Jermy Corbyn elected

Do you slso respect someone who praises dead terrorists?

POGS when you say The clue is in Prime Ministers Questions you are right - they are questions to the Prime Minister which does not seem to dictate how the Leader of the opposition should use them.

As I have said earlier in this thread PMQs have changed a great deal and there is no reason why they shouldn't change again. Personally I think the minister from the relevant department asking the questions would be an interesting and possibly enlightening change. This may be of interest:

Although prime ministers have answered questions in parliament for centuries, until the 1880s questions to the prime minister were treated the same as questions to other Ministers of the Crown: asked without notice, on days when ministers were available in whatever order MPs rose to ask them. In 1881 fixed time-limits for questions were introduced and questions to the prime minister were moved to the last slot of the day as a courtesy to the 72-year-old prime minister at the time, William Gladstone, so he could come to the Commons later in the day. In 1953, when Winston Churchill was prime minister, it was agreed that questions would be submitted on fixed days (Tuesdays and Thursdays).

A Procedure Committee report in 1959 recommended that questions to the prime minister be taken in two fixed-period, 15-minute slots on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons. The recommendations were put into practice under Harold Macmillan during a successful experiment from 18 July 1961 to the end of the session (4 August). PMQs were made permanent in the following parliamentary session, with the first of these on 24 October 1961.

The style and culture of PMQs has changed gradually over time. According to Speaker Selwyn Lloyd, the now famous disorderly behaviour of MPs during PMQs first arose as a result of the personal animosity between Harold Wilson and Edward Heath; before this PMQs had been lively but comparatively civilised. In the past, prime ministers often opted to transfer questions to the relevant minister, and Leaders of the Opposition did not always take their allocated number of questions in some sessions, sometimes opting not to ask any questions at all. This changed during the premiership of Margaret Thatcher, when the prime minister chose not to transfer any questions to other members of her Cabinet, and Labour leader Neil Kinnock would always take his full allocation of questions.

One of Tony Blair's first acts as prime minister was to replace the two 15-minute sessions with a single 30-minute session at noon on Wednesdays The allocated number of questions in each session for the Leader of the Opposition was doubled from three to six, and the leader of the third-largest party in the Commons was given two questions. The first PMQs to use this new format took place on 21 May 1997.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister%27s_Questions

I would also like to go back to the "comparatively civilised" PMQs (if we have to have the in Parliament at all) that existed before the Wilson/Heath parliament.

Because Corbyn appears to prefer Jaw Jaw rather than War War does not mean he agrees with the people he talks to! It's called diplomacy! It seems JC just prepared to do it openly rather than behind closed doors as other politicians /civil servants etc do!

Ceesnan, I assume your question was to me, I couldn't condemn anyone who praised a terrorist be they dead or alive, it would be hypocritical of me to condemn someone for something I have done too

If Corbyn's aim is to put an end to the childish shouting matches that PM's questions have become, I welcome his new approach.
We used to watch/listen regularly but stopped a few months ago, it had become a disgrace. Both sides trying to shout down whoever was speaking.

You've praised terrorists, Anniebach? Why?

My question Anniebach was actually Do you respect someone who praises dead terrorists? But no matter, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Personally I feel that someone who sides with Argentina over The Falklands and Spain over Gibraltar is not someone I could trust to have the U.K's best interests at heart.

PMQ should be just that , the PM is asked questions and he answers, but Cameron far too often answers with a question as for the shouting , they all need to stop being so silly

Ceesnan , I replied, I could not condemn anyone for doing what I have done

Gracesgran

I fully understand the procedure behind PMQ"s but you will note from your text that NO Opposition Leader has taken it upon himself to change the procedure of the House. It is tantamount to throwing down the gauntlet to say 'stuff protocol I am in charge now'. Now you and many others will see it differently but that is my view and I stick to it.

Anniebach,

Your insistence to 'try' and belittle Daily Mail readers is unmistakenly noted as a given post after post but do your homework and you will see it has been widely spoken of through many media outlets re Corbyn and PMQ's.

Ana, because even though I have always been a pacifist and abhor violence I did support a group of terrorists because I could accept there was no choice for them , I wouldn't support terrorism if there was a choice for the terrorist but when there is no choice and their cause - for me - can be justified then yes

Is the Independent independent enough?
(perhaps not, perhaps only the Guardian is! )

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-is-going-to-completely-change-the-way-pmqs-works-10498068.html

I have always been a pacifist and abhor violence I did support a group of terrorists because I could accept there was no choice for them

Really?

Surely an act of terrorism is an act of aggression which is the antonym to pacifism?

POGS, if you can provide me me any evidence that Corbyn has said he will only attend one in five PMQ or where he has said he is sending someone in his place I will apologise . I do not try to belittle the mail, I think it a vile newspaper

He has said he would like PMQ to be more open to members of the house but I have not once heard what has been said here

When has there ever been 'no choice' for a group of terrorists but to commit evil acts against other human beings for whatever reason, Anniebach?

Saying that you could never condemn Corybn because you once sympathised with terrorists is a cop-out, IMO.

It is rosequartz, but for me these terrorists had no choice , so I suppose you can say for a period of time I ceased from being a pacifist , ok?

Not a cop out Ana, just the truth , would you condemn someone for an act you have also done?

I probably would if he/she was still of the same mindset but I had realised my actions were driven by an illogical idealism that I'd grown out of.

Corbyn won because, despite the strenuous attempts of the right wing media machine, he came over as the most genuine candidate, because his policies directly address the cruel excesses of this Tory government and because he heralds a return to traditional Labour values.

I think there's an important difference between supporting the aims of a terrorist or group of terrorists and supporting terrorist methods to achieve those aims. For instance it was possible to sympathise with and to ideologically support the aims of the IRA at the same time as condemning their acts of violence.

Anyone who really abhors violence and claims to be a pacifist would presumably be doing that: supporting aims but not supporting violence means to achieve those aims.

rosequartz, I have read that, where does he say one in give and he would send Watson in his place, he said he would be there

Yes thatbags, I did have understanding for the IRA but could not support the violence. I did support the ANC , I did support Mandela, Beko and others, I actively supported them , I do not regret it

I was quite sure you would understand, as I do, the procedure behind PMQs POGS. However, I did not know the history or the fact that is really fairly recent that any such thing existed and I thought you would be interest too.

Annie I would have thought we have all felt support for terrorists. After all one persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter.

Yes Gracesgran, I saw the ANC as freedom fighters but the Tory government declared them terrorists, Cameron even worked for a company who supported apartheid and described his visit there, for the company, as just a jolly . I will say he did apologise to Mandela and said his party had been wrong but I have never hear any regret for 'his jolly'