What is that "mate" of mine Sadiq Khan trying to achieve ?

 

You lost you demented little cretin, get over it and concentrate on your job you terrorist sympathiser.

8 minutes ago, Bertie said:

30p Lee. A bast...

 

6 minutes ago, Traf said:

 

Ard thing to be. 

48 minutes ago, Sweep said:

Was he not more kicked out for breach of parliamentary conduct, rather than telling the truth?

The whole thing is a farce. For months Starmer refuses to answer questions at PMQs and nothing is said, then he gets called for what he is and the culprit is thrown out. The whole thing is a pantomime. 

Plausible deniability.

Simple as that. 

Just now, BobyBrno said:

Plausible deniability.

Simple as that. 

Nail on head.

now

lets just move on. It’s a mantra that’s hard to forget.

8 minutes ago, royal white said:

The whole thing is a farce. For months Starmer refuses to answer questions at PMQs and nothing is said, then he gets called for what he is and the culprit is thrown out. The whole thing is a pantomime. 

I remember the good old days when Boris would answer every question properly ☺️

 

8 minutes ago, royal white said:

The whole thing is a farce. For months Starmer refuses to answer questions at PMQs and nothing is said, then he gets called for what he is and the culprit is thrown out. The whole thing is a pantomime. 

What YOU THINK he is.

You can't just go around making those types of accusations in parliament without evidence. 

Just like you can't say Donald Trump is a nonce without evidence. 

Same rules apply for me. 

14 minutes ago, royal white said:

The whole thing is a farce. For months Starmer refuses to answer questions at PMQs and nothing is said, then he gets called for what he is and the culprit is thrown out. The whole thing is a pantomime. 

Indeed, PMQs is the biggest farce of the lot, had been for years. Waste of time.

6 minutes ago, Spider said:

I remember the good old days when Boris would answer every question properly ☺️

 

I remember when they were reminded to answer questions 

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, kent_white said:

What YOU THINK he is.

You can't just go around making those types of accusations in parliament without evidence. 

Just like you can't say Donald Trump is a nonce without evidence. 

Same rules apply for me. 

So since he’s been in power he’s not lied, is that what you’re saying? 

He must be answering them then 🥰

5 hours ago, kent_white said:

I don't mind Andy Burnham. What is is you dislike about him?

He's a cunt.

Pure and simple.

Will get in bed with whichever lot he thinks will serve him best.

A two faced wanker, who lied to me in person.

Piss and fire..

8 minutes ago, Spider said:

He must be answering them then 🥰

Or Lindsay Hoyle, former member of the (checks notes) Labour Party, just ignores it when Starmer refuses to answer. 

Anyway. Smash the gangs 

 

 

1 hour ago, Bertie said:

30p Lee. A bastion of truth 🙄.

The bloke who has done Labour, Tories and Reform 

A man of no principles

Never thought I’d agree with Diane Abbott but she hits the nail on the head here.

 "Its one thing to say, as he insists on saying, nobody told me, nobody told me anything, nobody told me. The question is, why didn't the prime minister ask"

9 hours ago, kent_white said:

I'm genuinely confused.

What are people expecting him to do? Ask for a security review - get told the security review was successful - but then keep asking whether it was DEFINITELY successful? 

He's the prime minister. He's entitled to believe what he's being told by the people in charge of carrying it out, surely? 

You can question the wisdom of wanting Mandleson as an appointment in the first place - but it seems a bit daft to blame him for the vetting procedure not being carried out properly. That's not his job is it? 

He uses more human shields than Hamas. 

I'm principle, you're right, but it conveniently happens.

He wanted Mandelson, and pressed ahead, making it clear that this was his appointment. 

Putting pressure on others, while keeping his plausible deniability.

Maybe, in this instance, he should have double checked.

There are serious, separate concerns over him raised in Maggie Oliver's recent interview too.

Then there is the fact that no. 10 was informed of the failure of the security vetting anyway. 

He also suggested that other PMs and ministers should resign purely for being investigated over an allegation.

He's blown his own party away.

