Just watching Marr - the chap from the Morning Star is doing pretty well and seems quite measured. Certainly a better representative of the Left than Corbers.
That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.
I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.
Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.
Labour does have the special problem of Scotland, where it's been outflanked to the left. I could see Corbyn regaining some ground in and around Glasgow, but nowhere else in the UK.
The Scottish situation is complicated but it is simplistic to say that the SNP have outflanked Labour to the left. They have enthusiastically adopted the Labour hatred of Tories and the SNP certainly appeal to many of the hard left who see more hope of their nirvana in a small socialist country than in the UK but the SNP now represent almost all of rural Scotland. They are a broad church.
Scottish Labour died of complacency and arrogance. For as long as people did not have a choice not being Tory was supposedly enough. And then a choice arose. English Labour need to think very carefully about that.
You are assuming that Labour activists want to win elections at any price. They don't. They've been there, done that, got the T-shirt and it doesn't fit. You have to have been a member of the Party to understand the deep hatred the average Labour activist has for MPs and councillors, the odd vegan teetotal leftie excepted.
The Mail has a story about Corbyn's campaign T-shirts - being made in Nicaragua by workers paid pennies an hour.
When is Bercow expected to give his answer to Corbyns bizarre request to pass the baton at PMQs..and if he oks it ..will he announce it to the house with the reasons for it.
One might suppose that Bercow's reply to Corbyn, given the Speaker's reputation as a defender of the House, will be not dissimilar to the reply given by the respondent in Arkell vs Pressdram.
I believe the LoTO's "right" to ask three questions is a tradition rather than written in "rules". Corbyn could simply say when asked by the Speaker that he did not wish to ask any question then or even that day.
That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.
I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.
Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.
Labour does have the special problem of Scotland, where it's been outflanked to the left. I could see Corbyn regaining some ground in and around Glasgow, but nowhere else in the UK.
The Scottish situation is complicated but it is simplistic to say that the SNP have outflanked Labour to the left. They have enthusiastically adopted the Labour hatred of Tories and the SNP certainly appeal to many of the hard left who see more hope of their nirvana in a small socialist country than in the UK but the SNP now represent almost all of rural Scotland. They are a broad church.
Scottish Labour died of complacency and arrogance. For as long as people did not have a choice not being Tory was supposedly enough. And then a choice arose. English Labour need to think very carefully about that.
You are assuming that Labour activists want to win elections at any price. They don't. They've been there, done that, got the T-shirt and it doesn't fit. You have to have been a member of the Party to understand the deep hatred the average Labour activist has for MPs and councillors, the odd vegan teetotal leftie excepted.
The Mail has a story about Corbyn's campaign T-shirts - being made in Nicaragua by workers paid pennies an hour.
It is going to be a horror show....
So not quite as left wing as the frothers on here pretend he is then
Just watching Marr - the chap from the Morning Star is doing pretty well and seems quite measured. Certainly a better representative of the Left than Corbers.
Damning with faint praise!
EDIT - Blunkett doing a 'more in sorrow than anger' attack on Toynbee and bringing up the SDP.
'I want us to be more loyal to Tom and Jeremy than they have ever been to previous leaders.'
At least one Opposition leader has sometimes asked five, because the PM gets the last word after question six, and only asking five may deprive the PM of the chance to use his scripted final line.
When is Bercow expected to give his answer to Corbyns bizarre request to pass the baton at PMQs..and if he oks it ..will he announce it to the house with the reasons for it.
One might suppose that Bercow's reply to Corbyn, given the Speaker's reputation as a defender of the House, will be not dissimilar to the reply given by the respondent in Arkell vs Pressdram.
I believe the LoTO's "right" to ask three questions is a tradition rather than written in "rules". Corbyn could simply say when asked by the Speaker that he did not wish to ask any question then or even that day.
Er, I don't think he's lobbying for the right to not ask any questions! I'm sure the Tories would be quite happy for his six questions to be shared around the House in accordance with political balance...
I remember OGH writing threads about the Labour bias within the electoral system, and I further recall him writing another thread that it had either gone or was now a tory bias.. anyone recall where we are?
I remember OGH writing threads about the Labour bias within the electoral system, and I further recall him writing another thread that it had either gone or was now a tory bias.. anyone recall where we are?
When is Bercow expected to give his answer to Corbyns bizarre request to pass the baton at PMQs..and if he oks it ..will he announce it to the house with the reasons for it.
One might suppose that Bercow's reply to Corbyn, given the Speaker's reputation as a defender of the House, will be not dissimilar to the reply given by the respondent in Arkell vs Pressdram.
I believe the LoTO's "right" to ask three questions is a tradition rather than written in "rules". Corbyn could simply say when asked by the Speaker that he did not wish to ask any question then or even that day.
Er, I don't think he's lobbying for the right to not ask any questions! I'm sure the Tories would be quite happy for his six questions to be shared around the House in accordance with political balance...
Corbyn can easily play another card [ indeed any LoTO could ]. Simply announce that unless the PM actually answers the question asked of him directly and the government benches behaved like a mob, he wouldn't be asking any questions as it was an affront to democracy. After all, the half hour is called PMQ, meaning accountability, rather than evasions. On this one, at least, the majority of the public will be on his side. The public [ apart from political nerds ] do not like the circus that it is today.
When is Bercow expected to give his answer to Corbyns bizarre request to pass the baton at PMQs..and if he oks it ..will he announce it to the house with the reasons for it.
One might suppose that Bercow's reply to Corbyn, given the Speaker's reputation as a defender of the House, will be not dissimilar to the reply given by the respondent in Arkell vs Pressdram.
I believe the LoTO's "right" to ask three questions is a tradition rather than written in "rules". Corbyn could simply say when asked by the Speaker that he did not wish to ask any question then or even that day.
Er, I don't think he's lobbying for the right to not ask any questions! I'm sure the Tories would be quite happy for his six questions to be shared around the House in accordance with political balance...
Corbyn can easily play another card [ indeed any LoTO could ]. Simply announce that unless the PM actually answers the question asked of him directly and the government benches behaved like a mob, he wouldn't be asking any questions as it was an affront to democracy. After all, the half hour is called PMQ, meaning accountability, rather than evasions. On this one, at least, the majority of the public will be on his side. The public [ apart from political nerds ] do not like the circus that it is today.
I'm not sure if you're being deliberately dense? But just in case, i repeat, he's not asking to give up the right of the LOTO to ask 6 questions. He's asking to for the right to nominate any random other frontbencher to ask the questions in his place.
If he wants to go further and propose the abolition of PMQs as an "affront to democracy" i'm sure Cameron would be quite happily to oblige. It's not there to hold the Opposition to account...
That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.
I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.
Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.
Labour does have the special problem of Scotland, where it's been outflanked to the left. I could see Corbyn regaining some ground in and around Glasgow, but nowhere else in the UK.
The Scottish situation is complicated but it is simplistic to say that the SNP have outflanked Labour to the left. They have enthusiastically adopted the Labour hatred of Tories and the SNP certainly appeal to many of the hard left who see more hope of their nirvana in a small socialist country than in the UK but the SNP now represent almost all of rural Scotland. They are a broad church.
Scottish Labour died of complacency and arrogance. For as long as people did not have a choice not being Tory was supposedly enough. And then a choice arose. English Labour need to think very carefully about that.
You are assuming that Labour activists want to win elections at any price. They don't. They've been there, done that, got the T-shirt and it doesn't fit. You have to have been a member of the Party to understand the deep hatred the average Labour activist has for MPs and councillors, the odd vegan teetotal leftie excepted.
The Mail has a story about Corbyn's campaign T-shirts - being made in Nicaragua by workers paid pennies an hour.
It is going to be a horror show....
Do you suggest she should stay at home like someone on PB we know ?
I remember OGH writing threads about the Labour bias within the electoral system, and I further recall him writing another thread that it had either gone or was now a tory bias.. anyone recall where we are?
When is Bercow expected to give his answer to Corbyns bizarre request to pass the baton at PMQs..and if he oks it ..will he announce it to the house with the reasons for it.
One might suppose that Bercow's reply to Corbyn, given the Speaker's reputation as a defender of the House, will be not dissimilar to the reply given by the respondent in Arkell vs Pressdram.
I believe the LoTO's "right" to ask three questions is a tradition rather than written in "rules". Corbyn could simply say when asked by the Speaker that he did not wish to ask any question then or even that day.
Er, I don't think he's lobbying for the right to not ask any questions! I'm sure the Tories would be quite happy for his six questions to be shared around the House in accordance with political balance...
Corbyn can easily play another card [ indeed any LoTO could ]. Simply announce that unless the PM actually answers the question asked of him directly and the government benches behaved like a mob, he wouldn't be asking any questions as it was an affront to democracy. After all, the half hour is called PMQ, meaning accountability, rather than evasions. On this one, at least, the majority of the public will be on his side. The public [ apart from political nerds ] do not like the circus that it is today.
I'm not sure if you're being deliberately dense? But just in case, i repeat, he's not asking to give up the right of the LOTO to ask 6 questions. He's asking to for the right to nominate any random other frontbencher to ask the questions in his place.
Under those circumstances (genuine question) would he still draw the LOTO salary? After all, fair play to the left wingers in Labour including Corbyn, they were mostly very honourable about only claiming absolutely necessary expenses and not suckling on the public teat for duck houses, manure, multiple mortgages for buy to lets etc.
Might he refuse it on the basis he is not in need of it and he is not doing sufficient to earn it? Could be a double-edged sword though - might play well with the public in austerity Britain, might also lead to the question, 'well, if you're not doing sufficient to earn your salary, why do you not let someone else come in to do it properly?'
That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.
I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.
Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.
Labour does have the special problem of Scotland, where it's been outflanked to the left. I could see Corbyn regaining some ground in and around Glasgow, but nowhere else in the UK.
The Scottish situation is complicated but it is simplistic to say that the SNP have outflanked Labour to the left. They have enthusiastically adopted the Labour hatred of Tories and the SNP certainly appeal to many of the hard left who see more hope of their nirvana in a small socialist country than in the UK but the SNP now represent almost all of rural Scotland. They are a broad church.
