 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Is just me or is Cameron lapping it up?
Now I don't watch it all the time, but every time I do it seems to follow a very similar pattern. Which is, Corbyn asks some questions, which to a lot not affect will seem as very whiney, and then Cameron bats it away, by saying we're doing such and such and such.
No you may not agree with Camerons such and such and such(I don't), but PMQs aren't particularly about substance, they are about perception.
And for me the overriding perception that you have to come to is that the Tories at least have ideas, where as labour are offering well... not a great deal.
Seems to be a distinct lack of imagination in the Labour party, hardly news of the century. But Corbyn ain't changing that particular problem, which is clearly endemic in the LP. (ie it's the reason why they lost scotland, they are stagnant as a party, they offer not very much.).
Corbyn himself, I reckon, is heading for lame duck territory.
Anyhow, thoughts?
126 pages of thoughts right here 🙂
[url= http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/jeremy-corbyn ]http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/jeremy-corbyn[/url]
Sort of. To me they seem more like Corbyn asks a valid question, which Cameron answers (fails to answer) with a witless jibe, and Corbyn fails to follow up effectively.
Corbyn - Can the Prime Minister tell us how many schoolchildren dropped dead of hunger last week?
Cameron - The honourable gentleman has a scratty beard and smells funny
Corbyn - Mabel from S****horpe would like to know why cats pee in her garden
.
.
.
.
Its the geography supply teacher wearily having to explain glaciated valleys to the class while the schools premier boorish swaggering cock-sure bell end makes 'witty' remarks
I fear judging by that idiot woman on QT and that other horrendous nightmare Dianne Abbot, he is surrounded by bad karma and in danger of you being correct which would be a shame.
What DrJ says and also Corbyn's inability to start his questions with the 'popular' topic of the week. If flooding is the main news agenda no point starting with a question about the foreign aid budget or vice versa.
Corbyn himself, I reckon, is heading for lame duck territory.
That's more of an aspiration isn't it? Getting from parody to lame duck is a big ask.
And for me the overriding perception that you have to come to is that the Tories at least have ideas, where as labour are offering well... not a great deal.
The Tories are absolutely crystal clear what they're about, what they want to achieve, on who's behalf, and know exactly how they're going to do it.
The labour party has no sense of direction, no ideology, not the remotest clue as to what its actually supposed to be doing, so in the absence of all this has set about having fights with itself about stuff like Trident that is hardly at the top of everyones list of stuff that really really really needs sorting out!
At a time when we've never been in more desperate need of an effective opposition, we're faced with the pointless, clueless irrelevance that is the modern labour party. And theres no point trying to apportion blame for this with the Blairites or Corbynites. They're all equally as guilty.
it really is a truly tragic state of affairs 😥
nothing about this- but did anyone else get the advert at the bottom entitled 'Diane Abbott topless shocker', then with a picture of Mr Potato head as the headline pic?!
Someone should probably point out to Jezza that essentially asking the same partisan question six different ways isn't going to get a different answer, why not ask a couple of questions that actually lead into each other?
Someone should probably point out that he can tackle more than one issue at each PMQ's session.
As it happens, I'm growing more and more respect for Jess Phillips as an MP, I think she very much carries deep conviction as 'Real Labour' and would like to mark her as future leader material.
It's the new politics innit.
They're all equally as guilty.
I agree to a point, but it must also be very difficult when you get interviewed about a topic and every single question is framed to illustrate the divide.
On the topic of PMQs - I think the more the Tories sneer, laugh and repeat 'strong economy' the more they'll irk the swing voters. They just can't help themselves!
Someone should probably point out that he can tackle more than one issue at each PMQ's session.
Except that when he did that, everyone criticised him for not being focussed enough 🙂
I just don't think they're as good at playing the debating 'game', but I think that's ok.
I still don't know why he allows the PM to repeat the 'strong economy' line unchallenged though. I would like to see him set a trap with his first question to get them to say 'strong economy' then follow up with a load of data to challenge that.
it really is a truly tragic state of affairs.......
It does make you wonder how its all going to pan out eventually doesn't it? I mean common sense dictates that the Corbyn era will all end in tears at some stage, but only after the people who decided to push him into power concede that it was a mahoosive mistake in the first place. My instinct tells me that those people will not be admitting that any time soon....so it could all get very dragged out, with a lot of casualties along the way.
