PM's lies to Parliament get 10 million views

Incorrect.

You don't think stamping down on lying is "upholding Parliamentary standards"

Why is that? Why are you happy with prime ministers being allowed to lie with impunity?
I'm not at all happy but the question I asked which you didn't answer is how do you expect the speaker (and deputies) to know (in real time) that every answer/statement given is either true, inaccurate or a plain old lie?

It's impossible for a speaker to do that.

It's up to the opposition to highlight the lies and try to bring the matter to light. Sadly that's something the current opposition have not been very good at doing. For some time........
 
I'm not at all happy but the question I asked which you didn't answer is how do you expect the speaker (and deputies) to know (in real time) that every answer/statement given is either true, inaccurate or a plain old lie?

It's impossible for a speaker to do that.

It's up to the opposition to highlight the lies and try to bring the matter to light. Sadly that's something the current opposition have not been very good at doing. For some time........
How can the opposition do that when it's not allowed to call someone a liar?
 
I'm not at all happy but the question I asked which you didn't answer is how do you expect the speaker (and deputies) to know (in real time) that every answer/statement given is either true, inaccurate or a plain old lie?

It's impossible for a speaker to do that.

It's up to the opposition to highlight the lies and try to bring the matter to light. Sadly that's something the current opposition have not been very good at doing. For some time........
I think the opposition have highlighted plenty of Bunter’s lies, the problem is that a lot of people in this country, for whatever reason or reasons, are choosing to turn a deaf ear.

A very confused working class just now.
 
How can the opposition do that when it's not allowed to call someone a liar?
Any effective opposition should be able to do that in appropriate way but that's a different discussion really isn't it?

The Speaker is impartial and not there to call out every MP who tells a lie/bends the truth or has just plain old get the facts wrong. He'd be up and down like Zebedee if he did!

Perhaps this is more relevant

 
I think the opposition have highlighted plenty of Bunter’s lies, the problem is that a lot of people in this country, for whatever reason or reasons, are choosing to turn a deaf ear.

A very confused working class just now.
I sometimes wonder if we do have a working class these days (in the traditional sense that I grew up with)

Traditional working class areas voting Conservative - was that really just all about Brexit?

I don't know, I struggle to fathom it out sometimes. Look at Hartlepool now, the last 12 months of this Govt and they look like returning a Conservative MP at the by election?
 
Any effective opposition should be able to do that in appropriate way but that's a different discussion really isn't it?

The Speaker is impartial and not there to call out every MP who tells a lie/bends the truth or has just plain old get the facts wrong. He'd be up and down like Zebedee if he did!

Perhaps this is more relevant

It's a curious way of looking at it. There is a reason team Johnson denied Bercow a knighthood and love Hoyle.

one tried to pull them up on breaking parliamentary standards. The other didn't
 
Nothing new. Remember the Expenses scandal. They were practically all lying and fiddling, all ranks, all Parties.
 
Been proven many times over that it is worth it for politicians to lie, especially if they have a majority or are seen as the "most popular", as a lie has a net gain of "believers", even after the truth comes out. If you lie on every subject you can gain from all angles.

You might lie to 20 people and gain 10 believers, then lose three once the truth becomes widely know. You're still up 7 from where you were at the start, if you just keep lying you will eventually get everyone that is susceptible.

It's why some papers print crap and lies, as it makes them money from a specific target audience. What they lose by admitting lies, or paying out damages is far less.

The less intelligent would be more susceptible to the lies also, and less likely to do actual legitimate research, so it's this lot who get targeted, they're easy wins.

A lot of people don't even want the truth, or have any way of finding it out, they just have confirmation bias. Some even selectively seek out and promote things that they know are lies, providing the lie suits their agenda.
 
It's clear the current system doesn't work.

What is the point of PMQs when the PM doesn't have to answer the question and instead reels off a party political broadcast?

In that situation the speaker should be able to ask them to issue a proper answer and if the answer is not forthcoming the PM should be asked to leave the session and be replaced by someone else for the duration of the session.
 
It's a curious way of looking at it. There is a reason team Johnson denied Bercow a knighthood and love Hoyle.

one tried to pull them up on breaking parliamentary standards. The other didn't
I think it's more that Bercow was anti Brexit and went out of his way to hinder Brexit progress.
 
It's clear the current system doesn't work.

What is the point of PMQs when the PM doesn't have to answer the question and instead reels off a party political broadcast?

In that situation the speaker should be able to ask them to issue a proper answer and if the answer is not forthcoming the PM should be asked to leave the session and be replaced by someone else for the duration of the session.
PMQ's is totally pointless - they know the questions in advance and have stock answers.
 
Do you actually think that? What made you form the second part of that thought. I agree with the first part
Bearing mind the Speaker should be neutral there are a number of examples if you google them.






 
Bearing mind the Speaker should be neutral there are a number of examples if you google them.






I agreed with the first part of your sentence, about Bercow being anti brexit. I was asking why you formed the second part of your opinion.

You've just posted links of him trying to uphold parliamentary standards. Which was his job.
 
I agreed with the first part of your sentence, about Bercow being anti brexit. I was asking why you formed the second part of your opinion.

You've just posted links of him trying to uphold parliamentary standards. Which was his job.
"Bercow bashed for Brexit bias"?

A lot of it we won't have seen or heard about it in public. No doubt his book will tell all.
 
You're quoting a sun headline as your proof? I don't even know where to begin.

I'm not quoting anything as proof at all.

You asked what it was that formed my opinion (opinion, not facts) on why I thought Bercow went out of the way to hinder brexit. The links I posted were random examples from Google of the reporting at the time.

You then said "You've just posted links of him trying to uphold parliamentary standards. Which was his job."

The Sun story was not an example of him trying to upload Parliamentary standards which is why I posted it back.
 
I'm not quoting anything as proof at all.

You asked what it was that formed my opinion (opinion, not facts) on why I thought Bercow went out of the way to hinder brexit. The links I posted were random examples from Google of the reporting at the time.

You then said "You've just posted links of him trying to uphold parliamentary standards. Which was his job."

The Sun story was not an example of him trying to upload Parliamentary standards which is why I posted it back.
Again, using the Sun to provide your examples. I guess that's one of the reasons why we are in this mess. So many people will lesson to what propaganda trash they come out with and not question the government.
 
Back
Top