Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
You know, the one where Corbyn wiped the floor with DC and the Tories were laughing at people in poverty.
Some people in poverty deserve to be there
The thick ,****less ,lazy ,spendthrifts you know the sort ,or 8 kids and no means of supporting them
Do you like pulling fishing lures behind a boat?
Good performance by Corbyn today.
Channel 4 news didn't give it more than 2 mins, in fact less than when Ed Milliband was doing it. There was more on the Booker Prize winner. Main political focus was on tonight's vote on the fiscal charter. Did I miss something ?
no you saw enough to tell us corbyn looked old and tired that dave was dynamic and vibrant and that Corbyn wont win the election
Not much. Corbyn being his usual composed self and the Tory back benchers behaving like a pack of baboons who've found the keeper's booze stash.
Actually it was the labour back benchers that were behaving like a bunch of baboons.
said the tory
Missed a bit, but tuned in just in time to hear Geremy pay tribute to Jeraint. *Wince*
JY I don't think they even showed Corbyn at all, I only recall the conversations about the vote and how some Labour MPs ever likely to abstain as Corbyn and McDonald themselves had done in the prior vote on the issue.
Must admit, I thought Cameron more than got the better of the exchanges.
wobbliscott - Member
Actually it was the labour back benchers that were behaving like a bunch of baboons.
It wasn't.
Must admit, I thought Cameron more than got the better of the exchanges.
Which one of the two resorted to shouting and ducking the questions that were asked?
Corbyn did a lot better than last time, but PMQs is an irrelevance except for the PLP/PCP. The abtentions tonight were lower than expected so maybe they were happier than expected, but I don't think Cameron is losing any sleep over PMQs. He will be quite happy to continue along these lines.
Well consider that it's PMQ's there's only one of them that can dodge the questions! 😆wanmankylung - Member
Must admit, I thought Cameron more than got the better of the exchanges.
Which one of the two resorted to shouting and ducking the questions that were asked?
PMQ's aren't really about the questions, it's about who looks and comes across as strongest. That was Cameron.
The Guardian called Corbyn [b]flacid[/b], doesn't sound like I missed much and no surprise Channel 4 skipped over it.
[i]But none of it appeared to discomfort Cameron much at all. In fact, he appeared to find the whole encounter about as unsettling as an interview on ITV’s This Morning. Corbyn used follow-up questions today, unlike in his first PMQs, when he tried six questions on six topics, but they were flaccid, and they did not really advance his case. As I have said many times before, questions at PMQs are not about eliciting answers; they are a means by which MPs articulate a political argument. A leader of the opposition needs to be able to “weaponise” them. Corbyn has not found a way of doing that, although it is not clear yet whether that is down to ineptitude, or whether that it is because overt point-scoring is part of the “old politics” that he has decided to reject[/i]
He brushes up rather well. Even the top button was done up and a tie!
Well done that man.
The baying mob were a bit rude to Ms Lucas.
JC: Kelly a single mum to a disabled child...
DC: Also, Kelly if she has children....
He didn't even listen to the question.
You don't understand PMQ. Corbyn can try and change it, but he will fail.
Once the novelty and amusement factor are put aside, it's a bloody sorry state of affairs. We really need a proper opposition at the moment and this is not it. Politics gets more debased by the day.
Tonight's Newsnignt coverage should have been on CBBC or BBC3 - crass and childish. Even made Nicola look good afterwards.
Corbyn wasnt exactly inspiring
Cameron much more self assured and confident, the only time he was rattled was the question about tax credits hitting poorer children
you could see that cameron himself didnt believe his own answers, he got red faced and huffy, not because he looses much sleep over punishing poor kids for being poor, but because it knows it makes him look bad.
Corbyn should've pressed it further at that point
The secondary breast cancer point was also very valid (albeit not exciting) the cuts to research and NHS funding have left big holes in data and sample collection for research
Saying that maybe Corbyn is play rope a dope, give a few rounds, then come out all guns blazing when the guard is down! 😆
kimbers - MemberCorbyn should've pressed it further at that point
Yup. The rest of it felt more or less like a rally, just batting it back and forth but that was where Cameron was weak and looked weak and he should have been into him like a knife. Especially considering last week's "tories take the middle ground" fantasy.
I don't think Corbyn did badly but he needs to do more than that
Tonight's Newsnignt coverage should have been on CBBC or BBC3 - crass and childish. Even made Nicola look good afterwards.
