I don't even like looking at men
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) are joined by special guest Anders (@Lyng) to celebrate the news that ETH is staying put! They also talk about the Euros so far, with special attention on England, Scotland and Denmark. They then finish with some transfer talk and the potential comings and outgoings at Old Trafford.
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.
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 IMHO, it is an outdated system that is perpetuated by traditionalist who refuse to move with the time.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.
Rachel Reeves has been part of the Shadow Cabinet for 10 of the 12 years she's been an MP.
Last edited:
The 2019 Tory intake are nearly universally twunts so not a shock.
And it shows.
She looks and sounds very accomplished.
"And just sign here. Great! You're now a fully fledged partner with WorkCorp. Btw, nice cock!!!"
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
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.
I have stopped taking any notice of the increasingly meaningless PMQ.
Starmer gets 6 questions. And Boris simply ignores these and just repeats the same totally unconnected answers.
The rest is stage managed crap.
It is supposed to be the most accessible example of parliamentary democracy in action.
Instead it is a shambles.
Wouldn't matter who was the leader of the opposition.
Absolutely. Seems a strange stick to beat him with if they are supporting Boris fecking Johnson.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Number 28
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.
I also wouldn't be surprised if some of that 30 have not or have withdrawn it (or can be persuaded to withdraw it)
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.
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.
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!
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
Ah, but he is a forensic charisma vacuum. Apparently.
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.
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.
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!
Minister says PM 'didn’t stand as the patron saint of virtue' and 'people knew who they were electing'
Urging caution among Tory MPs considering submitting letters of no confidence in the prime minister, the science minister, George Freeman, has told the BBC’s World At One that Boris Johnson “didn’t stand as the patron saint of virtue” and that “people knew who they were electing”.
“He got a massive majority,” said Freeman. “Got us out of the Brexit deadlock, delivered the pandemic vaccine programme success, Ukraine, cost of living - £37bn [the projected size of the support package announced this week].
“Before we change prime ministers we need to make sure we’re doing the day job first. We mustn’t be driven by short-term speculation.”
---
We knew who we were electing.
Urging caution among Tory MPs considering submitting letters of no confidence in the prime minister, the science minister, George Freeman, has told the BBC’s World At One that Boris Johnson “didn’t stand as the patron saint of virtue” and that “people knew who they were electing”.
“He got a massive majority,” said Freeman. “Got us out of the Brexit deadlock, delivered the pandemic vaccine programme success, Ukraine, cost of living - £37bn [the projected size of the support package announced this week].
“Before we change prime ministers we need to make sure we’re doing the day job first. We mustn’t be driven by short-term speculation.”
---
We knew who we were electing.
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!
Spot on.... it was that boy tony that really 'weaponised' PMQ's
Yes, he moved two 15 minute sessions on Tuesday and Thursday to one half an hour session on a Wednesday.
I know the self-proclaimed Brexit hardman Steve Baker submitted his letter, then withdrew it, then submitted it again.
The government's war on the Civil Service has reached the stage where they're actively sabotaging it. Woe betide talented young people should want to spend their careers in public service.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61641930
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61641930
Last edited:
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.
Proper hard man then.
It would be interesting to find out the viewing figures over the years.
I wonder if Bercow would've spoken up about it? This new guy is pitiful.
True.
I suspect Bercow would've highlighted the lack of real answers, which would pressure the PM to actually answer some questions.
Yes. That is a fair point.
Lindsay Hoyle is, to quote a well known saying, neither use nor ornament.
In order words, completely useless.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
All they need to do is not return them.
That will be the second Labour leader Boris has seen off.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Farcical if kier starmer resigns whilst this criminal still runs the country.