PMQs (Oct 21st) Badenoch vs Burnham Part 2
The Prime Minister’s response
“Can we get something straight at the start of Prime Minister’s questions today? We have made a decision that the right hon. Lady’s Government messed up. That is why there was the delay: because they did not do the process properly. We have made a pragmatic decision that will allow us to do two things. First, it will allow us to build a bridge to a renewable future, because the resources that come in from this decision will allow us to invest in renewables, bring forward clean energy and, in this Parliament, substantially delink gas and electricity prices so that we can bring bills down. It will also allow us to do more to help people with bills. I can tell the House today that I have asked the Chancellor and the Energy Secretary to look at whether we can remove standing charges from gas bills and to report back to this House at the earliest opportunity.”
Claims
Checkable — a record could settle it
- “We have made a decision that the right hon. Lady’s Government messed up.” The fact that a decision was made is checkable, as a search of the record would show that the Prime Minister’s Government made a decision on approving the Jackdaw gasfield.
- “They did not do the process properly.” If there is a process for the approval of a gasfield, a check should be done.
- “I can tell the House today that I have asked the Chancellor and the Energy Secretary to look at whether we can remove standing charges from gas bills and to report back to this House at the earliest opportunity.”
Untestable — a judgement, motive or prediction
- “We have made a decision that the right hon. Lady’s Government messed up.” What is untestable is the fact and manner in which they messed up. By making the statement general, he does not have to identify what part they messed up on.
- “That is why there was the delay.” There could have been numerous other reasons for the delay, but he puts the entire reason for it on the opposition because they messed up.
- “We have made a pragmatic decision.” What counts as pragmatic in this situation is more of a judgement.
- “First, it will allow us to build a bridge to a renewable future, because the resources that come in from this decision will allow us to invest in renewables.” This is a prediction, in the event that the approval of the gasfield goes well and produces resources that he hopes to use later on to invest in renewables.
- “The resources that come in from this decision will allow us to invest in renewables, bring forward clean energy and, in this Parliament, substantially delink gas and electricity prices so that we can bring bills down.” This is also untestable at the moment. In the future it might be, when and if we are able to compare bill prices, see whether the proceeds from the gasfield are reinvested in renewables, and see if there is any effect.
- “It will also allow us to do more to help people with bills.”
Presupposition — meaning something without outright saying it
- “Can we get something straight at the start of Prime Minister’s questions today?” This presupposes that something is currently crooked, and it claims the authority to correct the record before he has said anything at all.
- “We have made a decision that the right hon. Lady’s Government messed up. That is why there was the delay: because they did not do the process properly.” It is kind of a presupposition, but he does say the quiet part out loud: first that his Government made the right decision, and that they had to because of the mess-up of the previous Government, which is the cause of the delay.
- “The resources that come in from this decision will allow us to invest in renewables, bring forward clean energy and, in this Parliament, substantially delink gas and electricity prices so that we can bring bills down.” For this one it is the expectation and hope that resources gained from the approval of the Jackdaw gasfield will be used to invest in renewables, and to some extent that justifies the decision to approve the gasfield.
Function
Before the Prime Minister spoke, the state of the room was that Labour’s ban on the approval of gasfields was the reason for the delay. After he spoke, he claimed that the reason for the delay was previous Government mistakes and a failure to follow process.
Purpose
The Prime Minister is hopeful that everyone will see that he and his Government made the right decision with the approval of the new gasfield, and also that the delay in the approval is entirely on the previous Government. And that the benefits of the approval will impact the lives of the people through the possible reduction in their gas bills and the investment in renewables.
Analysis
He starts his response with “Can we get something straight at the start of Prime Minister’s questions today?” This is a good setup for whatever he says next. He then states a fact but attaches a judgement to it that is not checkable: “We have made a decision that the right hon. Lady’s Government messed up.” He goes on to state two reasons why his decision was the right one. Both are claims, but he did well to include that he had asked the Energy Secretary to report back on helping people with bills, which is like reaching into the future for credibility that he is claiming right now with certainty. He also does not give any numbers or expectations on his claims.