The only problem with Corbyn's approach of asking a prepared set of questions means that he isn't really responding to points that Cameron makes - hasn't got the back and forth that you normally expect of PMQs. Just allows Cameron to play it easy and make plenty of points.
For years people complained they wanted less Punch and Judy at PMQs.
No we've got it, they say it is boring.
There is no point in having a set of pre-determined questions like this. You need to be able to respond and challenge the answers as well as asking the questions.
Corbyn says he wants substantive debate - but you have to listen and respond to the other side not just ask a set of questions.
He has, quite effectively, avoided any direct attack on him, his record, his anthem singing, his fringe associations. He's defused the possibility of attack from Cameron.
David Cameron is astute enough not to attack, he doesn't need to
What Corbyn is doing is admirable, and what he has obviously always wanted from PMQs. But it's going to be very dull if this continues, and actually makes Cameron look better because it means no Flashman/Punch & Judy and stock answers with tractor stats. And to echo the comment below, yes, it does feel like a R5 phone in.
But you can either have punch & judy and theatre (fun/exciting makes great 5 second clips on the news) or you can have serious questions with factual answers (boring/dull) You can't have both.
The govt will be praying for 5 years of boring question times.
Corbyn's performance worst possible for Labour. Steady, but dull.
A rip-roaring triumph would get them behind him. Utter failure would encourage a coup.
As someone below said, this will keep dissent simmering. Labour are indecisive when it comes to regicide. This isn't good enough to enthuse, and isn't bad enough to get the blood lust flowing.
There won't be a sniff of a coup until Jez has faced the electorate, at least in locals or Scotland.
Isn't the story of the day whether corbyn's lips were seen to move during the national anthem?
1) I've tried my best, but I can't get outraged by a lifelong Republican not singing God Save The Queen
2) PB is at its best when it is slight contrarian
3) It's bloody tedious writing Corbyn is crap threads.
I agree. In the spirit of contrarianism, why don't we try and find 3 nice things to say about Corbyn. I will start.
1. He's keen on allotments and gardening. This is a good thing. Not enough allotments. Not enough green space e.g. on roof terraces, people not making the most of their front gardens etc. More power to Guerilla Gardeners!
2. He voted against ID cards.
3. He raised mental health as an issue which needs more focus. Couldn't agree more. The Lib Dems did some good work on this in the last Parliament. I hope the Tories continue with it and if Labour support this I think this will be a really encouraging development, particularly mental health services for young people.
There.
(Normal service will be resumed later.)
1. He likes manhole covers and coal plates. A most under-appreciated example of industrial workmanship meeting art.
2. He believes that mental health is important, he's created a shadow post to deal with it; that's exemplary.
3. He is that relatively rare bird; a conviction politician. This is laudable despite my belief that virtually all his convictions are wrong.
Osborne looks like he's seriously weighing it all up. He looks a little bit concerned.
Yes. Osborne is like a chess-player: he's thinking three or four moves ahead.
He may be getting worried. Jez's style is more likely to come up with, eventually, a question that skewers Cameron on a technicality than Ed M's mindless shouting out of his prepared soundbite notes. At least Jez actually asks a question.
Jezza was a little nervous but grew into his style and themes. Better than expected and therefore a thoroughly earnest and better performance and that likely will be the story.
He has, quite effectively, avoided any direct attack on him, his record, his anthem singing, his fringe associations. He's defused the possibility of attack from Cameron.
It would have been a tactical error for Cameron to play the man on his first PMQs, particularly given that Corbyn sounds to have played it straight himself.
I've little doubt that as time rolls on and Corbyn becomes more established and publicly recognisable as the face of Labour, Cameron will move more onto the attack.
First by having him resort to Flashman, secondly by having Cameron ask for specifics when any interested party knows that it was Cameron himself who muddied the waters by failing to offer any specifics in his Vow.
Thought that exchange came across much better than the usual shout fest. And we seemed to actually learn stuff.
Overall I think both sides came out quite well.
