Discussion
Funk said:
As I said earlier, if this is what it's become then we could do away with a lot of expensive MPs sitting in a building and simply have Cameron go on Radio 4 and have a presenter put them to him...
I think that would definitely be an improvement. Make sure you have a presenter that would get an answer to the question though. anonymous said:
[redacted]
Those are used to get the questioner a spot in the running order - the follow-up question is the real one and is usually designed to put the PM (or other minister) on the spot since they don't get notice of it.http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/business/questi...
Corbyn is a bit of a loon. Agreed. However PMQ's needed to change. He's not gone about it that well but at least he's gone about it. There is nothing wrong with asking 'questions from the audience' given that this is a democracy of sorts. Cameron, to me, doesn't really seem to know what to do with the questions as he's double scared letting on what he actually thinks. There is no reason why he couldn't turn the tables occasionally and hit Corbyn in the same way. As has been said above - if we could tone the shouting down and stop the set up, snidey home team questions, we might get an actual debate. Imagine that. Corbyn, for all his oddities, might achieve something of lasting merit there.
On another note. PH does confuse me a bit sometimes. It's a bit sixth form common room now and again. It is possible for those of opposite political persuasion to be right occasionally. We are in real danger of drifting down the ghastly US route of totally binary politics. It's not true that all Socialists are greedy and envious and want to drag the successful down and milk them for every penny. Nor is it true that all conservatives are selfish, careless b
ds. Careful what you wish for.
On another note. PH does confuse me a bit sometimes. It's a bit sixth form common room now and again. It is possible for those of opposite political persuasion to be right occasionally. We are in real danger of drifting down the ghastly US route of totally binary politics. It's not true that all Socialists are greedy and envious and want to drag the successful down and milk them for every penny. Nor is it true that all conservatives are selfish, careless b
ds. Careful what you wish for. Gargamel said:
Well it is so far so predictable for Corbyn, his rebel roots have left him unable to control a hugely divided Labour Party. Last nights vote on the Bill to prevent Governments running a budget deficit, was a shambles - and the debate about the merits of the bill has been completely lost in the reporting of the Labour leadership crisis.
Osborne set a (reasonably obvious) trap and Corbyn and McDonnell spotted it, asked the Labour Conference to support them not opposing the bill, and then later they realised that Osborne would be claiming a significant victory in economic and politic terms, so they changed to oppose it, and failed to carry 37 of their MPs with them.
Plus Corbyn failed to use the whip effectively at the first signs of trouble. I notice that the junior labour party members referred to the bill as "Tory cuts charter" if that is the quality of the debate they should be ashamed of themselves.
An absolute fiasco and the slow motion train wreck that is the Labour party under Corbyn rumbles on.
If it wasn't so serious it would be total comedy. It's a national embarrassment.Osborne set a (reasonably obvious) trap and Corbyn and McDonnell spotted it, asked the Labour Conference to support them not opposing the bill, and then later they realised that Osborne would be claiming a significant victory in economic and politic terms, so they changed to oppose it, and failed to carry 37 of their MPs with them.
Plus Corbyn failed to use the whip effectively at the first signs of trouble. I notice that the junior labour party members referred to the bill as "Tory cuts charter" if that is the quality of the debate they should be ashamed of themselves.
An absolute fiasco and the slow motion train wreck that is the Labour party under Corbyn rumbles on.
truck71 said:
If it wasn't so serious it would be total comedy. It's a national embarrassment.
Next up, Jeremy goes to the State Banquet for The Chinese Prime Minister.
Jeremy's wife declines the invite
Jezbolah can't decide if formal White Tie is something he is into
Jez we can, also plans to raise Human Rights Abuses over the after eights
Next week Jez redefine the Meme for "going full retard"
Gargamel said:
truck71 said:
If it wasn't so serious it would be total comedy. It's a national embarrassment.
Next up, Jeremy goes to the State Banquet for The Chinese Prime Minister.
Jeremy's wife declines the invite
Jezbolah can't decide if formal White Tie is something he is into
Jez we can, also plans to raise Human Rights Abuses over the after eights
Next week Jez redefine the Meme for "going full retard"
Entirely predictable situation arises. Corbyn claims not to have known about it and refuses to say what his intentions are. Corbyn then either turns up looking like Worzel Gummidge or ducks the event.
He is terrified of being pictured in white tie, despite the fact that it would be obvious that it isn't something he is used to.
He is incapable of strategic thinking even about what he will wear, let alone how to manage his party or, God forbid, run the country.
W124 said:
On another note. PH does confuse me a bit sometimes. It's a bit sixth form common room now and again. It is possible for those of opposite political persuasion to be right occasionally. We are in real danger of drifting down the ghastly US route of totally binary politics. It's not true that all Socialists are greedy and envious and want to drag the successful down and milk them for every penny. Nor is it true that all conservatives are selfish, careless bds. Careful what you wish for.
