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?
We will see when people compare "Home Rule" and "NO powers"
Found the cartoon on Twitter. It's unfunny, and will offend almost everyone. But that doesn't mean it should be banned. The state (or Twittermob) dictating what jokes are permitted and which are verboten is the way of unjustifiable authoritarianism.
Mr. Flightpath, the real question is whether getting other people to write his questions makes Corbyn a cheetah.
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?
We will see when people compare "Home Rule" and "NO powers"
Process process process process - the stuff Scots voters really want their MPs addressing every single week......
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.
Cameron has promised to devolve further powers. He said to Robertson today to tell him specifics which has put the ball back in his court.
It's very clever politically from Robertson as it allows him and the SNP to attack English, sorry, Westminster broken promises without the responsibility of specifics.
JC 7/10 (straightforward, but gains a point for interesting innovation with crowdsource questions and being better than Ed) DC 6/10 (vanilla Cameron performance, but loses a point due to getting shouty at SNP)
So PMQ's pretty much a non event, where the state of politics is. So Jezza was all grey today, or all beige - depending on a persons eyesight. Told you these lefties will love uniforms.
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.
Cameron has promised to devolve further powers. He said to Robertson today to tell him specifics which has put the ball back in his court.
It's very clever politically from Robertson as it allows him and the SNP to attack English, sorry, Westminster broken promises without the responsibility of specifics.
Yes , Cameron has the hot potato and cannot get rid of it
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.
Cameron has promised to devolve further powers. He said to Robertson today to tell him specifics which has put the ball back in his court.
It's very clever politically from Robertson as it allows him and the SNP to attack English, sorry, Westminster broken promises without the responsibility of specifics.
Yes , Cameron has the hot potato and cannot get rid of it
But if Robertson and the SNP continue to go on and on about process without specifics it looks very weak and just empty, if stirring, rhetoric.
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
Absolutely - If you are a tv news editor after JC's phone in section, what might you pick as the pmq highlight to show I wonder?
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.
Cameron has promised to devolve further powers. He said to Robertson today to tell him specifics which has put the ball back in his court.
It's very clever politically from Robertson as it allows him and the SNP to attack English, sorry, Westminster broken promises without the responsibility of specifics.
No-one can provide specifics because Cameron did not put any specifics in the Vow. That's the core of Cameron's problem.
It means that Cameron effectively devolved the measure of whether he has delivered to 4 million individual voters in Scotland. And from the polling their judgement is that Cameron failed. Every time the SNP bring it up, it is an automatic win for them.
The ball is in Cameron's court. If he wants to recover ground on the issue, asking the SNP for specifics is meaningless. What he has to do is come up with a plan that delivers sufficiently for enough of those 4 million individuals that changes the public perception.
JC 7/10 (straightforward, but gains a point for interesting innovation with crowdsource questions and being better than Ed) DC 6/10 (vanilla Cameron performance, but loses a point due to getting shouty at SNP)
JC 7/10 (straightforward, but gains a point for interesting innovation with crowdsource questions and being better than Ed) DC 6/10 (vanilla Cameron performance, but loses a point due to getting shouty at SNP)
JC did well. DC did well. Win-win for the Tory Party, surely?
The Labour Party were meant to give a voice to the ordinary person and today Corbyn rather blatantly demonstrated that he is aware of that.
Not my cup of tea but think he did a good job
Looked scruffy as usual but I ask @Plato_Says what would it matter if he did buy his jacket from oxfam? If it got out he had it would prob be a positive for him
Jeremy Corbyn brings Any Questions to Westminster.
It did look like his people went with that format because he was not up to asking and responding in the way PMQs is done by those who have the skills. Feebleness masked by novelty. Novelty doesn't last long. His weakness will out.
There were some incisive questions asked, but their point was not to undermine the Prime Minister, but rather the Leader of the Opposition and those he has surrounded himself with.
Mr. Jonathan, it wasn't really shouty, just normal for PMQs.
Corbyn needs a win, Cameron can just cruise on with so-so performances. No blood drawn, except for Dodds on the new Shadow Chancellor (and, indirectly, the man who appointed him).
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.
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.
Cameron has promised to devolve further powers. He said to Robertson today to tell him specifics which has put the ball back in his court.
It's very clever politically from Robertson as it allows him and the SNP to attack English, sorry, Westminster broken promises without the responsibility of specifics.
Yes , Cameron has the hot potato and cannot get rid of it
But if Robertson and the SNP continue to go on and on about process without specifics it looks very weak and just empty, if stirring, rhetoric.
Not to the audience Robertson is aiming at however.
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
Absolutely - If you are a tv news editor after JC's phone in section, what might you pick as the pmq highlight to show I wonder?
The people who are on the Labour party website asking questions are probably already converted - this just may be the first annexation of parliamentary time by a far-left echo-chamber.
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
Absolutely - If you are a tv news editor after JC's phone in section, what might you pick as the pmq highlight to show I wonder?
Fail to see why Toksvig's on. Otherwise it might be more or less balanced (is Truss, for a Conservative, right, left or middling?).
Liz Truss is a former Lib Dem she is also a Republican.
Quite a difficult one to place in any of the Tories' traditional subdivisions based on my knowledge of her. More like the old liberal rural MPs in terms of a grouping.
