Define "Brexit". And, "Brexit means Brexit" is not a valid answer.
It means leaving the EU with or without a trade deal with the EU.
For avoidance of doubt, the subject of this thread is the person who promised:
"British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down ... there will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market. "
I am confident that there will be a trade deal. As for the break up of the UK, I can't see them being daft enouigh to leave the EU and the UK.
Yes, there will be. At some point. Because the EU need a trade deal. Whether it will be a good deal for the UK (it will be good for the EU, they hold all the cards) depends on whether the government has any idea what they're negotiating for and how strong a position they're in (at the moment, not very strong at all - a new, non-Conservative, government which hasn't spent the last few years pissing off any friends they have in the EU will be in a stronger position). When there'll be a trade deal? It could be by Christmas by the simple expediency of the UK agreeing to all the terms the EU wants to see in the deal; if the UK government feels those are unacceptable then we'll have to wait ...
As for all the rest of the benefits of EU membership that Mr Johnson promised we'd retain in 2016 ... Free movement for UK citizens to live, study and work anywhere in the EU. Not a chance as long as the racists are running the UK government determined to stop EU citizens living and working in the UK. And, we haven't even mentioned things like UK research institutes participating as equal partners with EU institutions (though there's nothing stopping UK research being third rate partners picking up the crumbs), agreement about how we manage fish stocks or deal with the need to provide safe refuge to those fleeing war and persecution or simple hunger and poverty.
Oh I don't know. It's entirely possible that Johnson will concede every point at issue at the last minute and present that as a triumph of negotiation, with the assistance of the right-wing press.
The irony is that the UK will probably be better off if he does that than if his government succeeded in getting the free trade deal it's ostensibly negotiating for.
Define "Brexit". And, "Brexit means Brexit" is not a valid answer.
It means leaving the EU with or without a trade deal with the EU.
For avoidance of doubt, the subject of this thread is the person who promised:
"British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down ... there will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market. "
I am confident that there will be a trade deal. As for the break up of the UK, I can't see them being daft enouigh to leave the EU and the UK.
Access to the single market, yes or no? Free trade, yes or no?
Define "Brexit". And, "Brexit means Brexit" is not a valid answer.
It means leaving the EU with or without a trade deal with the EU.
For avoidance of doubt, the subject of this thread is the person who promised:
"British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down ... there will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market. "
I am confident that there will be a trade deal. As for the break up of the UK, I can't see them being daft enouigh to leave the EU and the UK.
Access to the single market, yes or no? Free trade, yes or no?
No point in a deal that doesn't give us free access to the single market
The SNP exist to get independence for Scotland. Expecting anything else is like expecting a cat not to chase mice. The people of Scotland will have the last say. Those people voted to remain. The UK government is taking them out of the EU against their will. That could trigger a new independence vote.
I am not confident there will be a trade deal. We are just as likely to crash out. Boris still owes his disaster hedge fund buddies big time.
The SNP exist to get independence for Scotland. Expecting anything else is like expecting a cat not to chase mice. The people of Scotland will have the last say. Those people voted to remain. The UK government is taking them out of the EU against their will. That could trigger a new independence vote.
One could argue that 48% of those who voted are being taken out of the EU against their will.
The last referendum in Scotland indicated that they wanted to be part of the UK and that means respecting the result of democratic decisions made by the UK Parliament
In 2014 the people of Scotland were assured by David Cameron and the UK government that the only way to guarantee Scotland remained in the EU was by voting for Scotland to stay in the UK. A promise that evaporated as soon as David Cameron decided to include a referendum on EU membership in the 2015 manifesto - and was definitely destroyed when the UK Parliament rather stupidly voted to hold a glorified opinion poll rather than a referendum.
In 2014 the people of Scotland were assured by David Cameron and the UK government that the only way to guarantee Scotland remained in the EU was by voting for Scotland to stay in the UK. A promise that evaporated as soon as David Cameron decided to include a referendum on EU membership in the 2015 manifesto - and was definitely destroyed when the UK Parliament rather stupidly voted to hold a glorified opinion poll rather than a referendum.
I am obliged to tell you that your 'glorified opinion poll' was a referendum, the result of which was overwhelmingly accepted by Parliament.
In 2014, Cameron did not lie as there were no plans at that time to have an EU referendum.
