Question
We await more on the agreement with France, and perhaps with Belgium and many other countries. It might just be simpler to have an agreement with the entire EU. It grieves me to say this, but internal difficulties have arisen within the Labour party over migration. Cabinet members seem to be struggling to defend the Home Secretary’s position, and Government Back Benchers have a wide range of opinions. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister has called for an “honest discussion” about EU freedom of movement. Will the Home Secretary back down and get behind the Prime Minister, who is open to freedom of movement, or will she stay loyal to her Back-Bench allies in the blue Labour faction, who are so hostile to it?
Answer
Honestly, what absolute piffle from the hon. Gentleman. He will know that the Prime Minister has been discussing having an open debate; that is not the same as settled policy, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware. The Prime Minister has also observed that there were very significant issues with freedom of movement when we were in the EU. Having an honest debate means actually being honest about all aspects of the issue, not cherry-picking, as the Liberal Democrats so often do.50% point-scoring
Verdict: AMBER (27/100)
The reply engages with the question's subject, freedom of movement and the Prime Minister's position, but does not directly answer whether the Home Secretary will change her stance or stay aligned with backbenchers. Its answer is implied through comments that the Prime Minister's position is an open debate and that freedom of movement raises significant problems. Because the reply is largely hedged, a member of the public would not get a clear yes or no and would likely need to ask again.
How we got there
| Question item | Coverage | Specificity | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Will the Home Secretary change her position to back the Prime Minister's openness to freedom of movement, or will she stay aligned with Back-Bench colleagues who oppose it? | Partially Addressed | Hedged | The reply engages with freedom of movement and the Prime Minister's position, implicitly signalling no shift by saying the PM's discussion is an open debate rather than settled policy and noting significant problems with freedom of movement. It never states whether the Home Secretary will change her position or stay aligned with backbenchers, so the binary question is left only implicitly answered. |