 

As for not being able to call him a liar in parliament- probably for the best to keep a semblance of order.

Nevertheless, parliamentary privilege allows an mp to make an allegation in parliament about other people.

A bit of a double standard there too.

Can't remember which one, but one mp alleged something about Farage a while back, in parliament. 

Farage legally couldn't do anything, but challenged the mp to repeat it outside parliament. 

Needless to say, he wouldn't.

I'm fascinated by parliament, and some of its traditions and quirks, but it has started to lose its traditional soul and become increasingly maddening to the public.

I've always said PMQs is a waste of time, and it's getting worse, and now this performative crap is spreading.

Filibustering, avoidance etc.

No wonder it takes so long for our system to get anything done: image over substance.

1 minute ago, BobyBrno said:

Never thought I’d agree with Diane Abbott but she hits the nail on the head here.

 "Its one thing to say, as he insists on saying, nobody told me, nobody told me anything, nobody told me. The question is, why didn't the prime minister ask"

Mandelson comes with baggage, everyone knows that

If Starmer was told he was all clean, surely your response would be "Really?"

23 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

He's a cunt.

Pure and simple.

Will get in bed with whichever lot he thinks will serve him best.

A two faced wanker, who lied to me in person.

Piss and fire..

He was self-serving when Health Secretary flipping rental properties, that's why he had to quit central government

5 minutes ago, BobyBrno said:

Never thought I’d agree with Diane Abbott but she hits the nail on the head here.

 "Its one thing to say, as he insists on saying, nobody told me, nobody told me anything, nobody told me. The question is, why didn't the prime minister ask"

And then we have Ed Davey jumping on the bandwagon... he has previously defended his time as Post Office Minister by saying "he was lied to"... he didn't ask the questions

1 hour ago, frank_spencer said:

How the fuck is voting reform in council elections going to get Starmer out?

If he does step down it doesn't mean reform are suddenly in power as Labour will appoint a new leader to be PM

Aye, local elections are hardly relevant

Mr Forensic 

51 minutes ago, royal white said:

So since he’s been in power he’s not lied, is that what you’re saying? 

That's not what I'm saying, no.

I've no idea whether he's lied about anything since he's been in power. I don't really follow him all that closely. But he's never come across as being particularly dishonest to me. There's nothing that I can think of where he's been demonstrated to have told deliberate lies about something.

Like I said earlier. If he can be proven to have lied to the house. Then he should walk/get booted. 

But what he seems to be implying is that this information was deliberately kept from him. Which is an incredible accusation for a prime minister to make. Which begs the question, was it? And if it was, then by whom and to what end?

An emergency debate in the Commons about the Mandelson issue tomorrow after Olly Robbins has given his account. Should be interesting. 

32 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

He uses more human shields than Hamas. 

I'm principle, you're right, but it conveniently happens.

He wanted Mandelson, and pressed ahead, making it clear that this was his appointment. 

Putting pressure on others, while keeping his plausible deniability.

Maybe, in this instance, he should have double checked.

There are serious, separate concerns over him raised in Maggie Oliver's recent interview too.

Then there is the fact that no. 10 was informed of the failure of the security vetting anyway. 

He also suggested that other PMs and ministers should resign purely for being investigated over an allegation.

He's blown his own party away.

 

As for not being able to call him a liar in parliament- probably for the best to keep a semblance of order.

Nevertheless, parliamentary privilege allows an mp to make an allegation in parliament about other people.

A bit of a double standard there too.

Can't remember which one, but one mp alleged something about Farage a while back, in parliament. 

Farage legally couldn't do anything, but challenged the mp to repeat it outside parliament. 

Needless to say, he wouldn't.

I'm fascinated by parliament, and some of its traditions and quirks, but it has started to lose its traditional soul and become increasingly maddening to the public.

I've always said PMQs is a waste of time, and it's getting worse, and now this performative crap is spreading.

Filibustering, avoidance etc.

No wonder it takes so long for our system to get anything done: image over substance.

I'm with you on PMQs. It's just politics reduced to 5 second clips they can edit for the news nowadays.