Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Corb Blimey!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #76
    Corb Blimey!

    Lucy Waterman wrote:
    The Labour Party in power has an obligation to roll back some of these frontiers, but they can only do that with the consent of the British people, and that includes the business community and the press.
    Even the latter are completely moronic, heartless or plain stupid?

    Comment


      #77
      Corb Blimey!

      Bizarre Lw Triangle wrote: Corbyn won't be in charge of Labour during the next general election.

      There is no need to worry about electability.

      For that reason, let's just enjoy the ride of him fucking off exactly the people it's most fun to properly fuck off.
      That, and seeing people who were alienated by politicians in suits and their carefully rehearsed soundbites realise that politics can be done differently, by good people they can identify with.

      (Although, I'm not quite so sure he won't be Leader, and win it for us.)

      Comment


        #78
        Corb Blimey!

        Ha-ha[/Nelson]

        Comment


          #79
          Corb Blimey!

          PMQs on now.

          Comment


            #80
            Corb Blimey!

            OK, the questions from the public works well, but Corbyn needs to critique Cameron's answers before he asks the next question, otherwise it's just an audience with the PM.

            Comment


              #81
              Corb Blimey!

              He isn't doing that? I'm surprised.

              Comment


                #82
                Corb Blimey!

                Bloody tigers, coming over here and taking up time in Prime Minister's Questions.

                Comment


                  #83
                  Corb Blimey!

                  PMQs is awful and Cameron is very good at it. Non-engagement is a pretty sound strategy IMO.

                  It'll wind up political journos too, if they don't get anything to write about.

                  Comment


                    #84
                    Corb Blimey!

                    Save the critiques for 'outside', you mean?

                    Comment


                      #85
                      Corb Blimey!

                      Agree - made it look as though Cameron had actually answered the questions. It looked like Corbyn was lacking in some stats to throw back at Cameron.
                      But it was his first go, he'll get better with more time to prepare.

                      The fact that he has named the ordinary person who is asking the question does make it harder for Cameron to attack, and works well.

                      Comment


                        #86
                        Corb Blimey!

                        Kevchenko wrote: Save the critiques for 'outside', you mean?
                        Yeah. PMQs is the 'wrestling with a pig' thing.

                        Unless you can crack an amusing insult at your opposite's expense, no-one will care.

                        There's no way serious political discussion can happen there.

                        Plus you can't be useless at it if you don't play.

                        Comment


                          #87
                          Corb Blimey!

                          Maybe let Cameron and Co sound like arrogant gits (not hard) and not try the tricky swordsmanship, although I agree he should have a follow-up question semi-prepared.

                          Comment


                            #88
                            Corb Blimey!

                            The trouble with the argument that "you can't achieve anything if you're not in power" is that it's not true and it's depressingly defeatist. People didn't wait to win a general election before seeing off the poll tax.
                            If there's no great importance or significance to being in power then it's baffling why so many Labour-sympathisers were so utterly depressed by the election result.

                            And I think the poll tax example is a case in point - sure, you can (maybe, in the right circumstances) stop or limit a bad policy advanced by your opponents (but then how many other significant examples have there been since the poll tax 25 years ago? I can't think of many). But you can't put through any positive change of your own. You can, at best, keep things from getting too much worse - that strikes me as a bit crap and unambitious. Defeatist, even. I'd much rather have a shot at getting into power and actually getting to implement good and progressive policies, even if that (absolutely necessarily) entails making a compromise or two along the way.

                            Comment


                              #89
                              Corb Blimey!

                              .

                              Comment


                                #90
                                Corb Blimey!

                                Er, I wasn't calling you that.

                                Comment


                                  #91
                                  Corb Blimey!

                                  Fair enough. Apologies for misunderstanding.

                                  Comment


                                    #92
                                    Corb Blimey!

                                    Ah, I can see how it could be misconstrued.
                                    No worries.

                                    Comment


                                      #93
                                      Corb Blimey!

                                      "Corbyn's first PMQs : markets rise by 1.49%" will be the headline on no newspapers tomorrow morning.

                                      Comment


                                        #94
                                        Corb Blimey!

