foxinsoxuk said:

Roger said:

Fox

"FWIW Tim Farron is at the #refugeeswelcome rally today."

Thanks for that. I didn't consider the Lib Dems because as Jonathan noted earlier they still show no signs of having a pulse so are presumed dead.

(But you're the doc so will be advised)

I think that we may see a Lazarus like revival of the LDs. If Farron cannot exploit this then we will have Blue hegemony.

If the remaining LDs (and UKIP) can't take advantage of their opponents electing a complete nutcase as leader, then they have no future in politics.

Speedy said:

Sandpit said:

fitalass said:

Twitter
Greg Dawson ‏@Gregstweet 50m50 minutes ago
Just spoken to Jeremy Corbyn. He's confirmed he intends to have other Labour MPs take his role at some sessions of PMQs

Greg Dawson ‏@Gregstweet 43m43 minutes ago
Corbyn on PMQs: "David Cameron enjoys a bit of repartee but it's going to be one-way"

Greg Dawson ‏@Gregstweet 41m41 minutes ago
Corbyn on PMQs "We should share it out a bit. I've been in touch with the speaker's office to ask about this."

Greg Dawson ‏@Gregstweet 28m28 minutes ago
Corbyn quotes a friend: "the best leaders those that assume the position with reluctance because they do it best."

So Corbyn is going to pass on the only regularly scheduled opportunity he has to hold the government to account; the one weekly chance to ask the PM anything and he doesn't want to do it?

How can he seriously call himself the Leader of the Opposition if he can't be bothered to oppose the government?

He's more comfortable opposing the government in votes and in rallies, fits with his style of irregular warfare, also that means that Cameron will have to prepare to deal with dozens of different shadow ministers, each with a distinctive style and quality.

That reads as "He is more comfortable talking only to those who share his beliefs, and he doesn't dare want to be told he's wrong or that his policies might have negative consequences. The PM should not have to deal with someone so important on Wednesdays, that's why he'll delegate the job to someone more junior." What utter bollocks, and contempt for those who elected him, as well as for the PM himself and the House of Commons (not that he cares much about that of course). I imagine the Squeaker might not be too pleased either.

MikeK said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Is Corbyn going to be the first Labour Leader in living memory to be refused a meeting with the POTUS? I recall Kinnock having some trouble.

Don't you believe it! Jezzah will be bosom pals with Obama, they have many things in common. Love hugging Islam and muslims, for one.

Sir you are mistaken. I bet you £5 evens that Jezzah will not be bosom pal with Obama before the end of 2016, winnings to PB coffers.

MyBurningEars said:

Not sure, Corbyn shows the importance of energising your base... and Farron was a good choice to do that.

Why have diet Coke, when you can have the real thing?

MyBurningEars said:

Jonathan said:

foxinsoxuk said:

I think that we may see a Lazarus like revival of the LDs. If Farron cannot exploit this then we will have Blue hegemony.

If anything this makes the LDs task much harder. Progress for the LDs demands the Oxygen of publicity and they are going to get sweet FA now.

And in the light of Corbyn, Farron is looking like the wrong choice.

Not sure, Corbyn shows the importance of energising your base... and Farron was a good choice to do that.

In terms of getting votes as The Sensible Party, I can see the advantage of Lamb. But relatively speaking, is Farron so barmy?

His only real standout eccenticity is being a born again Christian, something that we seldom see in the UK. I think that he will sweep up ex Labour voters in rural areas particularly in the North and SW and also in the suburbs.

Sandpit said:

Speedy said:

Sandpit said:

fitalass said:

Twitter
Greg Dawson ‏@Gregstweet 50m50 minutes ago
Just spoken to Jeremy Corbyn. He's confirmed he intends to have other Labour MPs take his role at some sessions of PMQs

Greg Dawson ‏@Gregstweet 43m43 minutes ago
Corbyn on PMQs: "David Cameron enjoys a bit of repartee but it's going to be one-way"

Greg Dawson ‏@Gregstweet 41m41 minutes ago
Corbyn on PMQs "We should share it out a bit. I've been in touch with the speaker's office to ask about this."

Greg Dawson ‏@Gregstweet 28m28 minutes ago
Corbyn quotes a friend: "the best leaders those that assume the position with reluctance because they do it best."

So Corbyn is going to pass on the only regularly scheduled opportunity he has to hold the government to account; the one weekly chance to ask the PM anything and he doesn't want to do it?

How can he seriously call himself the Leader of the Opposition if he can't be bothered to oppose the government?

He's more comfortable opposing the government in votes and in rallies, fits with his style of irregular warfare, also that means that Cameron will have to prepare to deal with dozens of different shadow ministers, each with a distinctive style and quality.

That reads as "He is more comfortable talking only to those who share his beliefs, and he doesn't dare want to be told he's wrong or that his policies might have negative consequences. The PM should not have to deal with someone so important on Wednesdays, that's why he'll delegate the job to someone more junior." What utter bollocks, and contempt for those who elected him, as well as for the PM himself and the House of Commons (not that he cares much about that of course). I imagine the Squeaker might not be too pleased either.