Indeed – the type of PMQs some say we should have, but then complain it’s boring..
People say they don't like the punch and judy style, but they do really. PMQs is theatre, you would rarely learn anything new. Today was an exception, but that is more to do with finding out about Corbyn rather than government policy.
@BBCAllegra: It was PMQs as radio phone in. Could get more interested if ppl want their Q asked... But was it the best way to hold PM accountable? Hmm.
First by having him resort to Flashman, secondly by having Cameron ask for specifics when any interested party knows that it was Cameron himself who muddied the waters by failing to offer any specifics in his Vow.
if nothing specific was offered, then how can you complain when nothing specific is delivered?
Jezza was a little nervous but grew into his style and themes. Better than expected and therefore a thoroughly earnest and better performance and that likely will be the story.
Actually a non performance, since not one question was asked from Corbyn himself. Is this what he meant by using proxies?
Most interesting bit of that exchange was pondering where Corbyn got his jacket and tie from.
Charity shop?
Miss Plato, some men (and probably some ladies) generate an internal scruffiness field. It doesn't matter who dresses them and how much care and attention they put into their appearance, they still look like a sack of shit tied in the middle after about 3.5 nanoseconds. Perhaps Corbyn is just one of them.
Jezza was a little nervous but grew into his style and themes. Better than expected and therefore a thoroughly earnest and better performance and that likely will be the story.
fine but that wasn't his brief. His brief (from his supporters) was to shake things up. Not mimic Yvette or Andy or the others. But more dully.
The only way Corbyn's format is going to work is if he asks three questions from the public, but then follows up each with some clinical attack on what Cameron has just said. Otherwise, it looks just like a cop-out from a scared man.
First by having him resort to Flashman, secondly by having Cameron ask for specifics when any interested party knows that it was Cameron himself who muddied the waters by failing to offer any specifics in his Vow.
Cameron was much better on the second question when Robertson wouldn't name any specifics and raised the challenge to do so. Will be interesting to see whether he will next week. If Robertson goes on every week about promises but without specifics it'll start to look waffley and week. If he wants specific taxes, welfare etc. the SNP need to say so.
First by having him resort to Flashman, secondly by having Cameron ask for specifics when any interested party knows that it was Cameron himself who muddied the waters by failing to offer any specifics in his Vow.
if nothing specific was offered, then how can you complain when nothing specific is delivered?
Which is Cameron's problem. He';s now faced with a situation where only a tiny fraction (around 5% believe he is delivering on Smith and around two thirds don't even think Smith is enough. He gave the SNP carte blanche and no amount of bluster can help him.
Isn't the story of the day whether corbyn's lips were seen to move during the national anthem?
1) I've tried my best, but I can't get outraged by a lifelong Republican not singing God Save The Queen
2) PB is at its best when it is slight contrarian
3) It's bloody tedious writing Corbyn is crap threads.
I agree. In the spirit of contrarianism, why don't we try and find 3 nice things to say about Corbyn. I will start.
1. He's keen on allotments and gardening. This is a good thing. Not enough allotments. Not enough green space e.g. on roof terraces, people not making the most of their front gardens etc. More power to Guerilla Gardeners!
2. He voted against ID cards.
3. He raised mental health as an issue which needs more focus. Couldn't agree more. The Lib Dems did some good work on this in the last Parliament. I hope the Tories continue with it and if Labour support this I think this will be a really encouraging development, particularly mental health services for young people.
There.
(Normal service will be resumed later.)
As my business is Horticulture and I chair a charity helping people with mental health issues through the use of social and horticultural therapy, I should be a Corbynite.
That sounds like a very worthwhile cause. I may PM you about it, privately, if you don't mind.
All those "real people you've never heard of" reminded me of the War of Jennifer's Ear. The effectiveness of which ran out after a while.
Secondly, Corbyn had very good sequencing. Apart from his segue into mental health, every question nicely set up the next, because Cameron's obvious answer to one would leave him vulnerable to the following one. Corbyn executed this strategy much better than Miliband did before him, in some ways the construction of his questions and follow-ups reminded me of Hague vs Blair.
