bear66
Well-known member
I'd forgotten that!
Keir Starmer giving Johnson another tough time at PMQ’s
- Thread starter Funky_Chicken
- Start date
junos_boots
Well-known member
I probably explained badly, but my point was that even Johnson loses the PM job, because his party lose faith in him, then we will not get a general election as Conservatives will just get another leader and he/she will be PM for the remainder of the 5 year term.
Their MPs will not have a vote of no confidence as they don't have to put their large majority at risk yet.
My thinking is that one event doesn't cause a government to fall, but it may cause a leader to fall.
Thatcher was poll tax but party stayed in power under Major
Blair was his length of stay - but party hung on for another few years
Cameron and May was Europe but party stayed in power
So Starmer has to keep drip dripping the bad issues about the Government for another 4 years before he has any chance of becoming PM, due to electorate needing a lot of persuading to change party.
I think the exact opposite to this.
bear66
Well-known member
Why? Aren't facts important.
A good watch:
The Country That Beat The Virus: What Can Britain Learn?Channel 4, 9pm, 13 May
I never understand why people have such a problem with party politics. How else could governance possibly happen?
Muttley
Well-known member
I'm sorry UR you are parroting Tory propaganda. I can't be bothered to go over the reasoning that Brown actually did a very good job because you have become enamored of that narrative. In any case, it is also a decade old, you might as well quote Harold Wilson for all the relevance to today. Ten years of Tory austerity and you seem to be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.
Because Kuenssberg has shown what she's all about for years. If she's throwing her weight behind Starmer it suggests (to me at least) that he's a tory in disguise. She wouldn't back him otherwise.
bear66
Well-known member
If the right questions are being put to politicians, I have to put up with who asked the questions as I have no ability to do that.
The questioners are too wordy in general though. A short question which can only be about one issue would be better, and then say it again in the comeback when it's not answered.
Junos Boots has listed PMs who were ushered out of office without their party then calling a General Election - Thatcher, Blair, Cameron, May.
Uncle Rico is listing PMs who were ushered in to office without their party calling a General Election - Major, Brown, May, Johnson.
Simple misunderstanding. Thread doesn't need to sidetrack into the merits of Brown as PM.
Uncle Rico is listing PMs who were ushered in to office without their party calling a General Election - Major, Brown, May, Johnson.
Simple misunderstanding. Thread doesn't need to sidetrack into the merits of Brown as PM.
Who is suggesting "mad aggression"? You are possibly judging others by your own approach here. Everything I have written is reasoned and reasonable. Just by suggesting he hammers home points or makes stronger points does not mean he needs to go all attack dog. From what I have seen on this thread so far you are very keen to pigeon hole people, you are mildly aggressive and you have even included insults, weak or otherwise. Other people with a different opinion and view are discussing sensibly, backed up with facts and observations. But, anyway, I digress.
The example I have been trying to remember all morning has just come back to me, it was a discussion over PPE; Starmer raised an issue in PMQs regarding availability, Boris agreed he had a point, Starmer sat down. This is the kind of scenario where he could have pushed the point further and demonstrated incompetency in government, and even possibly gone further by making a suggestion on what should have been done to show he is a viable alternative. Easy, calm, professional politics on a incendiary subject. As it was it turned an open goal into a minor victory, but one that was a bit of a damp squib.
ForssAwakens
Well-known member
No point setting policies now that may be outdated and the next general election
SmallTown
Well-known member
I would also like to know why almost all questions seem to be double questions? Is this to give the politician a chance to only answer the one they want?
Jedi boro
Well-known member
Exactly Boris agreed Boris apologises etc it’s all part of the long game a reasonable man asking reasonable questions is the tories worst nightmare.
Had starmer gone for the jugular then the oh he’s playing party politics would have been thrown at him.
He needs to be supportive but not a fan boy critical but not a critic it’s a fine line.
Not sure if this is strictly correct, it is certainly too early to judge him. He managed to come through the Labour leader contest as the winner, despite having the Brexit debacle and allegedly gender, and the influence of the hard left against him. So he does have some political nouse.
It does raise an interesting alternative point though, which I have been thinking about this morning. Boris has inspired something of a cult, and is very much a populist candidate. Starmer is much more of a bureacrat/administrator type, and I don't know if that will cost him longer term. Even within his own party he doesn't seem to have a political identity, maybe that will change. If you look at successful candidates, not May/Brown successful, but those who bring about big change (which Labour need at the next GE) they all have a strong identity and a end up long term impact and influence. As things stand it's hard to imagine there being a Starmerism, or Starmerites.
I suppose my waffling point is it is going to be interesting to see what the swing voters really want in the next GE. May end up being a choice between populism and professionalism.
SmallTown
Well-known member
I disagree. Starmer, in the PPE case, clearly just wanted to hear the admission from BJ. No need to push it as now is not the time for points scoring or electioneering. Now is the time to show unity but also hold the government to task for failures.
I know it's not the modern political world and people like yourself expect more aggression and confrontation and attack in politics. I find the measured, intelligent approach much better though. If I had my way all political debate would be so calm and thoughtful. BJ is not of that school though. BJ is of the bombast, attack, deflect, "cult of personality" school of politics that sees voters voting with their hearts without using rationale thought. It's a branch of politics I wish wasn't prevalent and hopefully Starmers approach will help negate it a bit.
Look at it another way, the public seemingly admire that Boris admits his faults. All Starmer did was give him the chance to show he is human, again, which Boris did. Starmer gained nothing and that will soon be forgot.
PMQs is basically point scoring, a question such as that on PPE is not seen as such because it is relevant to the time and the most pertinent issue.
You've said elsewhere that you think Starmer is leading Boris by the hand, which is also point scoring, just setting up a larger point.
He's holding him to account, he is just not maximising these opportunities in my opinion, and the maximisation does not have to be done in a shabby manner. It can be done professionally and calmly, all within the framework of the most important issue and the problems around dealing with it.
Ordinarily you'd think this would be enough, but as with the brother from another mother across the pond, it doesn't seem to matter.
