Flying Pickets would be a great band name, incidentally.

Again, Jamie, it was a PMQs joke. I'm genuinely flabbergasted as to why you're making a fuss about this. There was no intention to deceive, and no-one has been deceived.

Octavious, you are mistaken. Especially on the point about the "bunch of migrants". That was a deliberate attempt to deceive the public with regard to Labour / Corbyn's policy towards refugees and immigrants in general, and unfortunately some people are deceived by that.

Is the Labour / Corbyn policy towards refugees and immigrants substantially different to what I suggested earlier?

Octavious, are you actually maintaining that Labour policy is that all of the refugees from the Syrian conflict "can come and live in Britain"?

That is what David Cameron said. Show me that his claim is true.

Saying that the UK should take more refugees is not the same as saying that the UK should take all of them.

If you believe that those two positions are identical, you're stupid.

If you accept that those two positions are different, then you must agree that David Cameron is a liar.

I'm no expert on UK politics, but I think it would be naive to say that the Conservatives have a monopoly on making untruthful statements. It's a tool of Politicians to present their interpretations of the truth to suit their ideologies and purposes. Misrepresentations of political opponents actions, intentions and statements is also "standard operating procedure" for most politicians,.... and many commentators.

@ Jamie

That's what you think he meant? Seriously?!? No wonder you're so pissed off all the time :p!

"They met with a bunch of migrants in Calais and they said they could all come and live in Britain"

To me the "all" clearly means all of the bunch Corbyn met. Until now I've been assuming you've taken it to mean all of the migrants in Calais, which I thought was a bit off.

I'd have never in a thousand years thought you'd taken it to mean all the refugees from Syria. Bloody hell, man, the left wing mind works in mysterious ways!

I'm flabbergasted... again!

I'm flabbergasted too. Let's look at this one more time, based on the way you're spinning it....

You said: "To me the "all" clearly means all of the bunch Corbyn met."

Okay, so the press photos of the event in question show Corbyn speaking to a crowd of around 40 refugees.

You therefore believe that Jeremy Corbyn wishes to admit exactly that group of 40, but no-one else? Yes? Not the other refugees in the camp, only the ones who were actually within earshot of him... And you think David Cameron is being just and fair in criticising this very specific policy decision by Mr Corbyn? That's honestly what's going on in your Tory mind?

Spin? Explaining what should be blatantly obvious isn't bloody spin :p.

I fully believe that Corbyn would let the immigrants he talked to in, regardless of them being a bunch of economic immigrants with no right whatsoever to be here, yes. And that is what the PMQ joke referred to.

On top of that I strongly suspect Corbyn wishes to let a lot of other people in, as I have stated earlier. But that was not part of what the PM said. Letting in every Syrian immigrant is a thousand miles away from what the PM said, and a thousand miles away from anything remotely plausible. I have no idea how you got that into your head.

Your beliefs about what Jeremy Corbyn may or may not think are not relevant.

Indeed, what is relevant is that the PM never said the lie you're so upset about, even in jest. It is entirely your own invention.

In fact, as the first "lie" turns out to be something you hope to actually be true and has been reported by the left wing media as true, and this "lie" is a figment of your wild imagination, this entire thread is descending into a farce.

You yourself have accepted that it doesn't matter whether the PM's statements were true or not, as long as they were in the "general direction" of the truth. Do you still hold that position?

(I don't hold that view at all, but I want to know if you still do)

A political joke has to be told in the spirit of honesty, yes. But, and again this should be blindingly obvious to everyone, it was a joke and not subject to the same standards of truth as political statements. Or do you actually believe Cameron wanted people to think that Corbyn had somehow given the Falklands to Argentina? Is your view of politics so out of touch with reality that you think that is what Cameron tried to do?

Aren't jokes meant to be funny? What was the punchline?

"I say, I say, I say, what did Jeremy Corbyn do this week?"

I don't know, what *did* Jeremy Corbyn do this week?

"He met the Argentine ambassador!"

*cue howls of laughter*

What did David Cameron do this week?

He went to a farm and had sex with all the animals!


This is in the general direction of the truth, so it's not a lie.

I guess the "joke" was meant to demean refugee families fleeing disaster in Calais by calling them a "bunch of migrants" on Holocaust remembrance day. Tory hacks do seem to always find humor in attacking the vulnerable, don't they?

The other "joke" aspect is that these insults were all in response to a legitimate question about the Tories love affair with google, trying to deflect by claiming Tory "stands up" for British working people by attacking refugees.

I see you've abandoned even the pretence of wanting a genuine discussion, Jamie. Very well, I'm out. Please feel free to believe whatever you wish to believe, but I'll thank you not to bother me with them in future.

What are you on about, Octavious?

Of course I wanted a genuine discussion. You are the one who trotted out this idea that David Cameron was joking, and because it's a joke (apparently - not a funny one though), it can't contain lies as long as it is tenuously linked to the "direction" of the views or positions held by the target of the joke. I don't think that's good enough, and my example of another "joke", although somewhat crude, was meant to illustrate that.

But if you want to feign outrage and bluster and flabbergastedness? Well, then I submit that you are the one who is abandoning the discussion.

I had no idea you thought the idea of it being a joke was in any way controversial. Have you actually seen the part of the debate? It is obviously a joke. It has pauses for laughter in which people laughed (well, some laughed and some made the sort of coughy gurgly noise that passes for laughter amongst a certain kind of Tory MP). For God's sake, man, if you're going to get outraged by something at least watch the thing you're getting outraged about!

Let me ask you this. Do you believe, genuinely believe, that David Cameron was trying to convince the tens of people who pay attention to PMQs that Jeremy Corbyn had somehow given the Falklands to Argentina? Do you actually believe that that is what he was doing?

I've seen it. Jeremy Corbyn asked him a clear and specific question regarding Google's tax affairs. David Cameron completely failed to answer that question and instead attempted to make his "joke".

Is it called "Prime Minister's Questions" or "Prime Minister's Stand-up Comedy Routine"?

Unlike David Cameron, I will answer the question that was put to me. I do believe he was attempting to persuade the public that Corbyn had made a promise that his government, if elected in 2020, would return the Falklands to Argentina. That is not Labour Party policy, no such promise has been made by Jeremy Corbyn or anyone else on Labour's front bench, and indeed no meeting took place with the Argentinian ambassador in the week in question - contrary to the Prime Minister's lies.

For clarity, Octavious, the thing that you have said that is controversial is not that the Prime Minister was attempting to clumsily tell a joke. The thing I object to is your claim that, when speaking in the House of Commons during Prime Minister's Questions, the Prime Minister should be under no obligation to tell the truth.

I certainly do find that objectionable.

Ah, so you have changed your position from denying point blank that was a joke and insisting it was some kind of statement, to admitting it was a joke after all. And just to confirm you at no time thought David Cameron was trying to convince anyone that JC had given the Falklands to Argentina? Good. We are in danger of making progress!

So what we have to look at is the message that the PM was trying to get across with his joke, and whether that message is dishonest or unreasonable.

So yes, the first bit of what he was doing was avoiding answering a question on JC's terms. Annoying, perhaps, for those who have an idealized view of how politics should be, but sadly a sin all politicians are guilty of and arguably necessary.

The second thing he was trying to put across is that JC is a feeble negotiator who puts his personal moral code above the needs of the British people. I dare say that Cameron does indeed believe this, so whether you agree with it or not there is nothing dishonest about him giving this opinion.

In terms of the individual elements of the joke, the spirit of them is that JC wants to return significant powers to the unions, wants to let significantly more immigrants into the country, and is far less firm over the future of the Falklands than the Tories. The immigrants and unions points are inarguably true. The extent to which the Falklands' future would be up for negotiation under JC is less clear, but I would argue it is fair to say that there would be at least a bit more uncertainty under a new Labour government, and quite possibly a lot more.

In short, I see no intention to deceive anyone and the only thing you could possibly argue as being dishonest is his avoidance of fully answering questions.

"Ah, so you have changed your position from denying point blank that was a joke."

First of all, at no point did I do that. Now you are a liar as well. I implied it was a very bad joke if that's what it was supposed to be. Secondly, something can be both a joke and a statement.

Now let's keep talking about the Falklands because on this point, I think the lie is particularly blatant and particularly clearly intended to mislead the public.

Even you admit that "The extent to which the Falklands' future would be up for negotiation under JC is less clear".

I put it to you once again that while making his joke, David Cameron implied that Jeremy Corbyn had ALREADY promised to return the Falklands to Argentina.

Cameron said, and I quote once again, "They (Labour) met with the Argentinians and they gave them the Falkland Islands". What possible interpretation of the phrase "they gave them the Falkland Islands" can you possibly offer, other than a clear intent to imply that a promise had been made on this matter?

Hyperbole, obviously. Very very obviously. If Cameron or any Tory seriously believed that Corbyn had genuinely offered the Falklands to Argentina they wouldn't make a light hearted joke about it. They would be furious, it would dominate everything in the Westminster village for months, and they would be trying to have Corbyn done for treason!

Good God, man, are you deliberately trying to wind me up by talking nonsense or did you seriously just not think that through?

Do you think the average Sun reader can tell the difference between hyperbole and sincerity every time David Cameron speaks?

I used to work for a Member of Parliament. We used to get angry phone calls and letters from people who honestly, genuinely believed that, for example, every asylum seeker coming to the UK automatically qualified for a new car, free of charge, at the taxpayer's expense.

Of course this is rubbish and asylum seekers do not automatically qualify for free cars. However, some people believe that such things are true.

The reason that people believe such utter rubbish is because people like David Cameron make absurd, hyperbolic, falsehood-laden claims in Parliament, and a simplified, biased version of those claims is then reported in the tabloids, and discussed in pubs, workplaces, and homes, and over time some people accept the narrative of hyperbole and lies as fact.

David Cameron knows this, and he does it on purpose. It is shameful and it is right to expose it.