Scottish Labour died of complacency and arrogance. For as long as people did not have a choice not being Tory was supposedly enough. And then a choice arose. English Labour need to think very carefully about that.
You are assuming that Labour activists want to win elections at any price. They don't. They've been there, done that, got the T-shirt and it doesn't fit. You have to have been a member of the Party to understand the deep hatred the average Labour activist has for MPs and councillors, the odd vegan teetotal leftie excepted.
The Mail has a story about Corbyn's campaign T-shirts - being made in Nicaragua by workers paid pennies an hour.
It is going to be a horror show....
Another point: why are you dragging his wife here ? She is not the LoTO or an MP or a PPC.
When is Bercow expected to give his answer to Corbyns bizarre request to pass the baton at PMQs..and if he oks it ..will he announce it to the house with the reasons for it.
One might suppose that Bercow's reply to Corbyn, given the Speaker's reputation as a defender of the House, will be not dissimilar to the reply given by the respondent in Arkell vs Pressdram.
I believe the LoTO's "right" to ask three questions is a tradition rather than written in "rules". Corbyn could simply say when asked by the Speaker that he did not wish to ask any question then or even that day.
Er, I don't think he's lobbying for the right to not ask any questions! I'm sure the Tories would be quite happy for his six questions to be shared around the House in accordance with political balance...
Corbyn can easily play another card [ indeed any LoTO could ]. Simply announce that unless the PM actually answers the question asked of him directly and the government benches behaved like a mob, he wouldn't be asking any questions as it was an affront to democracy. After all, the half hour is called PMQ, meaning accountability, rather than evasions. On this one, at least, the majority of the public will be on his side. The public [ apart from political nerds ] do not like the circus that it is today.
For pity's sake, it is not a question and answer session. It is an opportunity to highlight an area where you think the government is making mistakes and to put across your point of view. Looked at sensibly, the more evasive the answers the better, it simply makes your point for you.
The old cliché of not asking questions you don't already know the answer to applies in spades: if the PM can come up with something unexpected it throws you off track. You want him to evade so you can tell him what the answer is in your next question and emphasise the point for the purpose of your soundbite. If you can make it vaguely witty, and thus improve the chance of the media using it, so much the better.
This is basic politics and if Corbyn does not play the game he will simply not contribute to the debate. That might be a good thing for Labour of course.
Another point: why are you dragging his wife here ? She is not the LoTO or an MP or a PPC.
I'm afraid that's politics Surbiton. I agree it's unedifying and unhelpful, but the same happened to Betsy Duncan Smith. IDS's defence of her and furious attack on the Labour dark merchants was about the only time he showed real passion and fire in the whole dismal two years of his leadership.
On PB and other forums, many Labour supporters spent five years saying that Ed was not crap, and that he would lead the party to a win in 2015 over the hated Conservatives. However often people tried to explain why Ed had problems (e.g. Hodges), the more these people were certain about their convictions.
After the shock of May 5, many of these same people started saying that Ed was, indeed, crap; that he had been a terrible leader and that we would have been much better under his brother.
Many of those same people are now saying that Corbyn is not crap.
They were wrong then; they are wrong now.
If the Labour Party wants a decent leader, they should sub-contract the process out to the pb Tories. We know who we don't want to face - and who we do.
Quite.
I imagine that Kendall would have grown into the role, and surrounded herself with the likes of Jarvis, Bradshaw as well as a few old faces.
Parking Labour's tank firmly on Cameron's lawn would have been a nightmare for the PM and his successor, made the next election a genuine contest between the two parties. As it is now, I doubt if the No.10 party's finished yet, and the Champagne ban at Conference will probably be lifted!
LOL, she is totally and utterly useless, she could not run a bath.
Mr G maybe you're right, but she would have been a lot more concerning for the PM and Govt than the 1970s terrorist-appeasing trot that Labour just elected. Think seats like Broxtowe, Nuneaton, Corby - where the election is actually decided - rather than Islington and Liverpool.
Sandpit , I cannot agree , crazy or not at least Corbyn has a personal opinion , she is just a cardboard cutout who would flip flop with focus group opinions. Love him or hate him Corbyn at least gave opinions during the marathon event , Kendall showed she had no opinions, was useless and should never be allowed to run anything.
Kendall was a bit before her time, just like Hague was in 1997. But with a good team around her the party would be well placed to challenge in the marginals. With Corbyn as leader they've already got no chance at the next election, the real worry must be that he makes party changes that keep the centrists out of the party in the longer term. With the possible exception of the Greens, all the other parties are still wetting themselves laughing at yesterday's events.
For pity's sake, it is not a question and answer session. It is an opportunity to highlight an area where you think the government is making mistakes and to put across your point of view. Looked at sensibly, the more evasive the answers the better, it simply makes your point for you.
The old cliché of not asking questions you don't already know the answer to applies in spades: if the PM can come up with something unexpected it throws you off track. You want him to evade so you can tell him what the answer is in your next question and emphasise the point for the purpose of your soundbite. If you can make it vaguely witty, and thus improve the chance of the media using it, so much the better.
This is basic politics and if Corbyn does not play the game he will simply not contribute to the debate. That might be a good thing for Labour of course.
Cameron would be wiser to answer questions directly and honestly though. It would horribly confuse Corbyn and deprive him of a key line of attack, not to mention freeing up room to cover several subjects. William Hague admitted that the one time Tony Blair gave him a straight answer to his first question (on the Euro) it wrecked his next question and he had his weakest performance at PMQs.
When is Bercow expected to give his answer to Corbyns bizarre request to pass the baton at PMQs..and if he oks it ..will he announce it to the house with the reasons for it.
One might suppose that Bercow's reply to Corbyn, given the Speaker's reputation as a defender of the House, will be not dissimilar to the reply given by the respondent in Arkell vs Pressdram.
I believe the LoTO's "right" to ask three questions is a tradition rather than written in "rules". Corbyn could simply say when asked by the Speaker that he did not wish to ask any question then or even that day.
Er, I don't think he's lobbying for the right to not ask any questions! I'm sure the Tories would be quite happy for his six questions to be shared around the House in accordance with political balance...
Corbyn can easily play another card [ indeed any LoTO could ]. Simply announce that unless the PM actually answers the question asked of him directly and the government benches behaved like a mob, he wouldn't be asking any questions as it was an affront to democracy. After all, the half hour is called PMQ, meaning accountability, rather than evasions. On this one, at least, the majority of the public will be on his side. The public [ apart from political nerds ] do not like the circus that it is today.
I'm not sure if you're being deliberately dense? But just in case, i repeat, he's not asking to give up the right of the LOTO to ask 6 questions. He's asking to for the right to nominate any random other frontbencher to ask the questions in his place.
If he wants to go further and propose the abolition of PMQs as an "affront to democracy" i'm sure Cameron would be quite happily to oblige. It's not there to hold the Opposition to account...
You may not have noticed my points had nothing to do with numbers [ you are referring to another post ] This post had to do with asking any questions
I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.
Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.
Labour does have the special problem of Scotland, where it's been outflanked to the left. I could see Corbyn regaining some ground in and around Glasgow, but nowhere else in the UK.
The Scottish situation is complicated but it is simplistic to say that the SNP have outflanked Labour to the left. They have enthusiastically adopted the Labour hatred of Tories and the SNP certainly appeal to many of the hard left who see more hope of their nirvana in a small socialist country than in the UK but the SNP now represent almost all of rural Scotland. They are a broad church.
Scottish Labour died of complacency and arrogance. For as long as people did not have a choice not being Tory was supposedly enough. And then a choice arose. English Labour need to think very carefully about that.
You are assuming that Labour activists want to win elections at any price. They don't. They've been there, done that, got the T-shirt and it doesn't fit. You have to have been a member of the Party to understand the deep hatred the average Labour activist has for MPs and councillors, the odd vegan teetotal leftie excepted.
The Mail has a story about Corbyn's campaign T-shirts - being made in Nicaragua by workers paid pennies an hour.
It is going to be a horror show....
Another point: why are you dragging his wife here ? She is not the LoTO or an MP or a PPC.
Hesitate to get involved because in general I agree. Although it could be pointed out that he did allegedly go as far as divorcing one of his wives on a point of political principle.
For pity's sake, it is not a question and answer session. It is an opportunity to highlight an area where you think the government is making mistakes and to put across your point of view. Looked at sensibly, the more evasive the answers the better, it simply makes your point for you.
The old cliché of not asking questions you don't already know the answer to applies in spades: if the PM can come up with something unexpected it throws you off track. You want him to evade so you can tell him what the answer is in your next question and emphasise the point for the purpose of your soundbite. If you can make it vaguely witty, and thus improve the chance of the media using it, so much the better.
This is basic politics and if Corbyn does not play the game he will simply not contribute to the debate. That might be a good thing for Labour of course.
Cameron would be wiser to answer questions directly and honestly though. It would horribly confuse Corbyn and deprive him of a key line of attack, not to mention freeing up room to cover several subjects. William Hague admitted that the one time Tony Blair gave him a straight answer to his first question (on the Euro) it wrecked his next question and he had his weakest performance at PMQs.
Answering directly and honestly is one of the most underhand tactics that there is given PMQs real purpose. I agree it is probably underused.
Dear Jeremy,you wanted questions for the PM. Here are mine. Why are you so incredibly lucky with your leaders of the opposition? Why does Socialism always fail? Why does Socialist Venezuela have oil wealth but inflation approaching 200 per cent? Did you believe that Labour could find anyone worse than Ed? What am I doing here? Will Labour ever lose its sanctimony? Do you know the way to San Jose? On reflection I recommend the last question. You may find that the answers to the others are too uncomfortable
When is Bercow expected to give his answer to Corbyns bizarre request to pass the baton at PMQs..and if he oks it ..will he announce it to the house with the reasons for it.
One might suppose that Bercow's reply to Corbyn, given the Speaker's reputation as a defender of the House, will be not dissimilar to the reply given by the respondent in Arkell vs Pressdram.
