I don't even like looking at menTweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
![LOL :lol: :lol:](/img/smilies/lol.gif)
I don't even like looking at menTweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Unless I have to in a business senseI don't even like looking at men![]()
You do make a good point about Starmer and Rayner. Although it is difficult to judge how well they work together. Or is it more to be seen as politically correct.-ditto- for me too! (except the 11+) went to an all age church school 5-15
I think with Sir Keir its much more difficult, he undoubted has some working class roots, but his experience of life is removed from that of say his parents; his current life style is what it is, but by any stretch its not a working class existence. Plus he comes across sometimes as being a 'bit too clever'; an excellent Politician in the eyes of his peers, but in the eyes of the general public, in particular those whose votes he needs, not so... 'he's not one of us'!
In my opinion its why he needs Angela Rayner; but for her to be a proper deputy leader someone he has real confidence in, not just to please his left wingers... when was the last time these two were photographed together especially in the press? Is it their fault for not providing the photo opportunities, or is it the wicked right wing press deliberately not taking any photos of these two together?
Rachel Reeves has been part of the Shadow Cabinet for 10 of the 12 years she's been an MP.You do make a good point about Starmer and Rayner. Although it is difficult to judge how well they work together. Or is it more to be seen as politically correct.
As time is moving on, we are beginning to get to see more of the rest of the Labour party. I particularly like the look of the shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves. She is quite astute. But we need to see much more of them to be able to judge how good they are or are not.
Regarding the class issue. IMHO, it is an outdated system that is perpetuated by traditionalist who refuse to move with the time.
Like going back to imperial units. Nothing to do with choice.
Everything to do with trying to 'move on' from the government COVID rule breaking.
The 2019 Tory intake are nearly universally twunts so not a shock.Saw that yesterday, what a douchebag!
And it shows.Rachel Reeves has been part of the Shadow Cabinet for 10 of the 12 years she's been an MP.
"And just sign here. Great! You're now a fully fledged partner with WorkCorp. Btw, nice cock!!!"Unless I have to in a business sense
I don't think they do, that's one of the problems they don't come across as a team, as you say its for political correctness, or as my granny would have said 'just for show.'You do make a good point about Starmer and Rayner. Although it is difficult to judge how well they work together. Or is it more to be seen as politically correct.
I have stopped taking any notice of the increasingly meaningless PMQ.I don't think they do, that's one of the problems they don't come across as a team, as you say its for political correctness, or as my granny would have said 'just for show.'
Starmer always gives the impression he 'tolerates' Rayner, as much as anything because she appears to 'shoots from the hip' and a bit like Boris himself she is not always careful about her words. Starmer finds this 'shoot from the hip' style difficult, but It is why I think Boris is more 'exposed' against Rayner, because he doesn't 'get her' either and the put downs are more difficult for him against Rayner ( and not just because shes' a women... with legs!).
In the 'bear-pit' set ups I suspect Rayner would do a much better job up against Boris than Starmer does, especially with the electorate that Labour needs to win back, but of course as Leader Starmer has to lead and be seen to do so. Remember how much trouble Blair got into when Brown kept popping up with his own financial initiatives, quite often you got the impression it was the first Blair had heard about it!
Yes of course Starmer is much more comfortable with Rachael Reeves.
Absolutely. Seems a strange stick to beat him with if they are supporting Boris fecking Johnson.Seeing as his mum was a nurse and his dad made tools in a factory, he's certainly got more right to that classification than Boris "my rich as feck family taught me to act better than everyone else" Johnson.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Or 562.72899 by the old/new imperial measure.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Number 28
I also wouldn't be surprised if some of that 30 have not or have withdrawn it (or can be persuaded to withdraw it)Or 562.72899 by the old/new imperial measure.
In seriousness, LBC’s Theo Usherwood suggesting that if it’s near 30 publicly then he wouldn’t be surprised if it was far closer to the required 54, almost expecting it to break that threshold before the jubilee kicks in.
True, if his shadow can't put the PM under pressure at PMQ's, the opposition might as well be leaderless.Wouldn't matter who was the leader of the opposition.
Except when the public actually watch PMQs (not very often admittedly) they usually come away angry at the nonsense and lack of proper replies etc. Joining Boris in the stupid theatre is just going to make people think they're as bad as each other. And in terms of parliament itself, those kinds of idiotic theatrics don't do Boris many favours at all.True, if his shadow can't put the PM under pressure at PMQ's, the opposition might as well be leaderless.
This does not mean Starmer has to get an answer to every question, he is not in the court room, he is in a bear-pit. Surely Starmer or his script writers are capable of coming up with some "have you stopped beating your wife" type questions, or disguised statements that sound like questions, surely he has heard of rhetorical questions.