"Oh Corbyn doesn't want to play with Cameron, boohoo."

NickPalmer said:

tyson said:

Well I am really quite pleased with the leadership vote. I turned to Jeremy last night.

And you all should be here- and not for the obvious political reasons. Corbyn is the antithesis of the career spad politician. He has a refreshing simplicity. Just think no more stunts. No more hugging hoodies, or trips to Greenland. No EdStones or trips to Russell Brand. No more opportunistic political cross dressing. No more Osborne or Brownlike scheming. I'm sure that most of you here hate all that spin bullshit as much as I do.

Hopefully Jeremy with his honesty and his authenticity will change politics in the UK for the better and that can only be a very good thing.

Exactly! Was really sorry to be in disagreement with you recently.

Now, Southam, let's have a chat... :-)

Do you fancy a seat in HOL now you are clearly unelectable on whatever basis it is possible to be unelectable? You obviously have private means and the daily allowance will come in handy.

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Roger said:

Fox

"FWIW Tim Farron is at the #refugeeswelcome rally today."

Thanks for that. I didn't consider the Lib Dems because as Jonathan noted earlier they still show no signs of having a pulse so are presumed dead.

(But you're the doc so will be advised)

I think that we may see a Lazarus like revival of the LDs. If Farron cannot exploit this then we will have Blue hegemony.

If the remaining LDs (and UKIP) can't take advantage of their opponents electing a complete nutcase as leader, then they have no future in politics.

Farron is on the left too, the big winner other than Cameron is Farage. With EU ref looming he can attack the traditional Labour white working class vote. Indeed if anything will topple Corbyn it could be Labour coming behind UKIP in a by election. Much as the LDs prospered under IDS so UKIP will prosper under Corbyn

Farron is nowhere near the far Left position of Corbyn, and much more robust on terrorism etc. If Corbyn comes out for BOO then he may well pick up a lot of pro-european Labour centrists.

The only real winner today is Cameron. He has the luck of the devil.

David_Evershed said:

Fallon's comments confirm that the Conservative tactics will be to attack the man's policies not the man.

Very wise.

Pity that Fallon has very little to boast about. RN reduced to little more than coastal defense with 19 frigates. RAF: zero ground attack (sells off recently upgraded at £4 billion, Harrier fleet to USM to use for spare parts), zero air recon capability (relies on Scots fishermen to advise RAF officer in a pub that there are 3 Russian warships up the coast sheltering in a bay) puts wrecking ball through newly built planes, (remind me, which PM was stupid enough to put a MD in charge of Defense where the object is too kill more of their people before being killed ourselves).
2 Aircraft carriers that when completed, will not have any planes to fly off for upto 10 years. Aircraft carriers require a support fleet of destroyers, frigates, oilers etc, which with the best will in the world, we ain't got or even the crews to man them.
As for the Grunts, army and marines.........
Ah well, we will be able to depend on the reserves? Er! nope. Why should sensible people volunteer to be away from their families, friends, work and seniority at work for 2 year periods? Result, severe reserve manpower shortage, except in the advertising campaign agency teams.

Trident systems, bought off the shelf from the US who still hold the firing keys. We pay, we run, they set off the fireworks. But hey ho, it supports the myth that the UK is still a nuclear power.

If, we decide to have no capability to enforce our (British) will in other parts of the world, so be it, we are nearly there already. If the PM decides that he wants to play with the big boys in Syria and/or elsewhere, then he will have to expand the military to back to over 200,000 from it's present 80k.

Whatever he thinks, the PM should be told that bombing targets with expensive rockets from drones is only part of the answer.

Boots need to be on the ground to take and hold, take and hold. Aircover with A10's or equivalents (Apaches very sexy, very expensive to maintain in combat situations best suited to hunting), proper fighters (not designed by committees to be all things to no one in particular) to be air attack and defense. A large navy with some very big ships with lots of guns makes any threat more pointedly enforceable. All very expensive, but in these times of austerity, we must all tighten our belts, etc. et bloody cetera.

Speedy said:

Sandpit said:

Speedy said:

Sandpit said:

fitalass said:

Twitter
Greg Dawson ‏@Gregstweet 50m50 minutes ago
Just spoken to Jeremy Corbyn. He's confirmed he intends to have other Labour MPs take his role at some sessions of PMQs

Greg Dawson ‏@Gregstweet 43m43 minutes ago
Corbyn on PMQs: "David Cameron enjoys a bit of repartee but it's going to be one-way"

Greg Dawson ‏@Gregstweet 41m41 minutes ago
Corbyn on PMQs "We should share it out a bit. I've been in touch with the speaker's office to ask about this."

Greg Dawson ‏@Gregstweet 28m28 minutes ago
Corbyn quotes a friend: "the best leaders those that assume the position with reluctance because they do it best."

