You sent: David Cameron at this week's PMQ's, made the following statement (numbered points added by me):

"Look at their (Labour's) record last week. They met with the unions and they gave them flying pickets (1). They met with the Argentinians and they gave them the Falkland Islands (2). They met with a bunch of migrants in Calais and they said they could all come and live in Britain (3)."

1: There has been no publicly-reported meeting in the last two weeks between Jeremy Corbyn (or any other Labour front-bench MPs) and trade union leaders on the subject of flying pickets / sympathy strikes, far less any promise by Labour to support flying pickets. David Cameron is a liar.

2: There was no meeting last week between Jeremy Corbyn or any other senior Labour MP and any official representative of the Argentinian government. Labour is the opposition and does not have any power regarding the Falkland Islands in any case. These comments are a desperately inaccurate misrepresentation of one of Jeremy Corbyn's personal views. David Cameron is a liar.

3: Jeremy Corbyn did go to Calais, but what he said when he was there was that the UK government should to more to help refugees *with links to the UK*. He did not make any promise of the kind the Prime Minister claims. David Cameron is a liar.

I challenge any UK Conservative supporters - or anyone else who things David Cameron is anything more than a nasty little toad, to defend his lies.

Sorry if I seem angry.

It's because I'm angry.

I couldn't tell you offhand what a flying picket is. I guess it's picketing someone else's business on behalf of their workforce, but it's only a guess.

Generally speaking I don't look to the jokes of PMQs to find out the details of anyone's policy. It is clearly not literal truth as JC has no ability to give the Falklands to the Argies.. It is important that even the jokes are told in the general direction of truth, however. So let's look at that and ask some questions.

1. Is JC committed to returning significant powers to the unions? And by significant I mean more than what they enjoyed in the Blair years.

2. Is JC in favour of a degree of dialogue with Argentina not seen since before the war, regardless of the clear wishes of the islanders?

3. Is JC in favour of taking in a much larger number of refugees than the current government is considering, and is he in favour of taking them from across Europe rather than the refugee camps the UK is supporting? In terms of numbers, as a starter for ten lets say something like an order of magnitude more than the current 20,000.

If the answer to those questions is yes, and I believe it is, then I would declare Cameron's jokes to be broadly truthful.

Lies lies lies yee-aah.

David Cameron should play Diplomacy!

He already does, in the real world

@ Octavious:

A flying picket is a form of mobile secondary picketing where union members or supporters picket locations not directly related to the strike, generally at very short notice. So, it's kind of what you had in mind, yes.

The Labour Party has made no specific proposals to permit or legitimise flying picketing. There have been no publicly-reported meetings with trades unions on this specific issue. David Cameron is lying. He is a liar.

Now on your specific questions:

1. Britain has the strictest labour relations / trades union laws of any western european country. Workers in France, Germany, Spain and other EU nations have much wider rights in terms of their ability to organise and campaign. Jeremy Corbyn has suggested (in a recent BBC interview) that if elected to Government, he would repeal certain legal restrictions on trade union activity introduced under Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. However, this is not what David Cameron claimed. David Cameron claimed that Labour had made a specific commitment to the trades unions, promising that he would legalise flying picketing. That was a lie.

2. Jeremy Corbyn is on record as saying that the Falklands should retain British nationality if that is what the majority of Islanders want. He has also said that a more constructive dialogue needs to be had with Argentina over the issue, in place of the sabre-rattling that has been the British approach since the war. Jeremy Corbyn has NOT said that he believes the Falklands should be returned to Argentina - and even less true is the claim that any such thing has been promised to Argentina. David Cameron is a liar.

3. Corbyn has stated that the number of refugees taken by each EU member state should be agreed at EU level, and certainly that the UK should take more than 20,000, since this is only a tiny fraction of the number of Syrian refugees entering Europe. This is a reasonable stance in my view. But it doesn't matter what I think. What matters is that David Cameron's claim that Corbyn promised ALL of the refugees currently in Calais that they could ALL come and live in the UK is 100% total and utter bullshit.

David Cameron is a liar. He is a lying liar who tells lies. He's despicable.

As reported in the Guardian:

"The Labour leader was also asked about the return of flying pickets, in which workers turn up to support strikes at different locations around the country. “‘Flying pickets’ was a term that was first used in 1972. It was merely people moving around showing support during a very difficult industrial dispute,” he said. “We have to look at the question not of what trade unions are forced to do ultimately, but the causes of the problems in the first place."

On whether that meant he would repeal the legislation imposing bans on these measures, he said: “Of course.”"

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/17/jeremy-corbyn-repeal-thatcher-sympathy-strikes-ban

Jeremy Corbyn makes me like David Cameron and his party more :)

Jamiet, out of curiosity, why are you suddenly indignant about lying in politicians? I'm generally of the opinion that 99% of politicians (at least at a national level, can't speak as much to local gov) are basically scum bags. I'm really not surprised when any politician lies, it is part of campaigning, etc. I despise the practice, but selectively being enraged at Cameron does seem a tad bit hypocritical, yes?

@ Octavious: The Guardian report is misleading. The BBC's report (note that the interview in question was on a BBC programme) says "Mr Corbyn did not rule out allowing the return of flying pickets". Not ruling something out is not the same as making a clear pledge to do it.

As it happens I would back a repeal of the law against flying picketing, but that's not the issue at hand here.

Out of interest, do you believe that Jeremy Corbyn shares your view that repealing the law against flying picketing is desirable?

He might - but for David Cameron to claim that there had been a meeting with trades unions that week in which he promised it is, nonetheless, a lie.

@ KingCyrus: It matters because the Conservatives and, in particular, Mr. Cameron, tell a lot of lies. It matters because a lot of people seem to believe them. Cameron and his colleagues believe that a substantial proportion of the electorate believe the lies they are telling. This must be challenged.

Not enough people engage critically and think about what they are told. They are just rote-learning the lies being deliberately and maliciously concocted by the Tories and their allies in the right-wing media.

It is a claim, and likely unprovable - as such if Corbyn thinks it is damaging to his character then he could take a libel case ( slander for words spoken no libel, i know ) - though i imagine ministers have some level of protection of their speech in the commons.

In any case, Cameron clearly thinks this is damaging to Corbyn's reputation. Which means Corbyn will be forced to make a statement, either denying that he aupports flyin pickets or claiming that he has supported them.

Losing support from one group of voters or another... (Though perhaps he doesn't care about conservative voters who support Cameron on this) tactically he is being pushed into making policy statements, and either making Cameron out to be a lier (which is just 'he said, she said') or taking policy positions he moght not actually support... I don't know that this is special in British politics.

@ orathaic: It would be slander, rather than libel (slander refers to statements made verbally, libel to statements made in print) But as a matter of fact, Mr Corbyn could not bring a slander or libel action - because Mr. Cameron's words are protected by parliamentary privilege. Statements made in debates in the Westminster parliament are protected from legal action for slander. Slightly oddly, perhaps, these same parliamentary rules, it is forbidden for one MP to accuse another of lying - so even if he had wanted to say "what the Prime Minister just said was a lie", Corbyn is actually forbidden from doing so.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35337979

""Sympathy action is legal in most other countries, it should also be legal here," Mr Corbyn said."

Sympathy action =/= flying pickets.

people have a right to freedom of assembly (at least in most modern constitutions, i'm sure the UK has laws pertaining to assembly of people) and protest.

i don't see why flying pickets should be banned.

I agree with you, orathaic. Unfortunately however the Conservatives feel otherwise.

I assume it has something to do with intentionally financially harming an institution?

Why anyone should have the right to go to someone else's workplace to try to intimidate them into not going to work is beyond me.

why should people not have the power to object when corporations are exploiting them, is beyond me.

It is beyond me too, ora. Fortunately everyone has that power and no-one is even considering taking it away.

Actually, what you said about flying pickets prevents workers from objecting when corporations are exploiting workers.

How so?

So is the new standard that Labour can say Cameron has regular sex with sheep and the Thatcherites were/are a clique of pedophiles? After all, these "jokes" would be in the "direction" of the truth.

The mental gymnastics required to defend the Tories long record of deception at this point is rather dizzying.

"How so?"

Because they're legally prohibited from objecting to the exploitation of other workers via assembly.