Sunak in PMQs - thread 2

[AdamRyan]

Ongoing discussion about whether Sunak cocked up in PMQs by raising "what women are" when Esthey Ghey was present, whether Starmer cocked up by raising Esther in response to Sunak, whether Sunak had planned the line knowing EG would be there or whether Starmer set a trap he unwittingly fell into.

Many segues into gender politics and left right debates.

All views welcome.
Thread 1:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5002735-starmer-furious-that-sunak-should-mention-his-definition-of-woman

I wanted to reply to a post on the previous thread by paperwalkandtalk

Thank you for this.

I thought you were incensed over the PM bringing up the failure of politicians to state what a woman is, but I've realised that you don't care, this is really party politics for you and little else.

I'll support any politician who is brave enough to state biological reality and criticise any who won't.

No doubt if the parties were reversed you wouldn't be angry.

This is problem with party politics (and now what is called the culture war), people just disagree over an issue because who is talking about it.

I want to clarify that I am incensed by what the PM did because it was disrespectful to bring it up on that day. In my opinion the reason he repeatedly brings it up is to stoke culture wars rather than because he gives a shit about women. I think he wad incompetent rather than cynical on Wednesday but there is a possibility he did it deliberately knowing the furore that would ensue.

Separate to that, I am also incensed by how the current Conservative party are very cynical in how they exploit loopholes to do exactly what they want - using culture wars to sow fear and make it so noone trusts our democratic processes is part of that. Yes I'm fucking angry about it. Not because I'm a labour supporter. Because I support democracy.

Jo Bartosch in the Critic, pretty even handed

https://thecritic.co.uk/crocodile-keir/

Tldr both sides suck.

I don't rate Sunak much as a politician. If he was more nimble he could have amended an obviously pre-prepared attack. However, I don't think he had to. Because democracy means no subject should be beyond discussion. Ironically because I think Starmer is a better politician (which isn't a compliment) and just a cleverer man, I just him more harshly in this exchange. Sunak put his foot in it because he's not very good, but in doing that did nothing wrong. Starmer cold bloodedly and explicitly decided to exploit a mother, her tragedy, her grief to score political points. I hope he's proud of himself.

Most people on the previous thread, the R5 call-in and comments below newspaper articles are in line with that - Sunak: not very good, Starmer: really bad.

Oh, and an interesting point that everyone (especially Starmer) assumes Ester Ghey would be upset to hear TWANW (I paraphrase). Appropriating how a grieving mother is going to respond to anything is pretty crass

Being sensitive to how a grieving mother might respond is not "appropriating". It's being respectful.

Whatever her private views I'm sure this has been a very unwelcome distraction from what she wanted to achieve by meeting politicians on Wednesday.

I doubt either her or her ex husband are enjoying having their personal opinions dug into either

Starmer's 'sensitivity' has worked out well for the grieving mother hasn't it!

Politicians exploiting a grieving mother is never a good look. It's completely understandable that Esther Ghey wants to be heard in the face of such an appalling tragedy. But as she's finding out, she'll only be useful if they can use her grief for their own political ends.

@PatatiPatatras on the last thread:
"Women are the mothers of everyone, the good, the bad and the downright ugly. We are the mothers of those to be proud of, those to protect, those to be ashamed of and those who society should be protected from.

Don't use our pain when things don't go according to plan to hold society to ransom. This is our pain. We get to decide what to do with it. Don't white knight to shield us from suffering which you yourself don't seem to grasp. In most cases, the point of the suffering is for the child to see it and change its ways not for the world to see it and sedate the mother by appeasing the child.

It's the mothers who get to decide how to deal with their pain."

Brava!!
And thank you.

In most cases, the point of the suffering is for the child to see it and change its ways not for the world to see it and sedate the mother by appeasing the child.
Completely inappropriate

Just read that and would say Starmer/labour are given a harder time than sunak.

Her point about how inept Sunak was to blunder into a trap was a good one (if indeed there was a trap other than his own big mouth)

Leave it out.
Give it a rest.
I've had enough.
I've had all I can take.

We had 1,000 posts on the first thread which was largely people talking across each other. We really don't need a re-match.

I agree with you @JanesLittleGirl ! What else is there to say about this that wasn't said on the first thread?

The specific incident itself is chip paper now, now that Labour have u-turned on its green spending pledge.

Esther Ghey herself has said she does not wish to comment on reports of wording or comments recently made. So I don't think the OP is being at all "respectful" by starting another thread on it.

Will probably get accused of shutting down discussion though (how ironic...)

For those who dont understand PMs questions - it's not about answering the question, it's political point scoring.

Notes can be passed to those in the chamber so it's feasible that Starmer knew the bereaved mother was not actually in the gallery and was deliberately lying to make it look like she was. Sunak may or may not have known where she was.

Starmer knows Sunak regularly baits him over not knowing what a woman is. He invited Brianna's mother to be present at PMs questions rather than a different day. It was a planned trap, designed to try and stop the baiting, Sunak walked into it. Starmer sprang the trap. Gutter politician for deliberately setting a trap using a bereaved parent.

My opinion of both of them was already pretty poor but of Starmer has dived to bottom of the pond.

Noone is forcing you to participate!

Read this quote from The Times on another thread:
""I’ve never had such a detailed look at the inside of Rishi Sunak’s ring binder. Never before seen the barbs, the jibes, the insults all there, written out in long form, ready to go. I never knew he had a page for each question, and each questioner, marked up with a little colour photograph. In the case of the planted ones from supportive backbenchers, he even had the question itself typed out in his notes. A reminder that this is meant to be an exercise in public scrutiny."

Sunak knew Ghey would be there, based on the above he chose to raise the issue. He's either stupid or wanted the controversy. Neither are a good look for a PM

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.

Let's assume Sunak didn't know she was planning to be there that day. Starmer started off be welcoming Ghey to the chamber. So the options are 1) Starmer set a trap knowing Sunak would raise "99%..." at some point, Sunak wasn't listening when starmer pointed out the trap in his intro and fell in it; 2) Sunak did listen and deliberately raised the "99%" to goad Starmer 3) Sunak did listen but didn't compute that the 99% would be offensive and did it anyway 4) Sunak didn't listen and made a the "99" comment in error.

I don't think there are other options? None of those cover Sunak in glory.

Option 1) is also bad for starmer. The other 3 are not, they are him reacting to Sunaks faux pas, but Sunak caused it by making the faux pas in the first place.

Whether or not Ghey was in the chamber is kind of irrelevant to what actually happened. Unless it was a "trap" but then Sunak should be adept enough to spot those a mile off.

Also how on earth would any of us know it was deliberate, unless we were KS?

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

There was no debate. Sunak made a poorly timed jibe. In an ordinary PMQs starmer would have ignored it because it would derail his answer. In this case he had a reason to come back (either to point score or because he was angry, you choose).

Saying this is to "shut down debate" is short sighted.

If we are back in a situation where the Conservatives don't talk about this because it's too toxic, that's also down to Sunak's ineptitude. I think the debate will continue in the run up to the election however.

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.

What did you mean about "shutting down debate" then? Do you mean outside pmqs? Do you think starmer should have ignored it as the cut and thrust of politics? How does that support debate? I genuinely am interested

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.

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.

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?