This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Quoting a Friend : "Actually makes me feel sick that they think that this is behaviour fit for work! How can these people be running the country?! If I did this in a work meeting I'd probably be looking at a summary dismissal!"
https://www.facebook.com/Channel4News/videos/10153534833916939/?pnref=story
https://www.facebook.com/Channel4News/videos/10153534833916939/?pnref=story
29
6
In reply to Baron Weasel:
I agree and have said so on various politically orientated threads on here....sadly many seem to think it's acceptable!
I agree and have said so on various politically orientated threads on here....sadly many seem to think it's acceptable!
6
4
10
In reply to aln:
Corbyn said that when he went to Brussels people asked him.......
Heckler:
"Who are you?".....
Corbyn said that when he went to Brussels people asked him.......
Heckler:
"Who are you?".....
7
1
In reply to Baron Weasel:
It's grotesque. To want the world to see you like that on the telly - it boggles my mind but makes me glad to not have been born into their culture.
It's grotesque. To want the world to see you like that on the telly - it boggles my mind but makes me glad to not have been born into their culture.
10
6
28
12
8
4
In reply to flopsicle:
Yup, I don't know how Jezzer can do it....
> It's grotesque. To want the world to see you like that on the telly >
Yup, I don't know how Jezzer can do it....
8
10
In reply to Baron Weasel:
Do you really have to be totally po-faced at work, are you an undertaker?
> Quoting a Friend : "Actually makes me feel sick that they think that this is behaviour fit for work! How can these people be running the country?! If I did this in a work meeting I'd probably be looking at a summary dismissal!"
Do you really have to be totally po-faced at work, are you an undertaker?
18
6
In reply to Baron Weasel:
It's beyond words. Why the speaker didn't intervene god only knows (figuratively anyway- it's because he's a Torry and therefore not impartial).
What I don't understand is why they mic it like they do. It'd be simple enough to just get the sound of whoever is speaking and then we wouldn't have to put up with this.
It's beyond words. Why the speaker didn't intervene god only knows (figuratively anyway- it's because he's a Torry and therefore not impartial).
What I don't understand is why they mic it like they do. It'd be simple enough to just get the sound of whoever is speaking and then we wouldn't have to put up with this.
6
10
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
> It's beyond words. Why the speaker didn't intervene god only knows (figuratively anyway- it's because he's a Torry and therefore not impartial).
>
He's an "ex Tory". He hates them and they hate him.
7
2
In reply to Baron Weasel:
You lot most work in some seriously miserable places. Is having a bit of a laugh at someone else s expense gross misconduct? Anyone with a sense of humour would have had a wee snigger at that.
You lot most work in some seriously miserable places. Is having a bit of a laugh at someone else s expense gross misconduct? Anyone with a sense of humour would have had a wee snigger at that.
19
7
In reply to Baron Weasel:
I thought it funny. An MP makes a funny comment about an MP on the other side, his side all laugh and the other side try not to smirk.
Big deal, sense of humour outbreak in the house of commons.
I thought it funny. An MP makes a funny comment about an MP on the other side, his side all laugh and the other side try not to smirk.
Big deal, sense of humour outbreak in the house of commons.
34
6
It's strange that Corbyn is simultaneously way too unkempt and scruffily dressed to be the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition and also just some bloke who can be heckled whenever someone has got a zinger they just have to share with the world.
4
13
In reply to Postmanpat:
You're right they're not the best of buds but it seems an inherently unfair system.
You're right they're not the best of buds but it seems an inherently unfair system.
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
Einstein used to look dishevelled. Joey Essex is invariably well groomed... What's your point, other than a desire to bag cheap sneers?
Einstein used to look dishevelled. Joey Essex is invariably well groomed... What's your point, other than a desire to bag cheap sneers?
21
1
In reply to Clauso:
Oh. I was trying to point out the inconsistency of the attacks on Corbyn, but I guess my post was shit. Carry on.
Oh. I was trying to point out the inconsistency of the attacks on Corbyn, but I guess my post was shit. Carry on.
5
1
In reply to Clauso:
That's a little harsh Mr Jackson. Even I managed to detect a little irony in monkey puzzles post.
That's a little harsh Mr Jackson. Even I managed to detect a little irony in monkey puzzles post.
1
In reply to timjones:
These people are running our country, and they sit and jeer and laugh uproariously meaning other people can't hear themselves speak.
It can start to be annoying after a bit.
> Do you really have to be totally po-faced at work, are you an undertaker?
These people are running our country, and they sit and jeer and laugh uproariously meaning other people can't hear themselves speak.
It can start to be annoying after a bit.
Post edited at 22:39
11
4
In reply to Gone for good:
Are you being ironic?
> That's a little harsh Mr Jackson. Even I managed to detect a little irony in monkey puzzles post.
Are you being ironic?
2
6
In reply to Baron Weasel:
It was funny.
Thank goodness we live in a society where the worst we can do is laugh at others with opposing views. Give me that any day to lacing their tea with Plutonium. or arranging for their "disappearance".
It was funny.
Thank goodness we live in a society where the worst we can do is laugh at others with opposing views. Give me that any day to lacing their tea with Plutonium. or arranging for their "disappearance".
Post edited at 08:29
8
5
In reply to Trangia:
I think I may be missing the humour, but what is funny about a politician trying to talk in continuous prose being stopped by some imbecile asking who he is then falling about laughing like it's a pre-school tv show?
What makes you so sure that something like that won't happen: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-army-could-stage-muti...
> It was funny.
I think I may be missing the humour, but what is funny about a politician trying to talk in continuous prose being stopped by some imbecile asking who he is then falling about laughing like it's a pre-school tv show?
> Give me that any day to lacing their tea with Plutonium. or arranging for their "disappearance".
What makes you so sure that something like that won't happen: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-army-could-stage-muti...
8
1
In reply to Baron Weasel:
What makes you refer to him as an imbecile? A bit strong?
> I think I may be missing the humour, but what is funny about a politician trying to talk in continuous prose being stopped by some imbecile asking who he is then falling about laughing like it's a pre-school tv show?
What makes you refer to him as an imbecile? A bit strong?
1
4
In reply to Baron Weasel:
I am sorry, but I can't help you with your lack of a sense of humour
>
> I think I may be missing the humour,
I am sorry, but I can't help you with your lack of a sense of humour
>
7
4
In reply to Moley:
Because if he doesn't even know who the leader of the opposition is then what is he doing at a debate which has major implications for the future of our country, Europe and the political climate of the World?
A bit strong? On the contrary, I think it was not strong enough.
Because if he doesn't even know who the leader of the opposition is then what is he doing at a debate which has major implications for the future of our country, Europe and the political climate of the World?
A bit strong? On the contrary, I think it was not strong enough.
2
2
In reply to Baron Weasel:
If you don't even understand the heckle what are you doing debating it?
> Because if he doesn't even know who the leader of the opposition is then what is he doing at a debate which has major implications for the future of our country, Europe and the political climate of the World?
>
Congratulations! You haven't even understood the heckle!!!If you don't even understand the heckle what are you doing debating it?
Post edited at 09:17
10
6
8
7
In reply to Baron Weasel:
In which case why are you suggesting that the heckler was asking who Jeremy Corbyn is (as if he didn't know)?
> I understand it - I just don't appreciate it. It's not Live at the Apollo.
In which case why are you suggesting that the heckler was asking who Jeremy Corbyn is (as if he didn't know)?
Post edited at 09:20
4
4
In reply to Baron Weasel:
Your reply at 09:12 clearly indicates that you didn't!
> I understand it -
Your reply at 09:12 clearly indicates that you didn't!
5
5
3
6
In reply to Baron Weasel:
Just answer the question, then you can have the last word.
> Go on, you have the last word if it makes you feel good.
Just answer the question, then you can have the last word.
5
4
In reply to Baron Weasel:
It's not that funny, school playground level at best. The pantomime of the commons chamber is an embarrassment to our country, and I think people are fed up with it.
It's not that funny, school playground level at best. The pantomime of the commons chamber is an embarrassment to our country, and I think people are fed up with it.
8
2
In reply to Baron Weasel:
I've had the misfortune to observe a fair few PMQs in a previous job. There is the odd genuinely funny heckle but it's mostly on the same level as my 4 year old's sense of humour.
On reflection, my 4 year old is a bit more sophisticated.
I've had the misfortune to observe a fair few PMQs in a previous job. There is the odd genuinely funny heckle but it's mostly on the same level as my 4 year old's sense of humour.
On reflection, my 4 year old is a bit more sophisticated.
11
1
In reply to RyanOsborne:
It's funny because it is effective. The same remark about say Boris or Osborne would not have worked. It highlights Corbyn's lack of profile and credibility
It's funny because it is effective. The same remark about say Boris or Osborne would not have worked. It highlights Corbyn's lack of profile and credibility
12
11
10
6
In reply to RyanOsborne:
In retrospect I have to agree with you when analysing it in cold retrospect. But at the time, place and for the character(s) involved it was an example of quick and funny wit.
It's that sort of banter that livens up debate. It's only an embarrassment to those that fail to appreciate it there and then.
> It's not that funny, school playground level at best.
In retrospect I have to agree with you when analysing it in cold retrospect. But at the time, place and for the character(s) involved it was an example of quick and funny wit.
It's that sort of banter that livens up debate. It's only an embarrassment to those that fail to appreciate it there and then.
4
2
In reply to RyanOsborne:
Quick wit is not the preserve of any party. In this case there were some on the opposition benches trying to keep a straight face.
Corbyn would have done himself a big favour if he had smiled when the heckle was made, and then carried on speaking.
> I think the only thing it highlights is the pathetic nature of the braying tories.
