Question
It sounds as if the Prime Minister does not know whether he wants another EU referendum. I certainly do not. It is the Chancellor’s big week, and the Prime Minister popped up on telly and opened his mouth without engaging his brain, not for the first time. Can he explain why he decided, during Budget week, to reopen a debate on freedom of movement?50% point-scoring
Answer
It may have escaped the right hon. Lady’s notice that we are three weeks away from a UK-EU summit. It is an opportunity to improve the poor deal that the Conservatives negotiated and to get a better deal in place for Britain—a deal that backs British farmers and British food producers, and that removes red tape from our businesses. If we get the right deal, it will protect our car industry, protect our steel industry and allow better co-ordination on migration. The Tories used to stand for these things. If they still do, will she back Britain’s negotiating position as we go into that summit?67% point-scoring 17% vibes
Verdict: AMBER (45/100)
The reply fully answered the first part of the question, giving a concrete reason for raising the issue now: a UK-EU summit three weeks away, presented as a chance to improve the existing deal on migration and on protection for the car and steel industries. It did not respond to the second part, which criticised the Prime Minister's television performance and said he had done this before. The only response was a party-political remark on a different subject, so that part of the question went unanswered.
How we got there
| Question item | Coverage | Specificity | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the reason for the Prime Minister's decision, during Budget week, to reopen debate on freedom of movement? | Addressed | Direct | The reply gives a concrete reason for raising the issue now: a UK-EU summit three weeks away, presented as an opportunity to improve the existing deal, including better co-ordination on migration and protection for the car and steel industries. |
| Criticises the Prime Minister for speaking on television without engaging his brain, and says he has done so before. | Not Addressed | Generic | The item is a criticism of the Prime Minister's television performance and a claim that he has done this before, and no statement responds to either point; the only retort ('The Tories used to stand for these things') is a party-political jibe about a different subject. |