Meanwhile back at No. 10 8)
Pms almost always win at PMQ's irrespective of parties and leaders.
My main gripe is that someone ought to tell/force/compel the PM to answer the question rather than make a rousing speech to their troops which may vaguely touch on the issue.
its largely a waste of time which is the real shame.
I would like to see him set a trap with his first question to get them to say 'strong economy' then follow up with a load of data to challenge that.
The problem is that they will just say nah, you wrecked it all, their line from the start.
I think Cameron does have good sound bites, but they're just that. Anyone with half a brain can see that he says nice things then does the opposite. And he, like the rest of his party, always tries to put a spin on things that is just not true. I think if the Tories lose at the next election it will be their own doing, though I agree with most of what Corbyn does.
ninfan - MemberSomeone should probably point out to Jezza that essentially asking the same partisan question six different ways isn't going to get a different answer
Rather, he needs to realise that it doesn't matter how many times Cameron evades a question, he'll still get away with it. Corbyn's actually been pretty good at showing Cameron up for this but unfortunately it doesn't really achieve anything. Because not answering questions is how Cameron "wins" PMQs, a lot of people think it makes him a "strong leader" to evade every pertinent question and turn it into a cheap attack or chance to deploy a meaningless catchphrase And people who don't watch it themselves are completely unaware of it because it doesn't get reported.
The bigger picture is PMQs is a daft and insignificant sideshow most of the time. This is kind of Corbyn's biggest problem here, he's doing something relatively clever in the political equivalent of an episode of Jackass, and everyone's cheering Cameron for sticking a toy car up his arse.
The labour party has no sense of direction, no ideology, not the remotest clue as to what its actually supposed to be doing
Nah, I think it has plenty of ideas about what it's supposed to be doing, depending on who in it you talk to...
It's like a pantomime and it should be scrapped or conducted without the whole boorish behaviour -just demonstrates the devide between politicians and your average Joe blogs.(no political bias in this comment - I see the vast majority as all part of the same establishment)...
PM questions are always hopelessly biased towards the PM, because he gets the final say, and no one holds him to account for the partisan half truths and BS that he spouts as an answer. If Corbyn is guilty of anything, it is hoping that asking a straight question will receive a straight answer. He's an honest man in a den of thieves.
On his Facebook feed he calmly points out where Cameron failed to answer his questions. Doens't expand on it by tearing him apart for it mind. He's hoping we can draw our own conclusions from what was said.
My main gripe is that someone ought to tell/force/compel the PM to answer the question
That's un-enforcable though as who would decide whether the answer was the 'correct' one. Take the economy some metrics will say it is improving, some will say it isn't; hence, it is perfectly correct for both parties to disagree on whether the economy is or isn't improving, based on the particular data they select.
This is the best answer to a question at PMQ's, from Gordon Brown:
Doesn't matter who's asked the question. Dave has never given a straight answer to anyone at PMQ's. He just goes in there with his pre-prepared selection of soundbites and spouts them endlessly no matter what question he's asked
And people who don't watch it themselves are completely unaware of it because it doesn't get reported.
i think that's a good point - perhaps because PMQ's is, for both sides, a rehearsed pantomime, because the only people who actually watch it are already, shall we say, 'political wonks' who are invariably partisan anyway - both Corbyn and Cameron are only looking for the twenty second sound bite on the six/ten o clock news. Personally I think Cameron does this well (as did Blair)
I think the 'lesser questions' are often very different, and cover some quite fascinating issues, the 'leader of the opposition' questions are always going to be different, because the questions asked are just so blatantly partisan from the beginning.Dave has never given a straight answer to anyone at PMQ's
I would accept it even trying to answer it as it is they [ all of them not a dig at the current incumbent] just use the question to spout to the faithful.who would decide whether the answer was the 'correct' one.
Others have nailed what the issue is Corbyn is noble but it is the wrong place/wasted in this arena.
On his Facebook feed he calmly points out where Cameron failed to answer his questions.
How is preaching to the converted (and a select group at that) ever going to be successful? Plus there are at least 15 million registered voters (33%) who are not on Facebook, let alone clicking to see what a politician of any colour is posting.
