Jermy Corbyn elected

Oh for goodness sake now we are back to bloody Goebbels again to insult anybody that has a view that doesn't conform to a sycophantic love of all things Corbyn.

As Corbyn is the English Leader of the Labour Party and if he ever became PM of the UK that ridiculous natzi rhetoric would apply to Corbyn , no?

Goebbels is hardly a person that I would look to for inspiration and I sure as hell wouldn't align my thoughts with his.

I am pretty sure it has already been said grumpa that it is not about him not turning up. It would be really nice if everyone got the facts straight.

*He is not making changes unilaterally; he will ask what changes can be made under the existing rules.
*He is not talking about not turning up; he is talking about others being involved.

I did support the ANC , I did support Mandela, Beko and others, I actively supported them , I do not regret it

Well, I supported them too, but then I would not claim to be a pacifist, because although I hate war and conflict and I hate violence I would use it as a form of defence.
I think it is a question of semantics?

However there is a Goebbels quote that the Toryies should perhaps take note of: The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous

Why on earth should anyone, and as you note the Tories in particular, take note of a Nazi propaganda Minister?

This thread is becoming surreal!

It is not to insult anybody POGS it is just that he knew more about the use of propaganda than most. I am just quoting an expert not looking for inspiration from him.

As Corbyn is the English Leader of the Labour Party and if he ever became PM of the UK that ridiculous natzi rhetoric would apply to Corbyn , no?

Not necessarily. Goebbels was referring the then English government and I was referring to this one - all quite clearly. If a Corbyn Government choses not to lie big, and stick to it even at the risk of looking ridiculous then it would not apply to that government. If they did, it would.

Please do not call me sycophantic POGS I am not. I have a view of what type of government I would prefer as do you; that does not make either of us sycophantic.

I do not think that anyone has been sycophantic, though there have been very dismissive comments about Corbyn even before he has had one day in the H of P as leader.

I do support his policies as espoused so far and am pleased a left winger is being given the opportunity to lead the Labour party. I think it will enliven the political scene and his election is a result of the electorate's desire to have a proper opposition!

I hope he will be a good leader... but we will not know until he has had an opportunity to actually do the job.

Yes Gracesgran as you say Goebbels was referring to the English Government and I don't think even Goebbels would not consider that to apply to any English/UK government. Hence I said that would apply to Corbyn too if he ever became PM.

You surpassed him by attributing it to just one political party.

Going off piste but I posted John McDonnel would be in his cabinet but I am surprised he has given him Shadow Chancellor. Certainly will get sparky between him and Osborne.

At least one member of my family is very disappointed - I would say upset - and that person has been a staunch Labour supporter all his life, veering towards the left.
I hope he will be pleased that Andy Burnham is in the Shadow Cabinet.

Gracesgran and Anniebach. Do you feel support for the Nazis? Have you supported the Nazis?

But if JC turns up Gracesgran, and lets others ask the questions, or doesn't appear at all, then the PM can delegate the answers, which will devalue the Departmental Qs and As on other days. I nearly added this comment earlier, but went for brevity.

And thank you for your helpful comment about getting my facts straight. I am happy to defer to your superior knowledge, but my essential point is unchanged.

I would just add that I agree that PMQs are ghastly, but I am not sure that JC will be able to improve them.

Gracesgran and Anniebach. Do you feel support for the Nazis? Have you supported the Nazis?

stb I have got steam coming out of my PC!!

Not only dismissive comments Penstemmon, but a very obvious strong desire to see the man fail. I like you am pleased to see the Labour Party move back to the left, which for me means a return to Socislism and talk of fairness and justice not aspiration for some and greed is good , I await the Blair coven to pounce, I am pleased that Andy Burnham has stood by his word and put his party first

Fair questions. I dont know how far they go.
They didnt answer the IS question, nor Ceesnan's points really either.
Which begs the questions...

Best log of rosequartz , or take Cameron's advice and chillax

rosequartz

I wouldn't mind the questions to the PM being passed to the appropriate Minister Grumpa but I do understand that some might. The idea that the PM has all the information at is his/her fingertips seems unreasonable and a bit of a farce to me. As came up in the history of PMQs bit, PMs in the past have done just that.

I would be happy for there to be a committee for the PM to appear before once a week as I am a fan of the committees and think most of them do a very good job in holding Ministers and others to account but, as you will realise, that would be the end of PMQs. I have to admit, I would heave a sigh of relief if that happened.

