From time to time, the BBC news shows us the workings of both houses of parliament. I am frequently usually, okay, always unimpressed by what I observe.
Bear in mind that these people are paid to debate; professional mass-debaters (okay, old joke, but applicable here), if you like, we should at the very least, expect them to be able to do so competently. Yet, they never answer a straight question with a clear, succinct response (unless it is a toadying backbencher sucking up to the PM during PMQs). Rather, they will prevaricate, seek to change the parameters of the question, or, as is usual, try to claim that things would be worse under the other lot if they were in power. And, of course, there is the usual ad hominem.
In the wake of the so-called coup to unseat Brown yesterday, one MP this morning was saying how well he handled PMQs, spearing Cameron over policy. No he didn’t. He dished out the usual ad hominems, and made some feeble attempt at cracking jokes, amongst a series of nim, nim, nim, yah-boo sucks politics that is so typical of these adolescents; but he most certainly didn’t deal any killer blows to anyone, let alone on policy.
Earlier in the week, Alan Johnson was asked a pretty straightforward question about why the prime minister lied over security issues – about, if I recall correctly, meetings with the US president. His response was to accuse his questioner of engaging in party-political point scoring. He then proceeded to ignore the question. Asking why the PM lied is a perfectly reasonable question and is not party political and it defintiely warrants a response. Yet Johnson was allowed to get away with it. We, the electorate, were once again short changed.
What I see when I observe these puffed-up buffoons prattling and pontificating, jeering and booing and generally behaving in the manner of the school bullies I recall from my childhood, is something rather less mature than a student’s union debating society. They cannot manage to engage with each others arguments without resort to insult, prevarication and logical fallacy. Indeed, I see as many – if not more – logical fallacies flying about the house of commons than I do on the average Internet forum. It’s pathetic.
We are paying for these arseholes and we are, most certainly, not getting value for money. Childish, immature, incompetent baboons who cannot even conduct their core function with a modicum of competence, they are a disgrace to their profession and to our country. No wonder we are going to hell in the proverbial handcart.
A pox on all their houses.
The only reason that Brown APPEARED to do well at Prime Ministers Questions was that he didn’t bother trying to answer any of the questions – he just pointed and shouted at the Conservatives.
Dignified and constructive it ain’t.
.-= My last blog ..Brown isnโt the only leader in trouble =-.
Never mind – the EU will make them redundant after May and then the regions will have the buffoons instead.
.-= My last blog ..Children disconnected because parents were disconnected =-.
LFAT – my point precisely.
James – are you determined to see me in an asylum? ๐
Cameron has already stated he wants the election to be about character and charisma and other related guff. When the opposition is so deliberately impotent, it’s not surprise PMQs is such a joke.
.-= My last blog ..Towing the party line… =-.
I could swear I left a comment here questioning the quality of the opposition… anyway. The quality of the opposition doesn’t help the low-interest PMQs, given that Cameron likes to shy away from policy at the best of times.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/david-cameron/6895341/David-Cameron-calls-for-good-clean-election-fight.html
.-= My last blog ..The height of idiocy? =-.
Actually, my comments apply pretty much equally across the benches, although government comes off worst, I think, because for the most part, they are the ones answering (or not) the questions. Hence my final sentence ๐