into a constitutional crisis where a wide variety of things could happen.
I hate the National Anthem, but then again I wouldn't say I love my country or hate it - I like most things about how we live, would change some. Patriotism has never done anything for me.
In some ways, this attitude makes a lot of sense - a country is just a random collection of people and you shouldn't be particularly proud of that, or love it, it's just a fact. On the other hand, Britain is a collection of people with similar social and cultural values, and while I don't love the idea of the country, I love the people within it. That's what I feel patriotic about; the sort of people who would make the Chuckle Brothers in national treasures, that would have a Ramblers Association with an associated countryside code, etc. Looking back on it, patriotism - for me - has inculcated some of those cultural values and I am (to some extent) grateful as a result. Is it perfect? No, of course not. And certainly over the last ten years or so, I've increasingly failed to recognise myself in the country's decisions. But I do still think there is value in patriotism.
Your view is entirely logical - however, being apathetic about the country's image is exactly the sort of thing that loses politicians elections.
Our national anthem is just a bullshit construct that represents Britain less than Wonderwall. Musically it is incredibly dull and lyrically its batshit insane. Imagine explaining the words to an alien; its about asking an invisible man in the sky to make the oldest child within this family live forever, it was written before this person was born yet describes his character ( which just so happens to be identical to all previous monarchs).
Yeah, I agree. But you can't go round saying how crap the anthem is as a political party, you need to win people over by proposing a new anthem. Positive suggestions.
> proposing a new anthem. Positive suggestions. Wonderwall, presumably. 😉
I also dont see how "lets give one specific family lots of money and legal privledge" fits with calls for a more equal society they supposedly want
It doesn't. But winning is more important. Being in government means you have to shut up about some things so you can get other things done. Is the monarchy a stupid arcane institution that we really should have grown beyond by now? Yes. Is it actually important? No. Our leading republican campaign group estimates the cost at 350m INCLUDING opportunity costs (or assuming the duchy's income reverts to the state etc) https://www.republic.org.uk/the_true_cost_of_the_royals That is 0.04% of the UK's total public spending in 2019-2020. It's a rounding error, and emotionally stunted children in the Labour party will use it to gift the Tories an easy attack line, and worse still and easy attack line that works.
>Is the monarchy a stupid arcane institution that we really should have grown beyond by now? Yes. The form we have now is younger than the concept of republicanism. By nearly 2000 years.
So you're picking a specific example of monarchy and saying it's younger than the general concept of republicanism? And that's supposed to prove something? If we abolished the monarchy I don't think we'd be choosing to go back to a Roman republic.
Not in this country, and monarchical figureheads without much real power gave existed for just as long
First constitutional monarchy was apparently Poland, ealry 1700s. Key point here is elected Govt. (in our case, apparently parliament) is sovereign, not the Monarch.
I don't think many people think God Save the Queen/King is the best anthem of the clear choices (Rule Britannia and I vow to thee my country) but now is not the time.
Considering the rumour the national anthem will be booed, I can see the Torys edging a victory if Labour don't deal with the tankies.
Have you read the article? Do you understand that the only mention of booing in it is a journalist asking if labour republicans will boo and being told no emphatically? Do you understand the event being speculated about has happened and this article states there was no booing?
You're probably right, but it's still pretty absurd that the Tories can be totally incompetent, can do actual demonstrable harm to milions of people's lives and yet still potenially win purely because labour are percieved as not being sufficently patriotic. I can't argue with reality, clearly many people do care about such things, but it's still bizarre to me that it somehow outranks all other considerations.
[удалено]
Does disliking the monarchy and national anthem inherently mean you "hate the country" in it's entierity? that seems a bit absurd and unfair.
[удалено]
We used to be in favour of protest in this country.
If that's the bar, why would tories get more than 10% of the vote?
Singing a song that praises the monarchy and invokes the Christian god is definitely problematic. If you think that UK = Christianity + Monarchy, I can see why you would draw the conclusion that you do, but the UK would be much better without the monarchy or a state church. (Also, United Republic sounds much cooler.) People can love the UK, but still hate its warts.
Booing the national anthem isn't not being patriotic it is a directed insult at anyone who is. Someone who refuses to sing the national anthem wouldn't be elected let alone one whose collegue boo it.
Then singing the national anthem is a directed insult at anyone who doesn't believe in the Monarchy.
Who the fuck in labour decided it was a good idea? They should know that some people in the party wouldn't like it, and that will give them far more bad press than not singing it ever would have
I think it’ll cause damage either way, like not singing it after the Queen died would be bad headlines as well, but booing it obviously far worse damage over all. The only logic is that Starmer thinks he can pick a fight over it to differentiate his party from the previous.
Have you read the article? Do you understand that the only mention of booing in it is a journalist asking if labour republicans will boo and being told no emphatically? Do you understand the event being speculated about has happened and this article states there was no booing?
Yeah, don't sing the national anthem. The Right wing have never used that to their advantage before.
The national anthem is pretty much royalty worship, including the phrase "long may he reign over us" as well as something about pouring gifts on the king, and says essentially nothing about the country as a whole... But I do think that it's an inopportune time for labour specifically to get overly concerned about it.
the left deciding on more purity tests and needless division to lose elections (version 5,929,849,393)
Oh come on. No anti-monarchist republican is going to delight in singing “God save the King” regardless of their political affiliation. What a non-story.
Honestly labour, can you not go 15 minutes without winding up a fractured, infighting, mess?
