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.
Why do you keep on about Shropshire? It doesn't make any sense at all. Why not Gloucestershire ?
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
No but they are repeated on the news, with Johnson giving incompetent answers to them.
As this is on top of the genuine incompetence of this government as we witness all the U-Turns and a lot else, ongoing PMQs hold power to account, which is exactly their purpose.
They are combatitive by nature and it seems our PM doesn't like being held to account. Why I wonder, is this? (NB: rhetorical)
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
No but they are repeated on the news, with Johnson giving incompetent answers to them.
As this is on top of the genuine incompetence of this government as we witness all the U-Turns and a lot else, ongoing PMQs hold power to account, which is exactly their purpose.
They are combatitive by nature and it seems our PM doesn't like being held to account. Why I wonder, is this? (NB: rhetorical)
It has always been easier to ask questions than to answer them
On this point, I agree with @Telford (I bet no one saw that coming). Mr Starmer doesn't need to imply that Mr Johnson is incompetent. He just needs to ask probing questions into government policy, the response from the PM will be more than sufficient to demonstrate lack of competence.
On this point, I agree with @Telford (I bet no one saw that coming). Mr Starmer doesn't need to imply that Mr Johnson is incompetent. He just needs to ask probing questions into government policy, the response from the PM will be more than sufficient to demonstrate lack of competence.
It's sad when you can't agree with someone without being sarcastic.
You really need to stay on topic. However, it is a fine county partly in the Welsh marches. My only connection with the county is my cricket team which is on the eastern edge.
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
One of these days, probably sooner rather than later, Starmer will slip in a question and BJ will just fall into the trap, making just such an admission. He just won't see it coming.
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
One of these days, probably sooner rather than later, Starmer will slip in a question and BJ will just fall into the trap, making just such an admission. He just won't see it coming.
Just as Starmer rehearses his questions, Johnson rehearses his answers.
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
One of these days, probably sooner rather than later, Starmer will slip in a question and BJ will just fall into the trap, making just such an admission. He just won't see it coming.
Just as Starmer rehearses his questions, Johnson rehearses his answers.
He can't rehearse an answer to the supplementary question. Now, Starmer can't rehearse that question either, but he's well experienced in cross-examining a witness where you don't have that opportunity either. I very much have the impression that BJ needs to be given his answers.
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
One of these days, probably sooner rather than later, Starmer will slip in a question and BJ will just fall into the trap, making just such an admission. He just won't see it coming.
Just as Starmer rehearses his questions, Johnson rehearses his answers.
He can't rehearse an answer to the supplementary question. Now, Starmer can't rehearse that question either, but he's well experienced in cross-examining a witness where you don't have that opportunity either. I very much have the impression that BJ needs to be given his answers.
If you don't intend to give a meaningful answer you can certainly rehearse what you have to say. When did Starmer last examine a witness ?
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
One of these days, probably sooner rather than later, Starmer will slip in a question and BJ will just fall into the trap, making just such an admission. He just won't see it coming.
Just as Starmer rehearses his questions, Johnson rehearses his answers.
He can't rehearse an answer to the supplementary question. Now, Starmer can't rehearse that question either, but he's well experienced in cross-examining a witness where you don't have that opportunity either. I very much have the impression that BJ needs to be given his answers.
If you don't intend to give a meaningful answer you can certainly rehearse what you have to say. When did Starmer last examine a witness ?
I have no idea when he last did, but he would have had ample opportunity in such a distinguished career at the Bar. As for meaningful answers - most of the time a PM would intend to give a meaningless answer, save for the Dorothy Dixes.
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
One of these days, probably sooner rather than later, Starmer will slip in a question and BJ will just fall into the trap, making just such an admission. He just won't see it coming.
Just as Starmer rehearses his questions, Johnson rehearses his answers.
If Johnsons answers are what we get when he's prepared I'd hate to see what would happen if he were unprepared.
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
One of these days, probably sooner rather than later, Starmer will slip in a question and BJ will just fall into the trap, making just such an admission. He just won't see it coming.
Just as Starmer rehearses his questions, Johnson rehearses his answers.
If Johnsons answers are what we get when he's prepared I'd hate to see what would happen if he were unprepared.
More of the same - personal attacks, just even more infantile.
His personal attack on Wednesday utterly backfired. Allowing Starmer to show his experience and credentials. de Pfeffel has neither. He has the old boys network plus bluster. He wouldn’t last two minutes round our dinner table.
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
One of these days, probably sooner rather than later, Starmer will slip in a question and BJ will just fall into the trap, making just such an admission. He just won't see it coming.
Just as Starmer rehearses his questions, Johnson rehearses his answers.
He can't rehearse an answer to the supplementary question. Now, Starmer can't rehearse that question either, but he's well experienced in cross-examining a witness where you don't have that opportunity either. I very much have the impression that BJ needs to be given his answers.
If you don't intend to give a meaningful answer you can certainly rehearse what you have to say. When did Starmer last examine a witness ?
I have no idea when he last did, but he would have had ample opportunity in such a distinguished career at the Bar. As for meaningful answers - most of the time a PM would intend to give a meaningless answer, save for the Dorothy Dixes.
I have not worked in a as a chef for a for a while. In fact most of my current Work is from of house. However it wouldn’t take me long to slip back into the role.
Moving on. Changes to the already agreed deal with the EU and emphasising the fact the government is willing to walk. Some Conservative higher ups say that Boorish is holding a gun to the EU’s head give us the deal or we leave. I would be saying goodbye. They don’t need us. Has Boorish over played his hand?
He's holding the gun to his own head, playing Russian Roulette while the EU refuse to join in that game. The EU wold almost certainly prefer a comprehensive trade deal, but they'll prefer no deal if the alternative was to undermine the central planks of the EU system.
He's holding the gun to his own head, playing Russian Roulette while the EU refuse to join in that game. The EU wold almost certainly prefer a comprehensive trade deal, but they'll prefer no deal if the alternative was to undermine the central planks of the EU system.
This is the bottom line.
I think the most likely scenario is No Deal, followed by a delayed comprehensive trade deal in 2022-28. How soon will depend on the foolishness of the British government.
AFZ
What an awful bloody winter this is likely to be - Covid-19, lockdown(s), influenza, furious weather (storms), and the lovely post-Christmas treat of a No-Deal Brexshit, with all its promise of general chaos and wossname...
And, to add some jam to the bread-and-butter, the tories will STILL be in *government*...
He's holding the gun to his own head, playing Russian Roulette while the EU refuse to join in that game. The EU wold almost certainly prefer a comprehensive trade deal, but they'll prefer no deal if the alternative was to undermine the central planks of the EU system.
This is the bottom line.
I think the most likely scenario is No Deal, followed by a delayed comprehensive trade deal in 2022-28.
A far cry from the 'oven ready deal' which was the Conservatives only pledge at the last election. No consequences will follow.
This latest bit of news about legislating to evade parts of his deal demonstrates, to anyone who had any doubts on the subject that de Pfeffel is a dishonourable man who leads a team of the dishonourable. As far as I am concerned, those who agree with him mark themselves as dishonourable too. Indeed, this is tainting those (like me) who disagree with him with dishonour too.
So the choice of by-name isn't to do with the New Town everyone thought it was, but might be the engineering connection? Or possibly the TV series set in Dover, starring Peter Barkworth, Hannah Gordon, and a council office playing a bank?
The original Telford (Thomas Telford 1757-1834) was an interesting, and IMHO quite appealing, character...with a hearty laugh...and presumably a GSOH... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Telford
So the choice of by-name isn't to do with the New Town everyone thought it was, but might be the engineering connection? Or possibly the TV series set in Dover, starring Peter Barkworth, Hannah Gordon, and a council office playing a bank?
Would that be Telford's Change ?
I don't think I ever saw an episode, and Wikipedia says it ran to only the one series anyway.
Maybe our New Town is also trying to get out of the (p)rat race, but not, alas, succeeding.
Come, come now - we mustn't tease. After all, TIACW!
The original Telford (Thomas Telford 1757-1834) was an interesting, and IMHO quite appealing, character...with a hearty laugh...and presumably a GSOH... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Telford
On another thread I clearly stated that I had named myself for Thomas Telford Surveyor of Public works in a midlands county during the late 18th century.
The original Telford (Thomas Telford 1757-1834) was an interesting, and IMHO quite appealing, character...with a hearty laugh...and presumably a GSOH... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Telford
On another thread I clearly stated that I had named myself for Thomas Telford Surveyor of Public works in a midlands county during the late 18th century.
The original Telford (Thomas Telford 1757-1834) was an interesting, and IMHO quite appealing, character...with a hearty laugh...and presumably a GSOH... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Telford
On another thread I clearly stated that I had named myself for Thomas Telford Surveyor of Public works in a midlands county during the late 18th century.
I feel obliged to tell you that I have never lived in Shropshire.
You may never have lived in Shropshire, Telford. But everyone living in Telford has.
What has that got to do with me.
*Looks up the screen a little.*
*Looks down.*
*Looks up.*
*Bangs head against keyboard.*
You need to get a grip.
From the Wikipedia entry I linked to earlier:
In 1787, through his wealthy patron William Pulteney, he [Thomas Telford] became Surveyor of Public Works in Shropshire.
From this, we see that our beloved Shipmate is indeed named by the same name as the Salopian New Town, hence the mild (if slightly obscure) wordplay mentioned earlier.
@Telford, to say that you have no idea what we're on about is misleading, to say the least. Clearly, you need a proper Hobby.
The original Telford (Thomas Telford 1757-1834) was an interesting, and IMHO quite appealing, character...with a hearty laugh...and presumably a GSOH... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Telford
On another thread I clearly stated that I had named myself for Thomas Telford Surveyor of Public works in a midlands county during the late 18th century.
I feel obliged to tell you that I have never lived in Shropshire.
You may never have lived in Shropshire, Telford. But everyone living in Telford has.
What has that got to do with me.
*Looks up the screen a little.*
*Looks down.*
*Looks up.*
*Bangs head against keyboard.*
You need to get a grip.
From the Wikipedia entry I linked to earlier:
In 1787, through his wealthy patron William Pulteney, he [Thomas Telford] became Surveyor of Public Works in Shropshire.
From this, we see that our beloved Shipmate is indeed named by the same name as the Salopian New Town, hence the mild (if slightly obscure) wordplay mentioned earlier.
@Telford, to say that you have no idea what we're on about is misleading, to say the least. Clearly, you need a proper Hobby.
Comments
Why do you keep on about Shropshire? It doesn't make any sense at all. Why not Gloucestershire ?
No but they are repeated on the news, with Johnson giving incompetent answers to them.
As this is on top of the genuine incompetence of this government as we witness all the U-Turns and a lot else, ongoing PMQs hold power to account, which is exactly their purpose.
They are combatitive by nature and it seems our PM doesn't like being held to account. Why I wonder, is this? (NB: rhetorical)
It has always been easier to ask questions than to answer them
There is a New Town in Shropshire. I wonder what its name is?
It's sad when you can't agree with someone without being sarcastic.
I feel obliged to tell you that I have never lived in Shropshire.
You really need to stay on topic. However, it is a fine county partly in the Welsh marches. My only connection with the county is my cricket team which is on the eastern edge.
Physician, heal thyself...
One of these days, probably sooner rather than later, Starmer will slip in a question and BJ will just fall into the trap, making just such an admission. He just won't see it coming.
Just as Starmer rehearses his questions, Johnson rehearses his answers.
He can't rehearse an answer to the supplementary question. Now, Starmer can't rehearse that question either, but he's well experienced in cross-examining a witness where you don't have that opportunity either. I very much have the impression that BJ needs to be given his answers.
If you don't intend to give a meaningful answer you can certainly rehearse what you have to say. When did Starmer last examine a witness ?
I have no idea when he last did, but he would have had ample opportunity in such a distinguished career at the Bar. As for meaningful answers - most of the time a PM would intend to give a meaningless answer, save for the Dorothy Dixes.
If Johnsons answers are what we get when he's prepared I'd hate to see what would happen if he were unprepared.
More of the same - personal attacks, just even more infantile.
His personal attack on Wednesday utterly backfired. Allowing Starmer to show his experience and credentials. de Pfeffel has neither. He has the old boys network plus bluster. He wouldn’t last two minutes round our dinner table.
I have not worked in a as a chef for a for a while. In fact most of my current Work is from of house. However it wouldn’t take me long to slip back into the role.
Moving on. Changes to the already agreed deal with the EU and emphasising the fact the government is willing to walk. Some Conservative higher ups say that Boorish is holding a gun to the EU’s head give us the deal or we leave. I would be saying goodbye. They don’t need us. Has Boorish over played his hand?
This is the bottom line.
I think the most likely scenario is No Deal, followed by a delayed comprehensive trade deal in 2022-28. How soon will depend on the foolishness of the British government.
AFZ
And, to add some jam to the bread-and-butter, the tories will STILL be in *government*...
A far cry from the 'oven ready deal' which was the Conservatives only pledge at the last election. No consequences will follow.
I can't see any way this step can be defended.
You may never have lived in Shropshire, Telford. But everyone living in Telford has.
What has that got to do with me.
Oven-ready chicken
Oven-ready turkey
Oven-ready beef lasagne
Oven-ready Brexit.
Shouldn't that last one be what comes out of one of the ends of that magnificent animal in the picture?
Mild wordplay? Nothing at all, sadly.
I just find it sad to think that someone has no SOH, whether G or not, and no sense of irony*.
God knows - both are needed in These Dark Days...
*I'm afraid my last Irony-O-Meter has just been sold, so I can't help.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Telford
*Looks up the screen a little.*
*Looks down.*
*Looks up.*
*Bangs head against keyboard.*
You might damage your computer, and be unable to read, or reply to, any of the New Town's scintillating posts and risible repartee...
...which things, BTW, are probably about as *real* as Brexshit Unicorns, but hey...
Would that be Telford's Change ?
I don't think I ever saw an episode, and Wikipedia says it ran to only the one series anyway.
Maybe our New Town is also trying to get out of the (p)rat race, but not, alas, succeeding.
Come, come now - we mustn't tease. After all, TIACW!
"Telford" was the lead character in a set of well known kids books 'back in the day', mainly named after him.
http://themodelrailwaymen.uk/books/index.html has all the book titles and covers.
Perhaps in this thread we are living out Telford Tells The Truth, or indeed cooperating with him on a new Telford book title?
Other characters included Stanier and Gresley, all of course named after great historical engineers.
Sorry if I was a bit harsh
You need to get a grip.
Yes, grabbing the keyboard with both hands and administering some percussive therapy on you would likely be more productive and satisfying.
@Telford, one cannot assume that everyone reads every post in every thread. Only hosts are obliged to do that, for our sins.
Most expect me to both read and reply.
Good sense of humour (often seen in ‘hoping to meet ...’ Lonely Hearts ads)
or
Good salary, own home (ditto for Lonely Hearts ads! )
Oh, yes - I forgot that one!
From the Wikipedia entry I linked to earlier:
In 1787, through his wealthy patron William Pulteney, he [Thomas Telford] became Surveyor of Public Works in Shropshire.
From this, we see that our beloved Shipmate is indeed named by the same name as the Salopian New Town, hence the mild (if slightly obscure) wordplay mentioned earlier.
@Telford, to say that you have no idea what we're on about is misleading, to say the least. Clearly, you need a proper Hobby.
What hobbies do you have apart from baiting me ?
Or I'm going to
As to my hobbies/interests, mind your own business.
Far too late to amend my post.
Apologies are a good place to start.