PMQ - Boris v Starmer - Spider And The Fly

[Uh_huh_him]

...and those who do go out of their way to watch PMQ will already have made their minds up about who "won" before they've watched it.

There's an obvious cohort on here who would never be able to say that Johnson won a debate, whilst another group who would never concede that Starmer had the upper hand.

Agreed.

 

[aftershavedave]

...and those who do go out of their way to watch PMQ will already have made their minds up about who "won" before they've watched it.

There's an obvious cohort on here who would never be able to say that Johnson won a debate, whilst another group who would never concede that Starmer had the upper hand.

Oh I'd be happy to say that, if he ever did, either debate (which is way beyond him) or win (against Starmer I'd eat a hat of you choice if that ever happened) x

 

[rippleman]

I don't think we can judge Starmer until he faces someone across the despatch box who is his intellectual peer.

Johnson v Starmer is not a fair fight (think Tom & Jerry).

 

[Is it PotG?]

I don't think we can judge Starmer until he faces someone across the despatch box who is his intellectual peer.

Johnson v Starmer is not a fair fight (think Tom & Jerry).

Equally I shall be interested when Starmer has to defend something, rather than the blunderbuss he holds in his hand presently. Taking aim at a govt. in charge of this situation ain't exactly rocket science. He's 'won' the two/three situations thus far, the future might be more testing for both leaders.

 

[stewart12]

Equally I shall be interested when Starmer has to defend something, rather than the blunderbuss he holds in his hand presently. Taking aim at a govt. in charge of this situation ain't exactly rocket science. He's 'won' the two/three situations thus far, the future might be more testing for both leaders.

opposition don't have that much to defend as they're not making decisions. That's why they're in opposition and not in government

 

[Is it PotG?]

opposition don't have that much to defend as they're not making decisions. That's why they're in opposition and not in government

I should imagine that when we eventually move on from this, and policies are discussed for elections and manifestos then Labour's recent difficult past might come under a little more scrutiny, as will those of Boris et al.

 

[stewart12]

I should imagine that when we eventually move on from this, and policies are discussed for elections and manifestos then Labour's recent difficult past might come under a little more scrutiny, as will those of Boris et al.

that's 5 years away then surely unless we have a snap election before

That's a lot of weeks of PMQ based destruction

 

[Is it PotG?]

that's 5 years away then surely unless we have a snap election before

That's a lot of weeks of PMQ based destruction

I'm looking forward to some positive planning post virus since the country will be on its knees financially. Not sure if moaning and groaning week in and week out will get us very far tbh, but fair enough.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

It's true that Hague was good at PMQ but he was up against Blair, who was also very good (I'd say the best PM in my lifetime at handling PMQ) That's the difference with Starmer - he's up against a PM who's abysmal at PMQ. I'd say you are spot on with Starmer's positioning though

1. Ideology doesn't win elections, appearing to be competent wins elections.

2. Whether or not someone appears to be competent is almost entirely decided by the media

3. The media will usually decide if someone is competent based on how close they are to the centre-right 'norm' - but this can be swayed by actual incompetence, see May, T. and presumably therefore, by actual competence, hopefully in the case of Starmer, K.


Sorry, trying to run a little thought experiment.

On your point, Hague may well have been good at PMQ's, but so was Blair, so that cancelled out. If Johnson continue to be shit..... ah, f*ck it, 5 years is a long way away......

Fair points about Blair but Boris started to return fire in the last PMQ's he will probably develop a style/do enough to get by, especially when the chamber returns to the normal bear pit. Starmer also did reasonably well as Brexit Secretary in the HOC chamber but he pushed the Labour party towards a Brexit policy that was one factor that resulted in numerous safe Labour seats turning Blue.

1.) Governments usually lose elections oppositions rarely 'win' them, appearing to be a competent alternative is a basic requirement for an opposition party but hard to achieve for numerous reasons the media being one factor (see also internal splits, s*** leader, poor communication strategy, unrealistic manifesto/ideological purity).

2.) The media certainly plays it part but there are other major factors (see above).

3.) Starmer has done well so far but he benefits from replacing someone clearly not up to the job, taking over in the middle of a crisis with lots of juicy ammunition in an environment that currently suits his style - prosecuting council in a near-silent courtroom ... many more tests to come.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

How many people see, and take notice of, PMQ performance ordinarily? I'd venture it's relatively few given it's tucked away on a Wednesday lunchtime when most will be at work. I doubt many people make sure they watch a replay of it after the event, and I'm assuming it only gets limited coverage on the main news bulletins much of the time.

It is still a great source of sound bites for the TV and radio news. Corbyn wheezing and shouting was pretty much the only time the public heard him, and he cemented his reputation as a soppy old **** at PMQ for sure.

The great Hague victories are myth, though. It was more like 'no, if you actually listen to what he's saying rather than hear that condescending Yorkshire drone, he makes some excellent and nuanced points' by which time everyone had forgotten what they were. Ferociously forensic though.

Personally as a Starmer supporter and Boris hater, I feel that Starmer does have a tendency to sound like a mildly irritated housemaster at a grammar school, running assembley in the woodwork room (HGSB Windsor boys will know what I'm on about), whereas Boris sounds like Young Mr Grace before he became senile, impressed with the extraordinary job all our brave front line workers are doing, and still remarkably getting the nation to nod like dogs in assent. I'd say it is likely to stay at nil nil for some time to come.