Quick wit is not the preserve of any party. In this case there were some on the opposition benches trying to keep a straight face.
Corbyn would have done himself a big favour if he had smiled when the heckle was made, and then carried on speaking.
Post edited at 09:40
5
1
In reply to Trangia:
Does it? How? If people can't talk about things properly, ask and answer important questions without resorting to this sort of garbage, how does it liven the debate? It turns the debate into a farce and makes people feel fed up with politics and politicians.
> It's that sort of banter that livens up debate.
Does it? How? If people can't talk about things properly, ask and answer important questions without resorting to this sort of garbage, how does it liven the debate? It turns the debate into a farce and makes people feel fed up with politics and politicians.
13
4
In reply to RyanOsborne:
Thank goodness the Labour party would never behave like that given the opportunity!
> I think the only thing it highlights is the pathetic nature of the braying tories.
Thank goodness the Labour party would never behave like that given the opportunity!
6
2
In reply to Moley:
I was referring to the tories in question, not the whole party. I'm sure there's the odd normal person in there somewhere.
I was referring to the tories in question, not the whole party. I'm sure there's the odd normal person in there somewhere.
1
1
In reply to Moley:
Yep, I rewatched it and found one. The old dude in the middle at the back. He's the only one not rolling about like a braying school boy though. And he might have been asleep and missed it.
Yep, I rewatched it and found one. The old dude in the middle at the back. He's the only one not rolling about like a braying school boy though. And he might have been asleep and missed it.
3
1
In reply to RyanOsborne:
Don't be silly. All parties in the commons behave in a lively way at times, it's nothing particular to the Tories. It can go too far sometimes but robust debate is effective. Try the lords if you prefer gloopy politeness.
Don't be silly. All parties in the commons behave in a lively way at times, it's nothing particular to the Tories. It can go too far sometimes but robust debate is effective. Try the lords if you prefer gloopy politeness.
4
5
In reply to MG:
I don't think it's particular to them, but they're definitely the worst offenders.
> it's nothing particular to the Tories.
I don't think it's particular to them, but they're definitely the worst offenders.
5
2
In reply to RyanOsborne:
Actually if you watch closely you'll see David Cameron barley even looks up from his notes as the rest of the house are laughing.
Personally, I did have a good laugh when I watched this because it was funny. Whether our MP's should be making jokes and behaving in this manor is a fair point to make but like it or not, they do, they all do and it's not going to change soon.
The more serious issue it raises is that it shows Corbyn is not a leader, yes MP's shouldn't bully each other but the fact is they do and he can't stand up to it. He is weak, he has no commanding presence in the room, his attacks on people who have opposing views are ineffective and he's openly mocked and defied by his own MP's. He's a laughing stock in the houses of parliament and would be equally useless on the world stage.
The reason the joke was so funny is because he's got no respect on the international stage, do you think the same joke
would have worked against Gordon Brown or Tony Blair?
Actually if you watch closely you'll see David Cameron barley even looks up from his notes as the rest of the house are laughing.
Personally, I did have a good laugh when I watched this because it was funny. Whether our MP's should be making jokes and behaving in this manor is a fair point to make but like it or not, they do, they all do and it's not going to change soon.
The more serious issue it raises is that it shows Corbyn is not a leader, yes MP's shouldn't bully each other but the fact is they do and he can't stand up to it. He is weak, he has no commanding presence in the room, his attacks on people who have opposing views are ineffective and he's openly mocked and defied by his own MP's. He's a laughing stock in the houses of parliament and would be equally useless on the world stage.
The reason the joke was so funny is because he's got no respect on the international stage, do you think the same joke
would have worked against Gordon Brown or Tony Blair?
5
5
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
I obviously see it differently from you, to me it shows the character of the politicians involved and the level of debate in UK politics. Corbyn is doing an excellent job of exposing the tories for who they are. Maybe Dave sees it too and that's the reason he wasn't laughing.
In the situation that they'd been elected leader of their party from the back benches? Yes it would, as it would any politician.
> Actually if you watch closely you'll see David Cameron barley even looks up from his notes as the rest of the house are laughing.
> Personally, I did have a good laugh when I watched this because it was funny. Whether our MP's should be making jokes and behaving in this manor is a fair point to make but like it or not, they do, they all do and it's not going to change soon.
> The more serious issue it raises is that it shows Corbyn is not a leader, yes MP's shouldn't bully each other but the fact is they do and he can't stand up to it. He is weak, he has no commanding presence in the room, his attacks on people who have opposing views are ineffective and he's openly mocked and defied by his own MP's. He's a laughing stock in the houses of parliament and would be equally useless on the world stage.
I obviously see it differently from you, to me it shows the character of the politicians involved and the level of debate in UK politics. Corbyn is doing an excellent job of exposing the tories for who they are. Maybe Dave sees it too and that's the reason he wasn't laughing.
> The reason the joke was so funny is because he's got no respect on the international stage, do you think the same joke
> would have worked against Gordon Brown or Tony Blair?
In the situation that they'd been elected leader of their party from the back benches? Yes it would, as it would any politician.
5
2
In reply to RyanOsborne:
Which is one reason not to elect backbenchers to lead major parties. BUt anyway, what you say isnt true, there are backbenchers with significant profiles, such as Boris Johnson or Alex Salmond.
> In the situation that they'd been elected leader of their party from the back benches? Yes it would, as it would any politician.
Which is one reason not to elect backbenchers to lead major parties. BUt anyway, what you say isnt true, there are backbenchers with significant profiles, such as Boris Johnson or Alex Salmond.
1
2
In reply to MG:
As in the mayor of London and the former leader of the SNP? They're not very good examples for comparison.
As in the mayor of London and the former leader of the SNP? They're not very good examples for comparison.
2
In reply to RyanOsborne:
I'm not clear what you are saying. If you are saying any backbencher with no notable achievements for decades when elected to lead a major party will have a credibility problem, I agree. Given that credibility is needed to lead a party, let along the UK, this seems to me a very good reason not to do it. It also entirely reasonable that such a leader's shortcomings are highlighted, perhaps humorously, by opposing politicians. This is effective politics and desirable as it means leaders who have shortcomings get weeded out, for example IDS, Howard and, in due course, Corbyn.
I'm not clear what you are saying. If you are saying any backbencher with no notable achievements for decades when elected to lead a major party will have a credibility problem, I agree. Given that credibility is needed to lead a party, let along the UK, this seems to me a very good reason not to do it. It also entirely reasonable that such a leader's shortcomings are highlighted, perhaps humorously, by opposing politicians. This is effective politics and desirable as it means leaders who have shortcomings get weeded out, for example IDS, Howard and, in due course, Corbyn.
3
2
In reply to Baron Weasel:
I'm in two minds about this really.
On the one hand the Commons has always been like this. A bit of give and take from all sides of the house. It's generally healthy for politicians to be ridiculed and not have to bow in utter reverence to the leader.
On the other hand, there's definitely a line and with Corbyn, the Tories routinely cross it. It does smack of arrogance, an unwillingness to give any heed to a different school of thought to theirs, and contempt for Corbyn's voter base.
It's all just political games. They can't for a moment allow Corbyn and the views he represents to be seen as serious and worthy of consideration, the pressure has to be constant. They send out a message to SNP supporters too, that their party is a more worthy political adversary. Sure, Corbyn supporters will hiss on social media and the Independent, but they were never potential Tory voters anyway, and noone else will pay any attention.
Corbyn has used the phenomenon so his slight advantage in PMQs, with the Tories laughing at his crowd sourced questions. If only we had a less heavily stacked media, it would get reported as 'Look, the Tories don't give a toss about the concerns of young people being priced out of the housing market'. Instead it's largely ignored.
And of course, if only we had an opposition leader from Corbyn's end of the political spectrum, but with some charisma and political nous, and less of the slightly wacky views.
I'm in two minds about this really.
On the one hand the Commons has always been like this. A bit of give and take from all sides of the house. It's generally healthy for politicians to be ridiculed and not have to bow in utter reverence to the leader.
On the other hand, there's definitely a line and with Corbyn, the Tories routinely cross it. It does smack of arrogance, an unwillingness to give any heed to a different school of thought to theirs, and contempt for Corbyn's voter base.
It's all just political games. They can't for a moment allow Corbyn and the views he represents to be seen as serious and worthy of consideration, the pressure has to be constant. They send out a message to SNP supporters too, that their party is a more worthy political adversary. Sure, Corbyn supporters will hiss on social media and the Independent, but they were never potential Tory voters anyway, and noone else will pay any attention.
Corbyn has used the phenomenon so his slight advantage in PMQs, with the Tories laughing at his crowd sourced questions. If only we had a less heavily stacked media, it would get reported as 'Look, the Tories don't give a toss about the concerns of young people being priced out of the housing market'. Instead it's largely ignored.
And of course, if only we had an opposition leader from Corbyn's end of the political spectrum, but with some charisma and political nous, and less of the slightly wacky views.
7
1
In reply to Baron Weasel:
In other news Donald Trump has said he wanted to punch a heckler - that really would get hi fired here, but I suspect it will get him elected (as republican candidate, at least)
In other news Donald Trump has said he wanted to punch a heckler - that really would get hi fired here, but I suspect it will get him elected (as republican candidate, at least)
1
In reply to Baron Weasel:
LOL , that was great. Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker, the nasty Tories are laughing at me.
I bet when he watches the video and sees Burnham smirking, Corbyn will know to watch his back.
LOL , that was great. Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker, the nasty Tories are laughing at me.
I bet when he watches the video and sees Burnham smirking, Corbyn will know to watch his back.