So Corbyn is going to pass on the only regularly scheduled opportunity he has to hold the government to account; the one weekly chance to ask the PM anything and he doesn't want to do it?

How can he seriously call himself the Leader of the Opposition if he can't be bothered to oppose the government?

He's more comfortable opposing the government in votes and in rallies, fits with his style of irregular warfare, also that means that Cameron will have to prepare to deal with dozens of different shadow ministers, each with a distinctive style and quality.

That reads as "He is more comfortable talking only to those who share his beliefs, and he doesn't dare want to be told he's wrong or that his policies might have negative consequences. The PM should not have to deal with someone so important on Wednesdays, that's why he'll delegate the job to someone more junior." What utter bollocks, and contempt for those who elected him, as well as for the PM himself and the House of Commons (not that he cares much about that of course). I imagine the Squeaker might not be too pleased either.

"Oh Corbyn doesn't want to play with Cameron, boohoo."

Corbyn doesn't want to play with anyone except himself and his fanatical supporters. Parliament is the mechanism by which the Government of the Day is held to account. If he didn't want to do that, they why did he run to be Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition?

Sandpit said:

Speedy said:

Sandpit said:

Speedy said:

Sandpit said:

fitalass said:

Twitter
Greg Dawson ‏@Gregstweet 50m50 minutes ago
Just spoken to Jeremy Corbyn. He's confirmed he intends to have other Labour MPs take his role at some sessions of PMQs

Greg Dawson ‏@Gregstweet 43m43 minutes ago
Corbyn on PMQs: "David Cameron enjoys a bit of repartee but it's going to be one-way"

Greg Dawson ‏@Gregstweet 41m41 minutes ago
Corbyn on PMQs "We should share it out a bit. I've been in touch with the speaker's office to ask about this."

Greg Dawson ‏@Gregstweet 28m28 minutes ago
Corbyn quotes a friend: "the best leaders those that assume the position with reluctance because they do it best."

So Corbyn is going to pass on the only regularly scheduled opportunity he has to hold the government to account; the one weekly chance to ask the PM anything and he doesn't want to do it?

How can he seriously call himself the Leader of the Opposition if he can't be bothered to oppose the government?

He's more comfortable opposing the government in votes and in rallies, fits with his style of irregular warfare, also that means that Cameron will have to prepare to deal with dozens of different shadow ministers, each with a distinctive style and quality.

That reads as "He is more comfortable talking only to those who share his beliefs, and he doesn't dare want to be told he's wrong or that his policies might have negative consequences. The PM should not have to deal with someone so important on Wednesdays, that's why he'll delegate the job to someone more junior." What utter bollocks, and contempt for those who elected him, as well as for the PM himself and the House of Commons (not that he cares much about that of course). I imagine the Squeaker might not be too pleased either.

"Oh Corbyn doesn't want to play with Cameron, boohoo."

Corbyn doesn't want to play with anyone except himself and his fanatical supporters. Parliament is the mechanism by which the Government of the Day is held to account. If he didn't want to do that, they why did he run to be Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition?

Do you really think the only thing the leader of the Labour party should be doing is a short question and answer session once a week?

NickPalmer said:

ThomasNashe said:

To be fair, there is something in what you say. The problem, however, is his history.

I'm close enough to the history to understand it while disagreeing with some of the decisions. JC has always been profoundly sceptical about Western foreign policy, which he thinks has been consistently counter-productive and arrogant. He thinks that we don't understand half the people we fight and it's been part of his role to give them a platform. It hasn't involved supporting them, and amid all the quotes from the last 40 years of his political life - a long time to open up hostages to fortune - I've not seen one that endorsed Hamas, the IRA or anyone else that most of us would have seen as the enemy.

Are the meetings embarrassing now he's got an entirely different role? Probably. Are they especially relevant to whether he'll make a good leader? No. Judge him by what he does now.

I think we've heard enough from you to judge what your judgment is like.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

I'm a tee-totaller and I've been to many pubs including, as you know, PB meets

Yeahbut; Jezza ain't wlecomed. Where as you....

[Crap: I hate the edit facility.... ]

Speedy said:

Sandpit said:

Speedy said:

Sandpit said:

Speedy said:

Sandpit said:

fitalass said:

Twitter
Greg Dawson ‏@Gregstweet 50m50 minutes ago
Just spoken to Jeremy Corbyn. He's confirmed he intends to have other Labour MPs take his role at some sessions of PMQs

Greg Dawson ‏@Gregstweet 43m43 minutes ago
Corbyn on PMQs: "David Cameron enjoys a bit of repartee but it's going to be one-way"

Greg Dawson ‏@Gregstweet 41m41 minutes ago
Corbyn on PMQs "We should share it out a bit. I've been in touch with the speaker's office to ask about this."

Greg Dawson ‏@Gregstweet 28m28 minutes ago
Corbyn quotes a friend: "the best leaders those that assume the position with reluctance because they do it best."

