UK Politics

Loophole lawyer Nick Freeman quoted 6 months earlier today, that's what I'm going on...

 

just found this that clarifies the 6month and 3 year limits

 

Just seen 'highlights' of PMQ on News report. Did KS ask any real questions? The bit they showed he asked one thing and his next two were just comments which allowed Boris to talk about whatever he wanted. Surely when there is so much stuff around KS should be beating Boris hands down every week. PMQs should be his strongest point coming from his legal background

 

To be fair there was a statement to the house just yesterday afternoon on Russia/Ukraine so people saying he should be focusing on that might not have realise it was seen at length yesterday.

In my opinion and with no Sue Gray report he shouldn't have stacked his deck to that line of questioning. He should have attacked the NI rise which Sunak is trying to distance himself from and the cost of living and energy crisis. With 6 questions there was ample opportunity to cover the major issues.

 

Johnson made him look a bit of a dick yesterday and I can't figure out how Starmer let it happen.

He'd basically asked 6 questions about something pretty irrelevant that he knew Johnson could bat away by saying he couldn't talk about it because of the investigations. Johnson then turned the questions into spieling all the things that they were actually "dealing" with that were more important than cake. It made it look like Starmer was interested in minutiae and soundbites but the Government were actually cracking on with things.

How Starmer got to his 2nd or 3rd question and didn't realise what was going on and change tactics I have no idea but he kept plugging on.

 

Starmer, Is like been savaged by a dead sheep as one MP said in the past

 

Starmer = Parties
Blackford = Begging bowl
That's all these two have..

 

Whatever you think of Starmer or his politics, this is down to Johnson pedling rubbish about Starmer regarding Jimmy Saville.

The morons who act like this don't care about the true and take it at face value when Johnson paints Starmer as being responsible for Jimmy Saville not being prosecuted.

Shameful scenes.



Let's remind ourselves a MP was murdered barely a few months ago.

 

This will be a novelty for our new converts..

 

Wonder why the later verses of God save the King are never sung, This verse is a cracker!!

Lord grant that Marshal Wade
May by thy mighty aid
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
And like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush.
God save the King!

 

PMQ's today...Starmer attacking the government (rightly) re the dinghy dippers....funny, he's never mentioned it before .. !!

 

Once again Starmer swinging from new populist topic to new populist topic with no structure at all.

Attacking the government on illegal immigration when you have have opposed every single change that they try to make and will continue to do so is a dead end of an attack.

 

To be fair, an opposition can oppose ad infinitum when they are in a minority. When the measures carried out by the majority sitting government have proved to be not working, it seems reasonable to criticise.

So, Sunak attacks Starmer for opposing proposals that ultimately have failed.

And, by the way, they are asylum seekers, not illegal immigrants pending processing of their asylum claims. Ridiculous exaggeration to call this an "invasion".

 

You could not be more wrong mate, you really couldn't ....

 

And I get that but to me it comes across as opposition for oppositions sake and that actually stops things getting done, which is the opposite of what our system should do.

If you are going to oppose the government regardless of what they propose then that is your right as opposition, but you can't also say that they haven't done anything about it. It's a self defeating circle in the end because the next time the government has an idea - whether it's right or wrong - then it will automatically be opposed (obviously) and you get into that situations where "you said you wanted us to get it solved, the people want to get it solved, we're coming up with ideas we think will solve it and you're opposing it once again without any alternative". Long term it's a bad look when a lot of the working class actually want government to try to solve this issue.

Asylum seeker/illegal immigrant is semantics. If you enter a country while circumventing the system for passport control then regardless of what the law actually says you are trying to get around the system. It's equally as difficult as semantic as pointing out that Albanians and France don't really need to be claiming asylum from anywhere.