1
4
In reply to Reggie Perrin:
> LOL , that was great. Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker, the nasty Tories are laughing at me.
>
For a brief moment I felt a bit sorry for Corbyn, standing alone and forlorn in his ill fitting sports jacket, and then I remembered all the murderous, racist, sexist, homophobic, authoritarian bastards that he likes to befriend, and I didn't any more.
5
7
In reply to toad:
So Trump has something in common with ex labour deputy prime minister John Prescott, only Prescott being true working class did actually clout his protester - conservatives are far too well behaved for that behaviour.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/1330499/Prescott-punches-a-...
> In other news Donald Trump has said he wanted to punch a heckler - that really would get hi fired here, but I suspect it will get him elected (as republican candidate, at least)
So Trump has something in common with ex labour deputy prime minister John Prescott, only Prescott being true working class did actually clout his protester - conservatives are far too well behaved for that behaviour.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/1330499/Prescott-punches-a-...
1
3
1
In reply to lummox:
Yup, bunch of bastards.As has been discussed before there is an obvious and quantum difference between accepting alliances in the national interest-security, stability in the ME, oi-l, and voluntarily befriending people who oppose almost every value that you claim to support Seemingly for the reason that they oppose your nation's interests).
> you ever heard of the House of Saud ?
Yup, bunch of bastards.As has been discussed before there is an obvious and quantum difference between accepting alliances in the national interest-security, stability in the ME, oi-l, and voluntarily befriending people who oppose almost every value that you claim to support Seemingly for the reason that they oppose your nation's interests).
Post edited at 11:57
3
3
In reply to Baron Weasel:
By way of comparison, here's Italy:
youtube.com/watch?v=I2u7Osh0diM&
youtube.com/watch?v=Au11CoLYd0Q&
youtube.com/watch?v=hZNstETykNs&
By way of comparison, here's Italy:
youtube.com/watch?v=I2u7Osh0diM&
youtube.com/watch?v=Au11CoLYd0Q&
youtube.com/watch?v=hZNstETykNs&
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Absolute bollocks. Real politick as an excuse for financially and politically supporting a regime which is opposed to every value which is supposed to be what makes us civilised is no excuse at all.
Trading votes with the Saudis to get on the Human Rights Council place- you must be very proud of Cameron for that.
Tell us about how Saudi funded Wahabism is promoting security and stability in the ME and Europe. I'm fascinated.
BTW, let's not forget Cameron's jolly to Botha's S Africa, as funded by those cute and cuddly sanction busting Tory sponsors.
Absolute bollocks. Real politick as an excuse for financially and politically supporting a regime which is opposed to every value which is supposed to be what makes us civilised is no excuse at all.
Trading votes with the Saudis to get on the Human Rights Council place- you must be very proud of Cameron for that.
Tell us about how Saudi funded Wahabism is promoting security and stability in the ME and Europe. I'm fascinated.
BTW, let's not forget Cameron's jolly to Botha's S Africa, as funded by those cute and cuddly sanction busting Tory sponsors.
Post edited at 12:47
6
1
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Eurgh. So painful and embarrassing to watch. Can't we get google to wipe all traces of that from the internet?
Eurgh. So painful and embarrassing to watch. Can't we get google to wipe all traces of that from the internet?
In reply to RyanOsborne:
The reason that video should be wiped from the internet is to hide how many empty seats there are in the EU parliament lol
The reason that video should be wiped from the internet is to hide how many empty seats there are in the EU parliament lol
1
1
1
In reply to Baron Weasel:
Ok, I'll admit it was funny, but it wasn't THAT funny. Where is the professionalism of our political leaders? and why was the speaker sitting on his hands?
Ok, I'll admit it was funny, but it wasn't THAT funny. Where is the professionalism of our political leaders? and why was the speaker sitting on his hands?
1
1
In reply to lummox:
True, except that was in response to Van Rompuys first speech as the newly elected president of the EU . Maiden speeches by British PMs are to a packed HoC.
True, except that was in response to Van Rompuys first speech as the newly elected president of the EU . Maiden speeches by British PMs are to a packed HoC.
Post edited at 13:16
1
1
In reply to lummox:
That of course is a different argument entirely, one that I partially agree with ie. that Saudi Arabia is actually a destabilising force, not a force for stability, in both the ME and the global arena and that as a corollary the UK should weaken its ties.
However, for seventy years or more British governments of different political persuasion have taken a different view , which may then and may even now, be the right one. Disagreeing with that is just a matter of how one understands the geopolitics of the ME, not of morality. Once that view has been accepted then the British government has to accept most of Saudi's ethical and moral failings. (Personally I find our recent Kow towing to the Saudis pretty grim stuff, but I'd be pretty sure it is being done on FO advice that it is the least bad option to protect UK interests.)
The other difference, of course, is that the Conservative (and many Labourites and others) are pragmatic and therefore openly acknowledge that they cannot be whiter than as white.
Corbyn and his supporters, however, assume the moral high ground and claim to base their whole raison d'etre on human rights and social justice and then align themselves with those with the worst possible track records on these issues, simply because they are "their enemy's enemy. "Hypocrisy" doesn't begin to cover it.
> Absolute bollocks. Real politick as an excuse for financially and politically supporting a regime which is opposed to every value which is supposed to be what makes us civilised is no excuse at all.
> Trading votes with the Saudis to get on the Human Rights Council place- you must be very proud of Cameron for that.
> Tell us about how Saudi funded Wahabism is promoting security and stability in the ME and Europe. I'm fascinated.
That of course is a different argument entirely, one that I partially agree with ie. that Saudi Arabia is actually a destabilising force, not a force for stability, in both the ME and the global arena and that as a corollary the UK should weaken its ties.
However, for seventy years or more British governments of different political persuasion have taken a different view , which may then and may even now, be the right one. Disagreeing with that is just a matter of how one understands the geopolitics of the ME, not of morality. Once that view has been accepted then the British government has to accept most of Saudi's ethical and moral failings. (Personally I find our recent Kow towing to the Saudis pretty grim stuff, but I'd be pretty sure it is being done on FO advice that it is the least bad option to protect UK interests.)
The other difference, of course, is that the Conservative (and many Labourites and others) are pragmatic and therefore openly acknowledge that they cannot be whiter than as white.
Corbyn and his supporters, however, assume the moral high ground and claim to base their whole raison d'etre on human rights and social justice and then align themselves with those with the worst possible track records on these issues, simply because they are "their enemy's enemy. "Hypocrisy" doesn't begin to cover it.
Post edited at 14:11
5
4
In reply to aln:
"who the fu!k are you!"
Gotta admit I found it really funny )))
> What was the comment they were braying at? I couldn't make it out.
"who the fu!k are you!"
Gotta admit I found it really funny )))
3
4
In reply to Postmanpat:
I'm sure the lack of hypocrisy in Cameron's provision of military hardware, advice and hard cash is of great comfort to the thousand of Yeminis being bombed everyday and starved by the Saudi led assault. And IS victims. And the families of the teenage kids who will be crucified for being gay/liberal/apostates.
At least Cameron isn't being hypocritical.
Could you let me have a link to information about which benighted regimes Corbyn has provided funds and military support for please ? Thanks
I'm sure the lack of hypocrisy in Cameron's provision of military hardware, advice and hard cash is of great comfort to the thousand of Yeminis being bombed everyday and starved by the Saudi led assault. And IS victims. And the families of the teenage kids who will be crucified for being gay/liberal/apostates.
At least Cameron isn't being hypocritical.
Could you let me have a link to information about which benighted regimes Corbyn has provided funds and military support for please ? Thanks
4
1
In reply to lummox:
It would be great if the world were as simple as you and Corbyn seem to think it is and we could all sit comfortably knowing that such tragedies don't happen, or that we can salve our consciences when they do. But when confronted by reality he would find out that it isn't. Remember NuLabour's "ethical foreign policy"? Easy, very easy to sit on the sidelines never having made a decision in ones life and indulge one's misplaced moral superiority. It genuinely amazes me that people can look at these issues in such simplistic terms.
Fortunately his self indulgence has enabled him only to provide moral and verbal support for such regimes. Long may it remain so.
> I'm sure the lack of hypocrisy in Cameron's provision of military hardware, advice and hard cash is of great comfort to the thousand of Yeminis being bombed everyday and starved by the Saudi led assault. And IS victims. And the families of the teenage kids who will be crucified for being gay/liberal/apostates.
>
Perhaps you should think about the outcomes of breaking relations with the Saudis either now or in the past instead of appealing simply to emotions. I notice you don't even attempt to address why the FO might want to retains relationships with Saudi. But no doubt if that ended in mass deaths you would find somebody else to blame.It would be great if the world were as simple as you and Corbyn seem to think it is and we could all sit comfortably knowing that such tragedies don't happen, or that we can salve our consciences when they do. But when confronted by reality he would find out that it isn't. Remember NuLabour's "ethical foreign policy"? Easy, very easy to sit on the sidelines never having made a decision in ones life and indulge one's misplaced moral superiority. It genuinely amazes me that people can look at these issues in such simplistic terms.
> Could you let me have a link to information about which benighted regimes Corbyn has provided funds and military support for please ? Thanks
Fortunately his self indulgence has enabled him only to provide moral and verbal support for such regimes. Long may it remain so.
Post edited at 17:55
3
4
In reply to Gone for good:
In my workplace if we set out to belittle any other member of staff it would be a disciplinary matter.
Not saying it was not funny, and I don't really think much of any of the politicians, Corbyn included, but the actions of the MPs was not just to snigger, they set out to deliberately embarrass and belittle a co- worker, so in many places, effectively bullying.
Any HR experts here?
