|
thespaceinvader posted:THe PM is not obliged to actually answer and nobody is allowed to call him on it. How are we defining "call him on it" here, are they actually forbidden from going "the right honorable lady opposite did not answer the question"? e: 363 BC is written as BB BC in base 32. Wikipedia finds this notable enough to tell me about so who am I to question Angepain fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Jul 29, 2016 |
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:04 |
|
|
forkboy84 posted:
Peter Capaldi is Scottish. I guess we have reached the point of nostalgia for The Thick Of It.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Angepain posted:How are we defining "call him on it" here, are they actually forbidden from going "the right honorable lady opposite did not answer the question"? That sounds dangerously like unparliamentary language to me!
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:THe PM is not obliged to actually answer and nobody is allowed to call him on it. As always, it's prime minister's questions, not prime minister's answers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Following politics closely is definitely bad for my mental health. OK, that's an exaggeration, it doesn't really make it worse, if I'm having a bad time of it's generally just something that creeps up on me without a stimulus. But I do react less calmly to bad news stories when I'm down. Unfortunately I have poor self-restraint and about the longest I can go without following the news is 2 days.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Angepain posted:How are we defining "call him on it" here, are they actually forbidden from going "the right honorable lady opposite did not answer the question"? I'm pretty sure yes, you're not allowed to respond, you can ask the same question again, or a variation thereof, as Corbyn has done to illustrate the point that the prime minister is not correctly answering, but you're not allowed to actually debate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:THe PM is not obliged to actually answer and nobody is allowed to call him on it. Anyhow, unless you're suggesting Jeremy has performed particularly well at PMQs then I'm not sure I see your point? He has been roundly criticised from early on for not following up properly, instead pivoting to other policy areas. I don't think it's a stretch to say that Milliband was better than Jeremy has been (and given Milliband's own deficiencies this isn't saying a whole lot)? I wouldn't especially care as I don't think PMQs is the most important thing, except the bias of the media &/ failings of the media strategy mean they may have been his most prominent public appearances since election.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:he hasn't been hammering home a single, clear economic message at every opportunity (if he had, presumably McDonnell in his recent Oxford speech wouldn't have put so much emphasis on that needing to be done; someone posted about this above) Er, you know that speech was one in a series that's been running since January, right? I mean I'm not going to claim that the team are heavily disguised narrative-spinning wizards but they absolutely have been working at it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:The first part I suppose I'd gathered, the second part OK that's good to know, thanks. I've been trying to find a source, is that in general procedure for supplementary questions? He has actually done several PMQs where the questions are all on a theme, and has used the "questions from members of the public" angle to quite nicely shut the tories up when they start braying in the backbenches.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm pretty sure yes, you're not allowed to respond, you can ask the same question again, or a variation thereof, as Corbyn has done to illustrate the point that the prime minister is not correctly answering, but you're not allowed to actually debate. Jeez, that's pretty poo poo if so. First Minister's Questions in Holyrood is usually a bit of a point-scoring shitshow but people do at least regularly manage to bash the First Minister for not answering the question. Lt. Danger posted:That sounds dangerously like unparliamentary language to me! Looking at my pronoun usage there, yes, calling a male PM a Right Honourable Lady would probably be pretty unparliamentary in most cases
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:He has actually done several PMQs where the questions are all on a theme, and has used the "questions from members of the public" angle to quite nicely shut the tories up when they start braying in the backbenches. if JC asks a question in PMQs but it's reported as him making GBS threads in the queen's mouth, did he really ask a question???
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:The first part I suppose I'd gathered, the second part OK that's good to know, thanks. I've been trying to find a source, is that in general procedure for supplementary questions? Functionally there is no option for followup questions; the only person who gets more than one question is the Leader of the Opposition and whilst he can sometimes just do followups off the cuff, it's not a good idea because the questions need to be pretty well rehearsed mini speeches. But it's worth noting that some of Corbyn's best PMQs were the ones where he basically asked the same question 6 times in 6 different ways to make it very obvious that Cameron wasn't actually giving any information in answer. And they're literally not allowed to accuse the PM of lying or to ask the Speaker to make him give a satisfactory answer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Pretty much, yes. The winner at the end of 4 rounds (traditionally 5 during Whitsuntide) gets to become the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. It's all very simple really, they teach you it at Eton.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Autonomous Monster posted:Er, you know that speech was one in a series that's been running since January, right? I mean I'm not going to claim that the team are heavily disguised narrative-spinning wizards but they absolutely have been working at it. OwlFancier posted:He has actually done several PMQs where the questions are all on a theme, and has used the "questions from members of the public" angle to quite nicely shut the tories up when they start braying in the backbenches. The 'shutting up the backbenches' hasn't really worked at all though, as far as I've gathered? If he'd specifically said at the start, does the prime minister agree that this behaviour from his and my backbenches is damaging to the image of parliament in the wider country, and they should all shut the gently caress up and let us do this thing? Perhaps Cameron wouldn't have agreed, I don't know. Instead he just talked vaguely about things being a bit more civilised, and it didn't last long (hence Cameron's 'What happened to the new PMQs?')