In 2014 the people of Scotland were assured by David Cameron and the UK government that the only way to guarantee Scotland remained in the EU was by voting for Scotland to stay in the UK. A promise that evaporated as soon as David Cameron decided to include a referendum on EU membership in the 2015 manifesto - and was definitely destroyed when the UK Parliament rather stupidly voted to hold a glorified opinion poll rather than a referendum.
I am obliged to tell you that your 'glorified opinion poll' was a referendum, the result of which was overwhelmingly accepted by Parliament.
In 2014, Cameron did not lie as there were no plans at that time to have an EU referendum.
You don't think the tories by September 2014 had a fair idea of what would be in their 2015 manifesto?
I am obliged to tell you that your 'glorified opinion poll' was a referendum, the result of which was overwhelmingly accepted by Parliament.
By precedent a referendum could be one of two sorts of vote:
1. As previously been used in the UK, a vote to confirm public agreement with a policy decision already accepted by Parliament.
2. As regularly used in countries like Switzerland a non-binding assessment of public opinion on a particular issue, either called by Parliament or the public.
The 2016 vote was neither of these, because Parliament idiotically chose to do something never before done in a modern democracy - ask a general opinion question that wasn't defined (for example, in Switzerland the group calling for a referendum, after obtaining sufficient signatures on a petition, would be required to write a short description of the proposed policy and deliver it to all voters - short in this case being a small booklet) and which was taken as binding. Parliament might have called it a referendum ... that doesn't make it anything like any referendum previously held in a modern democracy (exceptions may include Crimean independence).
In 2014, Cameron did not lie as there were no plans at that time to have an EU referendum.
Those plans didn't come out of nowhere. He must have been at least considering including a referendum in the 2015 manifesto during the 2014 campaign. And, even if he hadn't, it's deeply dishonest to turn back on his commitments in 2014 so quickly.
In 2014, Cameron did not lie as there were no plans at that time to have an EU referendum.
But even you must admit that the material circumstances have changed quite significantly since then. Scotland voted no 55.3% to 44.7%. If one in ten of those "no" voters voted "no" because of a desire to remain within the EU, then you might imagine you'd get a "yes" vote if another referendum was held. Given that "vote no to remain in the EU" was a fairly central feature of the "no" campaign, it's not an unreasonable supposition.
One rather assumes that one of the core elements of a future campaign for Scottish independence would be a promise for an independent Scotland to immediately seek EU entry.
I am obliged to tell you that your 'glorified opinion poll' was a referendum, the result of which was overwhelmingly accepted by Parliament.
By precedent a referendum could be one of two sorts of vote:
1. As previously been used in the UK, a vote to confirm public agreement with a policy decision already accepted by Parliament.
2. As regularly used in countries like Switzerland a non-binding assessment of public opinion on a particular issue, either called by Parliament or the public.
The 2016 vote was neither of these, because Parliament idiotically chose to do something never before done in a modern democracy - ask a general opinion question that wasn't defined (for example, in Switzerland the group calling for a referendum, after obtaining sufficient signatures on a petition, would be required to write a short description of the proposed policy and deliver it to all voters - short in this case being a small booklet) and which was taken as binding. Parliament might have called it a referendum ... that doesn't make it anything like any referendum previously held in a modern democracy (exceptions may include Crimean independence).
Call it what you like, Parliament accepted it.
In 2014, Cameron did not lie as there were no plans at that time to have an EU referendum.
Those plans didn't come out of nowhere. He must have been at least considering including a referendum in the 2015 manifesto during the 2014 campaign. And, even if he hadn't, it's deeply dishonest to turn back on his commitments in 2014 so quickly.
[/quote] That's just guesswork. In any case Cameron never thought he would lose the 2016 referendum.
For avoidance of doubt, the subject of this thread is the person who promised:
"British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down ... there will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market. "
But he said that in good faith, wanting that as the result, but then those nasty people on the wrong side of the Channel would not allow it.
For avoidance of doubt, the subject of this thread is the person who promised:
"British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down ... there will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market. "
But he said that in good faith, wanting that as the result, but then those nasty people on the wrong side of the Channel would not allow it.
It's rather like loading up your shopping trolley and then getting miffed when the supermarket insists you pay for what you want.
It's rather like loading up your shopping trolley and then getting miffed when the supermarket insists you pay for what you want.
Yes - surely by giving you such a large trolley, the shopkeeper wants you to fill it to the brim. And there's no sign on the trolleys that you have to pay for the contents
Cameron was assuming the LibDems would be able to veeto a referendum,
We are discussing this on the basis that the decision will be Johnson's. But Cummings is Sharkey to Johnson's Lotho Sackville-Baggins. And Cummings wants his Year Zero.