> You lot most work in some seriously miserable places. Is having a bit of a laugh at someone else s expense gross misconduct? Anyone with a sense of humour would have had a wee snigger at that.
In my workplace if we set out to belittle any other member of staff it would be a disciplinary matter.
Not saying it was not funny, and I don't really think much of any of the politicians, Corbyn included, but the actions of the MPs was not just to snigger, they set out to deliberately embarrass and belittle a co- worker, so in many places, effectively bullying.
Any HR experts here?
3
4
In reply to Postmanpat:
Yes quite agree. Its a bit sad that the best the opposition* can put up is this sad little weed. He looks like a third rate geography teacher, not a potential leader of nation with global aspirations. I do wonder though if nowadays the UK appears to the outside world as Corbynesque and frankly a bit of a joke.
* when he was elected i had great hopes for him, and I am a Tory, really thought he might make a difference, he could hardly have been worse than Wallit
> For a brief moment I felt a bit sorry for Corbyn, standing alone and forlorn in his ill fitting sports jacket, and then I remembered all the murderous, racist, sexist, homophobic, authoritarian bastards that he likes to befriend, and I didn't any more.
Yes quite agree. Its a bit sad that the best the opposition* can put up is this sad little weed. He looks like a third rate geography teacher, not a potential leader of nation with global aspirations. I do wonder though if nowadays the UK appears to the outside world as Corbynesque and frankly a bit of a joke.
* when he was elected i had great hopes for him, and I am a Tory, really thought he might make a difference, he could hardly have been worse than Wallit
3
In reply to Jim C:
Oh Sir, Putin is belittling Mr Corbyn and Mr Trump is calling him names, please sir, please sir can we report them to HR. The man aspires to be a World Leader, a man to fight our corner in very uncertain world, and he is just not up to it, and it is a disgrace that labour as the opposition puts him forward.
> In my workplace if we set out to belittle any other member of staff it would be a disciplinary matter.
> Not saying it was not funny, and I don't really think much of any of the politicians, Corbyn included, but the actions of the MPs was not just to snigger, they set out to deliberately embarrass and belittle a co- worker, so in many places, effectively bullying.
> Any HR experts here?
Oh Sir, Putin is belittling Mr Corbyn and Mr Trump is calling him names, please sir, please sir can we report them to HR. The man aspires to be a World Leader, a man to fight our corner in very uncertain world, and he is just not up to it, and it is a disgrace that labour as the opposition puts him forward.
3
5
In reply to Postmanpat:
Perhaps you should think about the outcomes of breaking relations with the Saudis either now or in the past instead of appealing simply to emotions. I notice you don't even attempt to address why the FO might want to retains relationships with Saudi. But no doubt if that ended in mass deaths you would find somebody else to blame.
I have had very few dealings with the FCO but I do recall it being an odd department- which is saying something given the competition. Can you elaborate on what the consequences of breaking relations with the Saudis might be, other than the loss of defence contracts for the UK ? Many, many other countries seem to cope ok with not having a cosy relationship with them, other than satisfying their petrochem needs of course. Our dealings with them have already led to many thousands of deaths of Yemenis and IS victims in the ME and wider world.
Easy, very easy to sit on the sidelines never having made a decision in ones life and indulge one's misplaced moral superiority. It genuinely amazes me that people can look at these issues in such simplistic terms.
What a very odd couple of sentences. If you mean I haven't made decisions on foreign affairs, then you have me banged to rights. I'm neither the PM or the SoS of the FCO. It genuinely amazes me that some people have such sociopathic tendencies that they can sweep the behaviour of barbaric regimes under the carpet and just mumble real politik in some sort of pathetic attempt to appear worldy wise.
Perhaps you should think about the outcomes of breaking relations with the Saudis either now or in the past instead of appealing simply to emotions. I notice you don't even attempt to address why the FO might want to retains relationships with Saudi. But no doubt if that ended in mass deaths you would find somebody else to blame.
I have had very few dealings with the FCO but I do recall it being an odd department- which is saying something given the competition. Can you elaborate on what the consequences of breaking relations with the Saudis might be, other than the loss of defence contracts for the UK ? Many, many other countries seem to cope ok with not having a cosy relationship with them, other than satisfying their petrochem needs of course. Our dealings with them have already led to many thousands of deaths of Yemenis and IS victims in the ME and wider world.
Easy, very easy to sit on the sidelines never having made a decision in ones life and indulge one's misplaced moral superiority. It genuinely amazes me that people can look at these issues in such simplistic terms.
What a very odd couple of sentences. If you mean I haven't made decisions on foreign affairs, then you have me banged to rights. I'm neither the PM or the SoS of the FCO. It genuinely amazes me that some people have such sociopathic tendencies that they can sweep the behaviour of barbaric regimes under the carpet and just mumble real politik in some sort of pathetic attempt to appear worldy wise.
2
In reply to lummox:
I'll refer you to this previous discussion http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=629362
Here's a possibility. If we break relations with Saudi it does nothing absolutely to stop their actions in the Yemen or elsewhere elsewhere but reduces the UK's security , access to oil, defence industry, other relationships in the ME. So, some losses for no gain, except a claim to moral purity. It also undermines our relationship, particularly in terms of security, with the US, which has been a keystone of policy since 1940.
If, as presumably Corbyn and yourself would like, the US and other Western powers also broke relations with Saudi there is a serious risk that the regime would fall, millions might die in a conflagration, and ISIS, or our old friends Iran might attack. The ME might be at war for a generation.
That you regard trying to think through the implications of one's views as "mumbling real politik in some sort of pathetic attempt to appear worldy wise." says it all really. Should one engage in political debate but ignore the realities and practicalities of the world?
Anyone who is in a position of power, as Corbyn may be, is ultimately going to have make choices between the lesser of two evils. Call that "realpolitik" if you like. Corbyn, we see, will line up with any nasty regime that is lined up against UK or US interests. Most UK politicians will try and align with those in the UK's interests which may include some nasty bedfellows. Corbyn will be indulging in realpolitik just as much as any other PM. The main difference is that he'll be aligned with "their bastards" rather than "our bastards".
The only consistent policy, if you condemn all relationships with nasty regimes, is not Corbyn's, or yours. It is to abandon all engagement in practical politics or power and to retire to the beach chanting hari krishna. Trying to claim moral superiority whilst aligning with dictators is just an exercise in self delusion.
> I have had very few dealings with the FCO but I do recall it being an odd department- which is saying something given the competition. Can you elaborate on what the consequences of breaking relations with the Saudis might be, other than the loss of defence contracts for the UK ? Many, many other countries seem to cope ok with not having a cosy relationship with them, other than satisfying their petrochem needs of course. Our dealings with them have already led to many thousands of deaths of Yemenis and IS victims in the ME and wider world.
I'll refer you to this previous discussion http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=629362
Here's a possibility. If we break relations with Saudi it does nothing absolutely to stop their actions in the Yemen or elsewhere elsewhere but reduces the UK's security , access to oil, defence industry, other relationships in the ME. So, some losses for no gain, except a claim to moral purity. It also undermines our relationship, particularly in terms of security, with the US, which has been a keystone of policy since 1940.
If, as presumably Corbyn and yourself would like, the US and other Western powers also broke relations with Saudi there is a serious risk that the regime would fall, millions might die in a conflagration, and ISIS, or our old friends Iran might attack. The ME might be at war for a generation.
> Easy, very easy to sit on the sidelines never having made a decision in ones life and indulge one's misplaced moral superiority. It genuinely amazes me that people can look at these issues in such simplistic terms.
> What a very odd couple of sentences. If you mean I haven't made decisions on foreign affairs, then you have me banged to rights. I'm neither the PM or the SoS of the FCO. It genuinely amazes me that some people have such sociopathic tendencies that they can sweep the behaviour of barbaric regimes under the carpet and just mumble real politik in some sort of pathetic attempt to appear worldy wise.
That you regard trying to think through the implications of one's views as "mumbling real politik in some sort of pathetic attempt to appear worldy wise." says it all really. Should one engage in political debate but ignore the realities and practicalities of the world?
Anyone who is in a position of power, as Corbyn may be, is ultimately going to have make choices between the lesser of two evils. Call that "realpolitik" if you like. Corbyn, we see, will line up with any nasty regime that is lined up against UK or US interests. Most UK politicians will try and align with those in the UK's interests which may include some nasty bedfellows. Corbyn will be indulging in realpolitik just as much as any other PM. The main difference is that he'll be aligned with "their bastards" rather than "our bastards".
The only consistent policy, if you condemn all relationships with nasty regimes, is not Corbyn's, or yours. It is to abandon all engagement in practical politics or power and to retire to the beach chanting hari krishna. Trying to claim moral superiority whilst aligning with dictators is just an exercise in self delusion.
4
2
In reply to Jim C:
Belittle? Really? It was a spur of the moment comment which cannot be described in any shape or form as 'setting out to embarrass or belittle.' Oh, and Corbyn cannot be described as a co-worker. Hes the Leader of the Opposition to Her Majesty's Government and I doubt very much he took offence as much as some of the people here.
Workplace bullying??? I despair!
Belittle? Really? It was a spur of the moment comment which cannot be described in any shape or form as 'setting out to embarrass or belittle.' Oh, and Corbyn cannot be described as a co-worker. Hes the Leader of the Opposition to Her Majesty's Government and I doubt very much he took offence as much as some of the people here.
Workplace bullying??? I despair!
3
In reply to Postmanpat:
Here's a possibility. If we break relations with Saudi it does nothing absolutely to stop their actions in the Yemen or elsewhere elsewhere but reduces the UK's security , access to oil, defence industry, other relationships in the ME. So, some losses for no gain, except a claim to moral purity. It also undermines our relationship, particularly in terms of security, with the US, which has been a keystone of policy since 1940.
