Corbyn did win, what's next?

[caveman1917]

We don't have a "national" anthem. What we have is a tuneless monarchist dirge, with religious overtones that are meaningless to most people in the country. We need a new one.

You already have

 

[Darat]

He's doing well, he's asking simple reasonable questions from people and all Cameron can do is spout the usual party line and avoids any actual answer.

 

[The Don]

He's doing well, he's asking simple reasonable questions from people and all Cameron can do is spout the usual party line and avoids any actual answer.

IMO the approach did manage to take the wind out of Cameron's sails. That said, whether he'll continue to get such a comparatively easy ride is another matter entirely.

As usual there was little in the way of substantive answers to questions but I wasn't expecting anything different.

 

[GlennB]

Daley Thompson whistled the national anthem at the LA Olympics, but we forgave him. In fact, if you have a good look at the photo, there are a number of people not singing, including one seriously military bloke (though he might just be doing that mumbling thing that people with crap voices are well advised to do).

Seriously, this kind of **** is exactly what's wrong with UK politics. Appearance over substance, always.

Meanwhile, single people living in Trafford, Manchester must confirm their claim for single-person's council tax discount online, and online only. Bit of a shame if you're an immobile elderly person with no internet connection, but hey - the (private) administrators of that system get a cut of savings thus made while the media is wetting its collective pants about Corbyn's singing.

 

[Lothian]

Daley Thompson whistled the national anthem at the LA Olympics, but we forgave him. In fact, if you have a good look at the photo, there are a number of people not singing, including one seriously military bloke (though he might just be doing that mumbling thing that people with crap voices are well advised to do).

The up coming Rugby world cup will have many Sportsmen proudly representing their country not singing their national anthem. I trust the front pages of the Uk press will criticize them in a similar way.

 

[uk_dave]

First dig at shadow chancellor

 

[Craig B]

I hope, for example, that he would get immediate praise from the new enlarged SNP contingent, who are still not on terms with some of the idiotic customs of the House, and that sensible voters would sustain and applaud him.

That seems to be happening. See BBC report.

SNP Westminster leader Angus Robertson says he looks forward to working with Jeremy Corbyn "in opposing Tory austerity" as he claims devolution promises have not been kept. Mr Cameron suggests he is "frit" of talking about taxes the SNP wants to raise. What happened to the new style of Prime Minister's Questions, Mr Robertson asks in his response.​

That was a serious mistake by Cameron, to use Thatcher's expression "frit" to describe people afraid of SNP tax proposals. The Scots word is "feart". If there is anything likely to endear Scots further to the SNP, it is to be reminded of Thatcher, who is widely execrated up here.

 

[Darat]

IMO the approach did manage to take the wind out of Cameron's sails. That said, whether he'll continue to get such a comparatively easy ride is another matter entirely.

As usual there was little in the way of substantive answers to questions but I wasn't expecting anything different.

What I would like to see him doing is publishing the answers he got alongside the question and get the person who asked the question to give their response to the answer the PM gave.

____


Did anyone think the organisers got it wrong going to that conservative MP and him asking about a tiger and it being granted asylum in this country?

I'm not saying that type of question shouldn't ever be in PM questions - PM questions is in a way meant to ground the PM in what is important i.e. constituency issues MPs are concerned about. It was just the tone seemed frivolous after the previous questions. Or is that me putting perception over substance?

 

[MikeG]

This again? I'd say Thatcher was very right-wing, but if we can't agree on that then discussion is pointless. Assuming we can agree, then you seem to have defined "modern" as post-Thatcher. In terms of leaders who actually won an election, this means Major, Blair and Cameron. Rather a small sample from which to reach dogmatic conclusions about the future of UK politics, I'd say.

Yes, this again. Thatcher was very right wing.........the only Tory right winger to have won an election since the war. (Remember, I conceded this last time we discussed this, only a day or two ago). All the other conservative election winners were "one nation" Tories (whether they said so or not), towards the left of their party, and thus towards the centre ground of the electorate. Blair, the only Labour leader ever to have been re-elected I believe, was to the right of his party, and thus towards the middle ground of the electorate. We could have a discussion about Wilson, but him aside, I can't think of a Labour leader from the left of their party who has won an election since the 50's, and certainly none has ever won re-election.