Thirdly, did Cameron "wargame" his responses? I know Blair rehearsed thoroughly before his PMQs, with someone playing a mock Hague. Cameron himself has prepared in this way before the GE debates, with staff members playing the rival party leaders. I thought Cameron would want to be very well prepared in this event. And yet his answers contained obvious weaknesses. (I knew from the moment that Cameron said that the combination of his tax credit reforms plus living wage meant that someone on min wage would be X thousand better off, that the immediate follow-up from Corbyn would be to quote the more authoritative IFS figures back at him. The IFS figures are closer to what "real people" are going to experience: since many don't work full-time, or are too young for the full benefit of the living wage, then the living wage is not going to be so much help as Cameron's more hypothetical figures suggested, and many people are going to be worse off. And sure enough, Corbyn quoted the IFS figures, just like I predicted. I'm not a completely swotty political anorak and even I saw that one coming. I can't believe that if Cameron had thoroughly wargamed this, he'd have fallen into that trap.)
Fourthly, thought Cameron did okay. Showed good reserve. Didn't let Flashman out for a play but still got the "need a strong economy" and the attack line about "family security" in. This current Conservative machine have an admirable focus for being on-message: its drone-line nature might turn people off, but remember that most people don't get exposed to a lot of politics on TV or the web. So only by being so repetitive can a message get through. It does mean, though, that the Tories need to judge which buttons to press in an absolutely bang-on way. If they misjudge it slightly then it's all in vain. The British public definitely bought the "strong economy" message at the last election, according to the polls, whether they will buy the "Corbyn is a danger" (I mean he doesn't look very threatening, bike-riding Islington jam-maker that he is, though awareness of the IRA/Islamist links is only seeping slowly into the wider public awareness) remains to be seen.
Jezza was a little nervous but grew into his style and themes. Better than expected and therefore a thoroughly earnest and better performance and that likely will be the story.
Actually a non performance, since not one question was asked from Corbyn himself. Is this what he meant by using proxies?
Jezza played to his more limited strengths and thus the gladiatorial arena that many hoped for fell flat. Whether this approach will work more long term is less likely.
First by having him resort to Flashman, secondly by having Cameron ask for specifics when any interested party knows that it was Cameron himself who muddied the waters by failing to offer any specifics in his Vow.
if nothing specific was offered, then how can you complain when nothing specific is delivered?
Which is Cameron's problem. He';s now faced with a situation where only a tiny fraction (around 5% believe he is delivering on Smith and around two thirds don't even think Smith is enough. He gave the SNP carte blanche and no amount of bluster can help him.
Well that was a moving and devastating question from Nigel Dodds re IRA terrorism and a well measured response from David Cameron and brings great shame on Corbyn and the shadow chancellor
Osborne looks like he's seriously weighing it all up. He looks a little bit concerned.
Yes. Osborne is like a chess-player: he's thinking three or four moves ahead.
He may be getting worried. Jez's style is more likely to come up with, eventually, a question that skewers Cameron on a technicality than Ed M's mindless shouting out of his prepared soundbite notes. At least Jez actually asks a question.
Not really. It is a reasonable starting point but he needs to be able to pick up the answer and make a real point. If he simply moves onto the next people question Cameron is not getting held to account.
Even Ed got this. 6 questions allow an argument to be developed but it needs a strategy, not just reading out disparate questions.
Isn't the story of the day whether corbyn's lips were seen to move during the national anthem?
1) I've tried my best, but I can't get outraged by a lifelong Republican not singing God Save The Queen
2) PB is at its best when it is slight contrarian
3) It's bloody tedious writing Corbyn is crap threads.
I agree. In the spirit of contrarianism, why don't we try and find 3 nice things to say about Corbyn. I will start.
...
2. He voted against ID cards.
...
There.
(Normal service will be resumed later.)
...