Given that we are directly funding and providing military hardware for the assault on Yemen, if we withdrew this support, maybe fewer Yemenis might die as a result of starvation or direct assault. Imagine that ? What if we used our influence in the world to pressurise Saudi into halting the assault ?
Also- our special relationship with the U.S.- please. That has led directly to conflict with many nations and almost certainly has led to us being less secure than we were at any point since the end of the Cold War.
As for moral purity - don't be so facetious. It's a repugnant regime and if we weren't beholden to it for petrochem, it would most certainly have been justified as being part of Bush's " Axis of Evil " countries.
Here's another thought : what if we invested 1% of the £100b cost of replacing Trident in fusion research in any of the half dozen labs around the world that are working feverishly towards it ? Just imagine- all those fossil fuels left in the earth, clean fuel and no need to pander to the whims of any number of vicious regimes.
Would you consider that a positive use of cold hard cash to try and increase our national and fuel security ?
Finally, don't dare to assume that I support dictatorships. I don't.
Here's a possibility. If we break relations with Saudi it does nothing absolutely to stop their actions in the Yemen or elsewhere elsewhere but reduces the UK's security , access to oil, defence industry, other relationships in the ME. So, some losses for no gain, except a claim to moral purity. It also undermines our relationship, particularly in terms of security, with the US, which has been a keystone of policy since 1940.
Given that we are directly funding and providing military hardware for the assault on Yemen, if we withdrew this support, maybe fewer Yemenis might die as a result of starvation or direct assault. Imagine that ? What if we used our influence in the world to pressurise Saudi into halting the assault ?
Also- our special relationship with the U.S.- please. That has led directly to conflict with many nations and almost certainly has led to us being less secure than we were at any point since the end of the Cold War.
As for moral purity - don't be so facetious. It's a repugnant regime and if we weren't beholden to it for petrochem, it would most certainly have been justified as being part of Bush's " Axis of Evil " countries.
Here's another thought : what if we invested 1% of the £100b cost of replacing Trident in fusion research in any of the half dozen labs around the world that are working feverishly towards it ? Just imagine- all those fossil fuels left in the earth, clean fuel and no need to pander to the whims of any number of vicious regimes.
Would you consider that a positive use of cold hard cash to try and increase our national and fuel security ?
Finally, don't dare to assume that I support dictatorships. I don't.
6
1
In reply to lummox:
At least you are now addressing the issues, rather than dismissing it as "mumbling realpolik". I don't think the Saudis need our funding!! They would presumably call up any number of alternative suppliers of arms and carry on as before but the UK would have lost whatever restraining influence it might (or might not) have on them.
It's certainly led us into conflicts. Whether the alternatives are better is open to question. Look at the practicalities: do you really think it is possible let alone wise for one PM to decide unilaterally to downgrade ties of security, trade, finance et al with the world's most powerful country and that they should therefore be condemned as immoral for not doing so?
Yes, on the "repugnant regime" decription, but if breaking ties with Saudi doesn nothing to improve its behaviour and has negative implications for the UK, what motivation left except moral purity?
Possibly, don't know enough about fusion. i see where your coming from but it's for a different thrread.
I'm sure you don't "support them" but you appear to support Corbyn and he appears to align himself with racist authoritarian homophobes without voicing many reservations , so you have to examine the implications of this.
> Here's a possibility. If we break relations with Saudi it does nothing absolutely to stop their actions in the Yemen or elsewhere elsewhere but reduces the UK's security , access to oil, defence industry, other relationships in the ME. So, some losses for no gain, except a claim to moral purity. It also undermines our relationship, particularly in terms of security, with the US, which has been a keystone of policy since 1940.
> Given that we are directly funding and providing military hardware for the assault on Yemen, if we withdrew this support, maybe fewer Yemenis might die as a result of starvation or direct assault. Imagine that ? What if we used our influence in the world to pressurise Saudi into halting the assault ?
At least you are now addressing the issues, rather than dismissing it as "mumbling realpolik". I don't think the Saudis need our funding!! They would presumably call up any number of alternative suppliers of arms and carry on as before but the UK would have lost whatever restraining influence it might (or might not) have on them.
> Also- our special relationship with the U.S.- please. That has led directly to conflict with many nations and almost certainly has led to us being less secure than we were at any point since the end of the Cold War.
It's certainly led us into conflicts. Whether the alternatives are better is open to question. Look at the practicalities: do you really think it is possible let alone wise for one PM to decide unilaterally to downgrade ties of security, trade, finance et al with the world's most powerful country and that they should therefore be condemned as immoral for not doing so?
> As for moral purity - don't be so facetious. It's a repugnant regime and if we weren't beholden to it for petrochem, it would most certainly have been justified as being part of Bush's " Axis of Evil " countries.
Yes, on the "repugnant regime" decription, but if breaking ties with Saudi doesn nothing to improve its behaviour and has negative implications for the UK, what motivation left except moral purity?
>
> Would you consider that a positive use of cold hard cash to try and increase our national and fuel security ?
> Would you consider that a positive use of cold hard cash to try and increase our national and fuel security ?
Possibly, don't know enough about fusion. i see where your coming from but it's for a different thrread.
> Finally, don't dare to assume that I support dictatorships. I don't.
I'm sure you don't "support them" but you appear to support Corbyn and he appears to align himself with racist authoritarian homophobes without voicing many reservations , so you have to examine the implications of this.
Post edited at 09:46
2
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
Just a question here - and I am indeed aware of some of the individuals and groups with whom Corbyn's been associated - but if these links are just so close and friendly... where are the raving newspaper headlines? The tabloids (and lately the Telegraph too) think nothing of attacking him loudly on the front pages for the cut of his shirt or the angle of his bow. Surely links to blatant homophobes, bigots and terrorists would be a goldmine of headlines that could keep running and running, particularly on days they might want to bury bad news. Instead, there's vague mentions of it in columns by Dan Hodges (whose mission it is to make Labour appear to be the root of all evil anyway), and not much else. So what's going on?
For what it's worth, I voted for Corbyn because I broadly agree with his leftist principles and I think austerity is tearing this nation apart, but I don't think he's doing a great job at present. And I think these questions need to be answered.
> I'm sure you don't "support them" but you appear to support Corbyn and he appears to align himself with racist authoritarian homophobes without voicing many reservations , so you have to examine the implications of this.
Just a question here - and I am indeed aware of some of the individuals and groups with whom Corbyn's been associated - but if these links are just so close and friendly... where are the raving newspaper headlines? The tabloids (and lately the Telegraph too) think nothing of attacking him loudly on the front pages for the cut of his shirt or the angle of his bow. Surely links to blatant homophobes, bigots and terrorists would be a goldmine of headlines that could keep running and running, particularly on days they might want to bury bad news. Instead, there's vague mentions of it in columns by Dan Hodges (whose mission it is to make Labour appear to be the root of all evil anyway), and not much else. So what's going on?
For what it's worth, I voted for Corbyn because I broadly agree with his leftist principles and I think austerity is tearing this nation apart, but I don't think he's doing a great job at present. And I think these questions need to be answered.
4
2
In reply to Trevers:
I'll take a punt and say that you don't read the press....
> Just a question here - and I am indeed aware of some of the individuals and groups with whom Corbyn's been associated - but if these links are just so close and friendly... where are the raving newspaper headlines?
I'll take a punt and say that you don't read the press....
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
I'm sure you don't "support them" but you appear to support Corbyn and he appears to align himself with racist authoritarian homophobes without voicing many reservations , so you have to examine the implications of this.
I'm aware of some of the historic links but do you have any information about Corbyn supporting these homophobes now ? In the same way that you are linked to the racist,authoritarian homophobic House of Saud through your support for Cameron ?
I'm sure you don't "support them" but you appear to support Corbyn and he appears to align himself with racist authoritarian homophobes without voicing many reservations , so you have to examine the implications of this.
I'm aware of some of the historic links but do you have any information about Corbyn supporting these homophobes now ? In the same way that you are linked to the racist,authoritarian homophobic House of Saud through your support for Cameron ?
3
In reply to Mike Highbury:
I read The Guardian, Telegraph and BBC daily and see the tabloid front pages when I go into the shops (usually daily)
I read The Guardian, Telegraph and BBC daily and see the tabloid front pages when I go into the shops (usually daily)
In reply to lummox:
Well he turned up to the Stop the War Christmas party! Are you seriously suggesting that the has changed his views miraculously in the past few months as opposed to taking Milne's advise to tone down his public affirmation of them (another sign of reality confronting "principles")?
Yes, in the much the same way. But I don't pretend that Cameron or the UK State are doing anything more than negotiating their way through a moral quagmire as best they can rather than that they are saints or devils. I assume that most of those those engaging in politics, including myself, are doing much the same.
Corbyn and his supporters seem to think they better than all this.
> I'm sure you don't "support them" but you appear to support Corbyn and he appears to align himself with racist authoritarian homophobes without voicing many reservations , so you have to examine the implications of this.
> I'm aware of some of the historic links but do you have any information about Corbyn supporting these homophobes now ? In the same way that you are linked to the racist,authoritarian homophobic House of Saud through your support for Cameron ?
Well he turned up to the Stop the War Christmas party! Are you seriously suggesting that the has changed his views miraculously in the past few months as opposed to taking Milne's advise to tone down his public affirmation of them (another sign of reality confronting "principles")?
Yes, in the much the same way. But I don't pretend that Cameron or the UK State are doing anything more than negotiating their way through a moral quagmire as best they can rather than that they are saints or devils. I assume that most of those those engaging in politics, including myself, are doing much the same.