So Corbyn is going to pass on the only regularly scheduled opportunity he has to hold the government to account; the one weekly chance to ask the PM anything and he doesn't want to do it?

How can he seriously call himself the Leader of the Opposition if he can't be bothered to oppose the government?

He's more comfortable opposing the government in votes and in rallies, fits with his style of irregular warfare, also that means that Cameron will have to prepare to deal with dozens of different shadow ministers, each with a distinctive style and quality.

That reads as "He is more comfortable talking only to those who share his beliefs, and he doesn't dare want to be told he's wrong or that his policies might have negative consequences. The PM should not have to deal with someone so important on Wednesdays, that's why he'll delegate the job to someone more junior." What utter bollocks, and contempt for those who elected him, as well as for the PM himself and the House of Commons (not that he cares much about that of course). I imagine the Squeaker might not be too pleased either.

"Oh Corbyn doesn't want to play with Cameron, boohoo."

Corbyn doesn't want to play with anyone except himself and his fanatical supporters. Parliament is the mechanism by which the Government of the Day is held to account. If he didn't want to do that, they why did he run to be Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition?

Do you really think the only thing the leader of the Labour party should be doing is a short question and answer session once a week?

Only? No.

Should his job be one of the things he should be doing? Yes.

https://twitter.com/GerryAdamsSF/status/642653606978568192

tyson said:

I flipped back after flopping for Jeremy last night Nick. Corbyn exudes a refreshingly, folky charm, which you cannot learn and is rather quite appealing. He is actually much more charming and likeable than Michael Foot who he is often compared to.

Many of the pbCOM diehards have only judged Corbyn on his headlines and past affiliations. You of course know him very well which obviously influenced your support.

I'm sure, the more we all get to see of him, the more we'll all get to like him whatever our persuasions.

NickPalmer said:

tyson said:

Well I am really quite pleased with the leadership vote. I turned to Jeremy last night.

And you all should be here- and not for the obvious political reasons. Corbyn is the antithesis of the career spad politician. He has a refreshing simplicity. Just think no more stunts. No more hugging hoodies, or trips to Greenland. No EdStones or trips to Russell Brand. No more opportunistic political cross dressing. No more Osborne or Brownlike scheming. I'm sure that most of you here hate all that spin bullshit as much as I do.

Hopefully Jeremy with his honesty and his authenticity will change politics in the UK for the better and that can only be a very good thing.

Exactly! Was really sorry to be in disagreement with you recently.

Now, Southam, let's have a chat... :-)

It used to cost you a bob to prod the lunatics in the asylum. It's now free.

Speedy said:

MaxPB said:

Corbyn is not just going to change the voter appeal of Labour negatively, he will also change the nature of the party negatively. What happens to all of the party employees and the smart ambitious young people who want to one day be SpAds and MPs? What does Labour offer them except 10 years on the sidelines of politics watching as their leader sabotages any attempt at getting anywhere near the levers of power.

Less scandals I suppose.
So corrupt spads who are in it for the money in the public coffers will have to work for a living.

Less ambition also.

Danny565 said:

david_herdson said:

Because Labour has just engaged in a voodoo poll, measuring simply those who care enough to get involved.

But that's the point. If the Blairite message couldn't GET normal people to care enough to sign up (even at bargain price), why would they get normal people to care about that message in a GE?

It might be that 'normal people' don't see getting involved with political parties as their thing. I'm a person who very much wants to be able to vote for Labour in a GE but didn't see the election of their party leader as any of my business.

Even with hindsight, I still don't.

If the Labour party and the legions of temporary sign-ups want to elect Mr Corbyn as Labour leader, that's up to them. My part comes in deciding who to vote for at the next GE.

Speedy said:

richardDodd said:

SPEEDY..That should read.. The leader of her Majesty,s Opposition refuses to debate issues that affect the country with the Prime Minister in the HOC...that should bring in a few more Labour votes....NOT...Labour party voters are not as stupid as some of the current leaders seem to think they are......

That should read "David Cameron is moaning like a small child because Jeremy Corbyn doesn't want to talk to him".

Nothing to do with David Cameron. If Corbyn can't be bothered, then why should he? It's a long-standing convention that PMQs is contested between "equals" on the front benches. Usually the deputies fill in when the PM is away, although i seem to recall a recent occasion when it was prompted by Ed Miliband was indisposed.

Philip_Thompson said:

MyBurningEars said:

Jonathan said:

foxinsoxuk said:

I think that we may see a Lazarus like revival of the LDs. If Farron cannot exploit this then we will have Blue hegemony.

If anything this makes the LDs task much harder. Progress for the LDs demands the Oxygen of publicity and they are going to get sweet FA now.

And in the light of Corbyn, Farron is looking like the wrong choice.

Not sure, Corbyn shows the importance of energising your base... and Farron was a good choice to do that.