I don't know why this discussion pains you so much.

 

[lionking]

He might be gone tomorrow or next week. But while he's there he has no choice, and I'm sure no inclination, except to adhere to the principles and attitudes that won him so much support in the Leadership election.

That "support" means nothing until there's an election. My opinion (and all everyone has is an opinion, despite the scramble for the moral high ground) is that he won't face an election. And, please, don't call his elevation to Labour leader an "election". That would be an abuse of the English language.

 

[Darat]

Daley Thompson whistled the national anthem at the LA Olympics, but we forgave him. In fact, if you have a good look at the photo, there are a number of people not singing, including one seriously military bloke (though he might just be doing that mumbling thing that people with crap voices are well advised to do).

Seriously, this kind of **** is exactly what's wrong with UK politics. Appearance over substance, always.

Meanwhile, single people living in Trafford, Manchester must confirm their claim for single-person's council tax discount online, and online only. Bit of a shame if you're an immobile elderly person with no internet connection, but hey - the (private) administrators of that system get a cut of savings thus made while the media is wetting its collective pants about Corbyn's singing.

Or someone with no computer skills whatsoever or someone illiterate and so on; not saying to not use computers when they can reduce costs* but there still needs to be an alternative for those who simply aren't able for whatever reason to use the online option.

*Seen too many "computerisations" to simply accept that it will reduce costs.

 

[angrysoba]

Telegraph live blogging of Jeremy Corbyn seems to be to run any wild accusation made about Corbyn and then gradually back pedal as the story clears up. For example Mad Corbyn apparently stole sandwiches at the Battle of Britain memorial, probably from the hungry mouths of veterans after having ruined their day with his boycotting antics and then only this morning either he or one of his Cheka goons assaulted a BBC cameraman and put him in hospital with neck and facial injuries.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...89/jeremy-corbyn-david-cameron-pmqs-live.html

 

[Darat]

That "support" means nothing until there's an election. My opinion (and all everyone has is an opinion, despite the scramble for the moral high ground) is that he won't face an election. And, please, don't call his elevation to Labour leader an "election". That would be an abuse of the English language.

No it would be a an accurate description. Now does it compare in scale to a general election well of course not (ATE: nor do I think we can extrapolate from it to a general election). But he has been elected to his position by what I would say is the most democratic mechanism of any of the major UK parties.

 

[Lothian]

No it would be a an accurate description. Now does it compare in scale to a general election well of course not (ATE: nor do I think we can extrapolate from it to a general election). But he has been elected to his position by what I would say is the most democratic mechanism of any of the major UK parties.

Quite. You didn't even have to be a member of the Labour party to vote. You just needed £3.

 

[lionking]

No it would be a an accurate description. Now does it compare in scale to a general election well of course not (ATE: nor do I think we can extrapolate from it to a general election). But he has been elected to his position by what I would say is the most democratic mechanism of any of the major UK parties.

Nope. Abuse of what is commonly understood as the English language. If Corbyn was chosen as president of the local Rotary Club, it would be fair and democratic. It would also be utterly irrelevant in context. As is his "election" by a minute proportion of the electorate, to lead the Labour Party.

As others have said, the fact that some thousands have paid 3 quid (please) to cast a vote means bugger all. He's leader of Labour, sure. He won an election, means nothing.

 

[uk_dave]

Well, must admit i quite enjoyed PMQs but my perception of how successful it was may be different to others.

Corbyn used his questions obtained via social media (though he described it as having been in response to an email he sent out.... lucky it wasn't a fax!) and that did have the affect of making the questions about real people and not just policies. So, in a way he was acting as the representative of ordinary people at the Prime Minister's surgery, which was a nice touch.

Only problem was he didn't ask any follow up questions. So all that happened was he would ask the heartfelt question on behalf of the concerned person, Cameron gave his mostly by rote reply and then they went to next question.