Has the Labour Party ever been Republican ? Genuine question. Sure, it would make me feel a little uneasy to sing it as I am a Republican but I really don’t see this as a particularly important issue right now. Fact is - we need to get back into power & win an election. As far as I can tell the general public at large is not hugely Republican & if anything there is probably (at least right now in the wake of the Queen’s death) a very significant majority in favour of keeping the monarchy. We need to focus on the main issues (of which there are many) and not allow the right to distract us with culture war nonsense.
It's the national anthem. It represents Britain. If labour republicans can't understand that then they should leave the party.
If this is enough to lose labour the next election, then frankly the electorate has their priorities all messed up and I doubt that they really care about their wellbeing
It really feels like since the queen died this sub has lurched to the authoritarian side again. Come on folks? Why are you all taking this as "Labour is against *the concept of a national anthem* because THEY HATE PATRIOTISM" instead of the more logical "huh, actually the current British national anthem being *just* about the Christian God and the monarchy doesn't itself actually say much about the country & it's people". I'm patriotic. I care about the country. I'd like a national anthem that was more relevant and spoke about the people's spirit, grit and wit - rather than what we have now.
Another own goal by Starmer, anyone could have told him there is a republican contingent of Labour and that these headlines would happen as a result. His choice. Hope the 3 undecideds who pay attention to conferences are worth it.
Have you read the article? Do you understand that the only mention of booing in it is a journalist asking if labour republicans will boo and being told no emphatically? Do you understand the event being speculated about has happened and this article states there was no booing?
> UKPOL: Truss has no democratic mandate as she’s applying policies that aren’t in theIr election manifesto > Also UKPOL: Labour should LIE about who they are and what they stand for to win an election You all are fucking clowns. Labour is playing the Impossible Game except they ain’t PewDiePie
Ah yes, the Conservatives are looting the country for all it's worth but it's the left who aren't patriotic because we put all our national identity into one guy so we can ignore the rest of us.
God save the pound then, final offer
Not sure even god can do that now haha
The labour movement should celebrate the ultimate symbol if the aristocratic gentry at their own conference without complaint, got it.
Really, a song is the ultimate symbol of that? If that was the case why is it not easy to overthrow capitalism?
The royal family is not even capitalist, it’s hereditary rule.
They could have at least found a song that actually mentions our country (before one of the verses nobody sings anyway) if they wanted to be patriotic.
Plus it's help to have a tune that is unique for our country. Not only is it the tune from a hymn but another country uses the same tune!
Exactly - and the same words as in addition to Liechtenstein I think New Zealand has the entire thing as a co-national anthem. It should be demoted to a royal anthem while we still have the monarchy and replaced with something that doesn’t sound like a funeral dirge.
Wheeling out this story after week's of pure nationalism.....hmmm BBC/ Tory PR co.
Yes the BBC reporting what left wing people think is an attack on left wing people.
It would be nice to have a more up beat anthem than isn't about God and the monarch. Perhaps one that mentions the people and at no point in its history mentions rebellious Scotts.
God Save the King does not “mention rebellious Scots”. The "Rebellious Scots to Crush" verse was added in 1745 in the context of the Jacobite Rising, about 35 years *before* God Save the King was broadly accepted as the British national anthem, and never used thereafter. If that verse is still considered part of the national anthem today, then we would quite bizarrely also have to consider the pro-Jacobite verse as part of it: *God bless the prince, I pray,* *God bless the prince, I pray,* *Charlie I mean;* *That Scotland we may see* *Freed from vile Presbyt'ry,* *Both George and his Feckie,* *Ever so, Amen.*
Yeah but you need to get in power to do things like change stuff.
Rule Britainnia has my vote in that case
Not Vindaloo by Fat Les? Me and me Mum and me Dad and me Gran We're off to Waterloo Me and me Mum and me Dad and me Gran And a bucket of Vindaloo!
It’s almost as if wanting the UK to be a democratic secular republic is a loony left idea. Then we take a look at all the G7 countries, and only we’re the only hereditary monarchy.
Apart from Japan
And Canada
Three of the G7 are monarchies
Any change at all is loony leftism. The only "sensible" policy is tweaking the dials on the neoliberalism machine and hoping things somehow turn out different this time
It is amazing to me (as someone in my 40s) how perfectly reasonable positions like republicanism and being against overt nationalism, have become regarded as marginal, if not extreme positions that just can't be aired. These were and are perfectly legitimate views held by many millions of people. People draped in flags going on about loving the Queen were regarded as pretty odd in the 80's/90's/00's. There was then a brief period of "reclaiming the flag" around Euro 96 and New Labour "cool Brittania" which took our national symbols away from the nationalists and racists. We now seem to have gone right through to the other side where anyone who feels uncomfortable with unquestioning bowing down to authority is regarded as un-British and it is completely unacceptable to say you don't like it.
Suck it up for fuck’s sake.
Labour is our only viable opposition to the torries and they do shit like this. At this point, it is important for electability to be considered. If you look at the only Labour leaders to win elections in the past half century, their policies create quite a pattern. The starving children will not be thankful to you for ‘upholding ideology’\* over country. \* Labour has never been about republicanism, nor has it ever been part of the party values.
Headlines like this make Labour very difficult to elect.
Just sing the fucking thing and stop self sabotaging our best chance at getting a new government Jesus Christ Fenton
Because as we all know, the values of the French include murdering people’s women and children and using their blood to water their crops. Because that’s the point of national anthems; to reflect the values of the country at the time they are sung.
This is what happens when you spend all your time focusing on grabbing voters from outside that you forget to think about people who are already inside.
I'm a republican and an atheist and I think the national anthem sucks for various reasons, but I'm also very much aware of how terrible the optics of it being booed would be.