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:What if those results are on the first page? It might be good to limit the exposure neo-nazis and Daesh have to influence young people on the internet, but you know that the powers-that-be consider any form of leftism just as threatening, if not more so, than those 2 ideologies. Pandora's box etc. Not to mention the increase in prejudice and discrimination that might result - Look at the loving shambles we ended up with when the tories told teachers they had to keep an eye on their Muslim students and started reporting their families for innocuous drawings and misspellings The Saurus fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Jul 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:I have literally defined exactly what I'm asking for. You have responded by saying 'he has literally done both of these things', but not shown me any way in which he has. For example, which PMQs did he spend taking Cameron to task for his failed economic policy? Not just mentioning it, or bringing up a question from the public vaguely about austerity, but hammering Cameron with the figures which show his government effectively drowned any hope of a proper recovery in an untried, unsupported economic experiment. Pursuing his non-answers and calling him out on them in a sustained attack. Etc. As already mentioned, you don't get to do this at PMQs. The PM doesn't have to answer poo poo if they don't want to, and you know that if Corbyn kept spending all his questions on asking the same thing (which is basically the only way that you can hammer home something at PMQs) the usual suspects would be yelling about all those other bad things that the Tories are doing that Corbyn totally should have focused on instead. El Grillo posted:You can't, because he hasn't. He has talked a lot about the effects of austerity and how bad that is. He has said little-to-nothing since being elected about what we would do as an alternative (Corbynomics disappeared like a fart in the wind; see Richard Murphy's criticism of the leadership). He has, in fact, said barely anything about solid policy proposals whatsoever, and he has been heavily criticised by former members of his shadow cabinet (some of whom are anti-trident, anti-austerity, lifelong socialists themselves) for failing in this way and pretty much every other (the NPF still hasn't met for over two years). Again, as mentioned, McDonnell has been doing an entire lecture series of economic policy. For some reason the media haven't been reporting very much on it. You keep claiming that what you ask for are basic things, but as mentioned above, what you're actually asking for when you say stuff like "Corbyn should go on the attack in PMQs" is something that cannot be delivered upon due to the format of the debate. The same goes when you ask for talking about alternative policies, which clearly has happened, but you didn't know about it due to the media demonstrably distorting and ignoring Corbyn's work and policies. What you're doing here isn't asking for some trifling thing, under the current circumstances it's actually closer to asking for the impossible, which is why I asked you to actually explain how these goals that you've set would be achievable. So if you'd do that it's be really nice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Also, Alistair Campbell Scottish? I mean, really? He's born in Yorkshire, grew up in Lancashire, went to university in Cambridge & spent most of his career in London. Yes but he wrote erotic stories for penthouse about having sex while wearing his kilt! forkboy84 posted:Tony Blair is more Scottish than Alistair Campbell, and yet nobody talks about him as a Scot. That's because admitting he's Scottish goes against the "We're ruled by London!" narrative that everyone north of the Watford Gap services, but the SNP in particular, like to run.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Was the press really hostile to Blair? In 1997 he had the support of The Star, The Sun, The Graun, The Indy, The Mirror, & their Sunday equivalents. Meanwhile the Tories didn't even get the support of The Times, which was basically neutral. Tony Blair got that support because Tony Blair was a very establishment politician, despite having never had a cabinet post before being PM. He did not represent a significant change to the post-Thatcher status quo. Jeremy Corbyn is meanwhile arguing for things which are quite outwith the current norms of British politics, or even world politics, something that hasn't really been represented in anyway in the governing of this country for decades. A strong state. The rejection of the idea that the profit motive is always better & more efficient than state run industries. That the profit motive is in fact the only motive required, regardless of industry. Clearly the majority of newspapers are owned by people who benefit from the status quo. The reasons for them opposing that change...not hard to understand. There are a few apps/extensions you can try to limit your exposure. As for Pissflaps, he is either a good troll or not a troll at all - however much we'd like to, we can't have it both ways!
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Angepain posted:Jeez, that's pretty poo poo if so. First Minister's Questions in Holyrood is usually a bit of a point-scoring shitshow but people do at least regularly manage to bash the First Minister for not answering the question. Look just because you colonials like to throw haggis at your pretend queen doesn't mean us civilised people are going to start expecting people in charge to answer questions!