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.
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.
Cameron has promised to devolve further powers. He said to Robertson today to tell him specifics which has put the ball back in his court.
It's very clever politically from Robertson as it allows him and the SNP to attack English, sorry, Westminster broken promises without the responsibility of specifics.
Yes , Cameron has the hot potato and cannot get rid of it
But if Robertson and the SNP continue to go on and on about process without specifics it looks very weak and just empty, if stirring, rhetoric.
Not to the audience Robertson is aiming at however.
So, a republican, the McDonnell, a separatist, a founder of a women's rights party and a Telegraph writer.
There's a Conservative majority and a five man panel has what sounds like a soaking wet Tory, three leftists and one chap who *might* be on the right.
Had planned to watch, but Salmond's bloody irritating. The agony of choice. I might read some more of Words of Radiance instead [for those wondering, it's rather good].
Fail to see why Toksvig's on. Otherwise it might be more or less balanced (is Truss, for a Conservative, right, left or middling?).
Liz Truss is a former Lib Dem she is also a Republican.
Quite a difficult one to place in any of the Tories' traditional subdivisions based on my knowledge of her. More like the old liberal rural MPs in terms of a grouping.
She's a bit of a moderniser, I like her plus she upset the turnip Taliban. Mike and I are on her as Dave's successor at 33/1
Chris Grayling is also ex SDP. He's one of the few Tory MP I wouldn't vote for because he's a completed [insert lots of rude words]
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.
Corbyn does right to stick to policy. Housing for example
Gap between no. of homes being built & no, of homes Britain needs is over 100k a year. If current trends continue gap rises to 2m by 2020.
Home ownership is now at its lowest level for 30 yrs. Avg deposit has risen to £72k. Families who rent are facing insecurity and rent rises.
How do you square the 'housing crisis' and the need for more housing with the requirement to allow many more refugees in, especially as they might end up requiring to be here for a period of many years?
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.
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.
Cameron has promised to devolve further powers. He said to Robertson today to tell him specifics which has put the ball back in his court.
It's very clever politically from Robertson as it allows him and the SNP to attack English, sorry, Westminster broken promises without the responsibility of specifics.
Yes , Cameron has the hot potato and cannot get rid of it
But if Robertson and the SNP continue to go on and on about process without specifics it looks very weak and just empty, if stirring, rhetoric.
Not to the audience Robertson is aiming at however.
angry cybernats ?
Scottish residents rather than far flung loyalists
I think Laura Kuenssberg made the most telling point (and what a massive step up she is from Nick). When you are asking adversarial questions you do not ask open questions. It makes it far too easy for the responder to simply reiterate his position and take control. You ask closed questions which control the answers and allow you to steer the conversation.
In advocacy training we used to do exercises in which you were only allowed to ask questions to which the witness had to answer "yes", at least in substance. It is not easy and it takes a lot of forethought.
Corbyn did not ask 1 closed question. Until he does this will be a walk in the park for Cameron and an opportunity to promote government policy rather than account for it.
JC 7/10 (straightforward, but gains a point for interesting innovation with crowdsource questions and being better than Ed) DC 6/10 (vanilla Cameron performance, but loses a point due to getting shouty at SNP)
JC did well. DC did well. Win-win for the Tory Party, surely?
So, a republican, the McDonnell, a separatist, a founder of a women's rights party and a Telegraph writer.
There's a Conservative majority and a five man panel has what sounds like a soaking wet Tory, three leftists and one chap who *might* be on the right.
Had planned to watch, but Salmond's bloody irritating. The agony of choice. I might read some more of Words of Radiance instead [for those wondering, it's rather good].
Don't prejudge.
Apparently I'm a soaking wet Tory but you'd want me on TV defending the Tory cause.
Toksvig is one of the Beebs own luvvies. They will always give her a hearing.
Has she not launched her own party?
Indeed - Sandi Toksvig quit BBC Radio 4's 'News Quiz' to set up a political party called the Women's Equality Party. She is now a politician to all intents etc.
JC 7/10 (straightforward, but gains a point for interesting innovation with crowdsource questions and being better than Ed) DC 6/10 (vanilla Cameron performance, but loses a point due to getting shouty at SNP)
JC did well. DC did well. Win-win for the Tory Party, surely?
JC achieves nothing. DC goes back to work.
Take over of Labour Party goes on uninterrupted.
Yup, works for everyone.
Cameron aims for Con to win in 2020, Corbyn aims to keep his job until 2020. These goals are mutually compatible.
It is something the tories will need to address, somehow. One good suggestion I read in the standard was allowing developers to build above publicly owned buildings. This could yield large numbers of homes in central London, according to the architect who suggested it.
Corbyn doesn't need to be exciting in PMQs. He's got "exciting" policies. In some ways, being personally boring is ideal, in order to take away the sense of dangerous radicalism
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.
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.
Cameron has promised to devolve further powers. He said to Robertson today to tell him specifics which has put the ball back in his court.
It's very clever politically from Robertson as it allows him and the SNP to attack English, sorry, Westminster broken promises without the responsibility of specifics.
Yes , Cameron has the hot potato and cannot get rid of it
But if Robertson and the SNP continue to go on and on about process without specifics it looks very weak and just empty, if stirring, rhetoric.