Andrew Neil is the only political interviewer on the BBC worth the money they get paid
Newsnight seems to be in a death spiral to irrelevance which will be a loss
Interesting, I think A Neil was part of the whole dumbing down process. The silly cartoons and intros.
The dumbing down of Newsnight is a real shame. We lack insightful political and economic analysis. Marr is about the best but I would rather be outside at 09:00 on a Sunday.
Peston's elevated status sums the whole media status up pretty well really
The Guardian called Corbyn flacid, doesn't sound like I missed much and no surprise Channel 4 skipped over it.
The same guardian piece also had the times saying he won and the independent but hey you just go with the confirmation bias pick as I predicted in my initial response to you
Tonight's Newsnignt coverage should have been on CBBC or BBC3 - crass and childish
They coudl learn a thing or two from your exchanges on here then 😀
OH the irony [ applies to me as well to be fair]
I agree with your last post Neil is over rated and WTF is going on wiht erm ur well its seems that erm we should erm uhh see that Preston
Poor presentation matched by his analysis
I dont watch much media as it is so adversarial. Radio 4 had Humprhies interviewing someone saying it was wrong re Syrian numbers and we should do more He pressed and pressed for an an exact number as if this answer somehow negated their point and presumably so he could then just argue about that number rather than discuss the point they were making. We should take in ore and there are internationally recognised ways of calculating it fairly
The public gets what it deserves and we seem to want PR savvy politicians and interviewers who think their job is to interrogate as politicians ignore their questions
I almost never watch PMQ PM, of all hues, always win and its aside show tp baying masses of the PLP and the PCP and a really unedifying sight. FFS it even makes us look grown up mature and respectful of each other
He pressed and pressed for an an exact number
Good, an exact(ish) number is exactly what anyone who says 20k isn't enough should be providing.
WHy?
We should build more affordable housing
It really is possible to discuss why we should do this without an exact figure , location and by whom they should be built.
all they will then do is discuss the answer and ignore the principle/point
In that case the number depended on many factors not least was how many entered europe and as this was unknown no answer can be given. We can say what % of those we would take but that was not good enough.
all they will then do is discuss the answer and ignore the principle/point
In a discussion about "correct" refugee numbers the suggested correct number of refugees *is* the principle point.
The point made was that we should take more. More is a principle it is not a number
Discussing the later ignores the former - see also the housing example.
i this morning had a headline saying Corbyn planned to annoy the visiting Chinese about human rights, but I can't find on their site.
Would be interesting if he does throw away the script and speak up.
Or does this belong in the other thread?
JY you need to start worrying about how Corbyn and Labour are going to counter the dialogue we are seeing and ask yourself why the UK's leading mainstream left wing newspaper is positioned against him. Flacid is pretty much the same as old, lacking energy etc. It's pretty telling to see a paper like the Guradian using that language
@molgrips Corbyn met the Chinese yesterday, it was mentioned briefly during the Channel 4 news interview. What pressure can the leader of a minority UK party who almost certainly survive to the next election possibly bring on China ? Boris J being in China promoting business at the moment is far more significant than whatever Corbyn has to say.
JY you need to start worrying about how Corbyn and Labour are going to counter the dialogue we are seeing and ask yourself why the UK's leading mainstream left wing newspaper is positioned against him.
And you definitely want to keep ignoring everything else that counters your narrative and not even think about your own bias and selective quoting. WHat did the rest of the article say ? I read it yesterday long before you posted it.
Flacid is pretty much the same as old, lacking energy etc
If you just ignore what all those words mean that is a very good point
It's pretty telling to see a paper like the Guardian using that language
I refer you to your constant quest for confirmation of your own views. It was one commentator in the paper it was not an editorial but its not news that the Guardian dislikes corbyn.
Grum is right and facts dont matter to you so this is futile
It not my narrative JY, I'm just quoting from the press who seem to have picked up on the same theme I had from the party conference. I didn't even know he'd been at PMQ, the impression I have from Channel 4 news the discussion had been between McDonald and Osbourne. Not least due to the U-Turn from McDonald on the charter. Corbyn had said he may not participate in PMQ's every week and I thought this was such a week. Maybe the BBC had more TV coverage. Had the OP not started the thread I would t have even noticed the Guardian commentary
Sturgeon mocks unelectable and unreliable Labour Party - today's Guardian headline
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/oct/15/snp-conference-politics-live ]SNP Conference[/url]
It not my narrative JY, I'm just quoting from the press
its is your narrative and you are selectively quoting from the press to support YOUR narrative- see below for everything you ignored form the press narrative to fuel your conformation bias - how you can deny this is a mystery to anyone who can read.
