Jeremy Corbyn celebrated the final PMQs (Prime Minister’s Questions) today by once again trouncin Theresa May. May had no answers and both looked and sounded flustered, descending ever further into snidery and falsehood with each attempted resort.
Corbyn looked relaxed and not in a mood to take prisoners. He cut May’s legs out from under her with a perfectly-timed reminder, just after she’d tried the old nonsense about not affording a pay-rise for the public sector, that she’d managed to find funds ok to buy the DUP’s support and after that she floundered, sounding bitter and outmatched.
Corbyn is steadily dismantling each of May’s worn-out soundbites and grinding the pieces underfoot, forcing May either to abandon them or, if she clings to them, to expose her intellectual and moral bankruptcy.
A particular case in point today was the nonsense of Tory claims of economic success when there are 6 million people who don’t earn a living wage – and an assault on supposed Tory success in creating jobs when more than half of people in poverty are in working households – one in eight working people in this country live in poverty.
Corbyn’s performance was assured. May’s was emphatically not – clinging to the ‘work is the best route out of poverty as her only response to Corbyn when he’d just demonstrated that it clearly is not. Watch and share:
The SKWAWKBOX is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your support so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.
Corbyn completely dominated with no forthcoming answers to questions other than spouting repeated rhetoric from a prime minister who has months if not less before she is gone like Cameron. Bye bye May.
Reblogged this on sdbast.
There are likely to be 6 million plus hidden unemployed people who have fallen to the 30 plus different methods of moving the statistical goalposts, first found in the 80s and never acknowledged nor dealt with by Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron or May.
Corbyn will add some honesty hopefully.
I see may didn’t return to the cameronesque ‘Hardworking people’ crap.
‘Hardworking people, doing the right thing’
What IS ‘The right thing’? Going out and busting a gut to further enrich the already ludicrously rich, for the metaphorical pat on the head; being told you’re ‘doing the right thing’ and that you’re ‘hardworking’?
Insipid platitudes and distraction tactics are becoming old hat. ‘Hardworking’ doesn’t pay the bills, or put food on the table
Pointing the finger at those not working and calling them workshy and scroungers because it just might be that there AREN’T decent jobs or there ISN’T all these vacancies, or that work DOESN’T pay.
And in 55% of cases – it DOESN’T. Pays the already wealthy, though.
And there’s being called a ‘Job-snob’ because you protest & disagree about working to further enrich these arrogant bastards what think you should tug your forelock and grovel at their feet, and be grateful for the fact they’re ‘allowing’ you to work in menial labour for the taxes that the already low-paid are paying – because all these corporates & rich bleeders are paying feck-all AND are being given concessions…More lies, deceit and propaganda.
The ‘right thing’ is to get THEM to PAY EVERY LAST PENNY of THEIR dues to create real, decently paid jobs – NOT fleece the poor twice over.
“….more than half of people in poverty are in working households – one in eight working people in this country live in poverty…..”
I suppose it depends on one’s definition of poverty.
No kids going to school hungry then, graham? Oh, but that’s alright because there was children without shoes on their feet 70 years ago, eh?
But then again, that was THEIR fault because they wouldn’t put themselves at serious risk of injury or death, by not going to work in the cotton mills, or up chimneys, isn’t it? Nowt to do with the law that stopped those ‘practices’…
What’s your take on those victims of child sexual abuse as shown in this article, graham?
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/07/18/children-cannot-consent-what-the-is-the-moj-playing-at/
I noticed you didn’t comment on that article…Wonder why? It’s not for my benefit – I already know…It’s because I already called you out on your views of CSA long before that story came to light.
You desperately sad little nobody.
For what it’s worth the story you’ve linked to, assuming all the facts in it are correct, is appalling. There should be no question that compensation is due.
But I was commenting on this article, and raising the question of how poverty is defined to arrive at the conclusions that “….more than half of people in poverty are in working households – one in eight working people in this country live in poverty…..”
Again with the questioning of the veracity, but now of both articles…Yawn
Ignore the facts, question the validity, deny the proof, change the criteria & definition of poverty (like oberscheissenfuhrer dummkopf-schmitt has done) then make ever more lame excuses when the problem’s still transparently obvious; and then when all else has failed – continue to obfuscate. Anything but deal with the issue effectively.
What’s your definition of poverty, then?
This?
https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder542/250×250/50507542/iain-duncan-smith-poverty-is-a-disease-the-poor-give-themselves-for-fun.jpg
The question I’m raising is what definition Skwawkbox has used in his calculation.
There are several eg
https://fullfact.org/economy/poverty-uk-guide-facts-and-figures/
I really don’t know why I bother….But Job has nothing on me in terms of patience.
Did you even bother to spot this, from the link you provided?
“This isn’t the definition used by the UK government.”
The kid going to school hungry, who’s only cooked meal is the school lunch they get…Is he/she ‘poorer’ than the kid living in a b&b (because they can’t afford to privately rent) who’s parents work all sorts of hours in a ZHC?
It doesn’t matter. They’re both in poverty. And so are their parents, for absolute Chrissakes.
NO amount of changing the definition of the term will change that FACT. Only you & those snakes you put in Govt would argue differently.
I can see lots of poverty and feel so sad. Then yesterday’s announcement BBC’s celebrities earning so much money, unbelievable. People struggle to pay very expensive license fees yet some are really making so much money from poor. There are so many people cannot afford £140 something yet no choice because TV is cheapest entertainment. Yet those people are making so much money from many poor people is to be reviewed as moral issue.
Well said, Kumiko.
Feel sorry for kuenssberg & winkelmann because the’re ONLY on a quarter of a million quid, and the men in similar jobs get MORE? (Don’t mention the ‘expenses’ , the perks, freebies & sundries that accompany their taxpayer-funded largesse, though)
Meanwhile the BBC send crapita goons around to harrass people into paying the licence fee – whether needed or not?
Beyond a piss-take.
@The Toffee
I’m guessing that you don’t know the definition the Skwawkbox has used.
I think there are various definitions depending on who’s doing the defining – from having no shoes to having to put up with last year’s i phone.
Hopefully we’ll agree that the former is real poverty and the latter is not; it’s where on the scale between them the figures come from that I’m interested in.