PMQs (Oct 14th) Badenoch vs Burnham Part 1
Statement 1
“The Prime Minister has had a busy few weeks: tying himself in knots explaining why national security should not come at the expense of social security, and bumbling into a row—still ongoing—about Manchester City. I do not think that his carefully worded answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) will suffice—it does not sound like that one is going away.”
Rewrite
He has been busy with controversies. One is his position that national security should not come at the expense of social security. The second is the issue of trust in his dealings with Manchester City. His response would not be enough to make the issue go away.
Facts
- Has the Prime Minister actually had to defend himself over Manchester City? (True or false)
- Has the Prime Minister been trying to defend the point that national security should not come at the expense of social security? (True or false)
Function
Statement 1 lays the ground for the Leader of the Opposition to paint the Prime Minister as inept or shaky in his decision-making and his rhetoric.
Purpose
The situation with Manchester City, and the debate over social security and national security, should be well known to all members of the House, so she starts her question with them in the hope of raising doubts and reducing confidence in the Prime Minister. Another angle is that the Prime Minister creates his own controversies through his stances and decision-making.
Statement 2
“He also spent the last 48 hours trying to unsay that Russia influenced the 2016 referendum when we all heard him say it. Does he ever get tired of putting his foot in his mouth?”
Rewrite
The Prime Minister said that Russia by some means influenced the 2016 referendum, and over the last two days he has been trying to retract those words, despite the fact that we heard him. He sets up roadblocks for himself at every turn.
Facts
- He has spent the last 48 hours correcting the record. (True or false)
- He said “Russia influenced the 2016 referendum.”
Function
The statement creates a binary path for the Prime Minister: either defend his point or try to backtrack. The last sentence sums up her point that the Prime Minister creates his own misfortune.
Purpose
She is painting a picture that the Prime Minister has a track record of inconsistency in his rhetoric, even as recently as the last couple of days.
Analysis
First, including “48 hours” in this statement adds credence to how recent her point is.
Second, the placement of the words “unsay” and “say” is apt. She starts with the point that he is trying to unsay something which, according to her, he did say. One reason this works is that it furthers her earlier assertion that the Prime Minister is “bumbling into a row.” In essence, he is not consistent in his words.
The framing also puts him in a binary defence. He can say that he did say what she claimed, which he is unlikely to do, or he can distance himself further, which adds credibility to her “unsay” framing.
Her final question isn’t even definite: “Does he ever get tired of putting his foot in his mouth?” This is a summation of all the claims she made earlier, that the Prime Minister is ineffective in his stances.
This shines a light on her attack in the previous sentence, that “Russia influenced the 2016 referendum.” The expectation is that this would stir people up, because it touches their democracy and its processes. It suggests the Prime Minister does not have confidence in the system, the same democratic system that brought him to power.