 

[Machiavelli]

How many people see, and take notice of, PMQ performance ordinarily? I'd venture it's relatively few given it's tucked away on a Wednesday lunchtime when most will be at work. I doubt many people make sure they watch a replay of it after the event, and I'm assuming it only gets limited coverage on the main news bulletins much of the time.

Individual PMQs, you're quite right, but there is a slow, inexorable accumulation that turns itself into its own narrative. We're nowhere near that yet, although there is a heightened attention on things now for obvious reasons. As many have pointed out, a sparse parliament and our grim setting plays well to Starmer's style, and not to Johnson's bluster. The real pivot moment will come when parliament is packed again, and whether Starmer can sustain his momentum and adapt to the new circumstances. He's clearly got the upper hand currently, and Johnson's absence this week was a recognition of this. That changes the dynamic of how each of them approaches the next and future PMQs.

As to your other post, I'm not convinced that everyone is entrenched in their position. For all his faults and strategic ineptitude, Corbyn wasn't dreadful at PMQs (the public actually got a chance to hear him speak for a start), but he rarely laid a glove on his opposite number and, unlike Starmer, never showed that he could think on his feet. That's a nuanced reading of things, whereas Starmer has just been mightily impressive, which is why this thread has attracted so much interest.

Back to your initial point, this hasn't fed through to the public yet, as a poll released today still shows comfortable approval for Johnson's handling of the crisis (crises often have this rallying effect, especially as he's still getting the sympathy vote). You won't be surprised to think that I find this bizarre and unwarranted, but it's not surprising when you're aware of what previous polls have indicated (plus factor in rallying and sympathy).

 

[Machiavelli]

Fair points about Blair but Boris started to return fire in the last PMQ's he will probably develop a style/do enough to get by, especially when the chamber returns to the normal bear pit. Starmer also did reasonably well as Brexit Secretary in the HOC chamber but he pushed the Labour party towards a Brexit policy that was one factor that resulted in numerous safe Labour seats turning Blue.

1.) Governments usually lose elections oppositions rarely 'win' them, appearing to be a competent alternative is a basic requirement for an opposition party but hard to achieve for numerous reasons the media being one factor (see also internal splits, s*** leader, poor communication strategy, unrealistic manifesto/ideological purity).

2.) The media certainly plays it part but there are other major factors (see above).

3.) Starmer has done well so far but he benefits from replacing someone clearly not up to the job, taking over in the middle of a crisis with lots of juicy ammunition in an environment that currently suits his style - prosecuting council in a near-silent courtroom ... many more tests to come.

See ^, more nuance.

 

[Deleted member 2719]

...and those who do go out of their way to watch PMQ will already have made their minds up about who "won" before they've watched it.

There's an obvious cohort on here who would never be able to say that Johnson won a debate, whilst another group who would never concede that Starmer had the upper hand.

I actually need to be in the latter, as those lefties get such a stiffy on Sir Starmer, someone needs to add some flaccidity to them, before it all gets out of hand.

 

[Machiavelli]

[MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION]: this^, however, confirms your hypothesis

 

[Fitzcarraldo]

How many people see, and take notice of, PMQ performance ordinarily?

Must be quite a lot given the number of posters able to remember how hilarious William Hague was.

 

[Bob!]

that's 5 years away then surely unless we have a snap election before

That's a lot of weeks of PMQ based destruction

The next election is due to be held in May 2024.
4 years from now.

 

[Machiavelli]

The next election is due to be held in May 2024.
4 years from now.

Pourquoi Mai et ne Decembre pas*?

* I've probably got this wrong

 

[Bob!]

Pourquoi Mai et ne Decembre pas*?

* I've probably got this wrong

Under the fixed term Parliament act the latest date for the next election is Thursday 2nd May.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Fair points about Blair but Boris started to return fire in the last PMQ's he will probably develop a style/do enough to get by, especially when the chamber returns to the normal bear pit. Starmer also did reasonably well as Brexit Secretary in the HOC chamber but he pushed the Labour party towards a Brexit policy that was one factor that resulted in numerous safe Labour seats turning Blue.

1.) Governments usually lose elections oppositions rarely 'win' them, appearing to be a competent alternative is a basic requirement for an opposition party but hard to achieve for numerous reasons the media being one factor (see also internal splits, s*** leader, poor communication strategy, unrealistic manifesto/ideological purity).

2.) The media certainly plays it part but there are other major factors (see above).

3.) Starmer has done well so far but he benefits from replacing someone clearly not up to the job, taking over in the middle of a crisis with lots of juicy ammunition in an environment that currently suits his style - prosecuting council in a near-silent courtroom ... many more tests to come.

The other thing with Boris is that the guy who's up at PMQs is exactly what we expected him to be, this can't be surprising to those of us who voted for him or those of us who didn't. So I doubt it moves the needle much.

May was surprisingly bad at being PM, by contrast, I assume most of us thought she'd be better.

 

[Grombleton]

I actually need to be in the latter, as those lefties get such a stiffy on Sir Starmer, someone needs to add some flaccidity to them, before it all gets out of hand.

I'm sure you've added flaccidity to lots of situations before, my friend.