I take my hat off to the main players at PMQ (unusually and accepting that it remains more panto than reality). There is this unrealistic expectation that these mere mortals can maintain large amounts of data, ideas etc in the heads and relay them coherently under constant scrutiny. I find it remarkable that they do not make more howlers for our entertainment. But hardly surprising in the context that they tend to play things safe.
But the lack of a credible opposition is of great concern, most notably the lack of genuine experience in key areas that matter (no, not just leadership). It's a sorry, sorry situation.
The Winchester/Balliol Oxford/Richmond version of Mandy's Price of Darkness does amuse though...the new politics, no really.....
[quote=binners spake unto the masses, saying]
The Tories are absolutely crystal clear what they're about, what they want to achieve, on who's behalf, and know exactly how they're going to do it.
Indeed. Which is a shame for the non-old-Etonians and multinationals, who are getting royally shafted.
Compare what the Tories do and what they say and that idea falls over pretty quickly.
Compare what the Toires do and what people say they do and that idea falls over pretty quickly too.
Compare what the Tories do and what they say and that idea falls over pretty quickly.
So you keep saying.
Indeed.
Perhaps patronising folk is not the best way of persuading them?
More likely its our fault though 😉
teamhurtmore - MemberCompare what the Tories do and what they say and that idea falls over pretty quickly.
Depends how you take Binners line, and I think you've taken it wrongly. The Tories are certainly clear in their heads who they work for and what they want to achieve. They just lie about it absolutely all the time. But that doesn't mean they're confused, it just means they know if they told the truth for one day they'd get thrown in a volcano. Comparing what they say and what they do proves the point rather than making it fall over.
One only had to look at how (and how far) Osbouren changed track to see that they are often very confused and like anyone else are prone to change their mind and favour intervention when it is not required.
CMD even struggles with his choice of wellies - even Sturgeon can do that without difficulty or shame!
How is preaching to the converted (and a select group at that) ever going to be successful?
It's not, obviously. I wasn't holding that up as an example of complete and effective media strategy.
Just illustrating his approach, which is to let Cameron waffle and then point it out. Only he needs to spend more time pointing this out. I think he's hoping that people will slowly begin to realise what's going on.
TBH most swing voters if they are going to will swing because of the honest politician image. And if he starts slinging mud or coming down to Cameron's level he'll lose that.
One only had to look at how (and how far) Osbouren changed track
They don't really change track - they just change what they say to anything they think people will swallow.
One only had to look at how (and how far) Osbouren changed track to see that they are often very confused and like anyone else are prone to change their mind and favour intervention when it is not required.
Compare what the Tories do and what they say and that idea falls over pretty quickly.
I dont see how the former statement supports your original point
Yes politicians change their mind - no one has argued otherwise - but that was not what you claimed.
How is preaching to the converted (and a select group at that) ever going to be successful? Plus there are at least 15 million registered voters (33%) who are not on Facebook, let alone clicking to see what a politician of any colour is posting.
I don't follow him, or get that engaged in politics on facebook, and my friends list is 90% degree educated, Dr's and engineers. Basically it should be a Tory stronghold. But there's still links to Corbyn's feed. I've never once seen Cameron on my feed.
Which to me tells me that a lot of people probably are paying attention to what Corbyn says and does.
Which to me tells me that a lot of people probably are paying attention to what Corbyn says and does.
more likely missing "the Thick of It" and need to get political comedy gold from somewhere
Corbyn, as a career back bencher preaching only to the faithful, just isn't used to this amount of exposure / attention. He hasn't the material/energy week in week out. He also has a very weak and inexperienced team around him (in terms of exposure/attention). As such he is floundering.
Its interesting on the Corbyn thread no one seems interested in discussing the Labour reports into why they lost the GE. The Tory-graph piece today made me laugh, just like STW, the Labour party don't care why they lost because they are not really interested in winning an election. Its more about "political credibility" hence the Stalin-esque purge goes on in the Democratic Republic of North [s]Korea[/s] Islington. I am certain Momentum think JC is doing a wonderful job at PMQs
But the lack of a credible opposition is of great concern, most notably the lack of genuine experience in key areas that matter (no, not just leadership). It's a sorry, sorry situation.