Tangent: I can't get it out of my mind that 'Cummings' was the sinister Mr Big in the BBC dramatisation of 'Murder Must Advertise' a few years back. End Tangent.
Tony Abbott is a climate emergency denying piece of shit, who is only under consideration because he supports Brexit. Quite why Boris needs to appoint a former Australian PM as UK trade envoy (surely the point of envoys and other similar ambassadorial positions is that they represent the nation sending them, it must be extremely unusual to appoint someone who's not a citizen of your nation and has political allegiances in another country).
I'm pretty sure our Australian shipmates have used some quite choice words to describe Mr Abbott in the past.
If ConDom Cummings is Sharkey, there is hope - Sharkey (the fallen Wizard Saruman) has his throat cut by Wormtongue (I wonder which member of the *government* he represents?), and his spirit dissolves away into nothingness, while his corpse decays almost instantaneously, to the horror and pity of the witnesses...
Not that I wish ConDom any harm, no, no - of course not...
The SNP exist to get independence for Scotland. Expecting anything else is like expecting a cat not to chase mice. The people of Scotland will have the last say. Those people voted to remain. The UK government is taking them out of the EU against their will. That could trigger a new independence vote.
One could argue that 48% of those who voted are being taken out of the EU against their will.
The last referendum in Scotland indicated that they wanted to be part of the UK and that means respecting the result of democratic decisions made by the UK Parliament
Yeah. It's complicated. Some folks wanted to Remain in the EU, but not so much to remain in the UK. Some wanted/want to remain in both, or to exit both. Many who were happy to remain in the UK - regardless of Brexit - are now, apparently, not happy to do so, because of the subsequent handling of Brexit. Very messy.
Tangent: I can't get it out of my mind that 'Cummings' was the sinister Mr Big in the BBC dramatisation of 'Murder Must Advertise' a few years back. End Tangent.
Did you see de Pfeffel at this week’s PMQs? The only answers he had were bluster and personal insults. Are intelligent tory MPs going to put up with this humiliating, embarrassing man for long?
Did you see de Pfeffel at this week’s PMQs? The only answers he had were bluster and personal insults. Are intelligent tory MPs going to put up with this humiliating, embarrassing man for long?
If the leader of the opposition insists on asking him awkward questions, he should understand that he is not going to get the answers he wants. That's the way it works
Asking awkward questions is, of course, the job of the Leader of the Opposition at PMQs. At least giving an indication that they're important questions and the Government has things under control is the job of the PM.
Did you see de Pfeffel at this week’s PMQs? The only answers he had were bluster and personal insults. Are intelligent tory MPs going to put up with this humiliating, embarrassing man for long?
If the leader of the opposition insists on asking him awkward questions, he should understand that he is not going to get the answers he wants. That's the way it works
Did you see de Pfeffel at this week’s PMQs? The only answers he had were bluster and personal insults. Are intelligent tory MPs going to put up with this humiliating, embarrassing man for long?
If the leader of the opposition insists on asking him awkward questions, he should understand that he is not going to get the answers he wants. That's the way it works
Bloody Hell.
Apparently, in Shropshire, it is the job of the Leader of the Opposition to ask the Prime Minister soft-ball, sycophantic questions to enable the Prime Minister to make false and misleading statements.
Did you see de Pfeffel at this week’s PMQs? The only answers he had were bluster and personal insults. Are intelligent tory MPs going to put up with this humiliating, embarrassing man for long?
If the leader of the opposition insists on asking him awkward questions, he should understand that he is not going to get the answers he wants. That's the way it works
Did you see de Pfeffel at this week’s PMQs? The only answers he had were bluster and personal insults. Are intelligent tory MPs going to put up with this humiliating, embarrassing man for long?
If the leader of the opposition insists on asking him awkward questions, he should understand that he is not going to get the answers he wants. That's the way it works
Any answers at all would be a good start.
All questions are answered but not in thr way that you would like them to be answered
Did you see de Pfeffel at this week’s PMQs? The only answers he had were bluster and personal insults. Are intelligent tory MPs going to put up with this humiliating, embarrassing man for long?
If the leader of the opposition insists on asking him awkward questions, he should understand that he is not going to get the answers he wants. That's the way it works
Bloody Hell.
Apparently, in Shropshire, it is the job of the Leader of the Opposition to ask the Prime Minister soft-ball, sycophantic questions to enable the Prime Minister to make false and misleading statements.
AFZ
It would appear that in Zog, nobody has a sense of humour.
Did you see de Pfeffel at this week’s PMQs? The only answers he had were bluster and personal insults. Are intelligent tory MPs going to put up with this humiliating, embarrassing man for long?
If the leader of the opposition insists on asking him awkward questions, he should understand that he is not going to get the answers he wants. That's the way it works
If Starmer is asking awkward questions then, reassuringly, we know he's doing his job properly. As Alan says, I'm sure he understands all too well he isn't going to get the answers he wants. Indeed, that many of us want. Relevant, intelligent and honest answers. To be sure, it has been a long time since PMQs was a place where the public could reasonably expect this. Johnson has simply taken it to a new level. I never thought I'd get nostalgic for Margaret Thatcher. Or even John Major.
It's dismaying watching the leader of the UK stumbling and bumbling his way through PMQs like a naughty bad-tempered child who's been caught out not doing his homework. So many times his response has been to imply: 'why are you asking me hard questions instead of acknowledging how brilliantly I am doing?' Or, to take the analogy further, like the kid who's sulking because Teacher wanted to see the working out for his maths test, and wasn't interested in admiring the lovely new wallpaper Mummy covered his jotter with.
He seems so inadequate temperamentally and intellectually to sustain a bit of obvious robust political cut and thrust.
Between the two of them, Starmer and Johnson, I'd be inclined to say that Starmer is the one who really knows how 'it' works.
Did you see de Pfeffel at this week’s PMQs? The only answers he had were bluster and personal insults. Are intelligent tory MPs going to put up with this humiliating, embarrassing man for long?
If the leader of the opposition insists on asking him awkward questions, he should understand that he is not going to get the answers he wants. That's the way it works
If Starmer is asking awkward questions then, reassuringly, we know he's doing his job properly. As Alan says, I'm sure he understands all too well he isn't going to get the answers he wants. Indeed, that many of us want. Relevant, intelligent and honest answers. To be sure, it has been a long time since PMQs was a place where the public could reasonably expect this. Johnson has simply taken it to a new level. I never thought I'd get nostalgic for Margaret Thatcher. Or even John Major.
It's dismaying watching the leader of the UK stumbling and bumbling his way through PMQs like a naughty bad-tempered child who's been caught out not doing his homework. So many times his response has been to imply: 'why are you asking me hard questions instead of acknowledging how brilliantly I am doing?' Or, to take the analogy further, like the kid who's sulking because Teacher wanted to see the working out for his maths test, and wasn't interested in admiring the lovely new wallpaper Mummy covered his jotter with.
He seems so inadequate temperamentally and intellectually to sustain a bit of obvious robust political cut and thrust.
Between the two of them, Starmer and Johnson, I'd be inclined to say that Starmer is the one who really knows how 'it' works.
Starmer is certainly a safe pair of hands and a breath of fresh air compared with the last Labour leader..
However he must learn to listen carefully to Johnson's ramblings. He did not accuse him of supporting the IRA. He accused him of supporting Corbyn.
He should also avoid asking Johnson to accept questions or statements which imply that he is incompetent.
He should also avoid asking Johnson to accept questions or statements which imply that he is incompetent.
I agree, that isn't likely to be fruitful or genuinely helpful. Whatever the truth may be, needless goading is not necessary or useful, on either side.
Did you see de Pfeffel at this week’s PMQs? The only answers he had were bluster and personal insults. Are intelligent tory MPs going to put up with this humiliating, embarrassing man for long?
If the leader of the opposition insists on asking him awkward questions, he should understand that he is not going to get the answers he wants. That's the way it works
Did you see de Pfeffel at this week’s PMQs? The only answers he had were bluster and personal insults. Are intelligent tory MPs going to put up with this humiliating, embarrassing man for long?
If the leader of the opposition insists on asking him awkward questions, he should understand that he is not going to get the answers he wants. That's the way it works
Any answers at all would be a good start.
All questions are answered but not in thr way that you would like them to be answered
Did you see de Pfeffel at this week’s PMQs? The only answers he had were bluster and personal insults. Are intelligent tory MPs going to put up with this humiliating, embarrassing man for long?
If the leader of the opposition insists on asking him awkward questions, he should understand that he is not going to get the answers he wants. That's the way it works
Bloody Hell.
Apparently, in Shropshire, it is the job of the Leader of the Opposition to ask the Prime Minister soft-ball, sycophantic questions to enable the Prime Minister to make false and misleading statements.
AFZ
It would appear that in Zog, nobody has a sense of humour.
Zog is full of humour, and the appreciation of irony. Parts of Shropshire, alas, are not.
Did you see de Pfeffel at this week’s PMQs? The only answers he had were bluster and personal insults. Are intelligent tory MPs going to put up with this humiliating, embarrassing man for long?
If the leader of the opposition insists on asking him awkward questions, he should understand that he is not going to get the answers he wants. That's the way it works
Did you see de Pfeffel at this week’s PMQs? The only answers he had were bluster and personal insults. Are intelligent tory MPs going to put up with this humiliating, embarrassing man for long?
If the leader of the opposition insists on asking him awkward questions, he should understand that he is not going to get the answers he wants. That's the way it works
Any answers at all would be a good start.
All questions are answered but not in thr way that you would like them to be answered
Did you see de Pfeffel at this week’s PMQs? The only answers he had were bluster and personal insults. Are intelligent tory MPs going to put up with this humiliating, embarrassing man for long?
If the leader of the opposition insists on asking him awkward questions, he should understand that he is not going to get the answers he wants. That's the way it works
Bloody Hell.
Apparently, in Shropshire, it is the job of the Leader of the Opposition to ask the Prime Minister soft-ball, sycophantic questions to enable the Prime Minister to make false and misleading statements.
AFZ
It would appear that in Zog, nobody has a sense of humour.
Zog is full of humour, and the appreciation of irony. Parts of Shropshire, alas, are not.
He should also avoid asking Johnson to accept questions or statements which imply that he is incompetent.
If we exclude questions that make Johnson look incompetent there's not going to be a lot left.
That's not what I said. The question usually asks Johnson what he is going to do about his imcompetence. No politician is going to admit that he or she is incompetent
Comments
I am confident that there will be a trade deal. As for the break up of the UK, I can't see them being daft enouigh to leave the EU and the UK.
Remember that I said this on 31st August 2020
How touching...
As for all the rest of the benefits of EU membership that Mr Johnson promised we'd retain in 2016 ... Free movement for UK citizens to live, study and work anywhere in the EU. Not a chance as long as the racists are running the UK government determined to stop EU citizens living and working in the UK. And, we haven't even mentioned things like UK research institutes participating as equal partners with EU institutions (though there's nothing stopping UK research being third rate partners picking up the crumbs), agreement about how we manage fish stocks or deal with the need to provide safe refuge to those fleeing war and persecution or simple hunger and poverty.
The irony is that the UK will probably be better off if he does that than if his government succeeded in getting the free trade deal it's ostensibly negotiating for.
Access to the single market, yes or no? Free trade, yes or no?
No point in a deal that doesn't give us free access to the single market
I am not confident there will be a trade deal. We are just as likely to crash out. Boris still owes his disaster hedge fund buddies big time.
One could argue that 48% of those who voted are being taken out of the EU against their will.
The last referendum in Scotland indicated that they wanted to be part of the UK and that means respecting the result of democratic decisions made by the UK Parliament
I am obliged to tell you that your 'glorified opinion poll' was a referendum, the result of which was overwhelmingly accepted by Parliament.
In 2014, Cameron did not lie as there were no plans at that time to have an EU referendum.
You don't think the tories by September 2014 had a fair idea of what would be in their 2015 manifesto?
1. As previously been used in the UK, a vote to confirm public agreement with a policy decision already accepted by Parliament.
2. As regularly used in countries like Switzerland a non-binding assessment of public opinion on a particular issue, either called by Parliament or the public.
The 2016 vote was neither of these, because Parliament idiotically chose to do something never before done in a modern democracy - ask a general opinion question that wasn't defined (for example, in Switzerland the group calling for a referendum, after obtaining sufficient signatures on a petition, would be required to write a short description of the proposed policy and deliver it to all voters - short in this case being a small booklet) and which was taken as binding. Parliament might have called it a referendum ... that doesn't make it anything like any referendum previously held in a modern democracy (exceptions may include Crimean independence).
Those plans didn't come out of nowhere. He must have been at least considering including a referendum in the 2015 manifesto during the 2014 campaign. And, even if he hadn't, it's deeply dishonest to turn back on his commitments in 2014 so quickly.
But even you must admit that the material circumstances have changed quite significantly since then. Scotland voted no 55.3% to 44.7%. If one in ten of those "no" voters voted "no" because of a desire to remain within the EU, then you might imagine you'd get a "yes" vote if another referendum was held. Given that "vote no to remain in the EU" was a fairly central feature of the "no" campaign, it's not an unreasonable supposition.
One rather assumes that one of the core elements of a future campaign for Scottish independence would be a promise for an independent Scotland to immediately seek EU entry.
Those plans didn't come out of nowhere. He must have been at least considering including a referendum in the 2015 manifesto during the 2014 campaign. And, even if he hadn't, it's deeply dishonest to turn back on his commitments in 2014 so quickly.
[/quote] That's just guesswork. In any case Cameron never thought he would lose the 2016 referendum.
But he said that in good faith, wanting that as the result, but then those nasty people on the wrong side of the Channel would not allow it.
Yes - surely by giving you such a large trolley, the shopkeeper wants you to fill it to the brim. And there's no sign on the trolleys that you have to pay for the contents
We are discussing this on the basis that the decision will be Johnson's. But Cummings is Sharkey to Johnson's Lotho Sackville-Baggins. And Cummings wants his Year Zero.
Tangent: I can't get it out of my mind that 'Cummings' was the sinister Mr Big in the BBC dramatisation of 'Murder Must Advertise' a few years back. End Tangent.
Why would they? They had used the promise of one in the past as a wedge issue.
Words fail me.
I'm pretty sure our Australian shipmates have used some quite choice words to describe Mr Abbott in the past.
Not that I wish ConDom any harm, no, no - of course not...
Gove. Next question?
My immediate thought as well.
IOW - there is No Hope after all...
Yeah. It's complicated. Some folks wanted to Remain in the EU, but not so much to remain in the UK. Some wanted/want to remain in both, or to exit both. Many who were happy to remain in the UK - regardless of Brexit - are now, apparently, not happy to do so, because of the subsequent handling of Brexit. Very messy.
I suspect Grayling is immune - no consciousness, nothing to possess.
It turns out those misfits were misfits for a reason.
I've honestly got zero idea what the possible basis for that claim is.
At some point - in the not-too-distant future - the said *government* will probably implode.
I think that is wishful thinking.
His toadies hang on to him, because he's the one who will make sure they get their ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££ come Brexshit.
If the leader of the opposition insists on asking him awkward questions, he should understand that he is not going to get the answers he wants. That's the way it works
Any answers at all would be a good start.
Bloody Hell.
Apparently, in Shropshire, it is the job of the Leader of the Opposition to ask the Prime Minister soft-ball, sycophantic questions to enable the Prime Minister to make false and misleading statements.
AFZ
All questions are answered but not in thr way that you would like them to be answered
It would appear that in Zog, nobody has a sense of humour.
If Starmer is asking awkward questions then, reassuringly, we know he's doing his job properly. As Alan says, I'm sure he understands all too well he isn't going to get the answers he wants. Indeed, that many of us want. Relevant, intelligent and honest answers. To be sure, it has been a long time since PMQs was a place where the public could reasonably expect this. Johnson has simply taken it to a new level. I never thought I'd get nostalgic for Margaret Thatcher. Or even John Major.
It's dismaying watching the leader of the UK stumbling and bumbling his way through PMQs like a naughty bad-tempered child who's been caught out not doing his homework. So many times his response has been to imply: 'why are you asking me hard questions instead of acknowledging how brilliantly I am doing?' Or, to take the analogy further, like the kid who's sulking because Teacher wanted to see the working out for his maths test, and wasn't interested in admiring the lovely new wallpaper Mummy covered his jotter with.
He seems so inadequate temperamentally and intellectually to sustain a bit of obvious robust political cut and thrust.
Between the two of them, Starmer and Johnson, I'd be inclined to say that Starmer is the one who really knows how 'it' works.
Starmer is certainly a safe pair of hands and a breath of fresh air compared with the last Labour leader..
However he must learn to listen carefully to Johnson's ramblings. He did not accuse him of supporting the IRA. He accused him of supporting Corbyn.
He should also avoid asking Johnson to accept questions or statements which imply that he is incompetent.
I agree, that isn't likely to be fruitful or genuinely helpful. Whatever the truth may be, needless goading is not necessary or useful, on either side.
If we exclude questions that make Johnson look incompetent there's not going to be a lot left.
Zog is full of humour, and the appreciation of irony. Parts of Shropshire, alas, are not.
Plenty of iron; so little irony.
That's not what I said. The question usually asks Johnson what he is going to do about his imcompetence. No politician is going to admit that he or she is incompetent