I believe the LoTO's "right" to ask three questions is a tradition rather than written in "rules". Corbyn could simply say when asked by the Speaker that he did not wish to ask any question then or even that day.
Er, I don't think he's lobbying for the right to not ask any questions! I'm sure the Tories would be quite happy for his six questions to be shared around the House in accordance with political balance...
Corbyn can easily play another card [ indeed any LoTO could ]. Simply announce that unless the PM actually answers the question asked of him directly and the government benches behaved like a mob, he wouldn't be asking any questions as it was an affront to democracy. After all, the half hour is called PMQ, meaning accountability, rather than evasions. On this one, at least, the majority of the public will be on his side. The public [ apart from political nerds ] do not like the circus that it is today.
I'm not sure if you're being deliberately dense? But just in case, i repeat, he's not asking to give up the right of the LOTO to ask 6 questions. He's asking to for the right to nominate any random other frontbencher to ask the questions in his place.
If he wants to go further and propose the abolition of PMQs as an "affront to democracy" i'm sure Cameron would be quite happily to oblige. It's not there to hold the Opposition to account...
You may not have noticed my points had nothing to do with numbers [ you are referring to another post ] This post had to do with asking any questions
Well I know what you were saying. Quite what that has to do with Corbyn's reported plan I am at a loss to know.
I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.
Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.
Labour does have the special problem of Scotland, where it's been outflanked to the left. I could see Corbyn regaining some ground in and around Glasgow, but nowhere else in the UK.
The Scottish situation is complicated but it is simplistic to say that the SNP have outflanked Labour to the left. They have enthusiastically adopted the Labour hatred of Tories and the SNP certainly appeal to many of the hard left who see more hope of their nirvana in a small socialist country than in the UK but the SNP now represent almost all of rural Scotland. They are a broad church.
Scottish Labour died of complacency and arrogance. For as long as people did not have a choice not being Tory was supposedly enough. And then a choice arose. English Labour need to think very carefully about that.
You are assuming that Labour activists want to win elections at any price. They don't. They've been there, done that, got the T-shirt and it doesn't fit. You have to have been a member of the Party to understand the deep hatred the average Labour activist has for MPs and councillors, the odd vegan teetotal leftie excepted.
The Mail has a story about Corbyn's campaign T-shirts - being made in Nicaragua by workers paid pennies an hour.
It is going to be a horror show....
Another point: why are you dragging his wife here ? She is not the LoTO or an MP or a PPC.
Hesitate to get involved because in general I agree. Although it could be pointed out that he did allegedly go as far as divorcing one of his wives on a point of political principle.
That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.
I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.
Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.
Why do they live in safe Labour seats, David? (My son is one of them, although JC has a hard row to hoe with him.) I am offering ethnicity as an explanation, you don't seem to have one except this notion of "centrism" - whatever that means. If we are all so moderate, why did the moderate Party par excellence tank so last May?
I would have thought that was obvious. The hard left are found amongst the impoverished and disenfranchised, ethnic minorities (I completely agree with that point) and the extreme end of public sector trade unionism. All of these are concentrated in our major cities which is where the Labour party still thrives. But it will never be enough.
We are coming together. The consequence is that England is a Tory country, just as Northern Irish politics are dominated by religion with class a poor second.
I am still hoping for a list of the seats that Liz Kendall would have won that JC won't
England is a centralist country that does not like those who would scare the horses. We don't really want exciting, radical, scary politicians. We want to be left alone but have decent public services.
That sort of government doesn't have to be Tory. For most of the last 30 years it wasn't.
Golly, I knew you were primarily British, but congrats on making it to the full English!
If you want an army Anglea, then you can bloody well recruit and train them yourself, rather than trying to steal ours. I wonder what happened to the German army, anyway..?
Dear Jeremy,you wanted questions for the PM. Here are mine. Why are you so incredibly lucky with your leaders of the opposition? Why does Socialism always fail? Why does Socialist Venezuela have oil wealth but inflation approaching 200 per cent? Did you believe that Labour could find anyone worse than Ed? What am I doing here? Will Labour ever lose its sanctimony? Do you know the way to San Jose? On reflection I recommend the last question. You may find that the answers to the others are too uncomfortable
If you want an army Anglea, then you can bloody well recruit and train them yourself, rather than trying to steal ours. I wonder what happened to the German army, anyway..?
Still licking it wounds after losing two world wars....
On PB and other forums, many Labour supporters spent five years saying that Ed was not crap, and that he would lead the party to a win in 2015 over the hated Conservatives. However often people tried to explain why Ed had problems (e.g. Hodges), the more these people were certain about their convictions.
After the shock of May 5, many of these same people started saying that Ed was, indeed, crap; that he had been a terrible leader and that we would have been much better under his brother.
Many of those same people are now saying that Corbyn is not crap.
They were wrong then; they are wrong now.
Oh there's many of us who defended Ed who think Corbyn's crap. With Ed he showed flashes of good leadership, but couldn't put it together into something coherent, ultimately getting savaged by a Tory SNP (with a few jabs from the greens) pincer movement which allowed them to paint Labour as whatever they liked - hence how Labour could be seen as both fiscally reckless and 'the same' as the Tories. What most of us neglected was how ruthless that would be, and that the 'anti-austerity' left would cut its nose off to spite its face (or be motivated by things other than changing the government) and how the Tories would skillfully play off that, we ended up fighting the last war. Milibandism at least worked theoretically (win anti-government votes and left-wing protest votes while trying to hang on to centrist voters) even if it ultimately failed in practice due to a number of things going against. Those who hoped Miliband might pull it off were wrong, but at least there was method to it.
Corbynism can't get close to winning an election even if things go his way. Even the most optimistic scenarios basically state 'well, he might not be a total disaster'. It's the most monumentally stupid thing any political party has ever done. Miliband was rejected (unfairly imho) because he was seen as too much of a risk, so what does Labour do? Elect someone with all his perceived negatives x 100. It's as if you were denied entry to a pub for being drunk having only had a couple, then in order to get in you went away and downed a jeroboam of whisky and came back and asked again. But then perhaps it shouldn't come as too much of a surprise - the newer generation of voters define themselves as being against New Labour more than anything else, having come of age in the fag end of the 1997-2010 administration. They're nostalgic for a time which never existed.
It's certainly right that under FPTP there is no point in focusing on safe seats. But the problem in the Midlands marginals was not a shortage of help - I've never had so many helpers or so many donations. The problem was a near-absence of a coherent message: essentially we were putting out dozens of leaflets promising not to be as Tory as the Tories and have a few random policies on GP waiting times and electricity prices. People weren't impressed and they felt that change was risky and not apparently going to give many benefits, so why chance it?
It is however a mistake to think that English marginals are full of centrists while safe seats are full of radicals. All seats have a variety of voters, and marginals are marginals because of the demographic mix. It's possible to win elections in marginals by enthusing a few thousand people who drifted off to minor parties (I lost in 2010 by much less than the Green vote) plus people who really don't vote on left-right lines, so long as you don't thereby alienate your normal vote. That's the more serious challenge for a left-wing Labour party than the risk of only piling up votes in safe seats.
I imagine that Kendall would have grown into the role, and surrounded herself with the likes of Jarvis, Bradshaw as well as a few old faces.
Parking Labour's tank firmly on Cameron's lawn would have been a nightmare for the PM and his successor, made the next election a genuine contest between the two parties. As it is now, I doubt if the No.10 party's finished yet, and the Champagne ban at Conference will probably be lifted!
LOL, she is totally and utterly useless, she could not run a bath.
Mr G maybe you're right, but she would have been a lot more concerning for the PM and Govt than the 1970s terrorist-appeasing trot that Labour just elected. Think seats like Broxtowe, Nuneaton, Corby - where the election is actually decided - rather than Islington and Liverpool.
Sandpit , I cannot agree , crazy or not at least Corbyn has a personal opinion , she is just a cardboard cutout who would flip flop with focus group opinions. Love him or hate him Corbyn at least gave opinions during the marathon event , Kendall showed she had no opinions, was useless and should never be allowed to run anything.
Kendall was a bit before her time, just like Hague was in 1997. But with a good team around her the party would be well placed to challenge in the marginals. With Corbyn as leader they've already got no chance at the next election, the real worry must be that he makes party changes that keep the centrists out of the party in the longer term. With the possible exception of the Greens, all the other parties are still wetting themselves laughing at yesterday's events.
I'm afraid I have to agree with Malcolm on this one. I expected to like Kendall. She was positioning herself from a bit of the party that I have time for. But she was totally vacuous and incapable of constructing even the most basic argument.
The contrast with the very young Blair clips linked to during the campaign, bambi look and all, was positively painful. No one should have managed to get elected an MP with such unformed and incoherent views, let alone make the shadow cabinet. It simply shows they do not pay attention or lack the ability needed for a senior post. The few remaining Blairites seriously need someone else.
When is Bercow expected to give his answer to Corbyns bizarre request to pass the baton at PMQs..and if he oks it ..will he announce it to the house with the reasons for it.
One might suppose that Bercow's reply to Corbyn, given the Speaker's reputation as a defender of the House, will be not dissimilar to the reply given by the respondent in Arkell vs Pressdram.
I believe the LoTO's "right" to ask three questions is a tradition rather than written in "rules". Corbyn could simply say when asked by the Speaker that he did not wish to ask any question then or even that day.
Er, I don't think he's lobbying for the right to not ask any questions! I'm sure the Tories would be quite happy for his six questions to be shared around the House in accordance with political balance...
Corbyn can easily play another card [ indeed any LoTO could ]. Simply announce that unless the PM actually answers the question asked of him directly and the government benches behaved like a mob, he wouldn't be asking any questions as it was an affront to democracy. After all, the half hour is called PMQ, meaning accountability, rather than evasions. On this one, at least, the majority of the public will be on his side. The public [ apart from political nerds ] do not like the circus that it is today.
Could you point to where you were critical of Gordon Brown or Blair, who never answered any question directly.. and in any event who is going to be the arbiter of whether a question was answered directly?