Interesting. No different to the lack of ministerial experience of the tories after 3 terms of labour. Or labour, after 4 terms of tories prior to that.
They all make it up as they go along, leaving continuity to the unelected civil servants. IMO, obviously
I once asked DC a straightforward question about whether the proposed tuition fee increase betrayed poorer potential students.
Instead of answering the question he spouted off about the numbers of black students entering Oxbridge. It made the 10pm news. Since then I have watched him dodge and manipulate his answers for the last 6 years. He is a good performer, but he lost my respect.
Its interesting on the Corbyn thread no one seems interested in discussing the Labour reports into why they lost the GE. The Tory-graph piece today made me laugh, just like STW, the Labour party don't care why they lost because they are not really interested in winning an election. Its more about "political credibility" hence the Stalin-esque purge goes on in the Democratic Republic of North Korea Islington. I am certain Momentum think JC is doing a wonderful job at PMQs
Perhaps they are just not interested in discussing it with someone who makes childish tabloid distorted statements like this and we realise there is little chance of grown up adult debate with you?
Your posts get more like chewkw everyday.
Junkyard - lazarus
Perhaps they are just not interested in discussing it with someone who makes childish tabloid distorted statements like this and we realise there is little chance of grown up adult debate with you?
Your posts get more like chewkw everyday.
Hello! 😛
Junkyard you do know you are absolutely wrong don't you?
You Cannot always disguise your arguments by bombarding others with irrelevant or illogical information can you?
You can do that to the naive or ignorant but I am afraid I see you coming ...
I mean what is your world view anyway?
A global big family?
Nanny state disguise in policy(bureaucracy)?
Reducing freedom in the name of "freedom"?
Everyone equal except the elite?
What?
😛
Your posts get more like chewkw everyday whose posts i block using the kill file [ though he knows that it ]
FTFMyself
jambalaya - MemberIts interesting on the Corbyn thread no one seems interested in discussing the Labour reports into why they lost the GE.
There were no surprises in the new one (it's essentially the same results as the previous report), and it didn't fit many people's agenda of them being "too left wing". Labour's failings were all too obvious for the reports saying "our failings were all too obvious" to be very exciting
Junkyard - lazarusYour posts get more like chewkw everyday [b]whose posts i block using the kill file [ though he knows that it ][/b]
FTFMyself
You really do that? 😯
Crikey ... that's no fun so who are you arguing with now? Yourself? 😆
You might as well argue with the mirror? 😆
If you "argue" with the like minded you might as well agree, amongst yourselves, to have the "comfortable silence". 😆
the Labour party don't care why they lost because they are not really interested in winning an election
What the actual F?
Jam, you seem to be one of those people who think that politics is actually just a game with power as a prize.
It's not supposed to be - there is actually another thing which is about how to run the country in the best interests of its citizens. You know that, right?
molgrips - Member
Jam, you seem to be one of those people who think that politics is actually just a game with power as a prize.
Are you lost? It is All about power ...
It's not supposed to be ...
Nobody is asking the "supposed" question.
Now supposed I am God of Gods walking this earth but you just don't know who you are talking to ...?
I mean Supposed like. Suppose.
[b]The vice of ZM kind ... in no particular order:
1. Power - the mind sort.
2. Lust - the carnal sort.
3. Addiction - the material sort.
If you have all three in completion then you are whole again! [/b] 😆
It's not supposed to be - there is actually another thing which is about how to run the country in the best interests of its citizens. You know that, right?
Yeah, but first you actually have to win the election, which is a pretty good reason to be interested, nay, absolutely 100% focused, on winning elections.
Yeah but is it better to win by bullshitting and scoring as many hits as possible, or win by persuading people you're a good person?
Does being 'a good person' make you electable?
I'd suggest that most people in the UK (the electorate) think being an effective decision maker who is capable of making hard decisions, some of may occasionally be far from 'nice' 'good' or 'pleasant' - in fact, out of necessity might sometimes have to be thoroughly 'ruthless' 'distasteful' or 'unpleasant' - is a, perhaps regrettably, essential qualification for being prime minister.