In terms of getting votes as The Sensible Party, I can see the advantage of Lamb. But relatively speaking, is Farron so barmy?

Who's going to be energised by Farron when Corbyn is the alternative?

The path for a Lib Dem revival is a centrist sensible party alternative from the two extremes of Labour or Tories. Step forward Nick Clegg.

I voted for Lamb as the candidate with substance. Farron is indeed now massively upstaged by Corbyn (by virtue of not being as barmy). So the future for the LDs remains pretty bleak. I certainly can't see another SDP moment (which went... fine, last time around) - though maybe the odd defector.

General comment - this whole thing is completely mad and I still can't quite believe it has happened. The shortsightedness of many (some very intelligent) people I know who voted for him is staggering, as is the subsequent triumphalism. Barring extraordinary events, the 'left', driven by the radical left (an actual '1%') have handed over power to the right for the next ten years at least.

MaxPB said:

Speedy said:

richardDodd said:

SPEEDY..That should read.. The leader of her Majesty,s Opposition refuses to debate issues that affect the country with the Prime Minister in the HOC...that should bring in a few more Labour votes....NOT...Labour party voters are not as stupid as some of the current leaders seem to think they are......

That should read "David Cameron is moaning like a small child because Jeremy Corbyn doesn't want to talk to him".

It is the duty of the opposition to hold the government to account. Corbyn refusing PMQs is a dereliction of duty. I hope the speaker refuses this stupid request and forces Corbyn to be present at all times when the PM is present.

They will hold government to account, just not with Jeremy Corbyn in a small questions and answer session once a week.
If the PM wants a conversation with Corbyn fine, but he won't get many in the HoC.

Sandpit said:

fitalass said:

Twitter
Greg Dawson ‏@Gregstweet 50m50 minutes ago
Just spoken to Jeremy Corbyn. He's confirmed he intends to have other Labour MPs take his role at some sessions of PMQs

Greg Dawson ‏@Gregstweet 43m43 minutes ago
Corbyn on PMQs: "David Cameron enjoys a bit of repartee but it's going to be one-way"

Greg Dawson ‏@Gregstweet 41m41 minutes ago
Corbyn on PMQs "We should share it out a bit. I've been in touch with the speaker's office to ask about this."

Greg Dawson ‏@Gregstweet 28m28 minutes ago
Corbyn quotes a friend: "the best leaders those that assume the position with reluctance because they do it best."

So Corbyn is going to pass on the only regularly scheduled opportunity he has to hold the government to account; the one weekly chance to ask the PM anything and he doesn't want to do it?

How can he seriously call himself the Leader of the Opposition if he can't be bothered to oppose the government?

You think "not bothered" is the motivation?

MaxPB said:

Corbyn is not just going to change the voter appeal of Labour negatively, he will also change the nature of the party negatively. What happens to all of the party employees and the smart ambitious young people who want to one day be SpAds and MPs? What does Labour offer them except 10 years on the sidelines of politics watching as their leader sabotages any attempt at getting anywhere near the levers of power.

Stick at it would be my advice, Blair first got elected in 1983 under Foot, the first leader Cameron worked for as an MP was IDS, wonder what happened to them?

richardDodd said:

Going to be one helluva Labour hangover tomorrow...on a number of levels..as in "what the feck are we gonna do now"

...and that's just what is left of the Shadow Cabinet..

Tomorrow they might just realise that today was a wake, but I suspect it might take a little longer.

MaxPB said:

Speedy said:

MaxPB said:

Speedy said:

richardDodd said:

SPEEDY..That should read.. The leader of her Majesty,s Opposition refuses to debate issues that affect the country with the Prime Minister in the HOC...that should bring in a few more Labour votes....NOT...Labour party voters are not as stupid as some of the current leaders seem to think they are......

That should read "David Cameron is moaning like a small child because Jeremy Corbyn doesn't want to talk to him".

It is the duty of the opposition to hold the government to account. Corbyn refusing PMQs is a dereliction of duty. I hope the speaker refuses this stupid request and forces Corbyn to be present at all times when the PM is present.

They will hold government to account, just not with Jeremy Corbyn in a small questions and answer session once a week.
If the PM wants a conversation with Corbyn fine, but he won't get many in the HoC.

You are defending the indefensible because your preferred leader has made a stupid decision. How can Labour hold the PM/Government to account if their chosen leader doesn't turn up to work?

How any person think any party can take the government into account in 10 minutes per week in a question and answer session. Government is taken into account by the actions and words of it's members, not in PM question time.

The role of the opposition is to oppose the government, not to engage in pointless discussions.

MaxPB said:

Speedy said:

MaxPB said:

Speedy said:

richardDodd said:

SPEEDY..That should read.. The leader of her Majesty,s Opposition refuses to debate issues that affect the country with the Prime Minister in the HOC...that should bring in a few more Labour votes....NOT...Labour party voters are not as stupid as some of the current leaders seem to think they are......