Not to the audience Robertson is aiming at however.
angry cybernats ?
Scottish residents rather than far flung loyalists
Scots are beginning to notice that nobody is running the country - meanwhile schools, the police and Universities are going down the pan.
JC 7/10 (straightforward, but gains a point for interesting innovation with crowdsource questions and being better than Ed) DC 6/10 (vanilla Cameron performance, but loses a point due to getting shouty at SNP)
JC did well. DC did well. Win-win for the Tory Party, surely?
JC achieves nothing. DC goes back to work.
Take over of Labour Party goes on uninterrupted.
Yup, works for everyone.
Cameron aims for Con to win in 2020, Corbyn aims to keep his job until 2020. These goals are mutually compatible.
Corbyn's 2020 target is ambitious. He could be gone by half past seven.
QT has Tim Stanley on it. A real WTF paragraph on his wiki, in the politics section:
Stanley joined the British Labour Party at the age of 15. He was Chair of Cambridge University Labour Club in 2003-4, and stood as the Labour candidate for his home constituency of Sevenoaks at the 2005 general election, where he came third. He has since distanced himself from the Labour Party, and has been arguing in support of the US Republican Party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Stanley
Toksvig is one of the Beebs own luvvies. They will always give her a hearing.
Has she not launched her own party?
If she has then she has certainly decided to spruce up her own image, and made a better job of it than Corbyn. Even Anthony Neil Wedgewood Benn had the sense to rewrite his own image.
Fail to see why Toksvig's on. Otherwise it might be more or less balanced (is Truss, for a Conservative, right, left or middling?).
Liz Truss is a former Lib Dem she is also a Republican.
Quite a difficult one to place in any of the Tories' traditional subdivisions based on my knowledge of her. More like the old liberal rural MPs in terms of a grouping.
She's a bit of a moderniser, I like her plus she upset the turnip Taliban. Mike and I are on her as Dave's successor at 33/1
Chris Grayling is also ex SDP. He's one of the few Tory MP I wouldn't vote for because he's a completed [insert lots of rude words]
It is something the tories will need to address, somehow. One good suggestion I read in the standard was allowing developers to build above publicly owned buildings. This could yield large numbers of homes in central London, according to the architect who suggested it.
Cutting back on immigration will help both the problems with housing, and any 'strain' on infrastructure and healthcare.
Meanwhile Labour politicians want to increase numbers coming here.
Corbyn does right to stick to policy. Housing for example
Gap between no. of homes being built & no, of homes Britain needs is over 100k a year. If current trends continue gap rises to 2m by 2020.
Home ownership is now at its lowest level for 30 yrs. Avg deposit has risen to £72k. Families who rent are facing insecurity and rent rises.
Agreed, and as I said down thread, there's no magic bullet, it's a combination of carrot for the house builders, bit of stick for the nimbies, some direct Govt intervention (yes, that has a place), and trying to do something (EU renegotiation has to do a lot mind) to stop the external population increase. I visualise this when I am at the on Caerphilly mountain which lies north of Cardiff. There below you is a circular flattish sort of an area roughly 5m x 5m of pretty densely built up area of 350K people representing the capital city of one of our nations. Houses, schools, hospitals, parks, rail and road capacity, sewage, gas pipes, electrity wires, shops, stadiums, pubs, hotels, offices, factories, the whole panoply of humanity.
And just to keep up with net arrivals at 330k we are going to have to build the equivalent of this by the end of next October. It doesn't matter whether they are migrants from Syria, Bulgarian social workers, Indian bankers, or Spanish footballers, the logistics of it all are mind boggling.
It was interesting to see how restrained Tory MPs were in their attacks on Corbyn. The most damaging backbench jibe at him came from Nigel Dodds, the DUP MP. If this had been Ed Miliband half way through the last parliament, there would have been endless questions about bin Laden, Hamas, the national anthem etc. Is this because Tory HQ has suddenly decided to eschew brutal character assassination? Of course not. More likely, it is because they have decided collectively that there is nothing to be gained by undermining Corbyn aggressively when his own MPs are doing it quite well themselves.
I think Laura Kuenssberg made the most telling point (and what a massive step up she is from Nick). When you are asking adversarial questions you do not ask open questions. It makes it far too easy for the responder to simply reiterate his position and take control. You ask closed questions which control the answers and allow you to steer the conversation.
In advocacy training we used to do exercises in which you were only allowed to ask questions to which the witness had to answer "yes", at least in substance. It is not easy and it takes a lot of forethought.
Corbyn did not ask 1 closed question. Until he does this will be a walk in the park for Cameron and an opportunity to promote government policy rather than account for it.
Disagree somewhat (see my post downthread) though "what does the Prime Minister have to say to RandomPerson253" is a terrible form of question. On several instances, Corbyn asked fairly open questions that were likely to get a particular form of response (because Cameron sticks so closely to his lines, it's almost as if he was asked a closed question anyway) and then bounced him on one of those lines. The tax credits thing, where the Tory line has often been "the national living wage more than makes up for the tax credits withdrawal" has always been very vulnerable (the IFS report utterly debunks it in terms of how the policies will apply in practice); Corbyn knew this and was ready to respond to it.