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
ookiimarukochan posted:Yes but he wrote erotic stories for penthouse about having sex while wearing his kilt! Are we not ruled by London then? Breath Ray posted:There are a few apps/extensions you can try to limit your exposure. As for Pissflaps, he is either a good troll or not a troll at all - however much we'd like to, we can't have it both ways! He is "good" in that he successfully winds people up but i'd say it's overall bad for him because he used to be a good poster that had actual opinions about things. Now he is "that guy who hates Corbyn". Not every post has to be a troll even if you define yourself as one. I expect you're well aware of this fact  I just wonder what goes on in someones head where they decide they will keep posting on a forum, every day, just to be a weird jerk about a single subject. He wasn't always that way so what changed? Regarde Aduck fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Jul 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Illuyankas posted:Mine was about the same, though they threw in a few terrible comparisons to conscripted soldiers along the lines of 'young people today are complaining how they've had their futures ruined but that's nothing compared to what are boys went through, also I'm not going to think too hard about having to go straight to WWI and II for a disaster worse than Brexit' On mine the response is that the only young people having their futures ruined by Brexit are privileged uni kids with EuRail tickets and young working class and BAME Britons have been without a future for many, many years. Same as for young people anywhere in the world right now under this neoliberal hegemony.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:As already mentioned, you don't get to do this at PMQs. The PM doesn't have to answer poo poo if they don't want to, and you know that if Corbyn kept spending all his questions on asking the same thing (which is basically the only way that you can hammer home something at PMQs) the usual suspects would be yelling about all those other bad things that the Tories are doing that Corbyn totally should have focused on instead. McDonnell's lecture series probably hasn't been reported on a lot because... it's a lecture series on the economy? Not a policy speech, a clash at PMQs or an interview with a reporter? I'm sure r4 has done something on it at some point but this if this is their attempt to put a message out about their economic policy, it's not a particularly effective way to do so. A more effective way would be what I outlined above, i.e. complete saturation of the message at every opportunity. Austerity has been the underpinning for every single Tory policy we oppose. Anytime anyone is asked about any Tory policy in an interview or wherever, you link it back to the farcical lack of economic basis for austerity, the failings of the entire program, etc. Every time. This is not that difficult to conceive of surely? Unfortunately such a coordinated messaging campaign requires... coordination. And probably Jeremy doing more interviews. Yes, I know he always got/gets asked about internal party problems. Doesn't mean he can't do what the other side does and just pivot to Tory economic failings. e: if I'm missing something obvious here I really do apologise, I am not trying to be obtuse. I'm genuinely trying to compare what the leadership has been doing with their media strategy, to what would seem to make sense to me as a media strategy. What seems to make sense to me as a media strategy is the strategy the Tories have been using since 2008, which has won them (just about) two general elections. That is complete focus on an economic message which underpins their opponents' credibility. Note that they did not try and use a travelling lecture series as the primary means of delivering this message. Instead they (like any functional party) had senior figures on the media, and linked basically everything that was put to them back to Labour's supposed failings on the economy. e2: I do not know this Pissflaps people speak of but am hoping I'm not turning into him. After all I did support JC previously and at the mo genuinely don't know who the hell I'm supporting (so no-one right now I guess). El Grillo fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Jul 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Corbyn's done that too, with his "failure" theme around the time of the budget. Almost everything he releases has him blaming the tories for the state of the country and the things that people have to suffer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
It's possible for an opposition leader to come out of PMQs looking like a winner even if the PM is a slippery bastard. William Hague, when he was Tory leader, did it with Tony Blair all the time (also an illustration of how little winning PMQs means as the Tories then got slaughtered at the election, but it did make his backbenchers happy).
