wire-quin wrote:
Wouldn't be a bad replacement.
Starmer for a lawyer seemed to be acting strangely today in PMQs, pre-empting the outcome of both the internal and police investigations. I'm unsure why Labour would want Boris out. He's got to be a liability, just leave him there and roll out the catalogue of shortcomings and faults at the next election.
Sir Kier really is dull. If there was a colourful opposition leader, parliament would be fantastic to watch currently. Sadly Starmer is a wet drip, devoid of any character, off the cuff one-liners, just nothing.....Everything is pre scripted and delivered to the word.
It’s not really pre-empting, is it? The facts are well established. Crucially that there were a number of social gatherings that broke the rules and the Prime Minister attended some of them and misled Parliament. I think even Johnson would now have to admit that if forced to answer a question and given a sufficiently powerful truth serum. To be fair he might play the moron or amnesiac card to claim he didn’t
knowingly mislead Parliament, if the dose weren’t sufficiently massive.
Further confirmation from Ms Gray and the Met isn’t really needed to pass the threshold at which a person with any sense of integrity would have resigned. Although having no integrity is key to his success in his head, rather than making anything he’s achieved worthless in mine. He thinks the rules are beneath him, whereas to me they just seem to be beyond him. The man is a fraud on every level. I saw this on twitter earlier - a clown who enters a palace doesn’t become a king, the palace becomes a circus. Turkish proverb, it claimed.
That you could look at that guy and then look at Starmer and think Starmer strange, is strange to me. Possibly I seem strange to you in turn, but you’ll have to wait until the Gray report is published to be sure - nothing can be certain until then, eh?
