Labour Leader: Keir Starmer II

[Joe Hutch]

Press report it with their spin, BBC plays a clip with their spin, clips are pushed and circulate on social media. It has its place in the system, but the actual performance is pretty meaningless IMO - it's filleted and served up in whatever way suits a given audience.

Which makes the Express's report of today's PMQs 'quite interesting':

https://www.express.co.uk/comment/e...-PMQs-Boris-Johnson-keir-starmer-exams-brexit

'No matter. Starmer was not to be conned and simply repeated the question, in textbook barrister style, to highlight the fact the accused was indeed failing to come up with an answer.

The soundbites were easy and plentiful. Boris had a “tin ear” for criticism, this was the a “wasted Summer” of “serial incompetence” and the Labour leader even quoted one of Boris's own MP's as saying “it is mess after mess, god knows what's going on.”

Boris could only glare furiously from across the despatch box.

To give you some idea of just how rattled the Prime Minster was his ill-tempered response to Starmer's barbs was not jovial Boris knock-backs but a series of rambling and slightly incoherent accusations that the Labour leader was an EU-backing Remainer (true, but irrelevant) and that he was an IRA sympathiser.

It came across as desperate stuff. Starmer spent five years in Northern Ireland prosecuting high-ranking members of the IRA... a fact he studiously, if slightly over-gleefully, pointed out.'

 

[Seanm]

Which makes the Express's report of today's PMQs 'quite interesting':

https://www.express.co.uk/comment/e...-PMQs-Boris-Johnson-keir-starmer-exams-brexit

'No matter. Starmer was not to be conned and simply repeated the question, in textbook barrister style, to highlight the fact the accused was indeed failing to come up with an answer.

The soundbites were easy and plentiful. Boris had a “tin ear” for criticism, this was the a “wasted Summer” of “serial incompetence” and the Labour leader even quoted one of Boris's own MP's as saying “it is mess after mess, god knows what's going on.”

Boris could only glare furiously from across the despatch box.

To give you some idea of just how rattled the Prime Minster was his ill-tempered response to Starmer's barbs was not jovial Boris knock-backs but a series of rambling and slightly incoherent accusations that the Labour leader was an EU-backing Remainer (true, but irrelevant) and that he was an IRA sympathiser.

It came across as desperate stuff. Starmer spent five years in Northern Ireland prosecuting high-ranking members of the IRA... a fact he studiously, if slightly over-gleefully, pointed out.'

It is interesting, but I think you’d have to be an expert in the intricacies of Conservative Party/press clientelism to know what it actually means. I don’t think it means the Tory press is going to swing behind Starmer, although I can see how much fun it must be for them to suggest that one day, who knows, play your cards right...

 

[Markyb]

but no one watches it (apart from a few excited people on here) - few care. I have said it before, but a general election is effectively a beauty contest....the Tories are way better at the media.....

Way better at the media? more like symbiosis with the media being incredibly pro Tory and selective in their reporting.

 

[SteveS1]

A quick look at Quentin Letts's (Times) usual pathetic coverage of yesterday's PMQs is interesting. The comments section is full of scathing criticism for both him and Johnson. There are many who think performing at PMQs is an irrelevence because not many voters tune in.

They couldn't be more wrong, a leader getting battered there regularly, especially when they are forced to lie and bluster to avoid answering even simple questions has a significant effect on coverage, which gradually widens. It's not the be all, but it's important. It is currently doing much to remove the long cultivated faux Johnson veneer of harmless, self deprocating 'clever toff' that he lived off.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Covered quite thoroughly on BBC Today programme this morning. Not flattering to Johnson.

 

[Woodface]

A quick look at Quentin Letts's (Times) usual pathetic coverage of yesterday's PMQs is interesting. The comments section is full of scathing criticism for both him and Johnson. There are many who think performing at PMQs is an irrelevence because not many voters tune in.

They couldn't be more wrong, a leader getting battered there regularly, especially when they are forced to lie and bluster to avoid answering even simple questions has a significant effect on coverage, which gradually widens. It's not the be all, but it's important. It is currently doing much to remove the long cultivated faux Johnson veneer of harmless, self deprocating 'clever toff' that he lived off.

I agree. Ultimately, if media is that important to an electoral outcome then the PM has to be seen as vaguely competent otherwise their endorsement is meaningless.

If Starmer was doing badly at PMQ would his critics also think it didn’t matter?

 

[Woodface]

Covered quite thoroughly on BBC Today programme this morning. Not flattering to Johnson.

& no Tories listen to the Today programme

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

To be fair, I think that, yes, Corbyn's supporters did describe PMQs as irrelevant theatre, and he was rather bad at it, so there's a consistency of opinion WRT PMQs there.