Corbyn and his supporters seem to think they better than all this.
1
2
In reply to Trevers:
Well, this took me about thirty seconds to find: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11825966/Corbyn-is-lining-u...
Biut since I'm trying to do something else can I suggest you try googling along the lines of
Corbyn McDonnell IRA Hamas Putin Stop the War momentum antisemitism Falklands Telegraph spectator Hodges Cohen
Should be a start....
Come to think of it the Grauniad has had some interesting stuff.
Here's a quick sample: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/05/jeremy-corbyn-new-poli...
For what it's worth, as I've said before, the press coverage of Corbyn, notably the Mail and Telegraph, has been largely shite trivial propoganda
> Just a question here - and I am indeed aware of some of the individuals and groups with whom Corbyn's been associated - but if these links are just so close and friendly... where are the raving newspaper headlines?
Well, this took me about thirty seconds to find: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11825966/Corbyn-is-lining-u...
Biut since I'm trying to do something else can I suggest you try googling along the lines of
Corbyn McDonnell IRA Hamas Putin Stop the War momentum antisemitism Falklands Telegraph spectator Hodges Cohen
Should be a start....
Come to think of it the Grauniad has had some interesting stuff.
Here's a quick sample: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/05/jeremy-corbyn-new-poli...
> For what it's worth, I voted for Corbyn because I broadly agree with his leftist principles and I think austerity is tearing this nation apart, but I don't think he's doing a great job at present. And I think these questions need to be answered.
For what it's worth, as I've said before, the press coverage of Corbyn, notably the Mail and Telegraph, has been largely shite trivial propoganda
Post edited at 11:31
2
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
The Stop The War coalition,seriously ?? Aside from dubious types like your fellow Brexit proponents from the Respect Party, is it the late Tony Benn, Caroline Lucas or Tariq Ali who are the racist, authoritarian homophobes ? Or Alice Mahon ? There are some dubious SWP types involved as well but I'm fairly sure none of them have crucified anyone for being gay. Perhaps you could enlighten me.
The Stop The War coalition,seriously ?? Aside from dubious types like your fellow Brexit proponents from the Respect Party, is it the late Tony Benn, Caroline Lucas or Tariq Ali who are the racist, authoritarian homophobes ? Or Alice Mahon ? There are some dubious SWP types involved as well but I'm fairly sure none of them have crucified anyone for being gay. Perhaps you could enlighten me.
3
1
In reply to lummox:
Sure: it isn't a "Stop the War" campaign. It's an organisation set up and dominated by the hard left, mainly the SWP, to support the winning of the war by their "side" ie. anything which isn't British, American or Israeli.
To save myself time, I assume you'll take Peter Tatchell 's word for it above mine...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-facing-mounting...
From the STWC website:
" (Hilary) Benn does not even seem to realize that the jihadist movement that ultimately spawned Daesh is far closer to the spirit of internationalism and solidarity that drove the International Brigades than Cameron£s bombing campaign £ except that the international jihad takes the form of solidarity with oppressed Muslims, rather than the working class or the socialist revolution.£
> The Stop The War coalition,seriously ?? Aside from dubious types like your fellow Brexit proponents from the Respect Party, is it the late Tony Benn, Caroline Lucas or Tariq Ali who are the racist, authoritarian homophobes ? Or Alice Mahon ? There are some dubious SWP types involved as well but I'm fairly sure none of them have crucified anyone for being gay. Perhaps you could enlighten me.
Sure: it isn't a "Stop the War" campaign. It's an organisation set up and dominated by the hard left, mainly the SWP, to support the winning of the war by their "side" ie. anything which isn't British, American or Israeli.
To save myself time, I assume you'll take Peter Tatchell 's word for it above mine...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-facing-mounting...
From the STWC website:
" (Hilary) Benn does not even seem to realize that the jihadist movement that ultimately spawned Daesh is far closer to the spirit of internationalism and solidarity that drove the International Brigades than Cameron£s bombing campaign £ except that the international jihad takes the form of solidarity with oppressed Muslims, rather than the working class or the socialist revolution.£
Post edited at 11:46
3
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
So what you are saying that it was set up by the hard left with the approval and connivance of the Green Party, CND, Tony Benn, Tariq Ali et al specifically to bring down the state ?
So what you are saying that it was set up by the hard left with the approval and connivance of the Green Party, CND, Tony Benn, Tariq Ali et al specifically to bring down the state ?
2
1
In reply to lummox:
No, it was set up by the SWP to stop the invasion of Iraq war and increase the power and influence on British politics of the SWP. It provided a focus for this campaign which other anti war campaigners could rally around thus increasing the SWP's power whilst disguising it behind cuddly fellow travellers like Benn. Your differing view of it would suggest that it has thus partly achieved its ends.
I've no idea why you think I think it was was set up "specifically to bring down the State". I don't doubt many of its progenitors would like that to happen, but the primary purpose of STW was never this.
It has since developed and morphed into a broader anti Western campaigning group and, as Tatchell and others point out, largely abandoned any moral compass in doing so.
Is Tatchell wrong?
Is the paragraph I quoted right?
> So what you are saying that it was set up by the hard left with the approval and connivance of the Green Party, CND, Tony Benn, Tariq Ali et al specifically to bring down the state ?
No, it was set up by the SWP to stop the invasion of Iraq war and increase the power and influence on British politics of the SWP. It provided a focus for this campaign which other anti war campaigners could rally around thus increasing the SWP's power whilst disguising it behind cuddly fellow travellers like Benn. Your differing view of it would suggest that it has thus partly achieved its ends.
I've no idea why you think I think it was was set up "specifically to bring down the State". I don't doubt many of its progenitors would like that to happen, but the primary purpose of STW was never this.
It has since developed and morphed into a broader anti Western campaigning group and, as Tatchell and others point out, largely abandoned any moral compass in doing so.
Is Tatchell wrong?
Is the paragraph I quoted right?
Post edited at 12:22
2
2
In reply to Gone for good:
You are perhaps missing the point, the original comment was fair enough, what people are commenting on was the reaction (or overreaction) from the other MPs. ( which was clearly intended to poke fun embarrass and belittle)
No odds to me, I'm not a Corbyn supporter, but the thrust of it is HOC seems to get away with things that other workplaces would not tolerate.
You are perhaps missing the point, the original comment was fair enough, what people are commenting on was the reaction (or overreaction) from the other MPs. ( which was clearly intended to poke fun embarrass and belittle)
No odds to me, I'm not a Corbyn supporter, but the thrust of it is HOC seems to get away with things that other workplaces would not tolerate.
5
In reply to Jim C:
Yees. Todays PMQs a case in point.
> No odds to me, I'm not a Corbyn supporter, but the thrust of it is HOC seems to get away with things that other workplaces would not tolerate.
Yees. Todays PMQs a case in point.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Sensationalist link name, strange because the article headline and subheadline don't go so far. By that definition of 'lining up', Cameron is also lining up with Zionists and religious extremists.
I think you largely missed the point of what I was trying to say. I'm well aware of those comprising connections to individuals or organisations who are less than morally pure. I never tried to claim Corbyn was whiter than white. I already said he has serious questions to answer.
I was making a point that if these connections are so strong, where are the headlines screaming from the tabloid front pages? "REVEALED: CORBS SICKO MATES" or something like that. National Anthem gate and Angle-of-bow gate ran for days, you couldn't avoid it. This would keep the tabloid circle jerk off going for months. I imagine as soon as his name went on the ballot, multiple journalists were assigned to digging up the worst dirt on him imaginable. So where are the headlines?
Unless of course they're being held back as the nuclear option for the perfect moment, which is entirely conceivable.
> Well, this took me about thirty seconds to find: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11825966/Corbyn-is-lining-u...
Sensationalist link name, strange because the article headline and subheadline don't go so far. By that definition of 'lining up', Cameron is also lining up with Zionists and religious extremists.
> Biut since I'm trying to do something else can I suggest you try googling along the lines of
> Corbyn McDonnell IRA Hamas Putin Stop the War momentum antisemitism Falklands Telegraph spectator Hodges Cohen
> Should be a start....
I think you largely missed the point of what I was trying to say. I'm well aware of those comprising connections to individuals or organisations who are less than morally pure. I never tried to claim Corbyn was whiter than white. I already said he has serious questions to answer.
I was making a point that if these connections are so strong, where are the headlines screaming from the tabloid front pages? "REVEALED: CORBS SICKO MATES" or something like that. National Anthem gate and Angle-of-bow gate ran for days, you couldn't avoid it. This would keep the tabloid circle jerk off going for months. I imagine as soon as his name went on the ballot, multiple journalists were assigned to digging up the worst dirt on him imaginable. So where are the headlines?
Unless of course they're being held back as the nuclear option for the perfect moment, which is entirely conceivable.
1
In reply to Jim C:
The comrade's had what?...over thirty years, lurking in the HOC to prepare for the day he'll 'Run the country'...turns out he's witless, clueless, gormless, charmless, and humourless....he's unable to think quickly enough on his feet to turn it to his advantage, by simply laughing it off.
He obviously needs to have a word with his millionaire commie spin doctor, Seumus Milne.
> No odds to me, I'm not a Corbyn supporter, but the thrust of it is HOC seems to get away with things that other workplaces would not tolerate.
The comrade's had what?...over thirty years, lurking in the HOC to prepare for the day he'll 'Run the country'...turns out he's witless, clueless, gormless, charmless, and humourless....he's unable to think quickly enough on his feet to turn it to his advantage, by simply laughing it off.
He obviously needs to have a word with his millionaire commie spin doctor, Seumus Milne.