No offence but if you want accept that point, as polite as i can be, I have nothing further to say to you as what you say is not reliable or honest or insightful.
forgive the size of this paste but this is from the guardian coverage of PMQ to show how selective you were - the bit you are denying which is quite clearly not true
Your quote is right after all the positive/neutral/balanced stuff which clearly outweighs it but hey you are just saying what the media says 🙄
— Jason Beattie (@JBeattieMirror)
October 14, 2015
My snap verdict on who won this week's #PMQs http://t.co/hldpxRHhCo pic.twitter.com/8tC3flWLJ4
From the Times’s Patrick Kidd
— Patrick Kidd (@patrick_kidd)
October 14, 2015
PMQs a narrow win for Corbyn. Much better attack lines than last time, landed some blows and cheered his backbenches
From Prospect’s Josh Lowe
— josh lowe (@JeyyLowe)
October 14, 2015
Can we call that a Corbyn win? Sort of, maybe, a bit. Should have mentioned Saudis and stuck harder on tax credits. But not bad #PMQs
Two people are calling it a draw.
From the Guardian’s Michael White
— MichaelWhite (@MichaelWhite)
October 14, 2015
#PMQs This week's score. Well, no great substance or drama, but Corbyn kept his dignity & Cam was civil. So let's call it 3 all.Can it last?
From the BBC’s Norman Smith
— norman smith (@BBCNormanS)
October 14, 2015
PMQs: The Instant Verdict.... http://t.co/QFWahxij0r
Mostly, though, people are just welcoming the contrast with the old-style, abuse-chucking PMQs.
From the New Statesman’s George Eaton
— George Eaton (@georgeeaton)
October 14, 2015
My #PMQs review: Corbyn's best moment as leader http://t.co/RhfCtXiByq
From the Times’s Michael Savage
— Michael Savage (@michaelsavage)
October 14, 2015
It was a creditable outing from Corbyn at #PMQs, but the bottom line remains - dull and polite is fine for the PM.
From the Telegraph’s Asa Bennett
— Asa Bennett (@asabenn)
October 14, 2015
#pmqs summary: Corbyn did better, but his slow questions meant Cameron had lots of time to think of a response.
From Huffington Post’s Owen Bennett
— Owen Bennett (@owenjbennett)
October 14, 2015
I might be in the minority, but I like this new #pmqs from Corbyn. Better than watching 2 people try and out-soundbite each other #pmqs
From the Guardian’s Patrick Wintour
— Patrick Wintour (@patrickwintour)
October 14, 2015
By recounting stories of real people in poverty or struggling with housing, Corbyn dignifies PMQs, and raises the tone. It's progress.
From ITV’s Carl Dinnen
— Carl Dinnen (@carldinnen)
October 14, 2015
Jeremy Corbyn much better at PMQs today. May yet use it to good effect. #PMQs
From Sky’s Adam Boulton
— Adam Boulton (@adamboultonSKY)
October 14, 2015
COMMENT #PMQs turning into PM's Surgery. Reasonably questions, reasonably answered. Won't damage either JC or DC. JC does not rise to bait.
From the Guardian’s Rafael Behr
— Rafael Behr (@rafaelbehr)
October 14, 2015
Corbyn's new #pmqs style still a work in progress but civility + policy detail definitely have potential to get better of Cameron.
From the BBC’s Sam Macrory
— Sam Macrory (@sammacrory)
October 14, 2015
Making the PM look uncomfortable on policy & also coming up with some TV-friendly soundbites. Might Corbyn actually be quite good at #pmqs..
From the Independent’s Nigel Morris
— Nigel Morris (@NigelpMorris)
October 14, 2015
Know it's not great theatre, but am liking this new-style #PMQS
From Newsnight’s Ian Katz
— Ian Katz (@iankatz1000)
October 14, 2015
.@jeremycorbyn channeling the "world weary headmaster with trying pupil" vibe quite effectively today #PMQs
From Mark Ferguson, the former LabourList editor
— Mark Ferguson (@Markfergusonuk)
October 14, 2015
Corbyn’s doing much better today with these questions. Far more coherent than last week, and better prepared for Cameron’s answers #pmqs
From the Specatator’s Isabel Hardman
— Isabel Hardman (@IsabelHardman)
October 14, 2015
Corbyn should have stuck with tax credits. Cameron was struggling on that #PMQs
From the Sunday Times’s Tim Shipman
— Tim Shipman (@ShippersUnbound)
October 14, 2015
Better outing from Corbyn. Tax credits a useful scab to pick at. Cameron sound on the big economics. But the Corbyn deprecation of Dave good
But not everyone likes the new PMQs
From the Telegraph’s Christopher Hope
— Christopher Hope (@christopherhope)
October 14, 2015
Has Jeremy Corbyn killed #PMQs? The laboured questions take forever and remove the pace of debate. MPs are studying Twitter on their phones.