Closed questions have slightly more limited relevance in PMQs than in court because their crux is often utterly avoided anyway (Jezza is well aware that closed questions can be avoided..., bit cruel sorry) and in response the PM often just drags out a half-relevant attack line anyway.
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.
Cameron has promised to devolve further powers. He said to Robertson today to tell him specifics which has put the ball back in his court.
It's very clever politically from Robertson as it allows him and the SNP to attack English, sorry, Westminster broken promises without the responsibility of specifics.
Yes , Cameron has the hot potato and cannot get rid of it
But if Robertson and the SNP continue to go on and on about process without specifics it looks very weak and just empty, if stirring, rhetoric.
Not to the audience Robertson is aiming at however.
angry cybernats ?
Scottish residents rather than far flung loyalists
Scots are beginning to notice that nobody is running the country - meanwhile schools, the police and Universities are going down the pan.
In fairness Scots have got used to 2 generations of politicians who are obsessed with constitutional matters and process rather than substance. This is a very long way from being exclusively an SNP disease.
For a surprisingly long time things pottered along while politicians argued about the constitution but we have now got to the point when the backlog of real world issues that have not been addressed is becoming a major issue.
''Meanwhile Labour politicians want to increase numbers coming here.''
Maybe, but I think that is only part of the problem. Supply must also increase. Soon, and a good deal.
The chance for home ownership is the absolute bedrock of toryism. Right now large numbers of hard working and ambitious young people have no chance to own a home.
Abraham ben Jacob @coinabs 5h5 hours ago #ISIS #terrorist behind #massacre of 21 tourists at #Tunisian museum arrested in Italy, arriving on ‘#refugee’ boat
This is why the current migration issue is so toxic. There is no reliable way of distinguishing between Assad thugs, other thugs, Islamist trained jihadis, actual jihadis, people who will become jihadis and ordinary people who want to live ordinary lives and who would be a credit to any society. Particularly not where documents have been destroyed, people will say whatever it takes to get to where they want to be and there are no reliable authorities in the places they've left where matters can be checked.
So if you let them all in - the German option - you put security at risk; if you let no-one in, you risk being shouted at by Roger et al; if you let some in from camps over time (the Cameron option) you can, with luck, do the necessary intelligence and choose the most deserving but this option does not deal with all the masses collecting elsewhere nor with those moving to the UK from other EU countries.
And this is all before you deal with the issues involved with integrating large numbers of people from very different cultures. Migrants are not just people who can do the work needed. They are people with cultures and values and opinions and world views and they bring those with them, as well as their skills. Countries in Europe are far too sanguine about the very real challenges of integrating people in a sustainable way.
What?? Are you actually serious - Assad's brilliant new strategy for winning back his country is to open up a new front against Western Europe with secret immigrant thugs? I've heard it all now.
You display a lot of passion on this issue but your steadfast refusal to look beyond the word 'Muslim' in any way shape or form prevents your posts offering any valuable insight.
I have said nothing at all about Assad's strategy. I simply do not know what it is. Nor can I offer a view on what to do about him. I leave that you as you seem to be a fan.
I was merely commenting on the invidious choices European countries have to make when deciding on who to let in from the many people now arriving on Europe's borders, given the potential security risks. And given that the vast majority of those people are coming from Muslim countries it is very hard to avoid mentioning the point.
It was interesting to see how restrained Tory MPs were in their attacks on Corbyn. The most damaging backbench jibe at him came from Nigel Dodds, the DUP MP. If this had been Ed Miliband half way through the last parliament, there would have been endless questions about bin Laden, Hamas, the national anthem etc. Is this because Tory HQ has suddenly decided to eschew brutal character assassination? Of course not. More likely, it is because they have decided collectively that there is nothing to be gained by undermining Corbyn aggressively when his own MPs are doing it quite well themselves.
DUP steal JC's first PMQ and kick him where it hurts
not according to 5live where it hasn't been mentioned.
Was mentioned very briefly directly after PMQs, but then the focus shifted to the exchanges between JC and DC which was judged to be a win on points for JC.
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.
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.
Yes , Cameron has the hot potato and cannot get rid of it
But if Robertson and the SNP continue to go on and on about process without specifics it looks very weak and just empty, if stirring, rhetoric.
Not to the audience Robertson is aiming at however.
angry cybernats ?
Scottish residents rather than far flung loyalists
Scots are beginning to notice that nobody is running the country - meanwhile schools, the police and Universities are going down the pan.
Do you dream that from your southern idyll. Everybody knows that what we have is miles better than the alternatives available. You really should not believe everything you read in the mail as being gospel.
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.
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.
Yes , Cameron has the hot potato and cannot get rid of it
But if Robertson and the SNP continue to go on and on about process without specifics it looks very weak and just empty, if stirring, rhetoric.
Not to the audience Robertson is aiming at however.
angry cybernats ?
Scottish residents rather than far flung loyalists
Scots are beginning to notice that nobody is running the country - meanwhile schools, the police and Universities are going down the pan.
Do you dream that from your southern idyll. Everybody knows that what we have ishad was miles better than the alternatives available. You really should not believe everything you read in the mail as being gospel.
''Meanwhile Labour politicians want to increase numbers coming here.''