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Corbyn's done that too, with his "failure" theme around the time of the budget. Yeah sometimes he's been more on message. Just think you've got to be consistent, and again his hiding away from the media recently is not a viable strategy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
loving Hell, this is awful. As if it wasn't bad enough for kids in poverty to begin with. Free Schools are an extension of that poo poo Blair did where some rich fucker or corporation puts up about 10% of the costs to open a school with the rest coming from the state and in exchange they get to decide what goes into the curriculum, like those mental christian schools that Dick Dawkins hates, right? Or is it slightly different?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:Re: PMQs, see my post a couple above yours (thread moving fast). He did focus and go more on the attack in one session, asking the same question over and over (on tax credits) and was actually better received for doing so, because it pointed out how evasive Cameron was. And since you say that you're aware of the LSE study you should know that Corbyn doing what you ask for is irrelevant since it won't get honestly reported on anyway. This means that a message saturation strategy is impossible to pull off since the press will probably twist Corbyn's message or make one up and assign it to him, ruining any attempt at hammering home a unified message. Since Jeremy Corbyn doesn't control the mass media with an iron hand, he realistically cannot do what you ask for under the current circumstances. This should be obvious to you since you've repeatedly said "Corbyn should do X" ITT only for someone to point out to you that he's actually already done that. Again, you're saying "Corbyn should do X" while handwaving away the actual process by which he could accomplish that. I believe it's been made vary clear that these processes are much more complex and far harder to pull off than what you imagine it to be, which is why I'll once again ask you to explain how exactly your demands could be realistically accomplished. I'm not asking this poo poo just for the sake of it, it's actually pretty drat important. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Jul 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:e2: I do not know this Pissflaps people speak of but am hoping I'm not turning into him. After all I did support JC previously and at the mo genuinely don't know who the hell I'm supporting (so no-one right now I guess). don't worry this has been nowhere near the level of the arguments that involve pissflaps, for one thing it's not even been painful to read or anything
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:e: it seems increasingly obvious that his team is keeping him in some kind of incredibly isolated bubble, keeping the bad news away and feeding him stuff like the LSE survey to justify his raciltrant attitude to the media and polling. There were reports of them telling reporters and MPs that they couldn't see him because he's 70 years old and is 'fragile'. This poo poo is hosed. That was specifically in reference to Tom Watson wanting to "speak with Corbyn alone" so that he could be physically imposing and threatening and point his finger like a big fat backbench bruiser to force Jeremy out on behalf of the PLP.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
He doesn't hide away from the media unless he's doing his job, up to the referendum he was travelling the country campaigning for remain, since then he's been dealing with the coup.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
ookiimarukochan posted:That's because admitting he's Scottish goes against the "We're ruled by London!" narrative that everyone north of the Watford Gap services, but the SNP in particular, like to run. Bollocks, it''s because Blair rarely mentioned his Scottish links that people forget about them. Gordon Brown on the other hand served as MP for a Scottish seat for his entire parliamentary career as well as being born, raised and educated in Scotland, and during his tenure we were all still ruled by London. For people like me being "ruled by London" is where parts of the country have been on life-support for decades and told there's no money to spare, yet if London even looks like it's going to sneeze fine hankies and bowls of chicken soup manifest as if by magic and no expense is too great for the rest of the country to bear in order to soothe our poor capital's woes. Which doubtless helped contribute to Brexit, the chance to spit in London's eye is a tempting one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
https://www.facebook.com/everythingyork/photos/a.575157305887316.1073741828.575151002554613/1041706482565727/?type=3 Owns Face-to-face. You can pummel an anti-austerity strategy at the media as much as you want and your words will still be twisted. That's not to say don't have a media strategy, just that, even if all Jeremy said was "An end to austerity" it would be twisted. If you believe in Corbyn's politics, even if not the man, you have a responsibility to advocate for it and support events that advocate it - as plenty of posters here do do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Vengeance of Pandas posted:the chance to spit in London's eye is a tempting one. I mean you can do that literally if you want to, thought I imagine the ticket price is a bit step.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:loving Hell, this is awful. As if it wasn't bad enough for kids in poverty to begin with. Free schools don't have to follow the national curriculum and they can be opened by "charities, universities, independent schools, community and faith groups, teachers, parents, businesses". I'm not sure you actually need to put any money into them. (see here) Supposedly they don't make a profit but certainly with academies, which are similar, there are documented cases of people involved in running the schools just paying themselves unreasonably massive salaries or outsourcing some functions to profit-making businesses which they have an interest in. E: This recent episode of Channel 4's Dispatches is very good on explaining how people make money out of academies http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/on-demand/62012-006 Paxman fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Jul 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:But it's worth noting that some of Corbyn's best PMQs were the ones where he basically asked the same question 6 times in 6 different ways to make it very obvious that Cameron wasn't actually giving any information in answer. The trouble with this is that it's for show, and the people it's meant to enlighten won't see it, because the news tends to report PMQs as "here's one thing a person said, here's a thing the other person said", so you only see one question anyway. And that's why Cameron always had some Sick rear end Burn ready, so that the news would show that answer and make it look like the Opposition got immediately schooled and that was the end of it PMQs always seems like it's the Prime Minister's to lose. Corbyn's approach seems to be about putting issues out there to be heard, instead of trying to win a slap fight. He might actually do better against May, depends on her style. Cameron's bullingdon loudmouth style suited the format
