Is Cameron capable of a straight answer at PMQs? Corbyn thinks not
The side-eye: How often has Jeremy Corbyn had to use this to signify his dissatisfaction with David Cameron’s answers?
PMQs is ongoing as This Writer types these words. No straight answer from Cameron so far – a lot of bluster about Labour, though.
Today will mark my 100th question at PMQs. But while I’ve taken a different approach to asking the questions, David Cameron has carried on failing to give proper answers.
David Cameron once said he was “fed up with the Punch and Judy politics of Westminster”. But the experience of the last six months suggests he has come to rather enjoy it. When given the chance to defend his government’s record, he has instead preferred to opt for petty attacks, while avoiding the substance of the issue, and ignoring the real problems facing our people.
From support for the steel industry, to cuts to flood defence schemes and the Tories’ cruel and unfair Bedroom Tax, David Cameron has been unable to defend his Government’s record at PMQs.
People want a different sort of politics. I’m determined to respond to that. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has so far been unable to get beyond the political game-playing of the past.
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
get rid of john bercow hes a closet tory
He isn’t a closet Tory – he’s a Conservative MP.
As Speaker, he is supposed to be impartial, though.
8/3/16 This is my email to John Bercow, Speaker of the House:
Sir,
I have written to you recently, and previously, about my utter disgust at the appalling scenes I constantly witness during Prime Minster’s Questions.
From my point of view, I find that the Conservative benches are the main instigators of the incessant barracking of the benches opposite.
And, I have to say, I find your allowing of, at times, the most prolonged deafening and unseemly diatribe, from those who are supposed to be sober and responsible executives of the running of our country.
You appear to quite enjoy it at times, and often take an unconscionable amount of time to call the rabble to order.
This weekly farce sickens me, and anyone wishing to become involved in politics will be hard pressed to have any respect for these so-called “Honourable” and “Right Honourable” persons.
I really do think it is time for you to call a halt to this weekly pantomime, and if they cannot bring themselves to respect their position, they should at least respect the electorate whom they are supposed to represent.
Yours sincerely
yes he had the deciding vote on the gagging law.
Dear Oh dear….I see that I will have to start lessons:
SCHOPENHAUER’S 38 STRATAGEMS, OR 38 WAYS TO WIN AN ARGUMENT
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), was a brilliant German philosopher. These 38 Stratagems are excerpts from “The Art of Controversy”, first translated into English and published in 1896.
Schopenhauer’s 38 ways to win an argument are:
1.Carry your opponent’s proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it.
The more general your opponent’s statement becomes, the more objections you can find against it.
The more restricted and narrow his or her propositions remain, the easier they are to defend by him or her.
2.Use different meanings of your opponent’s words to refute his or her argument.
3.Ignore your opponent’s proposition, which was intended to refer to a particular thing. Rather, understand it in some quite different sense, and then refute it. Attack something different than that which was asserted.
4.Hide your conclusion from your opponent till the end. Mingle your premises here and there in your talk. Get your opponent to agree to them in no definite order. By this circuitous route you conceal your game until you have obtained all the admissions that are necessary to reach your goal.
5.Use your opponent’s beliefs against him. If the opponent refuses to accept your premises, use his own premises to your advantage.
http://www.mnei.nl/schopenhauer/38-stratagems.htm
Your welcome, no charge and, it is better than getting Mud in your Eye at every Question Time.
I once informed Fatty Balls-up that Parliament laughs WITH the winners and AT the losers,
HE WAS FAR TOO ARROGANT TO LISTEN, ergo, he is now out of the Business. Now, we can all laugh AT Him.
If you keep in mind that Cameroon is an Issues Firster and Laster, every time he defends his tyrannical brutalising ideology you can nail his Ass to the Chamber floor.
Per example: they make the Low Paid Homeless and then claim they must be ‘treated’ before being Homed again: You can state that Homelessness aggravates a myriad of health, safety and budget problems, none of which can be ‘cured’ without access to permanent Shelter, otherwise it is simply a waste of money.