Dear Jeremy,you wanted questions for the PM. Here are mine. Why are you so incredibly lucky with your leaders of the opposition? Why does Socialism always fail? Why does Socialist Venezuela have oil wealth but inflation approaching 200 per cent? Did you believe that Labour could find anyone worse than Ed? What am I doing here? Will Labour ever lose its sanctimony? Do you know the way to San Jose? On reflection I recommend the last question. You may find that the answers to the others are too uncomfortable
Have you stopped p1ssing yourself laughing yet? Should we not be supporting ISIL in their quest for an Islamic State? Should we give the Falklands back to Argentina, and Gibraltar back to the Spanish? Why do we spend 2% of GDP on the military when it would be better spent on hugs and flowers? Why limit immigration?
"Let’s remind ourselves of a big fact. Corbyn has been an MP for 32 years and for 31 and three-quarters of those nobody talked of him as a potential Labour leader. That he now occupies that role owes less to his own merits than to the weaknesses of the alternatives."
It's certainly right that under FPTP there is no point in focusing on safe seats. But the problem in the Midlands marginals was not a shortage of help - I've never had so many helpers or so many donations. The problem was a near-absence of a coherent message: essentially we were putting out dozens of leaflets promising not to be as Tory as the Tories and have a few random policies on GP waiting times and electricity prices. People weren't impressed and they felt that change was risky and not apparently going to give many benefits, so why chance it?
It is however a mistake to think that English marginals are full of centrists while safe seats are full of radicals. All seats have a variety of voters, and marginals are marginals because of the demographic mix. It's possible to win elections in marginals by enthusing a few thousand people who drifted off to minor parties (I lost in 2010 by much less than the Green vote) plus people who really don't vote on left-right lines, so long as you don't thereby alienate your normal vote. That's the more serious challenge for a left-wing Labour party than the risk of only piling up votes in safe seats.
Surely you could have put out your own messages, you didn't have to blindly follow Labour HQ..
For pity's sake, it is not a question and answer session. It is an opportunity to highlight an area where you think the government is making mistakes and to put across your point of view. Looked at sensibly, the more evasive the answers the better, it simply makes your point for you.
The old cliché of not asking questions you don't already know the answer to applies in spades: if the PM can come up with something unexpected it throws you off track. You want him to evade so you can tell him what the answer is in your next question and emphasise the point for the purpose of your soundbite. If you can make it vaguely witty, and thus improve the chance of the media using it, so much the better.
This is basic politics and if Corbyn does not play the game he will simply not contribute to the debate. That might be a good thing for Labour of course.
Cameron would be wiser to answer questions directly and honestly though. It would horribly confuse Corbyn and deprive him of a key line of attack, not to mention freeing up room to cover several subjects. William Hague admitted that the one time Tony Blair gave him a straight answer to his first question (on the Euro) it wrecked his next question and he had his weakest performance at PMQs.
At one of the last PMQs, David gave Ed a direct and straight answer to the first question, and Ed just kept on with his preprepared questions which assumed that David hadn't answered. It made Ed look rather silly.
It will be interesting to see if Corbyn can think well enough on his feet to avoid such problems. I see little reason to think he can, which might be why he seemingly wants to avoid PMQs. For one thing, he hasn't had a great deal of practice.
In fact, I wonder if Corbyn has existed in his own little bubble for the last fifty years - having dinner parties with fellow travellers, hanging out with the ever-decreasing number of fellow travellers in the Commons, reading things that back up his world view rather than challenge it.
Appearing at a hustings in front of a crowd that wants to hear you talk - and who largely share your world view - is very different from apppearing in front of a sceptical, or even hostile, crowd.
Perhaps he is more out of touch with the public than Cameron ...
That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.
I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.
Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.
Labour does have the special problem of Scotland, where it's been outflanked to the left. I could see Corbyn regaining some ground in and around Glasgow, but nowhere else in the UK.
. And then a choice arose. English Labour need to think very carefully about that.
You are assuming that Labour activists want to win elections at any price. They don't. They've been there, done that, got the T-shirt and it doesn't fit. You have to have been a member of the Party to understand the deep hatred the average Labour activist has for MPs and councillors, the odd vegan teetotal leftie excepted.
The Mail has a story about Corbyn's campaign T-shirts - being made in Nicaragua by workers paid pennies an hour.
It is going to be a horror show....
Do you suggest she should stay at home like someone on PB we know ?
We'll file that one away: better she is out at work exploiting the poor, than....
On PB and other forums, many Labour supporters spent five years saying that Ed was not They were wrong then; they are wrong now.
If the Labour Party wants a decent leader, they should sub-contract the process out to the pb Tories. We know who we don't want to face - and who we do.
Quite.
finished yet, and the Champagne ban at Conference will probably be lifted!
LOL, she is totally and utterly useless, she could not run a bath.
Mr G maybe you're right, but she would have been a lot more concerning for the PM and Govt than the 1970s terrorist-appeasing trot that Labour just elected. Think seats like Broxtowe, Nuneaton, Corby - where the election is actually decided - rather than Islington and Liverpool.
Sandpit , I cannot agree , crazy or not at least Corbyn has a personal opinion , she is just a cardboard cutout who would flip flop with focus group opinions. Love him or hate him Corbyn at least gave opinions during the marathon event , Kendall showed she had no opinions, was useless and should never be allowed to run anything.
Kendall was a bit before her time, just like Hague was in 1997. But with a good team around her the party would be well placed to challenge in the marginals. With Corbyn as leader they've already got no chance at the next election, the real worry must be that he makes party changes that keep the centrists out of the party in the longer term. With the possible exception of the Greens, all the other parties are still wetting themselves laughing at yesterday's events.
She was very stupid to run in this one , obviously thought highly of herself. If she had been any good she would have realised that the next time was her chance and the idea was to get a top shadow job etc. Now she is finished , seen as a no hoper after limping in at the very end a dismal last.
The horrific inequalities currently being waved in everyone's face with the plight of the migrants is unsustainable. Whether or not Corbyn is a useless politician isn't important. His overwhelming mandate as leader of the opposition means he'll be heard.
His message that the level of inequality is unsustainable as is the subjugation of weak nations by powerful ones is unargueable.
This is how he managed to cut through a very unradical Labour electorate to win decisively and his message will resonate. If I was a TORY (which thank the Lord I'm not sir....) I'd be seriously worried. The sight of the Prime Minister and his Tory chums posing in their Bullindon finery is now so inappropriate it's almost shocking
That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.
The Mail has a story about Corbyn's campaign T-shirts - being made in Nicaragua by workers paid pennies an hour.
It is going to be a horror show....
Another point: why are you dragging his wife here ? She is not the LoTO or an MP or a PPC.
Why do the left Do it? presumably the answer to that question will give you the answer to your question. I know what Cameron's wife does for a living because it is often dragged up as a weapon against him, without that I wouldn't have a clue what she did.
If you want an army Anglea, then you can bloody well recruit and train them yourself, rather than trying to steal ours. I wonder what happened to the German army, anyway..?
When is Bercow expected to give his answer to Corbyns bizarre request to pass the baton at PMQs..and if he oks it ..will he announce it to the house with the reasons for it.
One might suppose that Bercow's reply to Corbyn, given the Speaker's reputation as a defender of the House, will be not dissimilar to the reply given by the respondent in Arkell vs Pressdram.
I believe the LoTO's "right" to ask three questions is a tradition rather than written in "rules". Corbyn could simply say when asked by the Speaker that he did not wish to ask any question then or even that day.
Er, I don't think he's lobbying for the right to not ask any questions! I'm sure the Tories would be quite happy for his six questions to be shared around the House in accordance with political balance...
Corbyn can easily play another card [ indeed any LoTO could ]. Simply announce that unless the PM actually answers the question asked of him directly and the government benches behaved like a mob, he wouldn't be asking any questions as it was an affront to democracy. After all, the half hour is called PMQ, meaning accountability, rather than evasions. On this one, at least, the majority of the public will be on his side. The public [ apart from political nerds ] do not like the circus that it is today.
The problem is that relies on the questions being genuine and not political bear-traps. Backbencher questions often cast a light on issues that need more publicity. When that happens, PMQs has value.
If the LOTO asks questions that are attack lines rather than to get (or give) information, it's perfectly reasonable for the PM to respond similarly.
The horrific inequalities currently being waved in everyone's face with the plight of the migrants is unsustainable. Whether or not Corbyn is a useless politician isn't important. His overwhelming mandate as leader of the opposition means he'll be heard.
His message that the level of inequality is unsustainable as is the subjugation of weak nations by powerful ones is unargueable.
This is how he managed to cut through a very unradical Labour electorate to win decisively and his message will resonate. If I was a TORY (which thank the Lord I'm not sir....) I'd be seriously worried. The sight of the Prime Minister and his Tory chums posing in their Bullindon finery is now so inappropriate it's almost shocking
Sorry, Roger, but if there was the slightest threat to the Tory hegemony they'd stage a coup d'etat as did Franco and the Greek colonels in the 1960s. The typical Tory Peebie would regard killing you or me not as murder but as pest control.
The horrific inequalities currently being waved in everyone's face with the plight of the migrants is unsustainable. Whether or not Corbyn is a useless politician isn't important. His overwhelming mandate as leader of the opposition means he'll be heard.
His message that the level of inequality is unsustainable as is the subjugation of weak nations by powerful ones is unargueable.
This is how he managed to cut through a very unradical Labour electorate to win decisively and his message will resonate. If I was a TORY (which thank the Lord I'm not sir....) I'd be seriously worried. The sight of the Prime Minister and his Tory chums posing in their Bullindon finery is now so inappropriate it's almost shocking
The horrific inequalities currently being waved in everyone's face with the plight of the migrants is unsustainable. Whether or not Corbyn is a useless politician isn't important. His overwhelming mandate as leader of the opposition means he'll be heard.
His message that the level of inequality is unsustainable as is the subjugation of weak nations by powerful ones is unargueable.
