You are viewing ti_todayinpolit

Today in Politics - Peer dominates PMQs shock [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Today in Politics

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Peer dominates PMQs shock [Mar. 3rd, 2010|12:36 pm]
Today in Politics
ti_todayinpolit
[agrice]
[Tags|, , , ]

No Gordon Brown at Prime Minister's Questions today. Tories are accusing him of  "ducking out" but Downing Street insists he must attend the official ceremony to mark the start of the state visit by South Africa's President Jacob Zuma. Perhaps the Queen needed to keep our numbers up because he has three wives. Only joking -- he has brought only one of them with him.
So Harriet Harman versus William Hague instead. Inevitably, it was dominated by the Lord Ashcroft  tax affair since Hague nominated him for his peerage in 2000. The Speaker initially stopped Harman in her tracks, reminding her that PMQs was about government matters.  She was not for deflecting.  Either Hague or Ashcroft had to go, she insisted. What had happened to the tens of millions of pounds that Hague had promised Ashcroft would pay in tax,  she asked.
Hague went into the session under pressure but did not look rattled. Remarkably calm, in fact. "People in glass houses should not throw stones," he said. Then the shadow Foreign Secretary produced the best line of the 30-minute session, cashing in on the selection of Harman's husband Jack Dromey as Labour candidate for Birmingham Erdington. She may not favour marriage in the tax system, he said, "but she sure does in the political system." A brilliant diversion.  Hague 1, Harman 1
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: vhawk1951
2010-03-03 01:53 pm (UTC)
most notably harperson called him the foreign secretary-now there's a Freudian slip for you-tee hee
(Reply) (Thread)
From: ksvoice
2010-03-03 02:44 pm (UTC)

vhawk are you peter codner

peter codner wrote on the Times online : Hareperson notably called Hague the foreign secretary-now there's a Freudian slip for you Are you one and the same person? yes or no
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: drg40
2010-03-03 06:39 pm (UTC)

Kill Joy?

I know you're only having a bit of fun, but here we have implied suggestions of deep corruption of the body politic on one side and a slip of the tongue on the other. The Independent thinks these two things cancel each other out. Corruption can be negated by clever - clever comments.

Isn't that just how the expenses shambles started?

I don't mind question time in the house being a bit of an argy bargy, but it isn't a second rate public school debating society where silly comments from an ex would be head boy can put down one of the junior oiks.

That's always been Hague's problem:- he's consumed by the majesty of his own cleverness and is incapable of understanding that cleverness is vapourware, it's the real answers to the questions about his conduct he needs to address. Another millstone (aka failure) around Cameron's neck is exposed.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: vhawk1951
2010-03-03 06:44 pm (UTC)

Re: Kill Joy?

Hague is clever and what he did was very easy; he made harperson look like a stupid shrieking harpie-both of which she is
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: drg40
2010-03-03 07:20 pm (UTC)

Re: Kill Joy?

True, so true. It is a matter of regret that so many women trying to rise in politics seem to feel they have to fit that mould.

But the QUESTION is; Is Hague corrupt and with him the rest of the Tory front bench? Diversions by attack at easy targets in a somewhat less than gentlemanly fashion may go down well in the Carlton Club, but the allegations are beginning to stick - if not stink.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: vhawk1951
2010-03-03 07:27 pm (UTC)

Re: Kill Joy?

i have no evidence that Hague ever accepted a bribe, nor any others of the conservative front bench


harperson is neither witty nor clever while Hague is both; she has no sense of humour and comes a cross as a strident harridan
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: tallbendyman
2010-03-03 02:42 pm (UTC)

Typeface

Pale grey on white is against ALL W3C accessibility rules for the visually impaired; I find it almost impossible to read.

Buck up, Independent.
(Reply) (Thread)