Maybe, but I think that is only part of the problem. Supply must also increase. Soon, and a good deal.
The chance for home ownership is the absolute bedrock of toryism. Right now large numbers of hard working and ambitious young people have no chance to own a home.
That is dangerous for the tories.
This will, inevitably, become a major problem. There is no issue with space at a national level - although green belts will have to go - but the concentration of wealth in London will need to be addressed. I have no idea how that will happen...
Trying to rationalise with Dim Dair is like justifying TSE's claim to be from Yorkshire. Outwith a super-computer your threads are lost in a deadlock of semaphors....
Trying to rationalise with Dim Dair is like justifying TSE's claim to be from Yorkshire. Outwith a super-computer your threads are lost in a deadlock of semaphors....
To be fair to Dair, at least he responds. Try engaging with an SNP MP or MSP on Twitter. Anything that questions policy or is even slightly off message results in being blocked. Shocking really that our elected representatives should behave this way, but there it is.
Abraham ben Jacob @coinabs 5h5 hours ago #ISIS #terrorist behind #massacre of 21 tourists at #Tunisian museum arrested in Italy, arriving on ‘#refugee’ boat
This is why the current migration issue is so toxic. There is no reliable way of distinguishing between Assad thugs, other thugs, Islamist trained jihadis, actual jihadis, people who will become jihadis and ordinary people who want to live ordinary lives and who would be a credit to any society. Particularly not where documents have been destroyed, people will say whatever it takes to get to where they want to be and there are no reliable authorities in the places they've left where matters can be checked.
So if you let them all in - the German option - you put security at risk; if you let no-one in, you risk being shouted at by Roger et al; if you let some in from camps over time (the Cameron option) you can, with luck, do the necessary intelligence and choose the most deserving but this option does not deal with all the masses collecting elsewhere nor with those moving to the UK from other EU countries.
And this is all before you deal with the issues involved with integrating large numbers of people from very different cultures. Migrants are not just people who can do the work needed. They are people with cultures and values and opinions and world views and they bring those with them, as well as their skills. Countries in Europe are far too sanguine about the very real challenges of integrating people in a sustainable way.
What?? Are you actually serious - Assad's brilliant new strategy for winning back his country is to open up a new front against Western Europe with secret immigrant thugs? I've heard it all now.
You display a lot of passion on this issue but your steadfast refusal to look beyond the word 'Muslim' in any way shape or form prevents your posts offering any valuable insight.
I have said nothing at all about Assad's strategy. I simply do not know what it is. Nor can I offer a view on what to do about him. I leave that you as you seem to be a fan.
I was merely commenting on the invidious choices European countries have to make when deciding on who to let in from the many people now arriving on Europe's borders, given the potential security risks. And given that the vast majority of those people are coming from Muslim countries it is very hard to avoid mentioning the point.
Well let me enlighten you - it is to stay in power. To which end whatever thugs he has at his command are surely more likely (and I don't claim any special insight) to be fighting insurgents rather than bringing Baathism to Bath.
I think Laura Kuenssberg made the most telling point (and what a massive step up she is from Nick). When you are asking adversarial questions you do not ask open questions. It makes it far too easy for the responder to simply reiterate his position and take control. You ask closed questions which control the answers and allow you to steer the conversation.
In advocacy training we used to do exercises in which you were only allowed to ask questions to which the witness had to answer "yes", at least in substance. It is not easy and it takes a lot of forethought.
Corbyn did not ask 1 closed question. Until he does this will be a walk in the park for Cameron and an opportunity to promote government policy rather than account for it.
Disagree somewhat (see my post downthread) though "what does the Prime Minister have to say to RandomPerson253" is a terrible form of question. On several instances, Corbyn asked fairly open questions that were likely to get a particular form of response (because Cameron sticks so closely to his lines, it's almost as if he was asked a closed question anyway) and then bounced him on one of those lines. The tax credits thing, where the Tory line has often been "the national living wage more than makes up for the tax credits withdrawal" has always been very vulnerable (the IFS report utterly debunks it in terms of how the policies will apply in practice); Corbyn knew this and was ready to respond to it.
Closed questions have slightly more limited relevance in PMQs than in court because their crux is often utterly avoided anyway (Jezza is well aware that closed questions can be avoided..., bit cruel sorry) and in response the PM often just drags out a half-relevant attack line anyway.
Corbyn is a real joke if he thinks this tactic is clever. Cameron has been going round the country speaking to real people and taking part in real Q&A's for the last 10 years. Expect to see more of that. Indeed he went out of the country the other day to speak to Mr and Mrs Abdula currently residing in Lebanon. And others http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34248461
I think Laura Kuenssberg made the most telling point (and what a massive step up she is from Nick). When you are asking adversarial questions you do not ask open questions. It makes it far too easy for the responder to simply reiterate his position and take control. You ask closed questions which control the answers and allow you to steer the conversation.
In advocacy training we used to do exercises in which you were only allowed to ask questions to which the witness had to answer "yes", at least in substance. It is not easy and it takes a lot of forethought.
Corbyn did not ask 1 closed question. Until he does this will be a walk in the park for Cameron and an opportunity to promote government policy rather than account for it.