2. He believes that mental health is important, he's created a shadow post to deal with it; that's exemplary. ... Spending on mental health is going up. As announced before the election 1 billion over 5 years. Creating a minister (and we already have an official minister) is not going to conjure up money from nowhere. The NHS budget is ringfenced, where are we going to take money away from? Refugees?
@ShippersUnbound: Angela Eagle nodding in agreement with Cameron as he says apologists for terrorism "should be ashamed of themselves". Corbyn looks down.
First by having him resort to Flashman, secondly by having Cameron ask for specifics when any interested party knows that it was Cameron himself who muddied the waters by failing to offer any specifics in his Vow.
Cameron was much better on the second question when Robertson wouldn't name any specifics and raised the challenge to do so. Will be interesting to see whether he will next week. If Robertson goes on every week about promises but without specifics it'll start to look waffley and week. If he wants specific taxes, welfare etc. the SNP need to say so.
The lack of specifics is because Cameron failed to offer specifics in his Vow and interested parties (i.e. people in Scotland) are pretty much aware of this. It's a corner Cameron can't get out of because he's dealing with an engaged electorate.
First by having him resort to Flashman, secondly by having Cameron ask for specifics when any interested party knows that it was Cameron himself who muddied the waters by failing to offer any specifics in his Vow.
if nothing specific was offered, then how can you complain when nothing specific is delivered?
Which is Cameron's problem. He';s now faced with a situation where only a tiny fraction (around 5% believe he is delivering on Smith and around two thirds don't even think Smith is enough. He gave the SNP carte blanche and no amount of bluster can help him.
Angus mentioned the Scottish Trade unions were on his side - what more proof does anyone need ??
Isn't the story of the day whether corbyn's lips were seen to move during the national anthem?
1) I've tried my best, but I can't get outraged by a lifelong Republican not singing God Save The Queen
2) PB is at its best when it is slight contrarian
3) It's bloody tedious writing Corbyn is crap threads.
I agree. In the spirit of contrarianism, why don't we try and find 3 nice things to say about Corbyn. I will start.
1. He's keen on allotments and gardening. This is a good thing. Not enough allotments. Not enough green space e.g. on roof terraces, people not making the most of their front gardens etc. More power to Guerilla Gardeners!
2. He voted against ID cards.
3. He raised mental health as an issue which needs more focus. Couldn't agree more. The Lib Dems did some good work on this in the last Parliament. I hope the Tories continue with it and if Labour support this I think this will be a really encouraging development, particularly mental health services for young people.
There.
(Normal service will be resumed later.)
1. He likes manhole covers and coal plates. A most under-appreciated example of industrial workmanship meeting art.
(snip)
I'd agree with that - you can find beautiful industrial artistry all over the place. An old friend of mine used to photograph phone boxes, and he was trying to see every different type. Other people do the same for pillar boxes.
On a similar note: on many shopping streets, you should look above the ground-floors that have been ruined by large windows, and look at the buildings at first floor and above. There is some superb architecture in most towns and cities, yet people only ever look gormlessly into the shop windows.
(One of the mos stunning buildings I ever saw was a composite roof in an industrial building, which I was lucky enough to go into on a Simons hoist. It had been built when steel was short during WWII, and truss members that were under tension were wood, and those under compression steel. The engineered joins between the different material were beautiful, even when covered under decades of pigeon cr@p), I bet most of the people who ever went inside never looked up at the roof.
Jezza was a little nervous but grew into his style and themes. Better than expected and therefore a thoroughly earnest and better performance and that likely will be the story.
fine but that wasn't his brief. His brief (from his supporters) was to shake things up. Not mimic Yvette or Andy or the others. But more dully.
At the risk of a hit squad from Plato and Nick Palmer there is more than one way to skin a cat ....
Different situations demand different tactics. It's very early days but other aspects of Jezza's "leadership" certainly haven't been dull.
There's only eight of them. They should get roughly one question in eighty, excluding Corbyn's allocation.
