+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results
Results 1 to 25 of 106

Thread: Taking the piss.

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Re: Taking the piss.

    Quote Originally Posted by MacAdder View Post
    Come on now, all will be revealed after the senior civil servant's review.
    We are all jumping the gun

    Sir Kier missed a trick not asking him if he'd lied to the house.
    He Johnson couldn't have hid behind the "wait til the findings of the review " comment.

    Can't see the backbenchers taking much more brassnecking.
    The end is nigh.
    He just doesn't have a knock-out punch.

  2. #2

    Re: Taking the piss.

    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen's Nephew View Post
    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.

  3. #3

    Re: Taking the piss.

    Quote Originally Posted by Claude Blue View Post
    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?

  4. #4

    Re: Taking the piss.

    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen's Nephew View Post
    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!!

  5. #5

    Re: Taking the piss.

    Quote Originally Posted by Claude Blue View Post
    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.

  6. #6

    Re: Taking the piss.

    Quote Originally Posted by Claude Blue View Post
    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!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •