SOME scores on the doors after this week’s Sunday politics shows.

What we learned: Foreign Secretary James Cleverly went shopping on Saturday (Sky News’ Ridge on Sunday); Iain Duncan Smith, former leader of the Conservatives, regards himself as an old rocker (Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg); Tesco tussled with Heinz over soup prices (SWLK); Nicola Sturgeon still thinks the UK government’s blocking of the Scottish Parliament’s gender reform law is outrageous (SWLK); neither Scottish or UK Labour think going to Davos to meet the global financial elite is a betrayal of what the party stands for (The Sunday Show/SWLK).

Now here is what we did not learn (all shows): How much Nadhim Zahawi, Minister and chairman of the Conservatives, was fined by the tax man; if he was Chancellor, and therefore in charge of the HMRC, at the time; why he set lawyers on journalists questioning his tax affairs; if he will still be in his job by the week’s end.

Also not known: why Boris Johnson needed access to an £800,000 overdraft when he was Prime Minister; the role of Richard Sharp, who was later appointed chairman of the BBC, in setting up the loan guarantee.

The Minister responsible for providing answers was Mr Cleverly, only he saw it differently. Despite being sent out by Downing Street to be the voice and face of the Government, he did not know anything beyond what was already in the public domain, and he had not spoken to any of the parties involved to get further information. This is a move now known as “doing a Coffey”, so named after Therese Coffey’s disastrous Sunday shift at the height of the Truss Government’s woes.

Mr Cleverly made a better job of it. He had been attending crucial meetings on Foreign Office matters, you know.

There followed a closely fought contest on which presenter was most irked with Mr Cleverly’s inability to add to the sum of human knowledge. Was it Sky News’ Sophy Ridge, who said it was “not great for transparency’; “really not good enough”; and even “very convenient”?

Or was it Laura Kuenssberg, who asked the Minister if he did not know because he did not want to know? Ouch.

Or perhaps it was the viewer, who began to wonder if this was the way ahead for Sunday interviews, and if so what was the point of them?

For the third in her series of sit-downs with party leaders, Laura Kuenssberg had a pre-recorded fireside chat with Nicola Sturgeon in Bute House.

Scotland’s First Minister was sharply critical of the UK Government blocking Holyrood’s gender reform law. It was also no surprise to hear Ms Sturgeon say that she had “plenty in the tank” and would not be following the lead of former New Zealand premier Jacinda Ardern in quitting.

As an interview it was hardly revealing. As an example of how to stop a potential bin fire before it takes hold, it turned out to be a must-see.

Here’s what happened. Kuenssberg asked why the First Minister believed a person was old enough at 16 to make a decision about changing gender when they were not old enough to buy a pint in the pub?

Ms Sturgeon replied: “I used to, when I was growing up and probably sixteen, take the view that there should be a single age of consent. And I think over time I think it is right to look at, why can’t a 16-year-old drink alcohol in a pub. You need to look at the particular circumstances, the physical issues around some of these things.”

On Saturday evening, the day before the interview aired, the BBC politics team tweeted: “Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon says ‘it is right to look at’ whether you should be allowed to ‘drink alcohol in a pub’ at 16, after controversy over plans to lower the age you can change your legal sex”.

Twitter lit up, with former Labour MP Tom Harris among those who detected a gaffe. “Common sense at last! ,” he messaged. “It’s often been observed that Scotland’s drink problem could be improved if we encourage people to start drinking at a younger age.”

Nicola Sturgeon then responded to the BBC. “This was bad phrasing on my part – so not having a go at the BBC – but this is not what I meant.

“I meant that there are reasons why you can do some things at 16 and not others. I do not favour a review of the current age rules on alcohol.”

A case of unfortunate phrasing resulting in a harmless spat? It still led to some stories running, but there would have probably been many more had the clarifying tweet not been sent.

Mr Cleverly and others might care to note that when it comes to the Sunday shows, there’s no such thing as a Saturday night off.