And the Spectator’s James Forsyth has a good point to make about the new dynamics of PMQs
— James Forsyth (@JGForsyth)
October 14, 2015
One feature of this new PMQs is that Cameron takes out his pent up aggression on the SNP's Angus Robertson when he asks his two questions
Facebook Twitter Google plus
24h ago
13:09
PMQs - Verdict
PMQs - Verdict: During the Conservative party conference, David Cameron, and other ministers, were asked repeatedly to accept that millions of low-paid workers will lose out from the tax credit cuts (or the work penalty, as Owen Jones says we should call it, in a column that Jeremy Corbyn, unlike Jess Phillips - see 11.44am - appears not to have read). Andrew Neil was probably the only broadcaster who seriously troubled his interviewees on this (though not Cameron, of course, because Number 10 is far too smart to let Cameron anywhere near Neil). Despite the fact that it is obvious that the budget giveaways won’t remotely compensate for the tax credit cuts, Cameron and others mostly managed to wriggle their way out of these interviews quite easily.
Today Jeremy Corbyn used his first three questions to have a go on the same topic himself. As in September, his tone was mature, reflective and sensible - and that made a welcome contrast with the usual, old-style PMQs. He even made the point about people like Kelly losing out massively quite forcefully.
But none of it appeared to discomfort Cameron much at all. In fact, he appeared to find the whole encounter about as unsettling as an interview on ITV’s This Morning. Corbyn used follow-up questions today, unlike in his first PMQs, when he tried six questions on six topics, but they were flaccid, and they did not really advance his case. As I have said many times before, questions at PMQs are not about eliciting answers; they are a means by which MPs articulate a political argument. A leader of the opposition needs to be able to “weaponise” them. Corbyn has not found a way of doing that, although it is not clear yet whether that is down to ineptitude, or whether that it is because overt point-scoring is part of the “old politics” that he has decided to reject.
In his final question Corbyn struck another “new politics” note when he asked about a relatively unusual non-partisan issue, secondary breast cancer. (See 12.18pm.) It is good to hear topics like this getting raised. But even this worked to Cameron’s advantage, because he explained Corbyn’s point about data collection in relation to this slightly better than Corbyn did.
I'll read your epic later off to get a haircut 8)
The Tories don't need to attack Corbyn as a combination of his own party and the SNP are going to do him in. I personally think the Scottish election in May will be as far as he gets. Supposedly SNP 30 points ahead of Labojr in Scotland. Sturgeons scathing words today.
[i]You know, there is much that I hoped the SNP and Jeremy Corbyn could work together on.
But over these last few weeks, it has become glaringly obvious that he is unable to unite his party on any of the big issues of our day.
When he says he opposes Trident, he is attacked, not just by the Tories, but by his own shadow cabinet.
When he says he opposes the welfare cap, he is opposed, not just by Iain Duncan Smith, but by his own Shadow Justice Secretary.
A shadow justice secretary, incidentally, who is a member of the unelected House of Lords.
Labour is unreliable, unelectable and unable to stand up to the Tories.[/i]
Sturgeon is in her element - Jezza and the beanstalk is a neat distraction from scrutiny of the SNP's actual record in power.
I dislike Neil, he's terrible.teamhurtmore - Member
Interesting, I think A Neil was part of the whole dumbing down process.
I'll read your epic later off to get a haircut
Indeed best to ignore the facts when you want to [s]spout shite[/s] be right all the time and no one does ignorance like you do ignorance.
As I said its pointless as you just do this when you know you are wrong
Its intellectually and characteristically bankrupt and makes you look well like this.
tragic
Corbyn is unelectable. His stance on many topics, whilst popular with the shouty left wingers, makes him unpalatable to majority of people that actually go to Polling Stations.
It's a bit of a recurring theme- by "old" PMQ standards, ie, 2 bellends shouting meaningless soundbites while their mates make cow noises, he's terrible, and a lot of comments focus on that. But I'm seeing more and more commentators saying "But PMQs was shit, this is better".