Would have thought they would catch the speaker's eye more often than that. Underlines how prodigiously screwed they are. Wonder how many of the final eight bothered to show up.
First by having him resort to Flashman, secondly by having Cameron ask for specifics when any interested party knows that it was Cameron himself who muddied the waters by failing to offer any specifics in his Vow.
Cameron was much better on the second question when Robertson wouldn't name any specifics and raised the challenge to do so. Will be interesting to see whether he will next week. If Robertson goes on every week about promises but without specifics it'll start to look waffley and week. If he wants specific taxes, welfare etc. the SNP need to say so.
The lack of specifics is because Cameron failed to offer specifics in his Vow and interested parties (i.e. people in Scotland) are pretty much aware of this. It's a corner Cameron can't get out of because he's dealing with an engaged electorate.
Then what promises is he breaking? If the SNP want specific things devolved, then say so. It goes both ways.
I'm sure that if Cameron this afternoon announced that specific taxes and welfare were going to be devolved, SNP supporters would say it was Westminster not consulting Scotland and feel outraged whilst demanding that the 'wrong' taxes etc were devolved.
Osborne looks like he's seriously weighing it all up. He looks a little bit concerned.
Yes. Osborne is like a chess-player: he's thinking three or four moves ahead.
He may be getting worried. Jez's style is more likely to come up with, eventually, a question that skewers Cameron on a technicality than Ed M's mindless shouting out of his prepared soundbite notes. At least Jez actually asks a question.
Not really. It is a reasonable starting point but he needs to be able to pick up the answer and make a real point. If he simply moves onto the next people question Cameron is not getting held to account. Even Ed got this. 6 questions allow an argument to be developed but it needs a strategy, not just reading out disparate questions.
Yes. But at the end of the day, so what. Its PMQs and the LOTO is supposed to ask questions. If he asks a decent one - are we all supposed to fall over and faint? Are we supposed to expect that if Corbyn were to be sat at a table the the POTUS or Putin or some Chinese Commie - he will say, 'Yes but can you answer the specific question of Mr Halibut from 21 Crickleworth Avenue...'
First by having him resort to Flashman, secondly by having Cameron ask for specifics when any interested party knows that it was Cameron himself who muddied the waters by failing to offer any specifics in his Vow.
Cameron was much better on the second question when Robertson wouldn't name any specifics and raised the challenge to do so. Will be interesting to see whether he will next week. If Robertson goes on every week about promises but without specifics it'll start to look waffley and week. If he wants specific taxes, welfare etc. the SNP need to say so.
The lack of specifics is because Cameron failed to offer specifics in his Vow and interested parties (i.e. people in Scotland) are pretty much aware of this. It's a corner Cameron can't get out of because he's dealing with an engaged electorate.
Then what promises is he breaking? If the SNP want specific things devolved, then say so. It goes both ways.
I'm sure that if Cameron this afternoon announced that specific taxes and welfare were going to be devolved, SNP supporters would say it was Westminster not consulting Scotland and feel outraged whilst demanding that the 'wrong' taxes etc were devolved.
But none of that is a problem for the SNP. The lack of specifics was Cameron's choice and dealing with this is Cameron's problem. At least it is if he wants any reduction in support for the SNP and Independence.
The issue continues to slip away from Cameron and it's all his (and Gordon Brown's) fault.
If he adjusts it so he only takes questions on one topic (mental health one week, migration the next, housing the week after) I think this style could work well for Corbyn. Needs to have follow up questions though.
Where are the #jesuischarlie virtue signallers now?
Seems as though they are outrageous for the sake of being outrageous... That doesn't take much bravery or wisdom in my book
Yup: that's what satire is about. Outrage, bad taste, shock. See Hogarth, Rowlandson, Gillray - or listen Simon Schama on just this point on this morning's Today programme at about 7:40 or so.
No bravery should be needed because those who don't like it don't need to read it. The bravery has only been required because people have chosen violence as a reaction. That's their choice - and a very bad choice it is too.