That should read "David Cameron is moaning like a small child because Jeremy Corbyn doesn't want to talk to him".

It is the duty of the opposition to hold the government to account. Corbyn refusing PMQs is a dereliction of duty. I hope the speaker refuses this stupid request and forces Corbyn to be present at all times when the PM is present.

They will hold government to account, just not with Jeremy Corbyn in a small questions and answer session once a week.
If the PM wants a conversation with Corbyn fine, but he won't get many in the HoC.

You are defending the indefensible because your preferred leader has made a stupid decision. How can Labour hold the PM/Government to account if their chosen leader doesn't turn up to work?

It's not just about holding the government to account. PMQs is the one guaranteed opportunity each week to get on TV and build a positive image with the public

Speedy said:

MaxPB said:

Speedy said:

MaxPB said:

Speedy said:

richardDodd said:

SPEEDY..That should read.. The leader of her Majesty,s Opposition refuses to debate issues that affect the country with the Prime Minister in the HOC...that should bring in a few more Labour votes....NOT...Labour party voters are not as stupid as some of the current leaders seem to think they are......

That should read "David Cameron is moaning like a small child because Jeremy Corbyn doesn't want to talk to him".

It is the duty of the opposition to hold the government to account. Corbyn refusing PMQs is a dereliction of duty. I hope the speaker refuses this stupid request and forces Corbyn to be present at all times when the PM is present.

They will hold government to account, just not with Jeremy Corbyn in a small questions and answer session once a week.
If the PM wants a conversation with Corbyn fine, but he won't get many in the HoC.

You are defending the indefensible because your preferred leader has made a stupid decision. How can Labour hold the PM/Government to account if their chosen leader doesn't turn up to work?

How any person think any party can take the government into account in 10 minutes per week in a question and answer session. Government is taken into account by the actions and words of it's members, not in PM question time.

The role of the opposition is to oppose the government, not to engage in pointless discussions.

The phrase is "hold the Government to account".

I'm sure if Corbyn were to propose PMQs be abolished, Cameron would be happy to oblige...

New Thread New Thread

Speedy said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

MaxPB said:

Speedy said:

MaxPB said:

Speedy said:

richardDodd said:

SPEEDY..That should read.. The leader of her Majesty,s Opposition refuses to debate issues that affect the country with the Prime Minister in the HOC...that should bring in a few more Labour votes....NOT...Labour party voters are not as stupid as some of the current leaders seem to think they are......

That should read "David Cameron is moaning like a small child because Jeremy Corbyn doesn't want to talk to him".

It is the duty of the opposition to hold the government to account. Corbyn refusing PMQs is a dereliction of duty. I hope the speaker refuses this stupid request and forces Corbyn to be present at all times when the PM is present.

They will hold government to account, just not with Jeremy Corbyn in a small questions and answer session once a week.
If the PM wants a conversation with Corbyn fine, but he won't get many in the HoC.

You are defending the indefensible because your preferred leader has made a stupid decision. How can Labour hold the PM/Government to account if their chosen leader doesn't turn up to work?

It's not just about holding the government to account. PMQs is the one guaranteed opportunity each week to get on TV and build a positive image with the public

On TV?
How many people watch PMQ regularly ? 10 thousand ?

I doubt many people watch the whole thing but many millions will watch the snippets they show on the news

@PlatoSays
Are you the old Plato?
BTW- Trotsky thinks you have the most stunning ID photograph, even if she thinks that is a bit dogogynist

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Speedy said:

richardDodd said:

SPEEDY..That should read.. The leader of her Majesty,s Opposition refuses to debate issues that affect the country with the Prime Minister in the HOC...that should bring in a few more Labour votes....NOT...Labour party voters are not as stupid as some of the current leaders seem to think they are......

That should read "David Cameron is moaning like a small child because Jeremy Corbyn doesn't want to talk to him".

It is the duty of the opposition to hold the government to account. Corbyn refusing PMQs is a dereliction of duty. I hope the speaker refuses this stupid request and forces Corbyn to be present at all times when the PM is present.

If Corbyn can't be arsed to do his job then fine, the Speaker should skip the six questions the LOTO can't be arsed to ask and go on to asking six additional backbenchers to ask 1 question each. I think Convention would be that'd be approximate 3 Tory, 2 Labour and 1 other party backbenchers who'd get a go to ask an additional question.

1 for Labour loyalists, and 1 for Labour dissenters

Speedy said:

MaxPB said:

Speedy said:

richardDodd said:

SPEEDY..That should read.. The leader of her Majesty,s Opposition refuses to debate issues that affect the country with the Prime Minister in the HOC...that should bring in a few more Labour votes....NOT...Labour party voters are not as stupid as some of the current leaders seem to think they are......

That should read "David Cameron is moaning like a small child because Jeremy Corbyn doesn't want to talk to him".

It is the duty of the opposition to hold the government to account. Corbyn refusing PMQs is a dereliction of duty. I hope the speaker refuses this stupid request and forces Corbyn to be present at all times when the PM is present.

