Taking the piss.

[Claude Blue]

He just doesn't have a knock-out punch.

Starmer couldn't ask that question as it's akin to accusing Johnson of lying which is not permissible in the House.

He correctly plays the long game, waiting until today to call on Johnson to resign. If he'd made frequent earlier calls, which would have fallen on deaf ears, the impact would have been negated.

[Citizen's Nephew]

Starmer couldn't ask that question as it's akin to accusing Johnson of lying which is not permissible in the House.

He correctly plays the long game, waiting until today to call on Johnson to resign. If he'd made frequent earlier calls, which would have fallen on deaf ears, the impact would have been negated.

I could be totally wrong here but does asking him if he lied to The House constitute him calling him a liar (I'm aware that's not the done thing though I think it's one of those stupid rules)? He's not stating that Johnson lied, he's asking him 'if' he lied whereby Johnson implicates himself or makes things worse or both? Isn't this the Erskine May bible thing?

[Claude Blue]

I could be totally wrong here but does asking him if he lied to The House constitute him calling him a liar (I'm aware that's not the done thing though I think it's one of those stupid rules)? He's not stating that Johnson lied, he's asking him 'if' he lied whereby Johnson implicates himself or makes things worse or both? Isn't this the Erskine May bible thing?

You maybe right although I suspect that Starmer and his team deemed it safer not to make this point and risk losing a question.

Lyndsey Hoyle is not the strongest speaker sadly - i guess Starmer may have made this correct point if Bercow was still in situ!!

[Citizen's Nephew]

Starmer couldn't ask that question as it's akin to accusing Johnson of lying which is not permissible in the House.

He correctly plays the long game, waiting until today to call on Johnson to resign. If he'd made frequent earlier calls, which would have fallen on deaf ears, the impact would have been negated.

I've just thought about this and I think you're right - it's akin to an accusation and is against the 'rather dated and stupid' Erskine May rules.

[Citizen's Nephew]

Starmer couldn't ask that question as it's akin to accusing Johnson of lying which is not permissible in the House.

He correctly plays the long game, waiting until today to call on Johnson to resign. If he'd made frequent earlier calls, which would have fallen on deaf ears, the impact would have been negated.

Just looked and you can't call anyone a blackguard, coward, git, guttersnipe, hooligan, rat, swine or stoolpigeon either, which in fairness, does leave any leader of the opposition a bit stumped when it comes to Johnson!