In the past the response from the PM would be subject to further questioning and in many cases ridicule.

It was a little bit too nice... a bit bloodless.

It will be interesting to see if it can be sustained. My suspicion is 'no'.

There were certainly a few digs at Corbyn's expense and I would certainly expect that to increase in future.

 

[Craig B]

That "support" means nothing until there's an election. My opinion (and all everyone has is an opinion, despite the scramble for the moral high ground) is that he won't face an election.

It may not mean much. That's why I specified: in the leadership election.

And, please, don't call his elevation to Labour leader an "election". That would be an abuse of the English language.

Don't be silly.

the selection of a person or persons for office by vote​

dictionary.com

 

[Lothian]

Nope. Abuse of what is commonly understood as the English language. If Corbyn was chosen as president of the local Rotary Club, it would be fair and democratic. It would also be utterly irrelevant in context. As is his "election" by a minute proportion of the electorate, to lead the Labour Party.

As others have said, the fact that some thousands have paid 3 quid (please) to cast a vote means bugger all. He's leader of Labour, sure. He won an election, means nothing.

Out of interest, what would you consider to be a fair process for electing the leader of a political party.

To clarify the support he got.

Turnout for the vote was 422,871 (76.3%) of the 554,272 eligible voters

Corbyn got 59.5% of the total vote (45.35% of the eligible vote) split as follows

49.59% of Labour members
83.76% of "supporters" (£3 payers) and
57.61% of affiliates (union Members)

Take the £3 supporters out and he still got 51.45% of the vote more than the 3 losing candidates put together.

Note: since the election over 1/3 of the "supporters" have joined the party.

Seems to me to be a pretty comprehensive and fair election result. Certainly he was elected by the members as opposed to people who may have voted labour in the General election. However I am unaware of any electoral systems where party leaders are elected by the general public.

Am I correct that only 54 people voted for the winner in the Australian Liberal party leadership contest, to also decide the Prime Minister of Australia?

 

[angrysoba]

That "support" means nothing until there's an election. My opinion (and all everyone has is an opinion, despite the scramble for the moral high ground) is that he won't face an election. And, please, don't call his elevation to Labour leader an "election". That would be an abuse of the English language.

Nope. Abuse of what is commonly understood as the English language. If Corbyn was chosen as president of the local Rotary Club, it would be fair and democratic. It would also be utterly irrelevant in context. As is his "election" by a minute proportion of the electorate, to lead the Labour Party.

As others have said, the fact that some thousands have paid 3 quid (please) to cast a vote means bugger all. He's leader of Labour, sure. He won an election, means nothing.

Sorry, but what? Just Google the phrase "labour leadership election" and you'll see that is how it is referred to by Wikipedia, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The FT, The Mirror and various other media sources. By any reasonable standard, then, it is commonly understood in the English-speaking world as an election. The old "It's just my opinion, man!" argument will only take you so far, and probably not even as far as that bag of sour grapes you have brought to the party.

 

[lionking]

Out of interest, what would you consider to be a fair process for electing the leader of a political party.

To clarify the support he got.

Turnout for the vote was 422,871 (76.3%) of the 554,272 eligible voters

Corbyn got 59.5% of the total vote (45.35% of the eligible vote) split as follows

49.59% of Labour members
83.76% of "supporters" (£3 payers) and
57.61% of affiliates (union Members)

Take the £3 supporters out and he still got 51.45% of the vote more than the 3 losing candidates put together.

Note: since the election over 1/3 of the "supporters" have joined the party.

Seems to me to be a pretty comprehensive and fair election result. Certainly he was elected by the members as opposed to people who may have voted labour in the General election. However I am unaware of any electoral systems where party leaders are elected by the general public.

Am I correct that only 54 people voted for the winner in the Australian Liberal party leadership contest, to also decide the Prime Minister of Australia?

Ignorance of the Australian political system noted. Turnbull was "voted in" in the same way a Rotary president is. As was Corbyn. Let's wait for a real election before crowing.