Disagree somewhat (see my post downthread) though "what does the Prime Minister have to say to RandomPerson253" is a terrible form of question. On several instances, Corbyn asked fairly open questions that were likely to get a particular form of response (because Cameron sticks so closely to his lines, it's almost as if he was asked a closed question anyway) and then bounced him on one of those lines. The tax credits thing, where the Tory line has often been "the national living wage more than makes up for the tax credits withdrawal" has always been very vulnerable (the IFS report utterly debunks it in terms of how the policies will apply in practice); Corbyn knew this and was ready to respond to it.
Closed questions have slightly more limited relevance in PMQs than in court because their crux is often utterly avoided anyway (Jezza is well aware that closed questions can be avoided..., bit cruel sorry) and in response the PM often just drags out a half-relevant attack line anyway.
Corbyn is a real joke if he thinks this tactic is clever. Cameron has been going round the country speaking to real people and taking part in real Q&A's for the last 10 years. Expect to see more of that. Indeed he went out of the country the other day to speak to Mr and Mrs Abdula currently residing in Lebanon. And others http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34248461
It was interesting to see how restrained Tory MPs were in their attacks on Corbyn. The most damaging backbench jibe at him came from Nigel Dodds, the DUP MP. If this had been Ed Miliband half way through the last parliament, there would have been endless questions about bin Laden, Hamas, the national anthem etc. Is this because Tory HQ has suddenly decided to eschew brutal character assassination? Of course not. More likely, it is because they have decided collectively that there is nothing to be gained by undermining Corbyn aggressively when his own MPs are doing it quite well themselves.
Cam is in a win-win situation and Corbyn a lose-lose one.
If it goes on as it is, Mr Reasonable, then Cam bats him away all day long and any of the other Lab leadership candidates might as well have been there. It will be more of the same, albeit quieter.
If Jezza loses it or gives vent to the "inner Jezza" then out come the big guns of Hamas, Hezbollah, IRA, nationalisation, etc, you name it.
Jezza probably realises that the first time he comes out with one of his more bonkers policies (ie any of the ones that got him elected leader), the Cons and Dave will let rip.
This will, inevitably, become a major problem. There is no issue with space at a national level - although green belts will have to go - but the concentration of wealth in London will need to be addressed. I have no idea how that will happen...
Not saying you're wrong, but why does this need to be addressed? If people prefer to live together in one big city instead of scattered all over the place, and they can create a lot of wealth living this way, why is this bad?
I think Laura Kuenssberg made the most telling point (and what a massive step up she is from Nick). When you are asking adversarial questions you do not ask open questions. It makes it far too easy for the responder to simply reiterate his position and take control. You ask closed questions which control the answers and allow you to steer the conversation.
In advocacy training we used to do exercises in which you were only allowed to ask questions to which the witness had to answer "yes", at least in substance. It is not easy and it takes a lot of forethought.
Corbyn did not ask 1 closed question. Until he does this will be a walk in the park for Cameron and an opportunity to promote government policy rather than account for it.
Closed questions have slightly more limited relevance in PMQs than in court because their crux is often utterly avoided anyway (Jezza is well aware that closed questions can be avoided..., bit cruel sorry) and in response the PM often just drags out a half-relevant attack line anyway.
Corbyn is a real joke if he thinks this tactic is clever. Cameron has been going round the country speaking to real people and taking part in real Q&A's for the last 10 years. Expect to see more of that. Indeed he went out of the country the other day to speak to Mr and Mrs Abdula currently residing in Lebanon. And others http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34248461
I think Laura Kuenssberg made the most telling point (and what a massive step up she is from Nick). When you are asking adversarial questions you do not ask open questions. It makes it far too easy for the responder to simply reiterate his position and take control. You ask closed questions which control the answers and allow you to steer the conversation.
Yes, but - it's a point I made at 12.06. After one question....!
"Erm...this format means if there is no follow up by Corbyn thinking on his feet, this just becomes an opportunity for Cameron to give a PPB..."
LOL. yes that will be read widely in Scotland. Typical southern rag.
I worry for Scotland if malcolmg is representative. Rather than address bad news on literacy and availability of higher education to the poor - which of course will not affect the average person on the street as they have already completed their education, he'd prefer to mock a newspaper because it's English.
They were showing PMQs with loud sound in Tesco at lunch time. Everyone queuing up for the tills watching Jeremy stroking his beard. I was happy they had it on even if it did feel a bit incongruous. Saw him in the swimming pool changing room the other day too - on the telly. He's hard to miss at the moment.
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.
Cameron has promised to devolve further powers. He said to Robertson today to tell him specifics which has put the ball back in his court.
It's very clever politically from Robertson as it allows him and the SNP to attack English, sorry, Westminster broken promises without the responsibility of specifics.
No-one can provide specifics because Cameron did not put any specifics in the Vow. That's the core of Cameron's problem.
It means that Cameron effectively devolved the measure of whether he has delivered to 4 million individual voters in Scotland. And from the polling their judgement is that Cameron failed. Every time the SNP bring it up, it is an automatic win for them.
The ball is in Cameron's court. If he wants to recover ground on the issue, asking the SNP for specifics is meaningless. What he has to do is come up with a plan that delivers sufficiently for enough of those 4 million individuals that changes the public perception.
And on this he is failing utterly.