This is how he managed to cut through a very unradical Labour electorate to win decisively and his message will resonate. If I was a TORY (which thank the Lord I'm not sir....) I'd be seriously worried. The sight of the Prime Minister and his Tory chums posing in their Bullindon finery is now so inappropriate it's almost shocking
Sorry, Roger, but if there was the slightest threat to the Tory hegemony they'd stage a coup d'etat as did Franco and the Greek colonels in the 1960s. The typical Tory Peebie would regard killing you or me not as murder but as pest control.
I'm afraid I have to agree with Malcolm on this one. I expected to like Kendall. She was positioning herself from a bit of the party that I have time for. But she was totally vacuous and incapable of constructing even the most basic argument.
The contrast with the very young Blair clips linked to during the campaign, bambi look and all, was positively painful. No one should have managed to get elected an MP with such unformed and incoherent views, let alone make the shadow cabinet. It simply shows they do not pay attention or lack the ability needed for a senior post. The few remaining Blairites seriously need someone else.
Blairites have got far too far addicted to talking about "electability" above all else, whilst rarely getting the message out about the general political platform that they stand on and why that could be a popular and electable one. You aren't going to win a Labour leadership contest by telling everyone that the only flaw in the more left wing platform is that it won't win votes. You've got to go someway towards saying why it won't work for the country either.
Today I read at least one labour MP being open contemptuous of his leader, and one fundamentally disagreeing with his leader over key aspects of defence policy.
If you want an army Anglea, then you can bloody well recruit and train them yourself, rather than trying to steal ours. I wonder what happened to the German army, anyway..?
Still licking it wounds after losing two world wars....
Ponder the fact that it took the world to beat them whilst nowadays we could not even win against a bit of Afghanistan. Not exactly superior in any way shape or form.
On PB and other forums, many Labour supporters spent five years saying that Ed was not They were wrong then; they are wrong now.
If the Labour Party wants a decent leader, they should sub-contract the process out to the pb Tories. We know who we don't want to face - and who we do.
Quite.
finished yet, and the Champagne ban at Conference will probably be lifted!
LOL, she is totally and utterly useless, she could not run a bath.
Mr G maybe you're right, but she would have been a lot more concerning for the PM and Govt than the 1970s terrorist-appeasing trot that Labour just elected. Think seats like Broxtowe, Nuneaton, Corby - where the election is actually decided - rather than Islington and Liverpool.
Sandpit , I cannot agree , crazy or not at least Corbyn has a personal opinion , she is just a cardboard cutout who would flip flop with focus group opinions. Love him or hate him Corbyn at least gave opinions during the marathon event , Kendall showed she had no opinions, was useless and should never be allowed to run anything.
Kendall was a bit before her time, just like Hague was in 1997. But with a good team around her the party would be well placed to challenge in the marginals. With Corbyn as leader they've already got no chance at the next election, the real worry must be that he makes party changes that keep the centrists out of the party in the longer term. With the possible exception of the Greens, all the other parties are still wetting themselves laughing at yesterday's events.
She was very stupid to run in this one , obviously thought highly of herself. If she had been any good she would have realised that the next time was her chance and the idea was to get a top shadow job etc. Now she is finished , seen as a no hoper after limping in at the very end a dismal last.
I think she was the last Blairite standing after Jarvis, Chuka et al didn't stand. She would have been better waiting a few years herself but got stuck with it as the music stopped. Agree with you that she's probably blown her chances now, there are very few second opportunities in modern politics.
Even if only the Labour left agree to serve, I think they're still better off without her, as they are now they are deprived of those awesome political talents Chris Leslie and Tristram Hunt.
In fairness Berlin's position is entirely reasonable. The UK may not want 'ever closer union', but other countries do. Why should we play the role of dog in the manger?
It's probably to our net benefit if the Eurozone forms some variety of federal state. I say that despite our historical continental policy of opposing European domination by a single entity; I believe that USE (or whatever it will be called) will woefully underperform - and the US will swiftly come to the same conclusion.
The horrific inequalities currently being waved in everyone's face with the plight of the migrants is unsustainable. Whether or not Corbyn is a useless politician isn't important. His overwhelming mandate as leader of the opposition means he'll be heard.
His message that the level of inequality is unsustainable as is the subjugation of weak nations by powerful ones is unargueable.
This is how he managed to cut through a very unradical Labour electorate to win decisively and his message will resonate. If I was a TORY (which thank the Lord I'm not sir....) I'd be seriously worried. The sight of the Prime Minister and his Tory chums posing in their Bullindon finery is now so inappropriate it's almost shocking
The difference between Corbyn and the Bullingdon chums is that the Bullingdon chums have grown up, matured - and are now setting about making reparations for their youthful excesses by dedicating their lives to fixing the broken country they were handed.
Corbyn, on the other hand, is the same destructive Trot he was in his teens....
For pity's sake, it is not a question and answer session. It is an opportunity to highlight an area where you think the government is making mistakes and to put across your point of view. Looked at sensibly, the more evasive the answers the better, it simply makes your point for you.
This is basic politics and if Corbyn does not play the game he will simply not contribute to the debate. That might be a good thing for Labour of course.
Cameron would be wiser to answer questions directly and honestly though. It would horribly confuse Corbyn and deprive him of a key line of attack, not to mention freeing up room to cover several subjects. William Hague admitted that the one time Tony Blair gave him a straight answer to his first question (on the Euro) it wrecked his next question and he had his weakest performance at PMQs.
Answering directly and honestly is one of the most underhand tactics that there is given PMQs real purpose. I agree it is probably underused.
This is basic politics and if Corbyn does not play the game he will simply not contribute to the debate. That might be a good thing for Labour of course.
Cameron would be wiser to answer questions directly and honestly though. It would horribly confuse Corbyn and deprive him of a key line of attack, not to mention freeing up room to cover several subjects. William Hague admitted that the one time Tony Blair gave him a straight answer to his first question (on the Euro) it wrecked his next question and he had his weakest performance at PMQs.
Perhaps he is more out of touch with the public than Cameron ...
This is actually a serious point. Cameron is a posh guy who is out of touch but like all modern politicians aspiring to a leadership position is acutely conscious of the supposed need to not be seen as such, and do makes concerted efforts to either be in touch or look as though he is.
Corbyn is a guy who's spent 30 years in political obscurity ignored by the wider public, which one would think indicates he is out of touch, but like most of the far left is utterly convinced he is in touch even when ignored or rejected by the majority. Now he is not being ignored, how out of touch he is will be tested.
Now, I don't think it matters if a politician is out of touch, but it's interesting thaT both could be considered do.
I'm afraid I have to agree with Malcolm on this one. I expected to like Kendall. She was positioning herself from a bit of the party that I have time for. But she was totally vacuous and incapable of constructing even the most basic argument.
The contrast with the very young Blair clips linked to during the campaign, bambi look and all, was positively painful. No one should have managed to get elected an MP with such unformed and incoherent views, let alone make the shadow cabinet. It simply shows they do not pay attention or lack the ability needed for a senior post. The few remaining Blairites seriously need someone else.
Blairites have got far too far addicted to talking about "electability" above all else, whilst rarely getting the message out about the general political platform that they stand on and why that could be a popular and electable one. You aren't going to win a Labour leadership contest by telling everyone that the only flaw in the more left wing platform is that it won't win votes. You've got to go someway towards saying why it won't work for the country either.
Spot on. It is not about positioning, it is about explaining why those policies are good for the country and those you are trying to help. But that needs more than a soundbite. It needs a coherent line of thought (policies, I think they used to be called) well beyond Liz Kendall. It's unfortunate.
Today I read at least one labour MP being open contemptuous of his leader, and one fundamentally disagreeing with his leader over key aspects of defence policy.
how is this a 'party....???
it's certainly a party if you're on the right, probably a five year one ! :-)
I'm afraid I have to agree with Malcolm on this one. I expected to like Kendall. She was positioning herself from a bit of the party that I have time for. But she was totally vacuous and incapable of constructing even the most basic argument.
The contrast with the very young Blair clips linked to during the campaign, bambi look and all, was positively painful. No one should have managed to get elected an MP with such unformed and incoherent views, let alone make the shadow cabinet. It simply shows they do not pay attention or lack the ability needed for a senior post. The few remaining Blairites seriously need someone else.
Kendall lost her deposit. She ran a vacuous campaign (worse even than Burnham).
But, with under 5 % of the vote, the weakness of the Blairites is obvious to all. The de-selections will surely now follow. (I won’t be sorry when Tristram is de-selected)l
Someone (older than me) on pb said that all this was reminiscent of McGovern’s 1972 victories in the Democratic primaries and Presidential run. Having reread Fear & Loathing on the Campaign Trail, I think I’d agree. We’ve already reached the stage where prominent Democrats are turning down the offer of a Vice Presidency in his Presidential run.
And I think this provides a template for how this will play out.
McGovern was horribly weakened from within the Democratic Party, and then went down to the worst defeat ever against the Republicans.
The horrific inequalities currently being waved in everyone's face with the plight of the migrants is unsustainable. Whether or not Corbyn is a useless politician isn't important. His overwhelming mandate as leader of the opposition means he'll be heard.
His message that the level of inequality is unsustainable as is the subjugation of weak nations by powerful ones is unargueable.
This is how he managed to cut through a very unradical Labour electorate to win decisively and his message will resonate. If I was a TORY (which thank the Lord I'm not sir....) I'd be seriously worried. The sight of the Prime Minister and his Tory chums posing in their Bullindon finery is now so inappropriate it's almost shocking
"Whether or not Corbyn is a useless politician isn't important."
Well, I suppose that's a view. A ridiculous and particularly stupid one, but a view.
And you get extra stupidity points for your mention of 'Bullingdon'. That attack didn't work in 2010, and it didn't work in 2015. It won't work in 2020 either.
The horrific inequalities currently being waved in everyone's face with the plight of the migrants is unsustainable. Whether or not Corbyn is a useless politician isn't important. His overwhelming mandate as leader of the opposition means he'll be heard.
His message that the level of inequality is unsustainable as is the subjugation of weak nations by powerful ones is unargueable.