Personally, I prefer Matt.
I support their right to be offensive but I also have the right to be offended. They are making a point about western hypocrisy but...nah.
Of course you can be offended or have the right to be (though it's a funny sort of "right" - it's more of a reaction, surely). But what you don't have is the right to demand that, because you are offended, they should be shut down or prevented from saying what they're saying or killed. And that's what the argument is about.
The right to be offended is not that at all. It's a demand that others should not be allowed to say something that someone else doesn't like. If we all did that, no-one would be able to say anything at all. The "offence" is a pretext; it's about power and control.
There's only eight of them. They should get roughly one question in eighty, excluding Corbyn's allocation.
Would have thought they would catch the speaker's eye more often than that. Underlines how prodigiously screwed they are. Wonder how many of the final eight bothered to show up.
Spending on mental health is going up. As announced before the election 1 billion over 5 years. Creating a minister (and we already have an official minister) is not going to conjure up money from nowhere. The NHS budget is ringfenced, where are we going to take money away from? Refugees?
Hey, I'm sipping from a bowl of very thin gruel here. I could substitute that he likes making jam if you're going to be picky .
There's only eight of them. They should get roughly one question in eighty, excluding Corbyn's allocation.
Would have thought they would catch the speaker's eye more often than that. Underlines how prodigiously screwed they are. Wonder how many of the final eight bothered to show up.
In practice, they probably will. Lucas gets more than her fair share as the sole Green, as does Carswell.
Where are the #jesuischarlie virtue signallers now?
Seems as though they are outrageous for the sake of being outrageous... That doesn't take much bravery or wisdom in my book
Yup: that's what satire is about. Outrage, bad taste, shock. See Hogarth, Rowlandson, Gillray - or listen Simon Schama on just this point on this morning's Today programme at about 7:40 or so.
No bravery should be needed because those who don't like it don't need to read it. The bravery has only been required because people have chosen violence as a reaction. That's their choice - and a very bad choice it is too.
Personally, I prefer Matt.
I support their right to be offensive but I also have the right to be offended. They are making a point about western hypocrisy but...nah.
Of course you can be offended or have the right to be (though it's a funny sort of "right" - it's more of a reaction, surely). But what you don't have is the right to demand that, because you are offended, they should be shut down or prevented from saying what they're saying or killed. And that's what the argument is about.
The right to be offended is not that at all. It's a demand that others should not be allowed to say something that someone else doesn't like. If we all did that, no-one would be able to say anything at all. The "offence" is a pretext; it's about power and control.
I agree. I thought that is what I said. They have the right to publish those cartoons and I support those rights. I just think the cartoons are in very poor taste.
Comments
Thought that exchange came across much better than the usual shout fest.
And we seemed to actually learn stuff.
Overall I think both sides came out quite well.
Charity shop?
Corbyn says he wants substantive debate - but you have to listen and respond to the other side not just ask a set of questions.
And that matters.
And more than one test batsman has got out mishitting soft balls.
2. He believes that mental health is important, he's created a shadow post to deal with it; that's exemplary.
3. He is that relatively rare bird; a conviction politician. This is laudable despite my belief that virtually all his convictions are wrong.
Farcical.
Expectation management is the game.
Jezza was a little nervous but grew into his style and themes. Better than expected and therefore a thoroughly earnest and better performance and that likely will be the story.
Corbyn was okay but however PMQs goes, people don't watch it and don't care about it. Punch & Judy or 5 Live phone-in.
I've little doubt that as time rolls on and Corbyn becomes more established and publicly recognisable as the face of Labour, Cameron will move more onto the attack.
First by having him resort to Flashman, secondly by having Cameron ask for specifics when any interested party knows that it was Cameron himself who muddied the waters by failing to offer any specifics in his Vow.
PMQs is theatre, you would rarely learn anything new.
Today was an exception, but that is more to do with finding out about Corbyn rather than government policy.
Strong start...
