Sunak in PMQs - thread 2

And what if Sunak, is just an over-promoted, wealthy, politically weak prime-minister in a useless government. I can't speak for the bien-pensant crowd (vaguely remembered what that means) but I do use public transport in south London and I can't say the discussion of trans is top of mine or anyone else's list, most of us are just getting by and need, health, housing, education, the rising of food and heating to be focused on. I think you have to be a certain kind of well-heeled, time-rich person, to care this much about the trans debate, the rest of us really have other more pressing issues to contend with.

At the time Sunak addressed Brianna's mother she probably was in the chamber, she was not there when Starmer claimed - falsely - that she was. Sunak said it was "an unspeakable and shocking tragedy" and expressed his admiration for her, Starmer used her to bait a trap. That is despicable and if anyone should be apologising he should be.

The predictable crown have launched themselves at the exchange at PMQ, and are clinging on for dear life. In it they see an opportunity to shut down debate and discussion and to make some things unsayable - so that they need no longer be bothered with having to rationalise, justify or explain this particular dogmatic article of faith.

It's possible that Sunak is more astute than we're giving him credit for. (In fairness, it's also possible that he isn't.)

The response to Sunak's comments from the bien-pensant crowd on Twitter and in the media has been horror, disgust, outrage that he could be so heartless.

But what if Sunak isn't talking to the Twitter crowd and the metropolitan journalists who write columns in the Guardian? What if he's talking over their heads to ordinary people - what used to be known as the man on the Clapham omnibus? And what if those ordinary people are quietly cheering Sunak on because they're absolutely sick to death of the endless pandering to the sensitivities of trans activists?

I dislike Keir Starmer but Sunak not apologising especially when that young woman's father has asked him to is just horrible. Even if Sunak didn't know and it was a genuine mistake, the normal human response is to say I'm so sorry if I have caused your hurt, I didn't mean to. Too many people are worried about focusing on what a real woman is, what's more important is what a real human being is, and surely that involves some empathy for grieving murdered parents. Most people on here are parent's themselves but don't seem to get how hurtful that comment would be for the mum and dad of a murdered trans child, they would want to honour their brave child, not hear snide political comments.

You do not get a free pass to dictate to mothers what the correct feelings and reactions are to having children who go on to be the good, the bad, the ugly, the genius or even just the different

this

Don't you dare move the goalposts on me.

the post that riled me contained: "If any of you were the mothers of a transgender child you would be aware of how difficult"

that statement is about all children. The children we are the mothers of. Trying to play our sentiments for the posters gain.

I say no.

Sunak directly referenced the fact Ghey was there, so addressed her in much the same way starmer did. It's a matter of public record in Hansard.

OK, fair enough, but you've phrased it as if he'd said that first, knowing that she was there and did it callously.

That's cack, he said it, as many times before, to mock Starmer.

No. A thousand times no. It will never be inappropriate for a child to learn from its surroundings.

You do not get a free pass on insinuating that mothers do not know what it is like to have difficult relationships with their children.

You do not get a free pass to dictate to mothers what the correct feelings and reactions are to having children who go on to be the good, the bad, the ugly, the genius or even just the different.

You do not get a free pass to break the push-pull bond between mothers and their children to fit any narrative.

I am sick to the back teeth of people using any mother's anguish to get their way.
We know what it is like to worry to the point of exhaustion about our children. Do not throw that in our faces.

Adam

From the other thtread:

I highly doubt he's going to have to apologise. Sunak also addressed Esther Ghey remember.

As far as I'm aware, he hasn't met her - I assume that's what you mean?

This is just Tories trying to flip the narrative. Classic DARVO.

No it's not, because he didn't mock Brianna, or their family. Starmer brought up Esther Ghey and it's very possible she wouldn't even had registered it, if it were not for Starmer and his crass comments.

Shut down debate = no subject is out of bounds, whether in pmqs or not. I think Sunak went on a rhetorical flight to avoid answering a question about the NHS. Perhaps Starmer could have held his feet to the fire over that? Or actually addressed the u-turn jibes?

Yes, the OP claims to want to continue to discuss this because he is not political and is being respectful to the bereaved.

But another thread has been started, ranting about the Conservative party (as a whole and other random policies and activity, rather than just Sunak and his quip) and continuing to dig over the issue.

Starmer invited her to PMQs. Starmer made a point about her being in the chamber when she was not actually there. He deliberately set a trap, using a bereaved parent to pretend fake outrage.

You can claim it was entirely coincidence that he invited her to PMQs and then claimed, wrongly, that she was in the chamber but only a fool will believe you.

There is nothing that should not be talked about in the House of Commons, quibbling about word the I used is beside the point (squabbling would have fitted better). I don't doubt there are lots of hurt feelings when MPs or their guests feel the stuff that matter to them are ignored, laughed at or traduced.

I'm glad Starmer is throwing his weight behind the campaign that Esther Ghey is formulating. Especially as she took the trouble to travel all the way to London. I expect that's important to her, in memory of her dead child.

It doesn't matter if she was in the chamber. It doesn't shut down debate.

Adam you insist Sunak knew she was in the building - the only evidence for that is that Starmer claimed - and was lying - that she was in the chamber.

You obviously know that PMQs hasnt been about answering the question in many years. I think you know this was a deliberate trap and you are trying - and failing - to hide that Starmer did this deliberately.

It's failing and its boring.