Which is why he asked the SNP to provide specifics. If he just announced exactly what was going to be devolved, the SNP would call it Tory-Westminster arrogance without consulting Scotland.
If the SNP want to come up with specifics they can work with the government to come up with an agreed plan which would be best for Scotland. However, the SNP would be absolutely mad to do that as it would remove as anti-Westminster line of attack they love. If the government does come up with a plan of specifics the SNP can then attack it as 'not going far enough' and 'he wrong taxes devolved' and 'trying to impose a settlement without consulting Scotland. It's very clever politics from Robertson, but not the best way to get the best deal for Scotland.
This is why the current migration issue is so toxic. There is no reliable way of distinguishing between Assad thugs, other thugs, Islamist trained jihadis, actual jihadis, people who will become jihadis and ordinary people who want to live ordinary lives and who would be a credit to any society. Particularly not where documents have been destroyed, people will say whatever it takes to get to where they want to be and there are no reliable authorities in the places they've left where matters can be checked.
So if you let them all in - the German option - you put security at risk; if you let no-one in, you risk being shouted at by Roger et al; if you let some in from camps over time (the Cameron option) you can, with luck, do the necessary intelligence and choose the most deserving but this option does not deal with all the masses collecting elsewhere nor with those moving to the UK from other EU countries.
And this is all before you deal with the issues involved with integrating large numbers of people from very different cultures. Migrants are not just people who can do the work needed. They are people with cultures and values and opinions and world views and they bring those with them, as well as their skills. Countries in Europe are far too sanguine about the very real challenges of integrating people in a sustainable way.
What?? Are you actually serious - Assad's brilliant new strategy for winning back his country is to open up a new front against Western Europe with secret immigrant thugs? I've heard it all now.
You display a lot of passion on this issue but your steadfast refusal to look beyond the word 'Muslim' in any way shape or form prevents your posts offering any valuable insight.
I have said nothing at all about Assad's strategy. I simply do not know what it is. Nor can I offer a view on what to do about him. I leave that you as you seem to be a fan.
I was merely commenting on the invidious choices European countries have to make when deciding on who to let in from the many people now arriving on Europe's borders, given the potential security risks. And given that the vast majority of those people are coming from Muslim countries it is very hard to avoid mentioning the point.
Well let me enlighten you - it is to stay in power. To which end whatever thugs he has at his command are surely more likely (and I don't claim any special insight) to be fighting insurgents rather than bringing Baathism to Bath.
And I didn't say they were.
You seem to have missed entirely the point of my post. But I suggest we leave it there.
Comments
Found the cartoon on Twitter. It's unfunny, and will offend almost everyone. But that doesn't mean it should be banned. The state (or Twittermob) dictating what jokes are permitted and which are verboten is the way of unjustifiable authoritarianism.
Mr. Flightpath, the real question is whether getting other people to write his questions makes Corbyn a cheetah.
It's very clever politically from Robertson as it allows him and the SNP to attack English, sorry, Westminster broken promises without the responsibility of specifics.
DC 6/10 (vanilla Cameron performance, but loses a point due to getting shouty at SNP)
and The Sun and the Mail.
I'd do the maths if I was interested.
It means that Cameron effectively devolved the measure of whether he has delivered to 4 million individual voters in Scotland. And from the polling their judgement is that Cameron failed. Every time the SNP bring it up, it is an automatic win for them.
The ball is in Cameron's court. If he wants to recover ground on the issue, asking the SNP for specifics is meaningless. What he has to do is come up with a plan that delivers sufficiently for enough of those 4 million individuals that changes the public perception.
And on this he is failing utterly.
Interesting panel on QT on Thursday:
Lets see how John HawHaw goes down:
https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/644076720509857792
Real People Nil
Cameron 6
Not my cup of tea but think he did a good job
Looked scruffy as usual but I ask @Plato_Says what would it matter if he did buy his jacket from oxfam? If it got out he had it would prob be a positive for him
There were some incisive questions asked, but their point was not to undermine the Prime Minister, but rather the Leader of the Opposition and those he has surrounded himself with.
Corbyn needs a win, Cameron can just cruise on with so-so performances. No blood drawn, except for Dodds on the new Shadow Chancellor (and, indirectly, the man who appointed him).
"Prime Minister, Mildred from Nuneaton doesn't have a question but says, "Could you play Moonlight Shadow as it reminds her of her mum".
Fail to see why Toksvig's on. Otherwise it might be more or less balanced (is Truss, for a Conservative, right, left or middling?).
Gap between no. of homes being built & no, of homes Britain needs is over 100k a year. If current trends continue gap rises to 2m by 2020.
Home ownership is now at its lowest level for 30 yrs. Avg deposit has risen to £72k. Families who rent are facing insecurity and rent rises.
PMQs is now officially a TV game show
Come on down !
So, a republican, the McDonnell, a separatist, a founder of a women's rights party and a Telegraph writer.
There's a Conservative majority and a five man panel has what sounds like a soaking wet Tory, three leftists and one chap who *might* be on the right.
Had planned to watch, but Salmond's bloody irritating. The agony of choice. I might read some more of Words of Radiance instead [for those wondering, it's rather good].
