tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28918367.post-42604334174184586142008-03-07T18:12:00.002Z2008-03-07T18:27:31.033Z<a href="http://bp1.blogger.com/_f5gzVDzoO_8/R9GF5y2HqrI/AAAAAAAABZs/o9WRLrsYeV8/s1600-h/William-Shakespeare.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5175064674773215922" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="http://bp1.blogger.com/_f5gzVDzoO_8/R9GF5y2HqrI/AAAAAAAABZs/o9WRLrsYeV8/s320/William-Shakespeare.jpg" border="0" /></a>Now I know that MPs too often think their parliamentary orations are Churchillian but I saw that a bit of Shakespeare seems to be creeping in to the proceedings by the back door. My <strike>political anorak</strike> eagle-eyed colleague at work noticed that a Hansard reporter seems to have drifted off to a world of Shakespeare, perchance to dream. Have a look at the bottom of <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070306/debindx/70306-x.htm">this page</a>. Any rational explanations would be welcomed. Failing that your best Shakespeare/Parliamentary puns will have to do.<a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070306/debindx/70306-x.htm"> </a>Make them good otherwise I'll have to make the unkindest cut of them all.Scullyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14547393240463525682noreply@blogger.com