This is how he managed to cut through a very unradical Labour electorate to win decisively and his message will resonate. If I was a TORY (which thank the Lord I'm not sir....) I'd be seriously worried. The sight of the Prime Minister and his Tory chums posing in their Bullindon finery is now so inappropriate it's almost shocking
Sorry, Roger, but if there was the slightest threat to the Tory hegemony they'd stage a coup d'etat as did Franco and the Greek colonels in the 1960s. The typical Tory Peebie would regard killing you or me not as murder but as pest control.
that's a keeper.
Good. Keep it. You can believe in power or you can believe in morality. But not both.
The horrific inequalities currently being waved in everyone's face with the plight of the migrants is unsustainable. Whether or not Corbyn is a useless politician isn't important. His overwhelming mandate as leader of the opposition means he'll be heard.
His message that the level of inequality is unsustainable as is the subjugation of weak nations by powerful ones is unargueable.
This is how he managed to cut through a very unradical Labour electorate to win decisively and his message will resonate. If I was a TORY (which thank the Lord I'm not sir....) I'd be seriously worried. The sight of the Prime Minister and his Tory chums posing in their Bullindon finery is now so inappropriate it's almost shocking
Sorry, Roger, but if there was the slightest threat to the Tory hegemony they'd stage a coup d'etat as did Franco and the Greek colonels in the 1960s. The typical Tory Peebie would regard killing you or me not as murder but as pest control.
I genuinely worry for you sometimes. Do you actually believe this stuff? If so you need help, urgently.
The horrific inequalities currently being waved in everyone's face with the plight of the migrants is unsustainable. Whether or not Corbyn is a useless politician isn't important. His overwhelming mandate as leader of the opposition means he'll be heard.
His message that the level of inequality is unsustainable as is the subjugation of weak nations by powerful ones is unargueable.
This is how he managed to cut through a very unradical Labour electorate to win decisively and his message will resonate. If I was a TORY (which thank the Lord I'm not sir....) I'd be seriously worried. The sight of the Prime Minister and his Tory chums posing in their Bullindon finery is now so inappropriate it's almost shocking
Sorry, Roger, but if there was the slightest threat to the Tory hegemony they'd stage a coup d'etat as did Franco and the Greek colonels in the 1960s. The typical Tory Peebie would regard killing you or me not as murder but as pest control.
that's a keeper.
Good. Keep it. You can believe in power or you can believe in morality. But not both.
you appear to believe in neither or you wouldn't make such daft statements.
If you want an army Anglea, then you can bloody well recruit and train them yourself, rather than trying to steal ours. I wonder what happened to the German army, anyway..?
Still licking it wounds after losing two world wars....
Ponder the fact that it took the world to beat them whilst nowadays we could not even win against a bit of Afghanistan. Not exactly superior in any way shape or form.
At the height of the greatest Empire the planet has ever seen, the British Army couldn't win against a bit of Afghanistan. Your point is?
I'm afraid I have to agree with Malcolm on this one. I expected to like Kendall. She was positioning herself from a bit of the party that I have time for. But she was totally vacuous and incapable of constructing even the most basic argument.
The contrast with the very young Blair clips linked to during the campaign, bambi look and all, was positively painful. No one should have managed to get elected an MP with such unformed and incoherent views, let alone make the shadow cabinet. It simply shows they do not pay attention or lack the ability needed for a senior post. The few remaining Blairites seriously need someone else.
Kendall lost her deposit. She ran a vacuous campaign (worse even than Burnham).
But, with under 5 % of the vote, the weakness of the Blairites is obvious to all. The de-selections will surely now follow. (I won’t be sorry when Tristram is de-selected)l
Someone (older than me) on pb said that all this was reminiscent of McGovern’s 1972 victories in the Democratic primaries and Presidential run. Having reread Fear & Loathing on the Campaign Trail, I think I’d agree. We’ve already reached the stage where prominent Democrats are turning down the offer of a Vice Presidency in his Presidential run.
And I think this provides a template for how this will play out.
McGovern was horribly weakened from within the Democratic Party, and then went down to the worst defeat ever against the Republicans.
It feels more like Horace Greeley in 1872 than McGovern a century later. A well-meaning veteran not quite a socialist teetotal vegetarian who literally ended up in a lunatic asylum at the end of the campaign after Grant had unleashed the forces of hell on him. He wasn't even officially the Democratic candidate either, they just couldn't find anyone better to put up so endorsed him by default.
Cameron is not a civil war hero, it has to be said, but at the same time he's a much better and more ruthless politician than Grant ever was.
The horrific inequalities currently being waved in everyone's face with the plight of the migrants is unsustainable. Whether or not Corbyn is a useless politician isn't important. His overwhelming mandate as leader of the opposition means he'll be heard.
His message that the level of inequality is unsustainable as is the subjugation of weak nations by powerful ones is unargueable.
This is how he managed to cut through a very unradical Labour electorate to win decisively and his message will resonate. If I was a TORY (which thank the Lord I'm not sir....) I'd be seriously worried. The sight of the Prime Minister and his Tory chums posing in their Bullindon finery is now so inappropriate it's almost shocking
Sadly Roger you are deluded.
Most voters care little about Cameron's youthful "Bullingdon finery". It's an attack line that has run its course, if indeed it ever had a course to follow.
With Corbyn as leader Labour has effectively vacated their role of providing a viable government in waiting. Politically the nation faces a Conservative hegemony for the foreseeable future.
Electing Corbyn was the right of the members of the Labour party but it was also an act of gross self indulgence and they will pay a devastating price for their shallow naivety.
I'm afraid I have to agree with Malcolm on this one. I expected to like Kendall. She was positioning herself from a bit of the party that I have time for. But she was totally vacuous and incapable of constructing even the most basic argument.
The contrast with the very young Blair clips linked to during the campaign, bambi look and all, was positively painful. No one should have managed to get elected an MP with such unformed and incoherent views, let alone make the shadow cabinet. It simply shows they do not pay attention or lack the ability needed for a senior post. The few remaining Blairites seriously need someone else.
Kendall lost her deposit. She ran a vacuous campaign (worse even than Burnham).
But, with under 5 % of the vote, the weakness of the Blairites is obvious to all. The de-selections will surely now follow. (I won’t be sorry when Tristram is de-selected)l
Someone (older than me) on pb said that all this was reminiscent of McGovern’s 1972 victories in the Democratic primaries and Presidential run. Having reread Fear & Loathing on the Campaign Trail, I think I’d agree. We’ve already reached the stage where prominent Democrats are turning down the offer of a Vice Presidency in his Presidential run.
And I think this provides a template for how this will play out.
McGovern was horribly weakened from within the Democratic Party, and then went down to the worst defeat ever against the Republicans.
Worse than Burnham is truly harsh.
I can see the similarity with McGovern. His version of the Democratic party excluded huge tranches of their natural supporters. It does seem likely that Crobyn will do the same.
When is Bercow expected to give his answer to Corbyns bizarre request to pass the baton at PMQs..and if he oks it ..will he announce it to the house with the reasons for it.
One might suppose that Bercow's reply to Corbyn, given the Speaker's reputation as a defender of the House, will be not dissimilar to the reply given by the respondent in Arkell vs Pressdram.
I believe the LoTO's "right" to ask three questions is a tradition rather than written in "rules". Corbyn could simply say when asked by the Speaker that he did not wish to ask any question then or even that day.
Er, I don't think he's lobbying for the right to not ask any questions! I'm sure the Tories would be quite happy for his six questions to be shared around the House in accordance with political balance...
Corbyn can easily play another card [ indeed any LoTO could ]. Simply announce that unless the PM actually answers the question asked of him directly and the government benches behaved like a mob, he wouldn't be asking any questions as it was an affront to democracy. After all, the half hour is called PMQ, meaning accountability, rather than evasions. On this one, at least, the majority of the public will be on his side. The public [ apart from political nerds ] do not like the circus that it is today.
I don't think that's true. Political behaviours emerge for all sorts of reasons, but many develop because they worked with the public, or as a byproduct of things that work with the public. If MPs found that the low and shouty nature of pmqs harmed the political class, the culture would change very quickly. As it is, on serious occasions and topics they know to play it serious, otherwise they indulge in political theatre. That says to me only a few actually dislike it among the public, even if more claim they do. The public like to claim they want politicians to compromise and work together too, but punish those that do as being weak.
Nor have I seen historical pmqs since the TV age that are any different.
The PMQ stuff is a real Westminster bubble thing, by the way. There are umpteen precedents for LOTOs and PMs skipping it and someone standing in, and nobody outside our sort of nerdy circle cared. It's not "Leader of the Opposition Questions". The idea that it's a cowardly and unpatriotic dereliction of duty to share it out is froth.
It is however, a reflection of a Corbyn approach which is quite novel and we don't know how it will turn out. He doesn't see himself as a leader out in front, but as one of a number of representatives of a movement who happens to be the current leader. It's a self-effacing attitude which is intended to create some space for others and it's totally out of keeping with what we're used to - imagine Gordon doing it, and I say that as someone who likes Gordon. I doubt if he'll be doing it often but the offer is distinctive, and there will be other counter-intuitive moves like this.
I remember OGH writing threads about the Labour bias within the electoral system, and I further recall him writing another thread that it had either gone or was now a tory bias.. anyone recall where we are?
The uncomfortable fact is that, after the boundary changes, whoever would lead Labour will need a 1997-style swing to achieve a bare majority in 2020 - a feat only achieved by Blair himself.
No wonder even Prescott was saying the unthinkable yesterday, that Labour should consider all options, including pacts and coalitions.
If you want an army Anglea, then you can bloody well recruit and train them yourself, rather than trying to steal ours. I wonder what happened to the German army, anyway..?
Still licking it wounds after losing two world wars....
Ponder the fact that it took the world to beat them whilst nowadays we could not even win against a bit of Afghanistan. Not exactly superior in any way shape or form.
At the height of the greatest Empire the planet has ever seen, the British Army couldn't win against a bit of Afghanistan. Your point is?
You were mocking the Germans , yet we had no hope against them , it took the Americans , Russians and Empire armies to beat them. You can kid yourself that we beat the Germans etc but they hardly need us in a European Army , but nice to see Merkel twisting their tails. Ineffectual effete halfwits renegotiating , what a laugh, she will eat baw face and his muppets alive.