It's exactly like a soggy biscuit race. The winner isn't the fastest *er, it's the person who says "This entire thing is retarded" Cameron is definitely the better *er, but maybe that's not as important as he thinks.
Whether that's something that'll transfer wider, I'm not sure... I reckon the people who still took PMQs seriously, are exactly the people who think shouting meaningless soundbites is the pinnacle of politics, and will probably dismiss someone who doesn't care for that. People who were put off by the old shit (*) are more likely to be receptive to the new approach. But then maybe people who had written PMQs off, are now unlikely to see it. And if you don't actually watch it then headlines "Corbyn refuses to eat biscuit" might stick.
(* No not Corbyn)
Junkyard, did you miss the bit the other week where jambalaya told us he is an active member of 'hacked off'?
I feel as though i should bow to his superior understanding of the meeja. (Tugs forelock).
If Corbyn is bringing some dignity and decorum to Parliament then bloody good on him. The UK's most powerful people shouting, jeering and behaving like a ****ing university debate practice gone wrong has been an utter embarrassment for far too long.
"winning" at asking questions? Jesus christ. That makes my shit itch.
How's about less petty point scoring and treating this time to actually achieve something?
PMQ's is an odd one loads of people say they don't like the baying etc. But I know quite a few foreigners who loved it as their parliaments are so boring and sterile, with pre set questions and answers. The worry is the new PMQ's becomes so dull it just becomes irrelevant.
Apparently people love it - hence the media attention. My in-laws are hooked every week!
jambalaya - Member
The Guardian called Corbyn flacid, doesn't sound like I missed much and no surprise Channel 4 skipped over it.
Reading comprehension fail, despite quoting the section in your post you still have it wrong.
Corbyn used follow-up questions today, unlike in his first PMQs, when he tried six questions on six topics, but they were flaccid, and they did not really advance his case
The writer called the questions flaccid, unless 'Corbyn' is plural now?
Still going to try and argue it's not confirmation bias?
On a tangent, did 'flaccid' just catch your eye for some reason?
The excitement of what pathetic excuse Mr 100% correct will use to avoid being wrong is almost unbearable
I thought Corbyn could have done better today.
More structure. More progression. More shocking numbers (children into poverty, for eg) before making each question.
In fact, it's such an open goal, that I'm starting to worry that there must be something really awful we're being distracted from.
I think corbs shouldve ponted out thar outside the Westminster bubble people find it much more infuriating that MPs refuse to give straight answers to questions
than whether parliamentary conventions have been overstepped
I think that Corbyn is playing Hameron well. Measured approach against Hameron's clumsy evasion of questions and ruddy-faced blustering when things don't go his way.
In fact, it's such an open goal, that I'm starting to worry that there must be something really awful we're being distracted from.
Could it be that they're keeping the focus on the poorest 20% getting poorer because the other side is that the other 80% are getting more money?
I was thinking more about TTIP.
Yes - I think you're right - that's why they thought it was a good plan, because they knew that the majority of voters aren't effected.
They forgot that some of us have consciences 🙂
Thinking about it they've sold it as a measure to reduce the deficit and save money. That doesn't hold up to scrutiny when 80% of the population would be better off due to those measures. Is it the case that whilst the tax credits cuts would save £4.4.Bn, the other measures would cost more than £4.4Bn?
It's simple - they're trying to get as many horrific policies through as they can because they can't believe their luck that they got voted in.
Hameron
Took me a while to figure that out. Very good. 😆
Carry on...
wanmankylung - MemberThinking about it they've sold it as a measure to reduce the deficit and save money. That doesn't hold up to scrutiny when 80% of the population would be better off due to those measures.
You can make 80% of claimants better off by a penny and 20% worse off by a grand and still save money while "Making most people better off".
You can make 80% of claimants better off by a penny and 20% worse off by a grand and still save money while "Making most people better off".
Yip. They're not making people better of by a penny though are they?
Someone on around £45k/yr will be £1000ish better off
also they may be better off because the employers are paying a higher minimum wage rather than we are paying more tax credits to those better off are not made so by the state but by employers
...and if employment costs rise, surely costs to the consumer will rise so the overall impact is largely neutral....or my my rudimentary grasp of economics lacking?
Neutral, unless you are in the poorest segment of society when the impact will be compounded by rising prices.
Corbyn is unelectable. His stance on many topics, whilst popular with the shouty left wingers, makes him unpalatable to majority of people that actually go to Polling Stations.
You've nailed the mindset of much of the UK.