They will hold government to account, just not with Jeremy Corbyn in a small questions and answer session once a week.
If the PM wants a conversation with Corbyn fine, but he won't get many in the HoC.

Vacating the field for your opponent is never a terribly wise position unless of course your opponent is inflicting untold damage to themselves ....

Sound familiar?

Speedy said:

MaxPB said:

Speedy said:

MaxPB said:

Speedy said:

richardDodd said:

SPEEDY..That should read.. The leader of her Majesty,s Opposition refuses to debate issues that affect the country with the Prime Minister in the HOC...that should bring in a few more Labour votes....NOT...Labour party voters are not as stupid as some of the current leaders seem to think they are......

That should read "David Cameron is moaning like a small child because Jeremy Corbyn doesn't want to talk to him".

It is the duty of the opposition to hold the government to account. Corbyn refusing PMQs is a dereliction of duty. I hope the speaker refuses this stupid request and forces Corbyn to be present at all times when the PM is present.

They will hold government to account, just not with Jeremy Corbyn in a small questions and answer session once a week.
If the PM wants a conversation with Corbyn fine, but he won't get many in the HoC.

You are defending the indefensible because your preferred leader has made a stupid decision. How can Labour hold the PM/Government to account if their chosen leader doesn't turn up to work?

How any person think any party can take the government into account in 10 minutes per week in a question and answer session. Government is taken into account by the actions and words of it's members, not in PM question time.

The role of the opposition is to oppose the government, not to engage in pointless discussions.

I think Corbyn will quickly discover that the rules are not his to make.

His new job description says that he should be in the HoC at midday on Wednesday, and be ready to ask six questions to the PM - who will of course also turn up unless he has a good reason not to be there. The LotO takes a £70k salary and a GCS car for the job, if he doesn't want to do it he should refuse the bonus and the car.

Just a thought - by giving him a car and protection, the police will know pretty much every meeting he has from now on. Could be interesting.

Ghedebrav said:

Sandpit said:

Ghedebrav said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MyBurningEars said:

Jonathan said:

foxinsoxuk said:

I think that we may see a Lazarus like revival of the LDs. If Farron cannot exploit this then we will have Blue hegemony.

If anything this makes the LDs task much harder. Progress for the LDs demands the Oxygen of publicity and they are going to get sweet FA now.

And in the light of Corbyn, Farron is looking like the wrong choice.

Not sure, Corbyn shows the importance of energising your base... and Farron was a good choice to do that.

In terms of getting votes as The Sensible Party, I can see the advantage of Lamb. But relatively speaking, is Farron so barmy?

Who's going to be energised by Farron when Corbyn is the alternative?

The path for a Lib Dem revival is a centrist sensible party alternative from the two extremes of Labour or Tories. Step forward Nick Clegg.

General comment - this whole thing is completely mad and I still can't quite believe it has happened. The shortsightedness of many (some very intelligent) people I know who voted for him is staggering, as is the subsequent triumphalism. Barring extraordinary events, the 'left', driven by the radical left (an actual '1%') have handed over power to the right for the next ten years at least.

Surely there will be a breakaway of some sort if it's clear that Corbyn is not going anywhere soon. How can the centrists in the party possibly stand for election in 2020 on the policy platform of JC? The only question is whether we see a new 'SDP2' emerge, see a bunch of defections to existing parties or an 'Independent Labour' grouping emerge that clearly distance themselves from the leader.

I dunno. When it comes to predictions my crystal balls are big, but fuzzy.

More likely is for the anti- block to hunker down for a bit, wait till he's a few mega-gaffes down the road and the polls are sub 20s, and stab him in the front in true (red) Tory fashion.

Tough to imagine what policies a breakaway might coalesce around. Currently they just have 'not Tory' and 'not Corbyn' - doesn't get them very far. Altough I think that a breakaway would be the entirely sensible thing to do, unless someone has a really bright idea, I suspect any such move will hold off until Corbyn announces his mad policies.

(re earlier comments) Don't imagine Corbyn getting much of a welcome at the White House.Not in the run up to the next Presidential election.

JackW- in all the years of pbCOM I think we have both been on exactly the same page when it comes to political predictions. Uncannily similar. You probably weren't here a few moons ago, but I was extolling your hyper intelligence which must be slightly larger than Canada.

And, up until last night, my political antennae were telling me that Corbyn would be an abject disaster for Labour. But today I don't know. You're probably right Jack, but if you are wrong, I will be there to remind you of your first mistake. And everyone makes mistakes- even the mighty, mighty, seemingly impregnable JackW.

JackW said:

tyson said:

Funny, I was thinking of 2010. I was absolutely gutted about David losing and thought Labour had made a terrible mistake in electing Ed who was clearly not credible.

Today, I think at the end I wanted Yvette to win, but I am not upset by Corbyn's victory and look forward to see how things progress.