All those "real people you've never heard of" reminded me of the War of Jennifer's Ear. The effectiveness of which ran out after a while.
Secondly, Corbyn had very good sequencing. Apart from his segue into mental health, every question nicely set up the next, because Cameron's obvious answer to one would leave him vulnerable to the following one. Corbyn executed this strategy much better than Miliband did before him, in some ways the construction of his questions and follow-ups reminded me of Hague vs Blair.
Thirdly, did Cameron "wargame" his responses? I know Blair rehearsed thoroughly before his PMQs, with someone playing a mock Hague. Cameron himself has prepared in this way before the GE debates, with staff members playing the rival party leaders. I thought Cameron would want to be very well prepared in this event. And yet his answers contained obvious weaknesses. (I knew from the moment that Cameron said that the combination of his tax credit reforms plus living wage meant that someone on min wage would be X thousand better off, that the immediate follow-up from Corbyn would be to quote the more authoritative IFS figures back at him. The IFS figures are closer to what "real people" are going to experience: since many don't work full-time, or are too young for the full benefit of the living wage, then the living wage is not going to be so much help as Cameron's more hypothetical figures suggested, and many people are going to be worse off. And sure enough, Corbyn quoted the IFS figures, just like I predicted. I'm not a completely swotty political anorak and even I saw that one coming. I can't believe that if Cameron had thoroughly wargamed this, he'd have fallen into that trap.)
Fourthly, thought Cameron did okay. Showed good reserve. Didn't let Flashman out for a play but still got the "need a strong economy" and the attack line about "family security" in. This current Conservative machine have an admirable focus for being on-message: its drone-line nature might turn people off, but remember that most people don't get exposed to a lot of politics on TV or the web. So only by being so repetitive can a message get through. It does mean, though, that the Tories need to judge which buttons to press in an absolutely bang-on way. If they misjudge it slightly then it's all in vain. The British public definitely bought the "strong economy" message at the last election, according to the polls, whether they will buy the "Corbyn is a danger" (I mean he doesn't look very threatening, bike-riding Islington jam-maker that he is, though awareness of the IRA/Islamist links is only seeping slowly into the wider public awareness) remains to be seen.
Looking forward to the DUP coming up with new and imaginative ways to oppose literally every word that comes out of Corbyn's mouth.
Even Ed got this. 6 questions allow an argument to be developed but it needs a strategy, not just reading out disparate questions.
Angus mentioned the Scottish Trade unions were on his side - what more proof does anyone need ??
On a similar note: on many shopping streets, you should look above the ground-floors that have been ruined by large windows, and look at the buildings at first floor and above. There is some superb architecture in most towns and cities, yet people only ever look gormlessly into the shop windows.
(One of the mos stunning buildings I ever saw was a composite roof in an industrial building, which I was lucky enough to go into on a Simons hoist. It had been built when steel was short during WWII, and truss members that were under tension were wood, and those under compression steel. The engineered joins between the different material were beautiful, even when covered under decades of pigeon cr@p), I bet most of the people who ever went inside never looked up at the roof.
Different situations demand different tactics. It's very early days but other aspects of Jezza's "leadership" certainly haven't been dull.
I'm sure that if Cameron this afternoon announced that specific taxes and welfare were going to be devolved, SNP supporters would say it was Westminster not consulting Scotland and feel outraged whilst demanding that the 'wrong' taxes etc were devolved.
Are we supposed to expect that if Corbyn were to be sat at a table the the POTUS or Putin or some Chinese Commie - he will say, 'Yes but can you answer the specific question of Mr Halibut from 21 Crickleworth Avenue...'
The issue continues to slip away from Cameron and it's all his (and Gordon Brown's) fault.
The right to be offended is not that at all. It's a demand that others should not be allowed to say something that someone else doesn't like. If we all did that, no-one would be able to say anything at all. The "offence" is a pretext; it's about power and control.
Jeremy Corbyn brings Any Questions to Westminster.
The backbenchers and DUP can put the boot in more effectively.