Discussion
DMN said:
BJG1 said:
OzzyR1 said:
What a load of fuss over nothing Unless, like a petulant sixth-former, he chooses to make it so by virtue of being totally out of his depth and unable to operate at the level he now finds himself failing at.
Smollet said:
Osborne seems to be totally devoid of any sort of emotion. Not exactly good for a would be leader.
I'm not trying to name drop, but I have met GO and in all honesty I can assure you that your impression of him is completely wrong. He IS a little awkward in some of his mannerisms, but face to face he is warm, funny, sharply focussed and engaging. Think of him more as that kid at school who was very bright but a bit "not very sporty". desolate said:
REALIST123 said:
Whichever way one votes, it's undeniable that Cameron comes across better than Corbyn, by whatever measure one might choose.
Watching Cameron today it's hard not to make the comparison and see how inept Corbyn is, and the battle hasn't started yet.
How do you think he stands compared to Theresa May and George Osborne?Watching Cameron today it's hard not to make the comparison and see how inept Corbyn is, and the battle hasn't started yet.
I think Cameron is a good knockabout operator when it comes to speeches, debates and PMQ.
Not so sure about Osborne.
I agree with your comment about Osborne, though he has a few years to improve and he already has a reasonable track record, unlike Corbyn, who's done nothing as far as I can see.
legzr1 said:
Those two buttons ain't gonna press themselves and its years since a ballot paper came pre-filled with an X 
Kudos to this comment!Very pleased the vitriol on the strike thread hasn't hurt your sense of humour!
George Osborne is to Cameron as Brown was to Blair.
Tories will need new blood, not just a duller, far less charismatic version of the original.
DMN said:
BJG1 said:
OzzyR1 said:
Back in the news again:
http://news.sky.com/story/1565704/jeremy-corbyn-ac...
What a load of fuss over nothing http://news.sky.com/story/1565704/jeremy-corbyn-ac...
RichB said:
One can only imagine his other engagement is of grave importance.
Which stretches the imagination to breaking point!As JC, he can stick two fingers up at the monarchy any time he likes.
As Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition, he should put his own views and less important prior engagements aside.
The reality is he does neither with a preference for posturing over professionalism, revealing one of several elements of his inadequacy.
0000 said:
walm said:
George Osborne is to Cameron as Brown was to Blair.
Except without the screwing everything up bit.
It's funnier because it's true.
Are folks writing off a BJ special and anointing TBG as an automatic shoo-in for CMD's lime green tie?
Edited by turbobloke on Thursday 8th October 09:08
walm said:
Tories will need new blood, not just a duller, far less charismatic version of the original.
Ruth. Davidson.Get your tenner on now.
For all Labour's empty rhetoric about women and equality in cabinet bla bla if the Tories went for an ex-army, lesbian Scottish woman (who happens to be a great speaker too) they'd boot them out the park.
technodup said:
walm said:
Tories will need new blood, not just a duller, far less charismatic version of the original.
Ruth. Davidson.Get your tenner on now.
For all Labour's empty rhetoric about women and equality in cabinet bla bla if the Tories went for an ex-army, lesbian Scottish woman (who happens to be a great speaker too) they'd boot them out the park.
Ruth Davidson is fantastic. I'd love to see her with a really big job in Westminster. (and one day as PM too!)
turbobloke said:
RichB said:
One can only imagine his other engagement is of grave importance.
Which stretches the imagination to breaking point!As JC, he can stick two fingers up at the monarchy any time he likes.
As Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition, he should put his own views and less important prior engagements aside.
The reality is he does neither with a preference for posturing over professionalism, revealing one of several elements of his inadequacy.
"Corbyn has been leader for less than a month – and there was a three-month period when Cameron became leader of the Tories before he took the oath and joined the Privy Council, where he will have missed two meetings with the Queen. "
Anyone know if this is true?
desolate said:
turbobloke said:
RichB said:
One can only imagine his other engagement is of grave importance.
Which stretches the imagination to breaking point!As JC, he can stick two fingers up at the monarchy any time he likes.
As Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition, he should put his own views and less important prior engagements aside.
The reality is he does neither with a preference for posturing over professionalism, revealing one of several elements of his inadequacy.