Even though I'm left of centre, disagree with current Tory policy and will vote for Corbyn in the next GE, I can fully appreciate why people don't like him.
Could it be that they're keeping the focus on the poorest 20% getting poorer because the other side is that the other 80% are getting more money?
Despite the fact, that exactly the opposite has been happening. Still why let facts get in the way of the on-going narrative?
Things are rarely neutral slowjo although the Tories tried to pretend that this might have been the case here.
Odd that no one bothers with raising productivity and supply-side strategies to boost pay. Instead we rely on flawed gov interventions in the market with predictable consequences esp with all the political landmines laid along the way
No argument that benefit dependency needs to be addressed, some of the tax free credits/benefits/childcare paid out to larger families total more than the average salary net take home pay which can't be right/sustainable.
Giving the wealthy more by way of tax cuts etc might boost the economy but it also boosts their personal wealth which seems at odds with the stated aims.
Oh for a law requiring politicians to provide a direct answer, where one is available. Maybe we could have a public Xfactor style vote where subjectivity exists.
also they may be better off because the employers are paying a higher minimum wage rather than we are paying more tax credits to those better off are not made so by the state but by employers
surely that is what we want though?
...and disposable income has now recovered from the crisis (at last), despite our poor productivity record
Didn't listen to PMQ, but odd that Cameron can't just say. Yes, we are cutting something, therefore some people will be worse off. The analysis has been done and we know who those people are.
So be open and then explain the priorities and reasoning behind the choice. I dare you....
Corbyn is unelectable. His stance on many topics, whilst popular with the shouty left wingers, makes him unpalatable to majority of people that actually go to Polling Stations.
Like what, specifically?
Check the list of U-turns completed as a start? Pretty impressive list for someone with such conviction (sic)
Despite the fact, that exactly the opposite has been happening. Still why let facts get in the way of the on-going narrative?
Have I missed the part where the tax credit and other tax cuts have already been made?
So be open and then explain the priorities and reasoning behind the choice. I dare you....
For that to happen would require either political suicide, or to make something up.
odd that Cameron can't just say. Yes, we are cutting something, therefore some people will be worse off. The analysis has been done and we know who those people are.So be open and then explain the priorities and reasoning behind the choice. I dare you....
Because its a terrible policy and exposes the lie that the Tories are the party of the workers or whatever BS they spun to get themselves elected?
U-turns?
Does that video mean that the Tory spokesperson who said that Cameron only said that he wasn't going to cut chuld tax credits was lying too?
Is there a way that we can get rid of our elected representatives mid term for blatant dishonesty? If not, why not?
Check the list of U-turns completed as a start?
Grr.. I can't stand this term 'u-turn'. It's nothing but a brainless insult to throw at someone, like calling someone who wears glasses 'four-eyes'.
People who stick to the same slogans regardless are the stupid ones. Except that's what's rewarded by the press and apparently people like THM. Or maybe THM is choosing a negative interpretation of events because Corbyn is on the opposite team. To slightly take the piss I could suggest he googles 'confirmation bias' 🙂
wanmankylung - MemberIs there a way that we can get rid of our elected representatives mid term for blatant dishonesty? If not, why not?
Trade Descriptions Act? Selling a government with false advertising. If they were selling toilet roll they'd be closed down.
"Opposite" to what mol?
But just for you, shall we use 180 degree turn or volte face or to keep it simple and just say flip flop?
EDIT:
"Opposite" to what mol?
Your views - why did you need to ask? Unless you wish to argue you and Corbyn share similar outlook,values and priorities.
Steady now THM has repeatedly pointed out how unbiased he is on political threads and its only my own personal conformation bias that means I cannot recall any attacks on the tories and it appears that he only ever attacks labour. Forgive me
Whatever Corbyn does THM would be attacking him- he does not stand for the national anthem - he gets called disloyal to the crown, he does stand he has done a U turn - works for every issue as long as you never apply this tactic to your side
FWIW corbyn has done some growing up in public/u turns but he needs more time for me to form a judgement
As kimbers noted the Tories clearly lied to get in and never once said where the savings were coming from but we dont mention that one- damn my conformation bias again
does that video mean that the Tory spokesperson who said that Cameron only said that he wasn't going to cut chuld tax credits was lying too?
Counter argument being that they haven't been cut though, they just have a different end point/taper rate.
The poorest in society (in income terms) will still get just as much tax credit as they did before.
(I would agree it's sophistry worthy of Gordon brown mind)
high 5 ! BBC subtitles writer
[img] 
[/img]
Ha!
That will make a great meme.