In the Houses of Parliament, Hancock has told Stella Creasey she's not "sensible" for asking a perfectly sensible question. He told Dr Rosena Allin-Khan to “watch her tone” when asking a legitimate question back in May about Test and Trace, claiming the government’s policy would cost lives. He refused to answer questions from Dawn Butler about the awarding of contracts and their accountability. He doesn't speak to males in the same way. Is this acceptable?
Hancock also defended Tony Abbott, saying that claims from Kay Burley that he's a "homophobic misogynist" aren't true.
Is Hancock a misogynist? Should he be reprimanded for his comments in Parliament?
I agree with Ellan. His job morphed suddenly into something no one could have foreseen or prepared for. I think its time we accepted that our MPs are human beings doing their best. Not everyone can be immortal Donalds getting everything right.
He could try telling the truth for a start and not dismissing people with legitimate questions.
He responded "but he's a good trade envoy". Or words with that meaning. When referrring to Tony Abbott, some wag on FB said that Hancock's reply was the equivalent to saying that Fred West is good at laying patios.
^He responded "but he's a good trade envoy". Or words with that meaning^. When referrring to Tony Abbott, some wag on FB said that Hancock's reply was the equivalent to saying that Fred West is good at laying patios.
It sounds as though he avoided the question by making something up. How does anybody know Tony Abbott will be a good trade envoy anyway?
I think he has also forgotten that it is an MP's duty to ask questions, whether male or female, and this tone is not helpful to his cause at all.
Exactly - the job of all MPs is to hold the Government to account - it’s called democracy. It’s not an MPs role to feel sorry for an inadequate Minister and give him a nice cup of tea to make him feel better.
The Peter Principle was first identified by Dr Laurence J. Peter, a sociologist, lecturer and business consultant, in his 1968 book of the same name. It states, "In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence."
Let's just remember that Johnson's cabinet ( or should I say Cumming's cabinet?) were not selected on the basis of competence but on the basis of blind loyalty to the brexit project. That is why so many of them are not up to the job.
Also worth remembering those members of the House who were not prepared to swear blind loyalty to Brexit, preferring instead to be loyal to their constituents. People like Dominic Grieve, Greg Clarke, David Gauke, Kenneth Clarke and Nicholas Soames. At one time, I felt a little bit sorry for Hancock as he seemed to be the only one sent out to answer for his actions, but that feeling passed when he started promising the impossible, defending unacceptable action.