The PMQ stuff is a real Westminster bubble thing, by the way. There are umpteen precedents for LOTOs and PMs skipping it and someone standing in, and nobody outside our sort of nerdy circle cared. It's not "Leader of the Opposition Questions". The idea that it's a cowardly and unpatriotic dereliction of duty to share it out is froth.
I'll take your word for it, but could we have an example please? The only time I can think of off-hand that Cameron missed one as LOTO when Blair or Brown were there was when Ivan died and William Hague stood in. Ed Miliband was pretty assiduous as well as I recall.
I also thought, incidentally, speaking as someone who loathed Brown with a passion, that on that day he really spoke with emotion and sincerity, particularly bearing in mind his own family tragedy, and it was the first and only time I ever understood why he inspired such fierce loyalty among his close friends.
IIRC he did that more than once. It became a bit of meme that he'd carry on pushing a point that had already been addressed - as if he was talking to himself.
EdM had no sixpence turning ability - none. I doubt Corbyn will have any either given how he doesn't like having his views questioned at all.
For pity's sake, it is not a question and answer session. It is an opportunity to highlight an area where you think the government is making mistakes and to put across your point of view. Looked at sensibly, the more evasive the answers the better, it simply makes your point for you.
The old cliché of not asking questions you don't already know the answer to applies in spades: if the PM can come up with something unexpected it throws you off track. You want him to evade so you can tell him what the answer is in your next question and emphasise the point for the purpose of your soundbite. If you can make it vaguely witty, and thus improve the chance of the media using it, so much the better.
This is basic politics and if Corbyn does not play the game he will simply not contribute to the debate. That might be a good thing for Labour of course.
Cameron would be wiser to answer questions directly and honestly though. It would horribly confuse Corbyn and deprive him of a key line of attack, not to mention freeing up room to cover several subjects. William Hague admitted that the one time Tony Blair gave him a straight answer to his first question (on the Euro) it wrecked his next question and he had his weakest performance at PMQs.
At one of the last PMQs, David gave Ed a direct and straight answer to the first question, and Ed just kept on with his preprepared questions which assumed that David hadn't answered. It made Ed look rather silly.
The PMQ stuff is a real Westminster bubble thing, by the way. There are umpteen precedents for LOTOs and PMs skipping it and someone standing in, and nobody outside our sort of nerdy circle cared. It's not "Leader of the Opposition Questions". The idea that it's a cowardly and unpatriotic dereliction of duty to share it out is froth.
It is however, a reflection of a Corbyn approach which is quite novel and we don't know how it will turn out. He doesn't see himself as a leader out in front, but as one of a number of representatives of a movement who happens to be the current leader. It's a self-effacing attitude which is intended to create some space for others and it's totally out of keeping with what we're used to - imagine Gordon doing it, and I say that as someone who likes Gordon. I doubt if he'll be doing it often but the offer is distinctive, and there will be other counter-intuitive moves like this.
Whatever you say it will be perceived as weakness, because it is. You can spin like a top but its still weakness.
I remember OGH writing threads about the Labour bias within the electoral system, and I further recall him writing another thread that it had either gone or was now a tory bias.. anyone recall where we are?
The uncomfortable fact is that, after the boundary changes, whoever would lead Labour will need a 1997-style swing to achieve a bare majority in 2020 - a feat only achieved by Blair himself.
No wonder even Prescott was saying the unthinkable yesterday, that Labour should consider all options, including pacts and coalitions.
PR might be back on the agenda too, I guess.
They need a pact with the centre and right of their own party before they consider pacts with other parties
As I posted last night, I think Corbyn's victory is a good thing for politics. I don't think he's the messiah, I don't think his left wing message will resonate outside Labour heartlands, but after the appalling Brown and Miliband, Corbyn represents a breath of fresh air. He is genuine, unspun, and communicates in an easy manner.
The PMQ stuff is a real Westminster bubble thing, by the way. There are umpteen precedents for LOTOs and PMs skipping it and someone standing in, and nobody outside our sort of nerdy circle cared. It's not "Leader of the Opposition Questions". The idea that it's a cowardly and unpatriotic dereliction of duty to share it out is froth.
It is however, a reflection of a Corbyn approach which is quite novel and we don't know how it will turn out. He doesn't see himself as a leader out in front, but as one of a number of representatives of a movement who happens to be the current leader. It's a self-effacing attitude which is intended to create some space for others and it's totally out of keeping with what we're used to - imagine Gordon doing it, and I say that as someone who likes Gordon. I doubt if he'll be doing it often but the offer is distinctive, and there will be other counter-intuitive moves like this.
It may be a "Westminster bubble thing" but if Corbyn is unable to turn up and do his job, surely it shows he is unfit for the job?
I remember OGH writing threads about the Labour bias within the electoral system, and I further recall him writing another thread that it had either gone or was now a tory bias.. anyone recall where we are?
The uncomfortable fact is that, after the boundary changes, whoever would lead Labour will need a 1997-style swing to achieve a bare majority in 2020 - a feat only achieved by Blair himself.
No wonder even Prescott was saying the unthinkable yesterday, that Labour should consider all options, including pacts and coalitions.
PR might be back on the agenda too, I guess.
The problem of course is that in order to be in a position to consider pacts, coalitions and PR, Labour are going to have to do an awful lot better than they did under a much stronger leader.
IIRC he did that more than once. It became a bit of meme that he'd carry on pushing a point that had already been addressed - as if he was talking to himself.
EdM had no sixpence turning ability - none. I doubt Corbyn will have any either given how he doesn't like having his views questioned at all.
For pity's sake, it is not a question and answer session. It is an opportunity to highlight an area where you think the government is making mistakes and to put across your point of view. Looked at sensibly, the more evasive the answers the better, it simply makes your point for you.
The old cliché of not asking questions you don't already know the answer to applies in spades: if the PM can come up with something unexpected it throws you off track. You want him to evade so you can tell him what the answer is in your next question and emphasise the point for the purpose of your soundbite. If you can make it vaguely witty, and thus improve the chance of the media using it, so much the better.
This is basic politics and if Corbyn does not play the game he will simply not contribute to the debate. That might be a good thing for Labour of course.
Cameron would be wiser to answer questions directly and honestly though. It would horribly confuse Corbyn and deprive him of a key line of attack, not to mention freeing up room to cover several subjects. William Hague admitted that the one time Tony Blair gave him a straight answer to his first question (on the Euro) it wrecked his next question and he had his weakest performance at PMQs.
At one of the last PMQs, David gave Ed a direct and straight answer to the first question, and Ed just kept on with his preprepared questions which assumed that David hadn't answered. It made Ed look rather silly.
Labour do exactly the same in Scotland , they have the same question every time and SNP answer it the first time and they then just plod on looking ever more stupid, asking it again and again, totally useless.
The horrific inequalities currently being waved in everyone's face with the plight of the migrants is unsustainable. Whether or not Corbyn is a useless politician isn't important. His overwhelming mandate as leader of the opposition means he'll be heard.
His message that the level of inequality is unsustainable as is the subjugation of weak nations by powerful ones is unargueable.
This is how he managed to cut through a very unradical Labour electorate to win decisively and his message will resonate. If I was a TORY (which thank the Lord I'm not sir....) I'd be seriously worried. The sight of the Prime Minister and his Tory chums posing in their Bullindon finery is now so inappropriate it's almost shocking
"Whether or not Corbyn is a useless politician isn't important."
Well, I suppose that's a view. A ridiculous and particularly stupid one, but a view.
And you get extra stupidity points for your mention of 'Bullingdon'. That attack didn't work in 2010, and it didn't work in 2015. It won't work in 2020 either.
I must say I find the idea that.now Cameron in his bullingdon gear can be juxtaposed with Corbyn doing stereotypical lefty things in the 80s it will be a potent attack again a little optimistic. If that strand of attack were ever going to work it would hav by now, or it did but not enough. Everyone knows Cameron is posh and they've returned a verdict that it's not a big enough deal to care about.
It might find more traction on Osborne, given his rest face seems to contain an inbuilt sneer, however unfair that impression may be.
As I posted last night, I think Corbyn's victory is a good thing for politics. I don't think he's the messiah, I don't think his left wing message will resonate outside Labour heartlands, but after the appalling Brown and Miliband, Corbyn represents a breath of fresh air. He is genuine, unspun, and communicates in an easy manner.
Things do need stirring up occasionally. I hope the Tories throw up a surprise candidate and oblige that need. Though sadly their MPs will prevent things getting out of hand and such a person sweeping all before them.
The horrific inequalities currently being waved in everyone's face with the plight of the migrants is unsustainable. Whether or not Corbyn is a useless politician isn't important. His overwhelming mandate as leader of the opposition means he'll be heard.
His message that the level of inequality is unsustainable as is the subjugation of weak nations by powerful ones is unargueable.
This is how he managed to cut through a very unradical Labour electorate to win decisively and his message will resonate. If I was a TORY (which thank the Lord I'm not sir....) I'd be seriously worried. The sight of the Prime Minister and his Tory chums posing in their Bullindon finery is now so inappropriate it's almost shocking
"Whether or not Corbyn is a useless politician isn't important."
Well, I suppose that's a view. A ridiculous and particularly stupid one, but a view.
And you get extra stupidity points for your mention of 'Bullingdon'. That attack didn't work in 2010, and it didn't work in 2015. It won't work in 2020 either.
I must say I find the idea that.now Cameron in his bullingdon gear can be juxtaposed with Corbyn doing stereotypical lefty things in the 80s it will be a potent attack again a little optimistic. If that strand of attack were ever going to work it would hav by now, or it did but not enough. Everyone knows Cameron is posh and they've returned a verdict that it's not a big enough deal to care about.
It might find more traction on Osborne, given his rest face seems to contain an inbuilt sneer, however unfair that impression may be.
Osborne has always given the very strong impression that he only cares about money and by extension rich people, an impression not helped by the pasty tax/45p tax debacle of 2012 (at a time when he thought Labour were certain to lose the next election, hence my comments last night about Tory complacency and the problems it will cause). Cameron, on the other hand, has at least occasionally given the impression that he cares about people even if clumsily expressed ('hug a hoodie'). Whether these impressions are fair or not, they are the impressions people have.
