[Closed] Corbyn v Cameron at PMQs

Junkyard - lazarus

Your posts get more like chewkw everyday [b]whose posts i block using the kill file [ though he knows that it ][/b]

FTFMyself

You really do that? 😯

Crikey ... that's no fun so who are you arguing with now? Yourself? 😆

You might as well argue with the mirror? 😆

If you "argue" with the like minded you might as well agree, amongst yourselves, to have the "comfortable silence". 😆

the Labour party don't care why they lost because they are not really interested in winning an election

What the actual F?

Jam, you seem to be one of those people who think that politics is actually just a game with power as a prize.

It's not supposed to be - there is actually another thing which is about how to run the country in the best interests of its citizens. You know that, right?

molgrips - Member
Jam, you seem to be one of those people who think that politics is actually just a game with power as a prize.

Are you lost? It is All about power ...

It's not supposed to be ...

Nobody is asking the "supposed" question.

Now supposed I am God of Gods walking this earth but you just don't know who you are talking to ...?
I mean Supposed like. Suppose.

[b]The vice of ZM kind ... in no particular order:

1. Power - the mind sort.
2. Lust - the carnal sort.
3. Addiction - the material sort.

If you have all three in completion then you are whole again! [/b] 😆

It's not supposed to be - there is actually another thing which is about how to run the country in the best interests of its citizens. You know that, right?

Yeah, but first you actually have to win the election, which is a pretty good reason to be interested, nay, absolutely 100% focused, on winning elections.

Yeah but is it better to win by bullshitting and scoring as many hits as possible, or win by persuading people you're a good person?

Does being 'a good person' make you electable?

I'd suggest that most people in the UK (the electorate) think being an effective decision maker who is capable of making hard decisions, some of may occasionally be far from 'nice' 'good' or 'pleasant' - in fact, out of necessity might sometimes have to be thoroughly 'ruthless' 'distasteful' or 'unpleasant' - is a, perhaps regrettably, essential qualification for being prime minister.

Being a 'good person' sometimes just isn't enough, unfortunately that's a reality of the world that we live in.

molgrips - Member
Yeah but is it better to win by bullshitting and scoring as many hits as possible, or win by persuading people you're a good person

A win is a win. A winner! A hero ...

A loss is a loss. A loser! Loooosserr!

If you win, regardless of bullshite, you make sense.

If you lose, regardless of accuracy or truth, you bullshite.

😛

out of necessity might sometimes have to be thoroughly 'ruthless' 'distasteful' or 'unpleasant' - is a, perhaps regrettably, essential qualification for being prime minister.

Its pretty obvious it is a bold [ or foolhardy if you prefer] attempt to change politics from spin and soundbites and media pleasant to a more policy /debate based one aiming to attract new voters.

Whether it succeeds [ and i personally think some of his views are electoral suicide even though I agree with them*] its unlikely but no one can be certain till the experiment runs.

Corbyn may be out of his depth and inept but only the electorate get to make that decision, We have not had enough time to say anything much tbh whichever side of the debate we sit.

* i find it hard to believe that a unilaterally disarming policy will be lectable, they may be able to present it as massive cost saving and using the Nato umbrella to assure us we have a nuclear umbrella just not one we can independently deploy but I think many will just oppose that. Personally, as we will never use them, they are expensive trinkets.

Well, of course the big 'risk' in the NATO question is that, in the event everything goes tits up (the Russian harvest fails and they roll west) and America decides to 'sit this one out' then the umbrella is gone.

On leadership and hard decisions - the risks are very real, possible hijacked airliner (full of nuns) headed towards Canary Wharf (or any particular target) seconds to make a decision - I feel confident that I know what Cameron should, could and would do. Corbyn on the other hand...

I agree Dave is the most likely to blow up nuns.

Junkyard - lazarus
[b][u]Corbyn [s]may be[/s] out of his depth and inept [/u][/b][s]but only the electorate get to make that decision[/s],

We have not had enough time to say anything much tbh whichever side of the debate we sit.

Junkyard - lazarus
I agree Dave is the most likely to blow up nuns.

Really? You don't say! (stating the obvious is obvious but he is least damaging) 😛

Actually [b]non of your current crop of BritLand politicians [/b]are up to scratch to be honest. All wannabe ZMs. You worship them? You ZM!

Thatcher, whether you like her or not, is world class leader (post WWII) while the rest are second rated also run.

the big 'risk' in the NATO question is that, in the event everything goes tits up (the Russian harvest fails and they roll west) and America decides to 'sit this one out' then the umbrella is gone

Ninfan is prepared !

[img] [/img]

Well, of course the big 'risk' in the NATO question is that, in the event everything goes tits up (the Russian harvest fails and they roll west) and America decides to 'sit this one out' then the umbrella is gone.

we still wouldn't use them if we had them in that scenario.

Nice pic of AKs ...

Wolverines!

JY I didn't suggest you discuss it with me, discuss it with anyone, discuss it amongst yourselves .

Northwind, two key points on Beckett's list - no credibility on the economy (everyone believes/knows Labour are tax and spend, or more accurately spend and hope tax rises can cover it but they probably won't so its more borrowing) and no credibility on immigration (people believe Labour will throw the doors open to all and sundry). Two key areas where Labour under Milliband where too far left and Labour under Corbyn are off the charts.

The Tories might have had 13 years in opposition and thus lacked experience but they had a functioning shadow cabinet and a desire to get back into power and an understanding of how they might do that

jambalaya - Member

(everyone believes/knows Labour are tax and spend, or more accurately spend and hope tax rises can cover it but they probably won't so its more borrowing) and no credibility on immigration (people believe Labour will throw the doors open to all and sundry). Two key areas where Labour under Milliband where too far left and Labour under Corbyn are off the charts.

In Jambaworld, aye? In [i]this[/i] world, the conclusions are:

Failure to shake off the [b]myth[/b] that we were responsible for the financial crash and failure to build trust on the economy
Inability to deal with issues of "connection" in particular [b]failure to communicate[/b] on benefits and immigration
Ed Miliband was judged not be as strong a leader as David Cameron
Fear of the SNP propping up a minority Labour government