Obviously that is not what is being discussed but I shall be interested to see where all this goes.

Gracesgran

I understand what Grumpa is saying.

You posted 12/9 14.21

" I have just heard one 'insider' say that Jeremy may share his Prime Ministers Questions with Shadow Cabinet members 'in their own area' - how sensible is that.

Shadow Cabinet Ministers ask those questions during their respective departmental Q & A's . The fact they would 'repeat' the same questions at PMQ's does not give us the voter any insight as to how the Opposition Leader can handle the pressure of the despatch box. It is a cop out .

PMQ's is the time the 'Leader' of the Opposition has his opportunity to challenge the PM. It is the equivalent of the departmental ministers having their departmental Q & A's.

If Cameron said I am not going to have Prime Ministers Questions anymore or I refuse to engage with the Opposition Leader face to face there would be the outcry of cowardice.

You may well prefer not to have PMQ's, I don't. I find it interesting , the same as watching the departmental Q & A's . I prefer to hear from the horses mouth and see facial expressions and more to the point be able to contextualise comments , rather than rely on the media or blogs who will promote their own bias towards their favoured party.

I love PMQ's and always watch it...... It doesn't matter what anyone on here says about 'sharing' questions, it will look to the world in general as if Corbyn is running scared of them, which he may well be!
What a shadow cabinet he has chosen, more or less extreme left, London centric and no women in the top jobs!
For those who support him, hope you don't come to regret it.The other Labour MP's must be in despair.

Surely you do not rely on me as your only source of information POGS? Any one of the other posters can go and research breaking information.

I do not see that PMQs is the time for to challenge the PM but to challenge the policies. I prefer substance over personality. That is not surprising considering you appear to prefer the right of politics and I lean to the left. The right tends to talk about leadership where the left will talk about politics. We are not talking about facts here but opinions and preferences. One cannot argue that either is right or wrong, each is a personal preference and I made it very clear in my answer to grumpa that that was what I was expressing on a forum were we discuss opinions.

The lets debate everything brigade always remind me of the camel was a horse designed by a committee. Leadership on many occasions is a lonely place having to make a tough sometimes unpopular decisions after listening to what advice is available. but the decision is yours having weighed up all the facts, and options and being prepared to be flayed alive by all those who are less well informed, but always know better. So far Corbyn has been a rebel without the ultimate responsibility for his actions. Now he is to be tested under fire. Watch this space! My advice to his adherents remember that very damned thing has to be paid in full, there are no free lunches.

Very true Jackthelad, easy to just rebel against everything from the back benches, quite another to become Leader of the Opposition, and another thing yet to become PM.

Surely this is a forum for debate Jackthelad. Why would anyone come on here, particularly on a political thread if you don't want to debate?

I imagine, although they may not recognise such an old quote, many people loosing their jobs, their security, having their wages frozen or having vital support taken away from them will see that those who believe they have an entitlement to "lead" will fit the epithet "Lions led by donkeys"

Lions led by donkeys was referring to soldiers on the field of Waterloo and they had no choice over their leadership.. If the electorate are as astute as we are told they are then they should be so smart as to elect the right guy in the first place. Again I say watch this space!

Jeremy Corbyn did not persuade the electorate to vote for him as mentioned in an earlier post except in his own constituency in the May election. He persuaded a majority of the Labour Party to vote for him to lead them. If you look at the figures on Labour's Official Site for the election of Leader you will see that he did not persuade the majority of longstanding members to vote for him. Approximately a sixth of those chose not to vote at all. Of those who chose to vote in the Leadership election less than 50% of longstanding members voted for him. His support came mainly from the newly enlisted who should now become full paid up members and take an active part in the Labour movement with all the hard work and time commitment that entails - attending meetings, going forward for Council elections, sitting on School Committees, pounding the streets all the year through and not just at election times etc.
Jeremy has yet to persuade the British Electorate to vote for a Labour Government. That is his most important and most difficult task. The Labour Party in office is what is important not the Leader.
BTW for those of you who check my figures on the Labour site I am basing the less than 50% and one sixth on a presumption that the actual membership when the election for leader took place was around 300,000. This is pretty accurate as I had it from someone who would know that information. More have joined since but some have also left.