It's one reason why Cameron is quite an effective leader, and class attacks on him do not resonate as well as Labour expect. It's also why Osborne would likely not be an effective leader and such attacks might resonate.
I can't think that Labour frontbenchers will be exactly jumping up to nominate themselves for the job of asking LOTO questions either! I doubt it's really a lot of fun, and requires a lot of preparation and ability to think on your feet ...
Yes i'm sure they'll be happy to put themselves through that for the sake of developing a collegiate approach!
Comments
Corbyn could simply say when asked by the Speaker that he did not wish to ask any question then or even that day.
EDIT - Blunkett doing a 'more in sorrow than anger' attack on Toynbee and bringing up the SDP.
'I want us to be more loyal to Tom and Jeremy than they have ever been to previous leaders.'
Ouch.
At least one Opposition leader has sometimes asked five, because the PM gets the last word after question six, and only asking five may deprive the PM of the chance to use his scripted final line.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/05/29/how-scotland-and-the-ld-collapse-almost-completely-reverses-the-bias-in-the-electoral-system/
If he wants to go further and propose the abolition of PMQs as an "affront to democracy" i'm sure Cameron would be quite happily to oblige. It's not there to hold the Opposition to account...
Might he refuse it on the basis he is not in need of it and he is not doing sufficient to earn it? Could be a double-edged sword though - might play well with the public in austerity Britain, might also lead to the question, 'well, if you're not doing sufficient to earn your salary, why do you not let someone else come in to do it properly?'
The old cliché of not asking questions you don't already know the answer to applies in spades: if the PM can come up with something unexpected it throws you off track. You want him to evade so you can tell him what the answer is in your next question and emphasise the point for the purpose of your soundbite. If you can make it vaguely witty, and thus improve the chance of the media using it, so much the better.
This is basic politics and if Corbyn does not play the game he will simply not contribute to the debate. That might be a good thing for Labour of course.
Why are you so incredibly lucky with your leaders of the opposition?
Why does Socialism always fail?
Why does Socialist Venezuela have oil wealth but inflation approaching 200 per cent?
Did you believe that Labour could find anyone worse than Ed?
What am I doing here?
Will Labour ever lose its sanctimony?
Do you know the way to San Jose?
On reflection I recommend the last question. You may find that the answers to the others are too uncomfortable
If you want an army Anglea, then you can bloody well recruit and train them yourself, rather than trying to steal ours. I wonder what happened to the German army, anyway..?
Tom Watson playing a straight bat and quite well given the appalling innings his side have placed him in.
Corbynism can't get close to winning an election even if things go his way. Even the most optimistic scenarios basically state 'well, he might not be a total disaster'. It's the most monumentally stupid thing any political party has ever done. Miliband was rejected (unfairly imho) because he was seen as too much of a risk, so what does Labour do? Elect someone with all his perceived negatives x 100. It's as if you were denied entry to a pub for being drunk having only had a couple, then in order to get in you went away and downed a jeroboam of whisky and came back and asked again. But then perhaps it shouldn't come as too much of a surprise - the newer generation of voters define themselves as being against New Labour more than anything else, having come of age in the fag end of the 1997-2010 administration. They're nostalgic for a time which never existed.
Is he saying that anyone who doesn't support troops on the ground is ergo not serious about dealing with ISIS?
It is however a mistake to think that English marginals are full of centrists while safe seats are full of radicals. All seats have a variety of voters, and marginals are marginals because of the demographic mix. It's possible to win elections in marginals by enthusing a few thousand people who drifted off to minor parties (I lost in 2010 by much less than the Green vote) plus people who really don't vote on left-right lines, so long as you don't thereby alienate your normal vote. That's the more serious challenge for a left-wing Labour party than the risk of only piling up votes in safe seats.
The contrast with the very young Blair clips linked to during the campaign, bambi look and all, was positively painful. No one should have managed to get elected an MP with such unformed and incoherent views, let alone make the shadow cabinet. It simply shows they do not pay attention or lack the ability needed for a senior post. The few remaining Blairites seriously need someone else.
Could you point to where you were critical of Gordon Brown or Blair, who never answered any question directly.. and in any event who is going to be the arbiter of whether a question was answered directly?
Should we not be supporting ISIL in their quest for an Islamic State?
Should we give the Falklands back to Argentina, and Gibraltar back to the Spanish?
Why do we spend 2% of GDP on the military when it would be better spent on hugs and flowers?
Why limit immigration?
etc, etc, etc
http://sluggerotoole.com/2015/09/12/corbyn-owes-less-to-his-own-merits-than-to-the-weaknesses-of-the-alternatives/
It will be interesting to see if Corbyn can think well enough on his feet to avoid such problems. I see little reason to think he can, which might be why he seemingly wants to avoid PMQs. For one thing, he hasn't had a great deal of practice.
In fact, I wonder if Corbyn has existed in his own little bubble for the last fifty years - having dinner parties with fellow travellers, hanging out with the ever-decreasing number of fellow travellers in the Commons, reading things that back up his world view rather than challenge it.
Appearing at a hustings in front of a crowd that wants to hear you talk - and who largely share your world view - is very different from apppearing in front of a sceptical, or even hostile, crowd.
Perhaps he is more out of touch with the public than Cameron ...
The horrific inequalities currently being waved in everyone's face with the plight of the migrants is unsustainable. Whether or not Corbyn is a useless politician isn't important. His overwhelming mandate as leader of the opposition means he'll be heard.
His message that the level of inequality is unsustainable as is the subjugation of weak nations by powerful ones is unargueable.
This is how he managed to cut through a very unradical Labour electorate to win decisively and his message will resonate. If I was a TORY (which thank the Lord I'm not sir....) I'd be seriously worried. The sight of the Prime Minister and his Tory chums posing in their Bullindon finery is now so inappropriate it's almost shocking
If the LOTO asks questions that are attack lines rather than to get (or give) information, it's perfectly reasonable for the PM to respond similarly.
Others will be the attack dogs.
Equality comrade.
how is this a 'party....???
Even if only the Labour left agree to serve, I think they're still better off without her, as they are now they are deprived of those awesome political talents Chris Leslie and Tristram Hunt.
It's probably to our net benefit if the Eurozone forms some variety of federal state. I say that despite our historical continental policy of opposing European domination by a single entity; I believe that USE (or whatever it will be called) will woefully underperform - and the US will swiftly come to the same conclusion.
Corbyn, on the other hand, is the same destructive Trot he was in his teens....
Corbyn is a guy who's spent 30 years in political obscurity ignored by the wider public, which one would think indicates he is out of touch, but like most of the far left is utterly convinced he is in touch even when ignored or rejected by the majority. Now he is not being ignored, how out of touch he is will be tested.
Now, I don't think it matters if a politician is out of touch, but it's interesting thaT both could be considered do.
But, with under 5 % of the vote, the weakness of the Blairites is obvious to all. The de-selections will surely now follow. (I won’t be sorry when Tristram is de-selected)l
Someone (older than me) on pb said that all this was reminiscent of McGovern’s 1972 victories in the Democratic primaries and Presidential run. Having reread Fear & Loathing on the Campaign Trail, I think I’d agree. We’ve already reached the stage where prominent Democrats are turning down the offer of a Vice Presidency in his Presidential run.
And I think this provides a template for how this will play out.
McGovern was horribly weakened from within the Democratic Party, and then went down to the worst defeat ever against the Republicans.
Well, I suppose that's a view. A ridiculous and particularly stupid one, but a view.
And you get extra stupidity points for your mention of 'Bullingdon'. That attack didn't work in 2010, and it didn't work in 2015. It won't work in 2020 either.
Cameron is not a civil war hero, it has to be said, but at the same time he's a much better and more ruthless politician than Grant ever was.
Most voters care little about Cameron's youthful "Bullingdon finery". It's an attack line that has run its course, if indeed it ever had a course to follow.
With Corbyn as leader Labour has effectively vacated their role of providing a viable government in waiting. Politically the nation faces a Conservative hegemony for the foreseeable future.
Electing Corbyn was the right of the members of the Labour party but it was also an act of gross self indulgence and they will pay a devastating price for their shallow naivety.
I can see the similarity with McGovern. His version of the Democratic party excluded huge tranches of their natural supporters. It does seem likely that Crobyn will do the same.
Nor have I seen historical pmqs since the TV age that are any different.
It is however, a reflection of a Corbyn approach which is quite novel and we don't know how it will turn out. He doesn't see himself as a leader out in front, but as one of a number of representatives of a movement who happens to be the current leader. It's a self-effacing attitude which is intended to create some space for others and it's totally out of keeping with what we're used to - imagine Gordon doing it, and I say that as someone who likes Gordon. I doubt if he'll be doing it often but the offer is distinctive, and there will be other counter-intuitive moves like this.
No wonder even Prescott was saying the unthinkable yesterday, that Labour should consider all options, including pacts and coalitions.
PR might be back on the agenda too, I guess.
I also thought, incidentally, speaking as someone who loathed Brown with a passion, that on that day he really spoke with emotion and sincerity, particularly bearing in mind his own family tragedy, and it was the first and only time I ever understood why he inspired such fierce loyalty among his close friends.
EdM had no sixpence turning ability - none. I doubt Corbyn will have any either given how he doesn't like having his views questioned at all.
Which in itself is a pretty uncomfortable fact.
It might find more traction on Osborne, given his rest face seems to contain an inbuilt sneer, however unfair that impression may be.
It's one reason why Cameron is quite an effective leader, and class attacks on him do not resonate as well as Labour expect. It's also why Osborne would likely not be an effective leader and such attacks might resonate.
Yes i'm sure they'll be happy to put themselves through that for the sake of developing a collegiate approach!
Maybe. But look at what he communicates. Class hatred, sanctimonious preaching, support for some of our deadliest enemies.
Some in labour appear ignorant to the fundamental policy differences between past labour leaders and Corbyn.
The electorate is far more sensitive to these issues.