Humble Correction

Hmmm. Well I hate to suggest that I may have written in haste, but on re-reading the exchange at PMQ's just before the Speaker interrupted David Cameron, I am bound to admit that Cameron does not appear to have mentioned the Labour Party in his question, thus rendering the Speaker Martin's rebuke somewhat redundant. I suspect Martin was seeking to correct Cameron for what he thought he was going to say, rather than what he actually did say, which is a rather careless, and hasty, mistake for someone as august as the Speaker to make. There are numerous suggestions going round that Martin was abandoning his neutrality to act as a Labour partisan, but I don't think this fits the bill at all. Anyway, you can make up your own minds by looking at the exchange yourselves - or reading it. And my main point still stands - Cameron needs to buck up his ideas about how he uses PMQ's and what it says about him to the country.


Matthew said…
I had to read this twice. Surely Dave is not in GM's bad books? I don't know what to think anymore.

Either way, i agree that Mr Martin is getting a bit too big for his boots and not sticking to his task at hand. And it's not the first time- his attempt to join in debate over asylum policy (applauding a government, and thus Labour, decision) was highly criticised. So perhaps the Speaker ought to listen a little more.
C H Daly said…
Just no, the Tories have created a story out of ambiguity and mere confusion. "Gordon Brown will be my successor": if anyone from that can deduce whether Cameron infers that he is talking about the PM position or the head of the Labour Party then they are a better man than I.

Furthermore actually reading into the script from the Prime Minister's questions, it was only Sir Menzies who managed to put pressure on Labour over the inquiry and the Iraq War. The Tories not touching the topic after the press blasted them for their constant and frankly embarrasing change of sides withing three weeks of debate.
Anonymous said…
Do you ever write anything readable?
Anonymous said…
Not you Marshy baby! The crouton above me on here.
Lestaki said…
In an ideal world, the speaker would not cause such confusion for a story to be made of it. If he'd just waited for Cameron to ask his actual question, there wouldn't be any ambiguity, and if Cameron has asked about the Labour party, then his ruling would have been fine. As it is, he committed himself too soon and so opened the door to a very legitimate question; is this speaker, imposed on the commons, any good at his job? That is a real story, and one the Speaker invited himself through his mistiming.

Popular posts from this blog

More Press Noise

The post-election liberal narrative is hopelessly wrong

Lessons for Cameron from Denis Healey's "Greatness"