 

[Joe Hutch]

Corbyn's worst mistake regarding PMQs was his 'here's a question from an ordinary punter' section. Such questions are easily dealt with using the stock answer "I'm sorry to hear about this person's problem. We will look into it'.

 

[ks.234]

To be fair, I think that, yes, Corbyn's supporters did describe PMQs as irrelevant theatre, and he was rather bad at it, so there's a consistency of opinion WRT PMQs there.

Corbyn did ask serious and important question, which May would avoid by making jokes that fed into the anti Corbyn narrative and produced the usual deafening chorus of farmyard noises from the Tory (and Labour) backbenchers. Then after that, all that was shown in the media was the joke and all that was heard was the Tory braying. Corbyn’s question was lost

Starmer doesn’t have the same narrative against him and he doesn’t have quite the same number of trained ducks and geese facing him.

That’s not so say that Starmer isn’t the better performer at PMQ’s, but the perception that Corbyn was bad needs some context

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Corbyn did ask serious and important question, which May would avoid by making jokes that fed into the anti Corbyn narrative and produced the usual deafening chorus of farmyard noises from the Tory (and Labour) backbenchers. Then after that, all that was shown in the media was the joke and all that was heard was the Tory braying. Corbyn’s question was lost

Starmer doesn’t have the same narrative against him and he doesn’t have quite the same number of trained ducks and geese facing him.

That’s not so say that Starmer isn’t the better performer at PMQ’s, but the perception that Corbyn was bad needs some context

Yes, thanks, a fair point. But Corbyn's failure to thrive despite having good questions to ask, was partly, I think, down to his mild-mannered persona. He didn't get a grip on PMQs from the get-go, so May and her trained chimps shouted him down. I realise Johnson has fewer chimps at his disposal at the moment, but Starmer owned PMQs from the outset and brooked no nonsense.

 

[Seanm]

Corbyn's worst mistake regarding PMQs was his 'here's a question from an ordinary punter' section. Such questions are easily dealt with using the stock answer "I'm sorry to hear about this person's problem. We will look into it'.

I remember quite effective use being made of this on social media: it punctured the whole Oxford Debating Society atmosphere. Starmer’s forensic gotchas (“Prime Minister you say this now, but in 2004 you said something quite different!”) are going down as well as you’d expect with pundits, and ultimately that’s probably a better use for this sort of thing, so I’m not complaining (much: it’s still irritating).

 

[Woodface]

To be fair, I think that, yes, Corbyn's supporters did describe PMQs as irrelevant theatre, and he was rather bad at it, so there's a consistency of opinion WRT PMQs there.

But we will never know if they would be so benevolent towards Starmer under the same circumstances. I somehow doubt they would give a free pass.

 

[droodzilla]

I agree. Ultimately, if media is that important to an electoral outcome then the PM has to be seen as vaguely competent otherwise their endorsement is meaningless.

If Starmer was doing badly at PMQ would his critics also think it didn’t matter?

Yes.

The acid test for me is what would the folks back in Chesterfield think. The simple answer is that PMQs might as well be happening on Mars. Most of them aren't aware of its existence and the ones who are think it's a joke. The spectacle of a bunch of "posh" people in suits braying at each other feeds into the general idea that politicians are irrelevant and out of touch with ordinary people - part of the "metropolitan elite", if you will.

It is precisely this sentiment that Cummings and the Conservative Party exploit so effectively.

 

[Woodface]

Yes.

The acid test for me is what would the folks back in Chesterfield think. The simple answer is that PMQs might as well be happening on Mars. Most of them aren't aware of its existence and the ones who are think it's a joke. The spectacle of a bunch of "posh" people in suits braying at each other feeds into the general idea that politicians are irrelevant and out of touch with ordinary people - part of the "metropolitan elite", if you will.

It is precisely this sentiment that Cummings and the Conservative Party exploit so effectively.

The people of Chesterfield? A bit random. Tony Benn?

Anyway, it is easy to say as he is good at PMQs. Personally, I think his critics would not be able to ignore this.

I don’t think being good on PMQs does any harm, it probably appeals to Labours metropolitan base but I acknowledge he needs other strengths to achieve full cut through.

 

[droodzilla]

The people of Chesterfield? A bit random. Tony Benn?

Anyway, it is easy to say as he is good at PMQs. Personally, I think his critics would not be able to ignore this.

I don’t think being good on PMQs does any harm, it probably appeals to Labours metropolitan base but I acknowledge he needs other strengths to achieve full cut through.

The town where I was born. Brexity, and full of "traditional" working class voters trying to get by.

Despite the Tony Benn connection it's hardly a stronghold of trendy lefties and was a key target for the Conservatives in 2019. Toby Perkins (the current MP and, frankly, a bit of a knob) survived with a much reduced majority.