Being a 'good person' sometimes just isn't enough, unfortunately that's a reality of the world that we live in.
molgrips - Member
Yeah but is it better to win by bullshitting and scoring as many hits as possible, or win by persuading people you're a good person
A win is a win. A winner! A hero ...
A loss is a loss. A loser! Loooosserr!
If you win, regardless of bullshite, you make sense.
If you lose, regardless of accuracy or truth, you bullshite.
😛
well it explains why the tory ones are so good at it 😉out of necessity might sometimes have to be thoroughly 'ruthless' 'distasteful' or 'unpleasant' - is a, perhaps regrettably, essential qualification for being prime minister.
Its pretty obvious it is a bold [ or foolhardy if you prefer] attempt to change politics from spin and soundbites and media pleasant to a more policy /debate based one aiming to attract new voters.
Whether it succeeds [ and i personally think some of his views are electoral suicide even though I agree with them*] its unlikely but no one can be certain till the experiment runs.
Corbyn may be out of his depth and inept but only the electorate get to make that decision, We have not had enough time to say anything much tbh whichever side of the debate we sit.
* i find it hard to believe that a unilaterally disarming policy will be lectable, they may be able to present it as massive cost saving and using the Nato umbrella to assure us we have a nuclear umbrella just not one we can independently deploy but I think many will just oppose that. Personally, as we will never use them, they are expensive trinkets.
Well, of course the big 'risk' in the NATO question is that, in the event everything goes tits up (the Russian harvest fails and they roll west) and America decides to 'sit this one out' then the umbrella is gone.
On leadership and hard decisions - the risks are very real, possible hijacked airliner (full of nuns) headed towards Canary Wharf (or any particular target) seconds to make a decision - I feel confident that I know what Cameron should, could and would do. Corbyn on the other hand...
I agree Dave is the most likely to blow up nuns.
Junkyard - lazarus
[b][u]Corbyn [s]may be[/s] out of his depth and inept [/u][/b][s]but only the electorate get to make that decision[/s],
😀 I agree.
We have not had enough time to say anything much tbh whichever side of the debate we sit.
You mean not enough spin? 😯
Oh C'mon! How much money do you need? 😮
Junkyard - lazarus
I agree Dave is the most likely to blow up nuns.
Really? You don't say! (stating the obvious is obvious but he is least damaging) 😛
Actually [b]non of your current crop of BritLand politicians [/b]are up to scratch to be honest. All wannabe ZMs. You worship them? You ZM!
Thatcher, whether you like her or not, is world class leader (post WWII) while the rest are second rated also run.
the big 'risk' in the NATO question is that, in the event everything goes tits up (the Russian harvest fails and they roll west) and America decides to 'sit this one out' then the umbrella is gone
Ninfan is prepared !
[img] 
[/img]
Well, of course the big 'risk' in the NATO question is that, in the event everything goes tits up (the Russian harvest fails and they roll west) and America decides to 'sit this one out' then the umbrella is gone.
we still wouldn't use them if we had them in that scenario.
Nice pic of AKs ...
Wolverines!
JY I didn't suggest you discuss it with me, discuss it with anyone, discuss it amongst yourselves .
Northwind, two key points on Beckett's list - no credibility on the economy (everyone believes/knows Labour are tax and spend, or more accurately spend and hope tax rises can cover it but they probably won't so its more borrowing) and no credibility on immigration (people believe Labour will throw the doors open to all and sundry). Two key areas where Labour under Milliband where too far left and Labour under Corbyn are off the charts.
The Tories might have had 13 years in opposition and thus lacked experience but they had a functioning shadow cabinet and a desire to get back into power and an understanding of how they might do that
jambalaya - Member(everyone believes/knows Labour are tax and spend, or more accurately spend and hope tax rises can cover it but they probably won't so its more borrowing) and no credibility on immigration (people believe Labour will throw the doors open to all and sundry). Two key areas where Labour under Milliband where too far left and Labour under Corbyn are off the charts.
In Jambaworld, aye? In [i]this[/i] world, the conclusions are:
Failure to shake off the [b]myth[/b] that we were responsible for the financial crash and failure to build trust on the economy
Inability to deal with issues of "connection" in particular [b]failure to communicate[/b] on benefits and immigration
Ed Miliband was judged not be as strong a leader as David Cameron
Fear of the SNP propping up a minority Labour government