Chris Grayling is also ex SDP. He's one of the few Tory MP I wouldn't vote for because he's a completed [insert lots of rude words]
Mr. Eagles, not a patch on Patel or Greening.
Anyway, I'm off for a bit. Hopefully Labour will manage not to set fire to itself in the meantime.
In advocacy training we used to do exercises in which you were only allowed to ask questions to which the witness had to answer "yes", at least in substance. It is not easy and it takes a lot of forethought.
Corbyn did not ask 1 closed question. Until he does this will be a walk in the park for Cameron and an opportunity to promote government policy rather than account for it.
Take over of Labour Party goes on uninterrupted.
Apparently I'm a soaking wet Tory but you'd want me on TV defending the Tory cause.
She's a good performer on TV.
Cameron aims for Con to win in 2020, Corbyn aims to keep his job until 2020. These goals are mutually compatible.
It is something the tories will need to address, somehow. One good suggestion I read in the standard was allowing developers to build above publicly owned buildings. This could yield large numbers of homes in central London, according to the architect who suggested it.
Stanley joined the British Labour Party at the age of 15. He was Chair of Cambridge University Labour Club in 2003-4, and stood as the Labour candidate for his home constituency of Sevenoaks at the 2005 general election, where he came third. He has since distanced himself from the Labour Party, and has been arguing in support of the US Republican Party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Stanley
Even Anthony Neil Wedgewood Benn had the sense to rewrite his own image.
Meanwhile Labour politicians want to increase numbers coming here.
Time to get off the Outrage Bus, you missed your stop.
And just to keep up with net arrivals at 330k we are going to have to build the equivalent of this by the end of next October. It doesn't matter whether they are migrants from Syria, Bulgarian social workers, Indian bankers, or Spanish footballers, the logistics of it all are mind boggling.
[...]
It was interesting to see how restrained Tory MPs were in their attacks on Corbyn. The most damaging backbench jibe at him came from Nigel Dodds, the DUP MP. If this had been Ed Miliband half way through the last parliament, there would have been endless questions about bin Laden, Hamas, the national anthem etc. Is this because Tory HQ has suddenly decided to eschew brutal character assassination? Of course not. More likely, it is because they have decided collectively that there is nothing to be gained by undermining Corbyn aggressively when his own MPs are doing it quite well themselves.
Closed questions have slightly more limited relevance in PMQs than in court because their crux is often utterly avoided anyway (Jezza is well aware that closed questions can be avoided..., bit cruel sorry) and in response the PM often just drags out a half-relevant attack line anyway.
For a surprisingly long time things pottered along while politicians argued about the constitution but we have now got to the point when the backlog of real world issues that have not been addressed is becoming a major issue.
Maybe, but I think that is only part of the problem. Supply must also increase. Soon, and a good deal.
The chance for home ownership is the absolute bedrock of toryism. Right now large numbers of hard working and ambitious young people have no chance to own a home.
That is dangerous for the tories.
Plus Mr Dancer, Liz Truss is from Leeds. She's from Yorkshire, how awesome is that!
I was merely commenting on the invidious choices European countries have to make when deciding on who to let in from the many people now arriving on Europe's borders, given the potential security risks. And given that the vast majority of those people are coming from Muslim countries it is very hard to avoid mentioning the point.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-21881440
"Scottish universities 'worst in UK' for attracting poor"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/11571724/SNP-accused-of-taking-eye-off-ball-as-literacy-standards-decline-in-Scottish-schools.html
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/sep/16/corbyn-faces-shadow-cabinet-split-over-abolishing-benefits-cap-politics-live
Welcome.
[As an aside, I was in HK this summer, and was reminded how bad what high density accommodation for the poor can be:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2084971/Hong-Kongs-cage-homes-Tens-thousands-living-6ft-2ft-rabbit-hutches.html]
Try engaging with an SNP MP or MSP on Twitter. Anything that questions policy or is even slightly off message results in being blocked.
Shocking really that our elected representatives should behave this way, but there it is.
Indeed he went out of the country the other day to speak to Mr and Mrs Abdula currently residing in Lebanon.
And others
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34248461
If it goes on as it is, Mr Reasonable, then Cam bats him away all day long and any of the other Lab leadership candidates might as well have been there. It will be more of the same, albeit quieter.
If Jezza loses it or gives vent to the "inner Jezza" then out come the big guns of Hamas, Hezbollah, IRA, nationalisation, etc, you name it.
Jezza probably realises that the first time he comes out with one of his more bonkers policies (ie any of the ones that got him elected leader), the Cons and Dave will let rip.
Questions to which the answer is: Whatever.
"Erm...this format means if there is no follow up by Corbyn thinking on his feet, this just becomes an opportunity for Cameron to give a PPB..."
That is one huge chip to be carrying around.
If the SNP want to come up with specifics they can work with the government to come up with an agreed plan which would be best for Scotland. However, the SNP would be absolutely mad to do that as it would remove as anti-Westminster line of attack they love. If the government does come up with a plan of specifics the SNP can then attack it as 'not going far enough' and 'he wrong taxes devolved' and 'trying to impose a settlement without consulting Scotland. It's very clever politics from Robertson, but not the best way to get the best deal for Scotland.
You seem to have missed entirely the point of my post. But I suggest we leave it there.
I am sure Syria will come up in the news again.