1
1
In reply to Trevers:
>
I think you'll find plenty of such stuff in the DM but not going beyond the front pages of the tabloids I don't know. I would assume they did the Hamas/Putin story. But maybe they think the nationalanthemgate sells more papers. Don't know.
I think it highly likely that the media have a fund of stories saved up for the right moment.....
Actually, I found these in a split second
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/6585703/Jeremy-Corbyn-pl...
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/6662228/A-bomb-inable-Co...
>
> I was making a point that if these connections are so strong, where are the headlines screaming from the tabloid front pages? "REVEALED: CORBS SICKO MATES" or something like that. National Anthem gate and Angle-of-bow gate ran for days, you couldn't avoid it. This would keep the tabloid circle jerk off going for months. I imagine as soon as his name went on the ballot, multiple journalists were assigned to digging up the worst dirt on him imaginable. So where are the headlines?
> Unless of course they're being held back as the nuclear option for the perfect moment, which is entirely conceivable.
I think you'll find plenty of such stuff in the DM but not going beyond the front pages of the tabloids I don't know. I would assume they did the Hamas/Putin story. But maybe they think the nationalanthemgate sells more papers. Don't know.
I think it highly likely that the media have a fund of stories saved up for the right moment.....
Actually, I found these in a split second
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/6585703/Jeremy-Corbyn-pl...
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/6662228/A-bomb-inable-Co...
1
In reply to toad:
Corbyn pressing Cameron on the NHS, Cameron's response
"Put on a proper suit, do up your tie and sing the national anthem.”
which no doubt went down very well with the braying voices on the right of the house
> Yees. Todays PMQs a case in point.
Corbyn pressing Cameron on the NHS, Cameron's response
"Put on a proper suit, do up your tie and sing the national anthem.”
which no doubt went down very well with the braying voices on the right of the house
2
In reply to Chris the Tall:
And Corbyn responded with:
“If most of us are ashamed of shabby clothes and shoddy furniture let us be more ashamed of shabby ideas and shoddy philosophies.... It would be a sad situation if the wrapper were better than the meat wrapped inside it.” - Albert Einstein
Sadly, that response was only tweeted - from his official account - later on, rather than being rammed down Cameron's neck live in the Commons.
> "Put on a proper suit, do up your tie and sing the national anthem.”
And Corbyn responded with:
“If most of us are ashamed of shabby clothes and shoddy furniture let us be more ashamed of shabby ideas and shoddy philosophies.... It would be a sad situation if the wrapper were better than the meat wrapped inside it.” - Albert Einstein
Sadly, that response was only tweeted - from his official account - later on, rather than being rammed down Cameron's neck live in the Commons.
2
In reply to Timmd:
I've had a reasonable amount of experience of attending large and long meetings and a but of levity is sometimes needed. You come to understand why it happens in parliament.
If the leader of the opposition can't handle it then I'd suggest that we have a problem.
> These people are running our country, and they sit and jeer and laugh uproariously meaning other people can't hear themselves speak.
> It can start to be annoying after a bit.
I've had a reasonable amount of experience of attending large and long meetings and a but of levity is sometimes needed. You come to understand why it happens in parliament.
If the leader of the opposition can't handle it then I'd suggest that we have a problem.
3
2
In reply to Clauso:
Better at sums than words, by the looks of things.
> “If most of us are ashamed of shabby clothes and shoddy furniture let us be more ashamed of shabby ideas and shoddy philosophies.... It would be a sad situation if the wrapper were better than the meat wrapped inside it.” - Albert Einstein
Better at sums than words, by the looks of things.
1
1
In reply to Eeyore:
It is every ones right to vote for these people! God help us when they get back in! Again
It is every ones right to vote for these people! God help us when they get back in! Again
In reply to timjones:
There's a difference between a bit of friendly ribbing about who took how many biscuits in-between agenda items and interrupting someone who you disagree with with personal abuse while they're in the middle of making their point.
> I've had a reasonable amount of experience of attending large and long meetings and a but of levity is sometimes needed. You come to understand why it happens in parliament.
There's a difference between a bit of friendly ribbing about who took how many biscuits in-between agenda items and interrupting someone who you disagree with with personal abuse while they're in the middle of making their point.
4
In reply to timjones:
You call that levity? Think this is a difference of opinion moment...
> I've had a reasonable amount of experience of attending large and long meetings and a but of levity is sometimes needed. You come to understand why it happens in parliament.
> If the leader of the opposition can't handle it then I'd suggest that we have a problem.
You call that levity? Think this is a difference of opinion moment...
1
1
In reply to Timmd:
I've just checked the definition of levity in my dictionary and I'd say that it fits the definition pretty well.
> You call that levity? Think this is a difference of opinion moment...
I've just checked the definition of levity in my dictionary and I'd say that it fits the definition pretty well.
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Do you really think that qualifies as abuse?
> There's a difference between a bit of friendly ribbing about who took how many biscuits in-between agenda items and interrupting someone who you disagree with with personal abuse while they're in the middle of making their point.
Do you really think that qualifies as abuse?
In reply to timjones:
I think it was too contemptuous to be regarded simply as 'levity'. I was a bit surprised that the Speaker didn't intervene. It was certainly/surely right on the limit of what is acceptable parliamentary behaviour.
I think it was too contemptuous to be regarded simply as 'levity'. I was a bit surprised that the Speaker didn't intervene. It was certainly/surely right on the limit of what is acceptable parliamentary behaviour.
Post edited at 20:53
1
In reply to timjones:
I noted also that not all the Conservative front benchers looked entirely happy about it either.
I noted also that not all the Conservative front benchers looked entirely happy about it either.
1
In reply to timjones:
My apologies, you're right it does fit the definition for the light hearted part. I guess I mean didn't see it as appropriate.
The meaning I seem to have absorbed is that levity is 'bringing things down to earth through the use of humour', I guess that's part of what makes languages interesting, the meanings one can absorb, the dictionary definitions, and changes in use and meaning over time.
You're right that your usage fits the definition though. It's always good to learn about where you've been wrong.
> I've just checked the definition of levity in my dictionary and I'd say that it fits the definition pretty well.
My apologies, you're right it does fit the definition for the light hearted part. I guess I mean didn't see it as appropriate.
The meaning I seem to have absorbed is that levity is 'bringing things down to earth through the use of humour', I guess that's part of what makes languages interesting, the meanings one can absorb, the dictionary definitions, and changes in use and meaning over time.
You're right that your usage fits the definition though. It's always good to learn about where you've been wrong.
Post edited at 21:08
In reply to Baron Weasel:
If he'd made the joke, they're'de been some laughs, they'd carried on, fair enough. The continued forced hi volume laughter was pathetic and puerile.
If he'd made the joke, they're'de been some laughs, they'd carried on, fair enough. The continued forced hi volume laughter was pathetic and puerile.
4
In reply to Trangia:
He couldn't carry on through the pathetic braying din from the other side coming in their pants with laughter at a playground joke.
> Corbyn would have done himself a big favour if he had smiled when the heckle was made, and then carried on speaking.
He couldn't carry on through the pathetic braying din from the other side coming in their pants with laughter at a playground joke.
2
In reply to dek:
I think we all agree that the HOC is not a typical place of employment , but there must be limits anywhere, and ' laughing it off' sends the wrong signal, so I don't think he should have encouraged them in that way.
The way he reacted, has made people look closer at the others' behaviour, and contrast and compare, it with what they experience in their workplace.
I' m sure Corwyn has a thick political skin, and knows what to expect, but do I think that these people's behaviour at times ( on ether side ) is always acceptable, well no.
I can see that people on here are happy not to criticise the MPs here because they have a personal/ political dislike for the ' victim' in this instance, but I disregard those views as they are warped by hate.
> The comrade's had what?...over thirty years, lurking in the HOC to prepare for the day he'll 'Run the country'...turns out he's witless, clueless, gormless, charmless, and humourless....he's unable to think quickly enough on his feet to turn it to his advantage, by simply laughing it off.
I think we all agree that the HOC is not a typical place of employment , but there must be limits anywhere, and ' laughing it off' sends the wrong signal, so I don't think he should have encouraged them in that way.
The way he reacted, has made people look closer at the others' behaviour, and contrast and compare, it with what they experience in their workplace.
I' m sure Corwyn has a thick political skin, and knows what to expect, but do I think that these people's behaviour at times ( on ether side ) is always acceptable, well no.
I can see that people on here are happy not to criticise the MPs here because they have a personal/ political dislike for the ' victim' in this instance, but I disregard those views as they are warped by hate.
1
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
At the end of the day I'm sure that there were some Conservatives that didn't join in the laughter and some Labour MPs that found it funnier than traditional party political lines might dictate. I'm sure that it was possible to observe the opposite situatrion for yesterdays "ask your mother" comment from the Labour benches.
MPs are human and these things will happen. Anyone who has followed HOC debates will be aware that MPs partake in many hours of more staid and formal proceedings. It would be a shame if we allowed the undue focus that the media place on the circus of PMQs to influence our opinions too severely.
Rather than bowing to what the media want us to think we should all make use of our current unprecedented ability to have a look at what goes on in parliament and see what our own MPs are doing on our behalf. How many of us have asked our MP to contribute to a debate and then taken the time to check up on their contribution?
> I noted also that not all the Conservative front benchers looked entirely happy about it either.
At the end of the day I'm sure that there were some Conservatives that didn't join in the laughter and some Labour MPs that found it funnier than traditional party political lines might dictate. I'm sure that it was possible to observe the opposite situatrion for yesterdays "ask your mother" comment from the Labour benches.
MPs are human and these things will happen. Anyone who has followed HOC debates will be aware that MPs partake in many hours of more staid and formal proceedings. It would be a shame if we allowed the undue focus that the media place on the circus of PMQs to influence our opinions too severely.