With Boris PMQ's are pure 'commons theatre', Starmer should stop trying to cross question/trap Boris and set about stealing his limelight.
I think most non political aligned people believe that anyway. PMQ's is designed to be adversarial, it is about points scoring not about getting at the truth... if that should happen and a truth is revealed, it is purely by accident!just going to make people think they're as bad as each other
Just a feeling I get but I would guess any other form of political coverage has more impact than clips from PMQ's. If I had hopes pinned to Keir Starmer's ability to reach people on their sofa I'd worry more about how crap he is at those pieces that are like 10 seconds of him playing football with twelve year olds and then a short soundbite from him.PMQ is easy isn't it? Sure that's what some told us when routinely criticising Corbyn for his performances. How strange that opinions have shifted.
It's there to create a few clips for the news, that's all Starmer has to do. He lacks any punch or charisma to do that, in many ways he's got the some flaw as Corbyn had there.
Ah, but he is a forensic charisma vacuum. Apparently.PMQ is easy isn't it? Sure that's what some told us when routinely criticising Corbyn for his performances. How strange that opinions have shifted.
It's there to create a few clips for the news, that's all Starmer has to do. He lacks any punch or charisma to do that, in many ways he's got the some flaw as Corbyn had there.
You know that isn't actually the purpose of PMQs right? Just because recent Tories have corrupted the practice into something pathetic and worthless, doesn't mean it needs to continue as such.I think most non political aligned people believe that anyway. PMQ's is designed to be adversarial, it is about points scoring not about getting at the truth... if that should happen and a truth is revealed, it is purely by accident!
Didn't Blair move it because he wanted time for clips to make the 1 o'clock bulletin? I don't think it being a pantomime is a Tory thing.You know that isn't actually the purpose of PMQs right? Just because recent Tories have corrupted the practice into something pathetic and worthless, doesn't mean it needs to continue as such.
No its not, but it is pure theatre, with as you say many sound-byte opportunities etc. Its the one time the 'big beasts'of each side officially square up to each other in the commons, with no one in between, the one coming away 'less blooded' is usually thought of as the winner. The opposition/shadow PM has to try the hardest to come up with r'eal pressure'... the response quite often (even when an actual answer is given) is immaterial,the real gauging is determined by how quiet were the government benches, how excited were the opposition!PMQ is easy isn't it
I think most people outside avid parliament watches would receive it as adversarial, even expect it to be so and expect to see a winner; as with all major competitive events these days an honourable draw is no long an acceptable result. Televising the commons live has a lot to answer for!You know that isn't actually the purpose of PMQs right? Just because recent Tories have corrupted the practice into something pathetic and worthless, doesn't mean it needs to continue as such.
Spot on.... it was that boy tony that really 'weaponised' PMQ'sDidn't Blair move it because he wanted time for clips to make the 1 o'clock bulletin? I don't think it being a pantomime is a Tory thing.
Yes, he moved two 15 minute sessions on Tuesday and Thursday to one half an hour session on a Wednesday.Didn't Blair move it because he wanted time for clips to make the 1 o'clock bulletin? I don't think it being a pantomime is a Tory thing.
I know the self-proclaimed Brexit hardman Steve Baker submitted his letter, then withdrew it, then submitted it again.I also wouldn't be surprised if some of that 30 have not or have withdrawn it (or can be persuaded to withdraw it)
As you will know, the Speaker would not permit anything remotely similar to that type of questioning.True, if his shadow can't put the PM under pressure at PMQ's, the opposition might as well be leaderless.
Surely Starmer or his script writers are capable of coming up with some "have you stopped beating your wife" type questions, or disguised statements that sound like questions, surely he has heard of rhetorical questions.
Proper hard man then.I know the self-proclaimed Brexit hardman Steve Baker submitted his letter, then withdrew it, then submitted it again.
It would be interesting to find out the viewing figures over the years.I think most people outside avid parliament watches would receive it as adversarial, even expect it to be so and expect to see a winner; as with all major competitive events these days an honourable draw is no long an acceptable result. Televising the commons live has a lot to answer for!
I wonder if Bercow would've spoken up about it? This new guy is pitiful.As you will know, the Speaker would not permit anything remotely similar to that type of questioning.
They have to be politically based and conform to so called parliamentary standards.
But anyway, no matter because as everyone here has come to the same conclusion,
PMQ is a complete waste of time.
Boris is just taking the piss.
Starmer is too straight and lacks charisma.
True.I wonder if Bercow would've spoken up about it? This new guy is pitiful.
Yes. That is a fair point.I wonder if Bercow would've spoken up about it? This new guy is pitiful.
All they need to do is not return them.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Farcical if kier starmer resigns whilst this criminal still runs the country.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date