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:Have a look at a blog written by the deputy head: According to the current headmistress, your objections are purely down to middle-class liberal guilt: quote:Birbalsingh said criticism of the school’s policies such as the lunch isolation sprang from “middle-class liberal guilt”. But at least we can be happy that a female person-of-colour can obtain the position of chief child-mangler at these modern day poorhouses. The Tories are certainly demonstrating their progressive credentials over the Brocialists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:And since you say that you're aware of the LSE study you should know that Corbyn doing what you ask for is irrelevant since it won't get honestly reported on anyway. This means that a message saturation strategy is impossible to pull off since the press will probably twist Corbyn's message or make one up and assign it to him, ruining any attempt at hammering home a unified message. Since Jeremy Corbyn doesn't control the mass media with an iron hand, he realistically cannot do what you ask for under the current circumstances. This should be obvious to you since you've repeatedly said "Corbyn should do X" ITT only for someone to point out to you that he's actually already done that. You've said people have repeatedly pointed out to me that JC has done the things I've suggested. But if you read the posts above, you'll see me arguing key points which haven't been refuted, such as him making far fewer/no appearances on mainstream news programs, thus depriving him of the opportunity of hammering on the economic message - and him not adequately articulating that message (i.e. prioritising the economic side, not the 'human impact of austerity' side) when he is. For example, see his latest interview of any kind, with Owen Jones. He puts out a narrative about improving peoples' lives and so on, but not a macroeconomic one. The economy is simply fundamental to any campaign for government, as we all know. I've also admitted that maybe none of this would have worked/will work, maybe it is simply impossible for him to be portrayed well in the media no matter what he does, as the LSE study suggests (though I've argued that bad media presentation and strategy has contributed, and would also argue that examples such as the one above seem to suggest this too). At that point, what the hell is the point of him being leader? If we're saying that he cannot make it work with the media; somehow, he is far far worse than Milliband in that respect. If he's reelected an nothing changes, which by most peoples' logic in this thread, is exactly what will happen. Does he just carry on shouting into his social media bubble while the party splits/dissolves around him? John McDonnell said a few days ago Jeremy would resign if he lost a general election. Every indicator we have shows he is on course not just to lose such a (possibly early) election, but to lose it catastrophically. Why on earth would we just carry on with him in charge, especially when the majority of the PLP seems to have finally come round to the fact that we do need to provide a real alternative to the Tories/pure neoliberalism? I get distrust of them, I get the fact that they've shown massive incompetence themselves recently, but do they really have a choice on economic policy but to stay Left, now that May is purporting to abandon austerity entirely and start what effectively amounts to Peoples' QE (not that I trust her to do so but that's the stall she set out)? Now that every indicator, including the most massive upheaval in our politics and our economic situation for decades (Brexit), is pointing to the dire need for an alternative economic strategy going forward? Angepain posted:don't worry this has been nowhere near the level of the arguments that involve pissflaps, for one thing it's not even been painful to read or anything 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Again, you're saying "Corbyn should do X" while handwaving away the actual process by which he could accomplish that. If he was merely failing to do stuff, that would be redeemable. The fact that his situation is impossible and there is nothing he can do is why there is no point in him staying. Unless he perhaps plans to stay around for 20+ years until all the newspaper readers die off and he rides to victory on a wave of nostalgia for Pokemon Go.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
LemonyTang posted:https://www.facebook.com/everythingyork/photos/a.575157305887316.1073741828.575151002554613/1041706482565727/?type=3 I was there for this. Loved it when Corbyn revealed he'd written poetry. He's a far better public speaker in person than on TV. His asset is his spontaneity, his willingness to just appear in public like that and in an election campaign I could see that being really really useful. Then it chucked it down so I shinned it to a pub where some people in the corner were saying racist things and reminding me of the poo poo country we live in. Alarmingly the pub was flooding in the back as I was drinking my pint.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:04 |
|
|
El Grillo posted:Regarding Corbyn's leadership, well see above, but his PMQs performances weren't bad because there were leaks, they were bad because he is bad at PMQs. The joe public letter things got tired incredibly quickly and in any case was useless to start with because, after having gotten a response to the initial question, Jeremy just let Cameron's answers go and didn't pursue him in the slightest. It's not surprising, JC is not a natural leader although with him being a good debater I had hoped he'd be a little better than he has been. Wow, none of this is actually true. You just decreed it as if by laying down words they become fact. Do you remember ED loving MILLIBAND vs Cameron at PMQs? And that was with the technical backing of his backbenchers rather than being despised by the entire political elite and STILL holding the tories to account and "smashing them back on their heels" on multiple bills.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 22:32
|
|