Jonathan said:

Curious day.

Remember hearing Ed Miliband won on the radio back in 2010 and thinking to myself that 2015 was lost.

Right now, not sure what to think apart from it's going to be an interesting time ahead.

My dear Tyson let me congratulate your 2010 prescience. Sadly this has now deserted you totally.

Let me be plain as a PBer who has successfully administered the black spot to IDS, Howard, Ming, Brown and Ed :

There are simply not enough black spots on the worldwide population of Dalmatian dogs that would enable me to convey to you how totally bleak the foreseeable future is for Labour.

Sorry for your loss.

Speedy said:

richardDodd said:

Will the new front bench be in situ by Wednesday..be good to see which ones have sold their senses for a title..

Seems that McDonnell will be shadow chancellor, though there are demands that he appoints Eagle to the post.

I thought Loverly Len was pushing Burnham. Am I off the pace on that?

Danny565 said:

Calum S ‏@CalumSPlath 12m12 minutes ago
all of these people "resigning" from the Shadow Cabinet remind me of someone breaking up with their partner just as they're getting dumped

I think they all signalled their intentions pretty clearly and none of them were ever even friends in quite the same way as JC's other bosom buddies.

Nu Fred Jezzbollahs ....

GarethoftheVale2 said:

MaxPB said:

Speedy said:

MaxPB said:

Speedy said:

richardDodd said:

SPEEDY..That should read.. The leader of her Majesty,s Opposition refuses to debate issues that affect the country with the Prime Minister in the HOC...that should bring in a few more Labour votes....NOT...Labour party voters are not as stupid as some of the current leaders seem to think they are......

That should read "David Cameron is moaning like a small child because Jeremy Corbyn doesn't want to talk to him".

It is the duty of the opposition to hold the government to account. Corbyn refusing PMQs is a dereliction of duty. I hope the speaker refuses this stupid request and forces Corbyn to be present at all times when the PM is present.

They will hold government to account, just not with Jeremy Corbyn in a small questions and answer session once a week.
If the PM wants a conversation with Corbyn fine, but he won't get many in the HoC.

You are defending the indefensible because your preferred leader has made a stupid decision. How can Labour hold the PM/Government to account if their chosen leader doesn't turn up to work?

It's not just about holding the government to account. PMQs is the one guaranteed opportunity each week to get on TV and build a positive image with the public

Do you think JC might realise that PMQs is unlikely to help build a positive image? Who would dress him?

The_Apocalypse said:

Danny565 said:

YES at Ken dismissing the resignations of Rachel Reeves and Tristram Hunt. "You say they're big figures - the public doesn't have a clue who they are."

Exactly. I don't agree with Corbyn but I have to laugh at anyone who thinks that Rachel Reeves is a huge loss. She can now spend her free time getting elocution lessons.

Also, in regards to people saying Strugeon plays politics of course she does! But when Conservative Chancellor George Osborne does it, he is an amazing political genius and the politician of our times. Yet when Sturgeon does it, she's bad/mad/terrible?

On Liz Kendall, it's not just about having Blairite ideology, it's also about having the communication skills, charm, and charisma of Blair 1994 - 2002. Kendall has none of these things. And as someone said Blairism is a discredited ideology - a lot of the cynicism among the public in regard to politicians goes back to the Blair era and its spin culture. A lot of Blair's own politics - especially in regard to immigration - would be out of favour now.

Labour's biggest issue is the sheer mediocrity within the party.

saddened said:

welshowl said:

malcolmg said:

welshowl said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

EPG said:

Sandpit said:

PlatoSays said:

Welcome aboard!

Sandpit said:

https://www.conservatives.com/join
I just did.

Thanks - I've never joined a party before, but with JC as the opposition it's clear that there's only one sensible party in the UK right now.

MASSIVE SPOILER: Commenters on PB are Conservatives

Even the floating voters on pb are Conservatives.

I've voted in various elections Tory, Lib Dem, Plaid ( long long time ago), and yes Labour depending on the election, the candidate, the voting system, and the circumstance. True my world view is not exactly John Prescott shall we say a rule, but I'm also on record that I don't think Carwyn Jones does a bad job here in Wales ( should spend more on the NHS and less elsewhere mind) and he is exactly the sort of pragmatic safe left of centre competent person Labour used to have lots of whose motives you could not reasonably question, and whom I never saw as an active danger.

However, the bottom line about today is that LOTO is an absolute menace to this country, its security, and the real welfare of the vast majority of people living in it. The Labour Party truly entered Alice in Wonderland and the Mad Hatter is running the show. The sight of two London MPs ( Thornberry plus one) wrestling with the tautology of "I wanted him to win of course but I voted for Andy/Yvette" shows the plot is utterly and totally lost.

The man is a real danger and he needs calling out as such.

Ha Ha Ha, back behind the sofa jelly boy

Fuck off

Is Malcolm still drunk?

Cockroach always has to lower the tone of the debate.