Echo chamber.ds. Careful what you wish for. It's partially (I think) why people are becoming slightly more radical in their views and lack of tolerance/acceptance of other views. I hope that the UK can steer away from the binary type of politics, it has already allowed character assassination (so evident) as a starter, negative campaigning and emotive heart tugging twaddle.
I didn't follow owt last night, but sounds like Osborne's trap within a trap worked, but really could it have gone any other way. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
alock said:
crankedup said:
True, they urgently need to adjust to the J.C. style of P.M. questions, whatever the politics he is winning on the issue of having the higher ground. The Tories laughter at an earlier question marks them out as disrespecting M.O.P.
JC appears to be turning PM questions into a day time TV chat show phone in. This is not the 'high ground'. It makes him look like he would rather be hosting This Morning with the PM as a weekly guest. Many other things in our society are being dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, I would rather politics wasn't one of them.
crankedup said:
Did you ever make any attempt to hear and understand the PMQ prior to the 'new' style? If that was not kids playground nonsense, the constant braying/shouting out/laughter from both sides of the house. However, I do agree that J.C. must delve much deeper and persist for more intelligent replies, rather than the same continuousness bland party/Government line. Currently the PM is having an easy ride, I hope that will not continue.
This is the thing, it's competence rather than politics that I find excruciating. He's preventing any real political challenge by not possessing the capability to operate at a senior level or to lead. DaveR said:
crankedup said:
legzr1 said:
crankedup said:
Really! I can't see anything wrong with the J.C. approach, politicians are, when in opposition, supposed to hold the Government to account. By using M.O.P. questions directly the P.M. is forced to answer in a credible manner and with some integrity.
O.K. the methodology may need tweaking and I am quite certain that will happen.
Did you see Cameron's face as the first 'email' was read out?O.K. the methodology may need tweaking and I am quite certain that will happen.
He's good at the shouty, bolshy non-answers - they need a rethink on the new style and 100+ pages of anti-JC bile won't change that
Reading through old posts on this forum makes it clear that D.C. has hammered the middle upper classes regards taxation, and yet we never hear of the Tory backbencher raising this issue in Parliament.
I'm not a J.C. supporter but I do wish to see his political style develop and hope it continues.
truck71 said:
crankedup said:
Did you ever make any attempt to hear and understand the PMQ prior to the 'new' style? If that was not kids playground nonsense, the constant braying/shouting out/laughter from both sides of the house. However, I do agree that J.C. must delve much deeper and persist for more intelligent replies, rather than the same continuousness bland party/Government line. Currently the PM is having an easy ride, I hope that will not continue.
This is the thing, it's competence rather than politics that I find excruciating. He's preventing any real political challenge by not possessing the capability to operate at a senior level or to lead. anonymous said:
[redacted]
Let me summarise the first 2 questions asked to the Prime Minster by the leader of the opposition:1. I don’t earn much money. Why is the state going to stop giving me so many hand-outs?
2. I don’t earn much money and want to know why I cannot afford to buy a house in the most expensive city in the world?
So in summary, yes it is dumbing things down.
crankedup said:
alock said:
crankedup said:
True, they urgently need to adjust to the J.C. style of P.M. questions, whatever the politics he is winning on the issue of having the higher ground. The Tories laughter at an earlier question marks them out as disrespecting M.O.P.
JC appears to be turning PM questions into a day time TV chat show phone in. This is not the 'high ground'. It makes him look like he would rather be hosting This Morning with the PM as a weekly guest. Many other things in our society are being dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, I would rather politics wasn't one of them.
I never thought the old format was that bad. I've seen it worse in a meeting room of 12 opinionated and head-strong people trying to decide how a product should be developed. Trying to get 650 people involved in an emotive discussion and then complaining that at times they get too emotive seems a little unfair to me. If it's too orderly you just get the feeling they are going through the motions and don't really care about the issue.
The old format wasn't perfect, but it felt energetic and justified the expense of getting 650 MPs to parliament for. The new format should be run in a TV studio with a presenter reading out a few questions to the PM who then answers them to the camera.
crankedup said:
Ah! real World Social problems are not important enough then? Housing in crisis, under achievers will lose the state 'leg-up'. Yup, hardly matters 
Surely the "state leg up" should be the £11,000 tax free income they have. Not charging them tax on one hand, and then "crediting" some back as a depedency. Tax credits were around £1bn in the year they were introduced. This year they will cost taxpayers £31bn.
Did anyone actually starve back before they were introduced in 2003?
In any event, I think I broadly agree they are a subsidy to large employers trying to avoid paying living wages.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff