Correct.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
Correct.
A lot of levelling down though. Which is what I thought Thatcher's criticism of socialism was that all tories wank themselves off to.
Of course he's in a position to answer the questions, they were about this Cabinet appointments and alot of the issues are down to the Government which he has been a part of.
I actually thought Sunak would have more about him in public speaking but he's awful. Also how is it so fecking hard for the Speaker to get the PM to answer the actual questions put to them?
@VP89 is right though. There is no real obligation to answer directly, especially as the Speaker has zero power to compel him to do so. It's just an exercise to land whatever blows you can on TV / media outlets - Rishi had to come out and not look weak given that the Tories are on their 3rd PM in a matter of months.
Good line this from Starmer:
I understand the non answering is standard these days for PMQs by the PM but I was referring to @VP89's point that he's no position to answer the question as he's only been PM for 48 hours but the questions were about his cabinet appointments and the Government record he has been a part of.
He technically can answer their questions but it undoubtedly does him and the unity of his party no good.
He did the smart thing today and performed well. Also if we think Labour would do any different when under the cosh then we're living in dreamland. This is politics sadly.
It's the first time we've ever had a PM that is richer than the monarch! It's the first time a UK politician has ever featured on the Sunday Times rich list! It's batshit!
Also, most previous PMs would fall into the farcical category. It's a lineage that has paved the way for a billionaire to take charge, at a time when wealth inequality is destroying lives and the world so starkly.
A mouldy potato is a much better speaker than Truss.
These people don't care.
Is this guy on glue?
When was this, sounds like something totally made up but I am sure is true.
Poor performance from Starmer. So many missed opportunities.
When they talk about police. Why not mention that the most police we ever had was under the Labour government and per 100k people it was also miles higher too. Rishi made a big deal about "we want to fight crime" so mention that.
When he talks about delivering the manifesto which says more funding for NHS. Why not ask him to confirm that he will be making no public spending cuts to the NHS as per the manifesto in which the tories were elected.
Similarly say the same for education. Etc..
He did deliver a good point by bringing up that video about Rishi diverting money from deprived areas to tory strongholds. But then follow that up too by asking about levelling up and how his contiuency is a category one area for levelling up despite being the least deprived area on the list by some margin and how other areas local to him which are much more deprived in the official government index on deprivation missed out on being category one (sheffield, Barnsley and Darlington being a few examples).
When they talk about police. Why not mention that the most police we ever had was under the Labour government and per 100k people it was also miles higher too. Rishi made a big deal about "we want to fight crime" so mention that.
When he talks about delivering the manifesto which says more funding for NHS. Why not ask him to confirm that he will be making no public spending cuts to the NHS as per the manifesto in which the tories were elected.
Similarly say the same for education. Etc..
He did deliver a good point by bringing up that video about Rishi diverting money from deprived areas to tory strongholds. But then follow that up too by asking about levelling up and how his contiuency is a category one area for levelling up despite being the least deprived area on the list by some margin and how other areas local to him which are much more deprived in the official government index on deprivation missed out on being category one (sheffield, Barnsley and Darlington being a few examples).
I do agree slightly tbh. It wasn't a great performance by Starmer. A lot of things he could have said which he didn't.
It was fine, he got his lines in, Sunak is better at deflecting than Truss. But to say it's a massacre is a joke.
I’m not saying that a wealthy PM doesn’t present a real risk of a PM disassociated with the livelihoods of the wider populous, but it’s a bit bizarre to suggest a person of wealth inherently must always be considered a farce of a leader simply because they’re wealthy.
And not to mention, where do you the draw line of insufficient wealth to be sufficiently non-farcical?
I’m not defending Sunak by the way, I am just making the point here that people are going bonkers over the fact he’s rich without it actually meaning that much. He’s a dick because he’s a dick. Not because he’s rich.
Hearing it was 1-0 Sunak in PMQs
Only if you are a right wing headbanger, with your head firmly planted in the sand.
maybe according to the deluded.It's not bizarre at all and the issue of whether or not someone can be too wealthy to govern in the interests of everybody is absolutely worthy of discussion. A PM's intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are central to understanding why they do the things they do. If he's motivated by the centralisation of wealth, that has repercussions for the rest of us. Can we trust him to be objective about decisions that might impact his/his wife's portfolio?
He championed the fact that he had taken money away from poorer areas and redistributed it to wealthy areas. That sort of indicates he's more interested in protecting the haves over the have-nots, and is shockingly brazen about that fact too.
Always the best barometer. In fact you could probably get the country back on its feet by hiring Dan Wootton and just doing the exact opposite of what he advises.
I still can’t believe he’s gone from the gossip guy on Lorraine to this weird GB News political cnut.
Pretty even I'd say but Sunak probably comes out of it the happier of the two.
Performance is down to what youre measuring.
Did he answer questions --> No (they rarely do though so that's not a "rishi" thing).
Did he help his party find their collective voices and rally behind him --> Yes
Did he answer questions --> No (they rarely do though so that's not a "rishi" thing).
Did he help his party find their collective voices and rally behind him --> Yes
Sunak understood the format.
He knew he had no answer for Starmer’s questions and attacks so he instead used it to come up with some useful sound bites.
What you will see on the news later is clips of Sunak accusing Starmer of backing Corbyn. It had no relation to the question of Sunak appointing Braverman but nobody on BBC news is going to point that out.
It's actually crazy - somehow become more ubiquitous despite being heavily involved in the hounding of celebrities, most notably Caroline Flack
Why has fracking had a u turn after the tories voted to remove the ban on it last week?
This gif needs updated with Rishis face.
This gif needs updated with Rishis face.
Why has fracking had a u turn after the tories voted to remove the ban on it last week?
This gif needs updated with Rishis face.
It was a terrible policy which was just designed to take some of the heat off regarding the energy crisis without producing any tangible benefit for years anyway!
Slander!
I'm sure Sunak will fare better over time (the lowest of low bars), but if today is anything to go by it's clear that "successful" for Sunak is simply to tread water. He has nothing to land for the Tories that'll generate actual talking points, whereas Labour are being gifted attack lines daily.
The main thing that sets Labour apart currently is the strength of the shadow cabinet, rather than Starmer vs Sunak. Sunak has littered his entire cabinet with utter morons, ala Bojo and Truss. If (and it's a massive if in fairness) Labour are able to highlight the gulf in competence to the electorate then they stand the best chance of winning an election in 20 years.
Can you direct ne to a video or article about that, please? I read this a couple of 3 times and i would like to see how he phrased it and in what context to see how blatant it was
Yes, sometimes less is better.... I'm waiting for the leader of the opposition to do a 'Paxman' on the PM and keep asking the same question but in different ways, focus on one thing and go for the jugular... unless of course the Speaker intervenes. It's worth a try surely, the current system is ludicrous.
Rishi did fine in todays PMQs...the cnuts never answer the questions asked, its just the theatre and playground point scoring...and he did well enough.
This speaker is useless