Rather than bowing to what the media want us to think we should all make use of our current unprecedented ability to have a look at what goes on in parliament and see what our own MPs are doing on our behalf. How many of us have asked our MP to contribute to a debate and then taken the time to check up on their contribution?
1
In reply to timjones:
I'm sick of the ya-boo crap and PMQs should be much better: its not a light entertainment reward for MPs for the booring stuff.
I'm sick of the ya-boo crap and PMQs should be much better: its not a light entertainment reward for MPs for the booring stuff.
2
In reply to Offwidth:
You might be sick of it, but do you watch the more staid stuff?
> I'm sick of the ya-boo crap and PMQs should be much better: its not a light entertainment reward for MPs for the booring stuff.
You might be sick of it, but do you watch the more staid stuff?
1
In reply to timjones:
Yes where it relates to my interests. Select Committe stuff is very good but too many chamber debates are an embarrassment in turns of engagement (with the obvious exceptions of the often excellent work on show from the few there). PMQs in contrast are pointlessly rammed... circus stuff.
Yes where it relates to my interests. Select Committe stuff is very good but too many chamber debates are an embarrassment in turns of engagement (with the obvious exceptions of the often excellent work on show from the few there). PMQs in contrast are pointlessly rammed... circus stuff.
1
In reply to Baron Weasel:
A pretty low performance even by Cameron's bullying standards. PMQs is an embarrassment and will continue to be so all involved just want to tilt public opinion their way.
A pretty low performance even by Cameron's bullying standards. PMQs is an embarrassment and will continue to be so all involved just want to tilt public opinion their way.
1
In reply to Offwidth:
The problem is that we aren't going to alter things if we don't engage with our representatives. I'm sure that far too many people only ever see the PMQs type stuff that is all too often flagged up by those with ulterior motives.
> Yes where it relates to my interests. Select Committe stuff is very good but too many chamber debates are an embarrassment in turns of engagement (with the obvious exceptions of the often excellent work on show from the few there). PMQs in contrast are pointlessly rammed... circus stuff.
The problem is that we aren't going to alter things if we don't engage with our representatives. I'm sure that far too many people only ever see the PMQs type stuff that is all too often flagged up by those with ulterior motives.
1
In reply to timjones:
While I'm all for increasing public involvement with politics I think its crystal clear the vast majority of the public want the PMQ's circus to stop and proper answers to the questions to be enforced. Our representatives are collectively showing us how much they care, that this change hasn't occurred. There are honourable exceptions lobbying hard on this subject (usually led from the minority of women MP's).
While I'm all for increasing public involvement with politics I think its crystal clear the vast majority of the public want the PMQ's circus to stop and proper answers to the questions to be enforced. Our representatives are collectively showing us how much they care, that this change hasn't occurred. There are honourable exceptions lobbying hard on this subject (usually led from the minority of women MP's).
3
In reply to Offwidth:
On what evidence do you think that claim is crystal clear? It just sounds like your own opinion.
I think things like Cameron's 'shot to the foot' yesterday are in fact very revealing.
> ... I think its crystal clear the vast majority of the public want the PMQ's circus to stop ...
On what evidence do you think that claim is crystal clear? It just sounds like your own opinion.
I think things like Cameron's 'shot to the foot' yesterday are in fact very revealing.
1
In reply to Offwidth:
I have a sneaking suspicion that if we watched multiple sessions of PMQs from beginning to end we would find that iit is nowhere near as bad as the "selected highlights" tend to paint it ;(
> While I'm all for increasing public involvement with politics I think its crystal clear the vast majority of the public want the PMQ's circus to stop and proper answers to the questions to be enforced. Our representatives are collectively showing us how much they care, that this change hasn't occurred. There are honourable exceptions lobbying hard on this subject (usually led from the minority of women MP's).
I have a sneaking suspicion that if we watched multiple sessions of PMQs from beginning to end we would find that iit is nowhere near as bad as the "selected highlights" tend to paint it ;(
In reply to Rob Parsons:
I honestly can't think of anyone I've talked to who thinks it is working. As for data
http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Tuned-in-or-Tur...
I honestly can't think of anyone I've talked to who thinks it is working. As for data
http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Tuned-in-or-Tur...
1
In reply to timjones:
I agree with that point but often the most important questions and politically difficult are the ones the PM in both parties seem to avoid answering the most. Many questions have broad agreement (and don't need asking). Many look like plain brown-nosing.
I also think the leader(s) of the opposition should answer questions occasionally.
I agree with that point but often the most important questions and politically difficult are the ones the PM in both parties seem to avoid answering the most. Many questions have broad agreement (and don't need asking). Many look like plain brown-nosing.
I also think the leader(s) of the opposition should answer questions occasionally.
1
In reply to timjones:
Having sat through a number of PMQs for work, I would say c.30- 40% of the time, the behaviour is pretty pathetic. A particular highlight was watching corpulent, middle aged senior Tories making lewd gestures at young female MPs on the opposite side of the House.
Having sat through a number of PMQs for work, I would say c.30- 40% of the time, the behaviour is pretty pathetic. A particular highlight was watching corpulent, middle aged senior Tories making lewd gestures at young female MPs on the opposite side of the House.
2
In reply to timjones:
Rather than joining in this debate, I've just looked up the history of PMQ (on wiki), actually very interesting how it has evolved and why. I think it is worth reading for everyone purely for interest sake.
Rather than joining in this debate, I've just looked up the history of PMQ (on wiki), actually very interesting how it has evolved and why. I think it is worth reading for everyone purely for interest sake.
1
In reply to Offwidth:
I think it 'works.' It all depends on what it's expected to do, of course - but having people engage in heated and (nominally) reactive arguments can sometimes shine a forensic light on the real manner of the people involved. And that's exactly what happened yesterday: a useful result, I think.
None of that will influence policy particularly - but we have the rest of the week's debates in Parliament for that.
> I honestly can't think of anyone I've talked to who thinks it is working.
I think it 'works.' It all depends on what it's expected to do, of course - but having people engage in heated and (nominally) reactive arguments can sometimes shine a forensic light on the real manner of the people involved. And that's exactly what happened yesterday: a useful result, I think.
None of that will influence policy particularly - but we have the rest of the week's debates in Parliament for that.
2
In reply to Rob Parsons:
I think Simon Hogartt's take on it was about right. Final couple of paras in partic.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/23/pmqs-50th-birthday-hot...
I think Simon Hogartt's take on it was about right. Final couple of paras in partic.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/23/pmqs-50th-birthday-hot...
1
In reply to MG:
I think he is too close to the Westminster village and has lost touch. The scandals around expenses and similar have changed the public view of MP's just as austerity has raised the requirement for serious debate. You just can't keep ignoring public feeling in such times.
I think he is too close to the Westminster village and has lost touch. The scandals around expenses and similar have changed the public view of MP's just as austerity has raised the requirement for serious debate. You just can't keep ignoring public feeling in such times.
1
In reply to Offwidth:
You realise he's dead?
> I think he is too close to the Westminster village and has lost touch.
You realise he's dead?
In reply to Baron Weasel:
Bahahahahaha that was hilarious! I am glad there are politicians which have a sense of humour
If that happened in a work meeting in my team, the reaction would also have been laughter.
To those who are 'disgusted' at the video.... lighten up!!!! Life is too short to be grumpy
Bahahahahaha that was hilarious! I am glad there are politicians which have a sense of humour
If that happened in a work meeting in my team, the reaction would also have been laughter.
To those who are 'disgusted' at the video.... lighten up!!!! Life is too short to be grumpy
4
In reply to Rob Parsons:
No, I'm sorry, I did know but had completely forgotten when I wrote that.
I do think the political journalists can sometimes be a bit kind as they have to 'work' relationships in their role and in that maybe overemphasise the human side of MP's (who are after all doing a job for the public and in the case of public feedback on PMQ's not a good one).
No, I'm sorry, I did know but had completely forgotten when I wrote that.
I do think the political journalists can sometimes be a bit kind as they have to 'work' relationships in their role and in that maybe overemphasise the human side of MP's (who are after all doing a job for the public and in the case of public feedback on PMQ's not a good one).
1
In reply to lummox:
A particular highlight was watching corpulent, middle aged senior Tories making lewd gestures at young female MPs on the opposite side of the House.
Another reason that they should Behave properly in their workplace, and be brought into this centuries HR procedures.
( and we can start sacking a few of them )
> Having sat through a number of PMQs for work, I would say c.30- 40% of the time, the behaviour is pretty pathetic.
A particular highlight was watching corpulent, middle aged senior Tories making lewd gestures at young female MPs on the opposite side of the House.
Another reason that they should Behave properly in their workplace, and be brought into this centuries HR procedures.
( and we can start sacking a few of them )
In reply to timjones:
I've realised that it was reading the use of levity by Bernard Newman in High Magazine when I was 12, when he was referring to somebody writing in with a method of stopping acrylic hats from causing hair to become statically charged, he commented about her providing some much needed levity (when the rest of the letters were argumentative and outraged, in the way that they used to be).
It seems that shaped what I took the word to mean, quite interesting how these things happen.
> I've just checked the definition of levity in my dictionary and I'd say that it fits the definition pretty well.
I've realised that it was reading the use of levity by Bernard Newman in High Magazine when I was 12, when he was referring to somebody writing in with a method of stopping acrylic hats from causing hair to become statically charged, he commented about her providing some much needed levity (when the rest of the letters were argumentative and outraged, in the way that they used to be).
It seems that shaped what I took the word to mean, quite interesting how these things happen.
Post edited at 19:02
1
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...