                                        PMQs felt a bit like Corbs was setting DC up for a "we've got the answers to the tough questions" PPB, but it did stop Cameron from landing a gangland hit on him straight out. Noted the repetition of the "security" meme - DC wants to suggest that people's prosperity and livelihood are not safe with Labour. Hard to call it anything other than a draw.

                                        Comment


                                          #95
                                          Corb Blimey!

                                          Bizarre Lw Triangle wrote: PMQs is awful and Cameron is very good at it. Non-engagement is a pretty sound strategy IMO.
                                          .
                                          It's a waste of time, agreed, but Cameron isn't even any good at it. The planted questions look worse than ever, and he doesn't answer anything, just mention what Crosby's told him. He used to say "the Unite union" all the time.

                                          Comment


                                            #96
                                            Corb Blimey!

                                            Bizarre Lw Triangle wrote:
                                            Originally posted by Kevchenko
                                            Save the critiques for 'outside', you mean?
                                            Yeah. PMQs is the 'wrestling with a pig' thing.

                                            Unless you can crack an amusing insult at your opposite's expense, no-one will care.

                                            There's no way serious political discussion can happen there.

                                            Plus you can't be useless at it if you don't play.
                                            PMQs can be useful as a means of taking free airtime to rebroadcast a simple message you want to stick - see the "security" meme mentioned above.

                                            Comment


                                              #97
                                              Corb Blimey!

                                              Calvert wrote: I'd like to ask Lucy if he feels Corbyn should've buttoned his collar fully and sang the national anthem to avoid giving the nest of vipers more excuses to criticise him?
                                              Well, it wouldn't have killed him.

                                              Comment


                                                #98
                                                Corb Blimey!

                                                Lucy Waterman wrote: PMQs felt a bit like Corbs was setting DC up for a "we've got the answers to the tough questions" PPB, but it did stop Cameron from landing a gangland hit on him straight out. Noted the repetition of the "security" meme - DC wants to suggest that people's prosperity and livelihood are not safe with Labour. Hard to call it anything other than a draw.
                                                Soundbites to questions from the public sound proper rude though.

                                                Having said that the audiences before the election seemed to lap them up from Cameron, if not so much from Miliband. I think one in Leeds was particularly "we see through you, Red Ed".

                                                How I laughed when their rail electrification got cancelled straight after the election.

                                                Comment


                                                  #99
                                                  Corb Blimey!

                                                  Oh, fuck that.
                                                  Why should he?

                                                  This country is in the permanent grip of jingoistic forelock-tugging dickheads.

                                                  Comment


                                                    Corb Blimey!

                                                    If there's no great importance or significance to being in power then it's baffling why so many Labour-sympathisers were so utterly depressed by the election result.

                                                    And I think the poll tax example is a case in point - sure, you can (maybe, in the right circumstances) stop or limit a bad policy advanced by your opponents (but then how many other significant examples have there been since the poll tax 25 years ago? I can't think of many). But you can't put through any positive change of your own. You can, at best, keep things from getting too much worse - that strikes me as a bit crap and unambitious. Defeatist, even. I'd much rather have a shot at getting into power and actually getting to implement good and progressive policies, even if that (absolutely necessarily) entails making a compromise or two along the way.
                                                    I expect Corbyn's going to make more than a few compromises along the way - he already has, some could argue.

                                                    I guess my issue is this: it was hard, in the fug of despair in May, to see any progressive hope whatsoever in Westminster party politics. The game is, profoundly, rigged. And my view then was that intensified engagement with non-parliamentary politics and campaigns was the only way we could even begin to take on this shitheap state of affairs. The election of Corbyn doesn't change that much, but it at least offers the opportunity of Westminster involvement in said politics and campaigns. And in shifting the consensus and getting a whole range of issues discussed that haven't been discussed inside that rotting institution for decades.

                                                    Short of PR, short of another tumult in global and British capitalism, short of the Tories imploding on each other, they will win the next election. Regardless of who leads Labour. But Corbyn's ascendance means that, though we might lose a battle in a short-term, we've got a better chance of winning it in the long-term than under a Cooper, Kendall or Burnham (all of whom would also have lost in 2020 as party leader).

                                                    It's not about pure principles versus power. It's about seeing politics as more than just passively voting every five years. It offers an opportunity, at least, for unpredictable and positive change.

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X