The PM continues to demonstrate amazingly poor taste!

Or you could try seeing it as it was Mollygo, Sunak hamming a pre-scripted speech with cloth ears, and Starmer losing his cool, and misjudging his retort’s impact on some, although apparently not including Brianna’s parents. It is what it is.

Casdon, you are saying you excuse Starmer (a barrister, well accustomed to dealing with tricky situations) for losing his cool and misjudging and dragging Brianna’s name into the situation where it had not been mentioned, but you don’t excuse Sunak for listing Starmer’s u-turns?

Whatever!

I’d have been impressed if I believed Sunak had deliberately mentioned that, knowing that Starmer would lose his cool and misjudge rather than just listing it along with the others.

Sadly, I don’t.

I’m saying it was six of one and half a dozen of the other. I’m not getting overly hysterical about an exchange which did neither of them any credit, but ultimately makes no difference to anything. I’m not banging any drums.

Sunak is on GBNEWS tonight at 8pm. Taking questions from the British public. A bit like ‘Question Time’ in the good old days.

Should be interesting.

Casdon, As I put on here back on 8.2.24
Not a good time for Sunak to have mentioned that alongside all the other flip flops, but Starmer was in the wrong here.

He made it about Brianna.
He chose to make it about something that could upset Brianna’s mum if she was there.

Mollygo

Casdon, As I put on here back on 8.2.24
Not a good time for Sunak to have mentioned that alongside all the other flip flops, but Starmer was in the wrong here.

He made it about Brianna.
*He chose to make it about something that could upset Brianna’s mum if she was there.*

No he didn’t! Starmer did!

Mollygo

Casdon, As I put on here back on 8.2.24
Not a good time for Sunak to have mentioned that alongside all the other flip flops, but Starmer was in the wrong here.

He made it about Brianna.
*He chose to make it about something that could upset Brianna’s mum if she was there.*

Sunak was the instigator. He started an attack on Starmer for an apparent U-turn on his definition of a woman — a common culture war turn he uses regularly in his pre prepared speeches, aimed at Starmer’s position that the “very small number” of people who identify as a different gender from the one they were born with should be respected.
This was seconds after Starmer had acknowledged the “unwavering bravery” of Esther Ghey, who he was under the impression was watching on from the public gallery in the Commons, although it was later discovered she was late arriving so wasn’t actually there.
If it suits your narrative you carry on blaming Starmer wholly for his response, I won’t. I don’t like what he said, as I’ve made clear already, but that does not absolve Sunak in any way for his part in the exchange.

Unlike you I acknowledged early on in the thread, that Sunak shouldn’t have added that to the list, but I’ve made clear already, but that does not absolve Starmer in any way for his part in the exchange.

Your personal agenda is one that I don’t understand, but I reported what I saw. This thread isn’t a personal battle for us to argue who is right and who is not. All I will say is that from the beginning I haven’t changed my stance, I made no remarks to contradict Starmer’s part in it, and I’ve been clear Sunak provoked him. The end, from me at least.

Casdon

Your personal agenda is one that I don’t understand, but I reported what I saw. This thread isn’t a personal battle for us to argue who is right and who is not. All I will say is that from the beginning I haven’t changed my stance, I made no remarks to contradict Starmer’s part in it, and I’ve been clear Sunak provoked him. The end, from me at least.

That’s fine Casdon. The end from you at least.
I didn’t change my stance either.
You insist that Sunak is responsible for Starmer introducing Brianna’s name.
I hold Starmer responsible for what comes out of his own mouth.