Well, this is a novelty - because I tweeted the abbreviated title of my last post but one, ie. "What would it actually take to get @LabourHame to acknowledge that one of their questions has been answered?", I actually got a response from the horse's mouth -"How about when it's answered? Or is that too complicated for you?"
Hmmm. This is not exactly dispelling the image of the admin of Labour Hame tied to a chair and having the word "URUGUAY!!!!!" screamed into his ear, but still failing to hear a thing. All the same, I took him at his word and asked the obvious follow-up question -
"Not at all, that's grand. In that case, can you explain in what sense the seven answers I quoted were not in fact answers?"
I await a response with baited breath. Although of course what I'm really wondering is whether the answer to my question is going to be "Er..." or "la, la, la, la, I'm not listening".
My money's on the latter, but then I'm a cynic.
You're not a cynic - you're a realist. Remember - this is the Labour party we're talking about...
ReplyDeleteHmmm. I wonder which one of them wrote that smart-ass reply. No, don't tell me.....; I recognise his style at a hundred meters from the good old bad old days.
ReplyDeleteYou will, I'm sure, let us know if you get an anywhere near sensible response that actually deals with the question, rather than practising the dark art of bitchy sarcasm.
On reflection, let's have it even if it is another piece of snappy Harrisism. Nothing beats bitchiness done well. Yawn...
Well, I've received a response -
ReplyDelete"Were any of them "yes" or "no"?"
As it happens, my own answer did meet those rather strict criteria (which is more than can be said for the 'answers' Tony Blair used to give at Prime Minister's Questions). So are we inching forward to a historic concession? Probably not, but I'm looking forward to hearing the next excuse.