The broader point is simple and easy to forget in the rarefied atmosphere fof PFM: relatively few people (< 10%?) "follow politics" in any meaningful sense; and of those, fewer still are interested enough to care about PMQs. It really is a minority sport.

Personally, I can't bear the whole charade, but I did grit my teeth and managed to watch 10 minutes of it yesterday. I was pleased to see Starmer has a bit more fight in him than he did in his early performances; he's clearly grown into role. Fine. As you say, it does no harm (although I think the fixation on PMQs at the expense of a broader conception of politics is deeply harmful.

As for Boris Johnson, he clearly struggles against Starmer at PMQs, but does it matter:

https://bylinetimes.com/2020/08/28/boris-johnson-the-anti-prime-minister/

Is the typical Boris Johnson supporter really looking for "competence"?

 

[TheDecameron]

A quick look at Quentin Letts's (Times) usual pathetic coverage of yesterday's PMQs is interesting. The comments section is full of scathing criticism for both him and Johnson. There are many who think performing at PMQs is an irrelevence because not many voters tune in.

They couldn't be more wrong, a leader getting battered there regularly, especially when they are forced to lie and bluster to avoid answering even simple questions has a significant effect on coverage, which gradually widens. It's not the be all, but it's important. It is currently doing much to remove the long cultivated faux Johnson veneer of harmless, self deprocating 'clever toff' that he lived off.

Oh I think PMQ is doing an excellent job at regularly exposing Johnson as plainly unfit. He loathes scrutiny and has ducked appearing at every opportunity but when he shows up, the performance in so eye catching that it’s instantly all over news and social media and being the thin skinned narcissist he is, he’s damaged by it. It’s beautiful to watch.

Remember how Johnson was sold to the public as a charismatic leader, the historian/classicist, the great orator, a ‘character’ and politics ‘desperately needs more characters like Boris’? He’s turned out to be a gigantic pig in a poke -just as lazy and incompetent as Trump. He also falls back on the same tactics when caught out- lying, saying the ridiculous in order to distract and slandering anyone who gets in his way.

The Tories will have to get rid of him. I think he’ll stand down on a pretext rather than face the humiliation of a coup against him like those he orchestrated against Cameron and May.

 

[Woodface]

The town where I was born. Brexity, and full of "traditional" working class voters trying to get by.

Despite the Tony Benn connection it's hardly a stronghold of trendy lefties and was a key target for the Conservatives in 2019. Toby Perkins (the current MP and, frankly, a bit of a knob) survived with a much reduced majority.

The broader point is simple and easy to forget in the rarefied atmosphere fof PFM: relatively few people (< 10%?) "follow politics" in any meaningful sense; and of those, fewer still are interested enough to care about PMQs. It really is a minority sport.

Personally, I can't bear the whole charade, but I did grit my teeth and managed to watch 10 minutes of it yesterday. I was pleased to see Starmer has a bit more fight in him than he did in his early performances; he's clearly grown into role. Fine. As you say, it does no harm (although I think the fixation on PMQs at the expense of a broader conception of politics is deeply harmful.

As for Boris Johnson, he clearly struggles against Starmer at PMQs, but does it matter:

https://bylinetimes.com/2020/08/28/boris-johnson-the-anti-prime-minister/

Is the typical Boris Johnson supporter really looking for "competence"?

I’ve made similar points myself, PFM is far from representative & there are probably only a handful of issues that are really important to the working classes. I don’t use the word ‘traditional’ as I am not sure it has any meaning other than this group being largely retired.

 

[ciderglider]

Yes.

The acid test for me is what would the folks back in Chesterfield think. The simple answer is that PMQs might as well be happening on Mars. Most of them aren't aware of its existence and the ones who are think it's a joke. The spectacle of a bunch of "posh" people in suits braying at each other feeds into the general idea that politicians are irrelevant and out of touch with ordinary people - part of the "metropolitan elite", if you will.

It is precisely this sentiment that Cummings and the Conservative Party exploit so effectively.

I think you're right that the importance of PMQs is overrated. William Hague was said to be excellent at PMQs, but where did it get him?

On the other hand success at PMQs does seem to matter among opinion formers, so if Starmer is successful at PMQs he will get more positive coverage for other things he does.

 

[droodzilla]

I think you're right that the importance of PMQs is overrated. William Hague was said to be excellent at PMQs, but where did it get him?

On the other hand success at PMQs does seem to matter among opinion formers, so if Starmer is successful at PMQs he will get more positive coverage for other things he does.

Yes I think that's true although it depends, to some degree, on the opinion former (e.g. if they already view Starmer favourably, him being good at PMQs will make them more so).