"Corbyn has been leader for less than a month – and there was a three-month period when Cameron became leader of the Tories before he took the oath and joined the Privy Council, where he will have missed two meetings with the Queen. "
Anyone know if this is true?
It's doubtful you can just rock up and get a cuppa.
REALIST123 said:
Not sure who you want me to compare May and Osborne with? Dave or Jerry?
I agree with your comment about Osborne, though he has a few years to improve and he already has a reasonable track record, unlike Corbyn, who's done nothing as far as I can see.
Reading my question back I am not actually sure what I meant myself!!!I agree with your comment about Osborne, though he has a few years to improve and he already has a reasonable track record, unlike Corbyn, who's done nothing as far as I can see.
My general point is that Cameron does a decent job of looking and acting like a human being, is a good orator and debates reasonably well - even if he does get a bit shouty every now and then. He also handles all the accusations of being a toff/pig f
ker pretty well I think.There are some images of May and Osborne doing the rounds that were taken during their appearance at the conference that make them look completely weird, in an Ed Miliband way.
And with regard to May's speech - it's surely got to be the most off message speech by a front bencher since, well since the labour party conference. Cameron didn't even watch it and it has been pretty widely contradicted by the "moderate" Tories.
Having said all that I think the Tories have a free run to 2020 and can only f
k it up themselves with party bickering. You have to be invited.
Unless there is some critical event happening I doubt they decide to have these meetings the night before.
Being in the Privy Council is part of the job, he needs to either decline the job or get on with it.
At the moment he's not doing either. I think this just shows how unsuited he is to the role of Opposition leader or even PM. As a backbencher he's never had to make a decision that matters.
Unless there is some critical event happening I doubt they decide to have these meetings the night before.
Being in the Privy Council is part of the job, he needs to either decline the job or get on with it.
At the moment he's not doing either. I think this just shows how unsuited he is to the role of Opposition leader or even PM. As a backbencher he's never had to make a decision that matters.
desolate said:
According to a website somewhere in the dark corners of the leftist fantasy world:
"Corbyn has been leader for less than a month – and there was a three-month period when Cameron became leader of the Tories before he took the oath and joined the Privy Council, where he will have missed two meetings with the Queen. "
Anyone know if this is true?
Cameron was elected leader of the Tories on 6th December 2005 and received formal approval to join the Privy Council on 14th December 2005."Corbyn has been leader for less than a month – and there was a three-month period when Cameron became leader of the Tories before he took the oath and joined the Privy Council, where he will have missed two meetings with the Queen. "
Anyone know if this is true?
There were Privy Council meetings on 20th December 2005 and 14th February 2006 before Cameron was sworn a member at the meeting of 8th March 2006.
So it is correct that he didn't attend 2 Privy Council meetings. However, full meetings of the Privy Council are extremely rare - only occurring when the Sovereign announces his or her engagement or if the Sovereign dies or abdicates. Meetings are usually only attended by 4 Privy Counsellors (the quorum is 3), the Ministers of State for the matters being discussed and the Cabinet Minister holding the office of Lord President of the Council.
Cameron's (or Corbyn's) non-attendance is only relevant in the event of it being a full meeting of the council or if there was something being discussed that they should have been present for.
turbobloke said:
When was he invited? That's the key issue.
He was appointed on the date I stated. Read the minutes of the meeting they are truly fascinating (not). Hardly anyone turns up to the meetings by the look of it anyway.Corbyn has just been appointed. So he has a few meetings before his snub is greater than Cameron's.
I don't see what the issue with either is really. It's a non story, just like Corbyn's tie and Cameron pig interface.
turbobloke said:
0000 said:
walm said:
George Osborne is to Cameron as Brown was to Blair.
Except without the screwing everything up bit.It's funnier because it's true.
Are folks writing off a BJ special and anointing TBG as an automatic shoo-in for CMD's lime green tie?
Edited by turbobloke on Thursday 8th October 09:08
However, could I see him as PM? Not really. Agree on the comments about Ruth Davidson, she was impressive in the run up to the indy ref.
BJ is a surprisingly sharp operator beneath the façade of buffoonery and he seems to manage to strike the balance between being able to appear to say what most people are thinking whilst still managing to toe the party line. Not sure I can see him as PM though; would he be taken seriously abroad and in negotiations?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff