PMQs

Well having wathced that performance i would like to ask you Nick

Are you a socialist?

You automatically assumed that the chancellor will have to raise taxes as the government gets less as the economy slows. What pray tell is wrong with belt tightening and saving some money. I put it to you and the government that they should do what every company in the world does in hard times. Do not replace staff that retire and get the ones left to pick up the slack!

I think IDS made a good assessment of the public opinion of the government. So much for the Tories being out of touch then. They seem to be a lot nore in touch than the government.

Finally Nick boohoo DC called GB useless and you didnt like it. Well if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck more than likely it is a duck.
The current PM is useless. Fact!

Any chance of a link to the RealPlayer stream? Or is all video locked behind the iPlayer now?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

It is strange that even when there seems to me to be a straightforward response to Cameron, Brown doesn't use it (eg on the knife crime teacup storm). It does all rather chime in with the picture of Brown that comes out of the Campbell diaries - highly competent, comfortable with the detail, but not a communicator and with a tendency to paranoia. He is obviously a very complex man - which is something I can't see in Cameron (and that's not a compliment!).


Pity you didn't have a link to your appearance before the Lords Committee this morning Nick. I found those exchanges very interesting, and understand rather better how the 'Smith on knife crime' kerfuffle came about. Adam Boulton got quite defensive in the end, I thought. Also interesting that the antipathy between the journos and Campbell still simmers. One reason for Campbell's views might have been the tendency of reporters to get hooked up on one side or interpretation of a story, and not to give any impression that there might be another way of looking at things. And IMO that was well illustrated by the very one-sided comments of your ITV colleague about Brown's comments on Iraq last September

Anyway, pleased to see that you place such importance on the cumulative views coming from blogs such as your own. I just hope you realise that the distribution of views does not represent any sort of accurate random sample!

@4

jim why would you say that the postings on an open forum blog do not represent an accurate random sample?

IMO it at least represents an accurate sample of people that aren't apathetic and care enough to get involved to a degree in the political process.

Unless of course you go along with the asertion of dhwilkinson (i think it was) who claims that most of the people that post things he doesnt agree with are people with multiple id's. That point of veiw is nearly as paranoid as Gordon

I must say that I really enjoy seeing Cameron winding Brown up. Blair would have laughed or made fun of him, but Brown gets really angry and his front bench refuse to look at him.

Its quite embarrassing really. No answers to legitimate questions, and only planned answers to planned questions from his own side. Whatever he is, Brown is definitely not a communicator.

As an aside, I had a pint with a friend and client, who incidentally has voted Labour at the last three elections, at lunchtime. I asked him what Brown should do. Quick as a flash he said "Buy a peerage and get out quick."

Needless to say, he has vowed not to vote Labour again.

1pot kettle so nick doesn't agree with you Boo Hoo! the performance today at question time was in my opinion very poor. the speaker allowed a Labour MP to be shouted down and gave in to the mob, Dave Cameron was extremely offensive when he found he was losing the argument and the speaker allowed him to get away with it .
Cameron, This is a man that aspires to be the leader of this great country and today as before he was found wanting, the man obviously has no control over his mouth he is not witty, diplomatic or in any way amusing, he has no sense of decorum and I dread to think how he would react if the Russian PM had betrayed him. the man has no control is deviod of policies and is damned ignorant and tries his best to be a bully, on the world stage they'll have him for breakfast.

A bit bland to be honest Nick. Ok so maybe DC nearly overstepped the mark but at the same time GB does avoid questions like they were bullets and he was in the Matrix. So because of public pressure on two key aspects (the 10p rate and fuel duty) the Government won't have the revenue to look after what was it "hard pressed" families? Have they shot themselves therefore in the foot by trying to help now they won't be able to help if things get worse? Is raising taxes the only way or will limiting spending on other projects be the other route? To be honest for all the recent PMQs GB always dithers I think that is why he is so unpopular. Echoes of John Major anyone? Has GB got himself into a situation where all he can do is tinker here and there but not actually carry out an overhaul of the tax and revenue system as he would be lambasted by all and sundry even if it was a good idea (i.e. such as the raising fuel duty but maybe giving hauliers special dispensation)?

@7

I am glad you defended the speaker. Gives me the perfect foil to suggest this speaker is on the same level as GB.

Bring back Betty Boothroyd she wouldnt have stood for this PM's nonsense and would have required him to at least pretend to answer a question with an answer

Nick,

I am a tad confused by your performance.

The BBC is overflowing with comments of people frustrated the our prime minister is completely unable to answer any questions in PMQ ... and you go on about whether the word "useless" should be used.

Priorities Nick, priorities ... at least have the pretence of being non-partisan. It's becoming embarrassing.

@7 suplemental.

Its laughable that you acuse DC of being rude. Personally I think it is rude of GB to not answer questions with answers.

He mainly replies with his stock list the one time he did give a straight answer two weeks ago it was imediately proven to be a lie (remember no deals for 42 days)

7 ga

What a load of drivel. Brown yet again was completely outclassed. His team won't look at him at PMQs, they all look miserable. They look, as in fact they really are, like a load of losers.

This great country, as you put it, needs a leader (of any sort). And what do we have? Brown have been notable for his absence in recent weeks. His minions are put up time after time, without any opinions of their own, and can only say "The Prime Minister said ....."

Cameron was only being honest in his comments. Its what the majority of the country believe. If you don't like honesty, well hard luck old bean.

What disappoints me is the reaction of the Liberal Shadow Chancellor, whose opinion I tend to trust and usually seems even handed; this time has made a purely political critical response. "Was it announced now in the run up to Glasgow East?" Partially, no doubt! But, then again, the Chancellor would be criticised for failing to make important announcements inside Parliament, if it had been told during the recess, and it had to be got out early before Parliament rises/closes.

My criticism with this and many earlier Governments, is that they fail to make appropriate decisions which are applicable in a suitable and least damaging manner. Here the Liberal criticism of where will the Chancellor raise the money to support the current account deficits becomes valid.

As we are a Nation, "one equal temper of heroic hearts", one hopes and wishes. We needs must look to those who have the most available resources during these periods when the Country is in difficulty.

On an annual income basis most immediate needs are paid for in the first £22,000 of family income. Hence I make comment to the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Opposition, and the Liberal Opposition Chancellor; these are really difficult times - stop this 'ya boo' point scoring, [unless it has a comedic value of significance], and realise the only way to raise money for the Exchequeor is to increase direct taxes on those who have surplus, having already met their own domestic needs, say, incomes £30-£35 grand - 2p in the pound; incomes £35-£45 grand - 3p in the pound - and so on. Let's see where this takes us and review it after six months. Also reform all direct taxations to remove anomalies, as has been intermittently promised from time to time.

I remember, similar instances in 1979, when the Labour Government refused to bite the bullet of 'Reform' during rising inflation and poverty amongst the low paid. The PM then failed to see for himself the actual domestic issue which led to the 'winter of discontent'. He would make sound bites at airports, on journeys to and from some political summit or another - quite outside the experience or actual interest of the vast amount of his public. [Probably to the IMF.]

We see again today, local authority workers etc, striking, because they the lowest paid, and are by definition the poorest in the land, have been refused income increases closer to the rate of inflation. Why should the poorest have to pay the most to correct the current account balances??? Surely the answer 'must not' be - because there are more of them and thus has the greatest effect! Sorry! To my 'superiors' - you must do better.

#5 Pot_Kettle: "jim why would you say that the postings on an open forum blog do not represent an accurate random sample?

IMO it at least represents an accurate sample of people that aren't apathetic and care enough to get involved to a degree in the political process."

Well, you pose your question and then provide at least part of the answer in your next sentence.

I doubt very much whether we collectively accurately represent the population as a whole in terms of age, gender, or employment status. And do you really think that people in general are so sad, and have so much time on their hands, that they devote a significant fraction of every day arguing with people they will never meet and whose views they are never going to change? Face it, you are part of an arcane sub-set of society that gets its kicks by sitting in front of a computer hitting the keyboard.

The PMQ's today was a bit flat. Maybe it is the itch towards the summer break but there was nothing convincing about Brown's answers in the slightest and even some rather odd questions - removing VAT on suncream?

I didn't think Cameron's referring to the PM as "Useless" was too offensive as it relates to the PM in his role as PM and not as anything else (such as Lothario or even human being). If the PM chooses to read a broad swathe of blog comments right across the MSM and blogosphere, he will no doubt have noticed an enormous amount vitriolic language levelled against him.

9Pot Kettle , I defended the speaker think again old chap.

@14

Jim I think you will find that people that comment on blogs here come from a wider spectrum than you it may at first appear.

If you polled the bloggers i suspect you would see similar percentages of support as you see in the wider so called national opinion polls.

@16

So you agree with me then that the speaker is at the same level as GB "Useless"

And that Betty Boothroyd wouldnt have let GB get away with avoiding answering any question let alone every question

The BBC Daily Politics Show had it just about right when they said that PM's Questions was boring. Everyone had their minds somewhere else probably their holiday destinations. I share their sentiments and will also soon be off to The Greek Islands with my better half. Happy Holidays Everyone!

There's no need to raise taxes. Indeed, they could be cut if Brown were not a liar.

Anyone remember his promised "Bonfire of the Quangos"? Well, there are now another 40% more than when he lied about that. Costing the taxpayer over £100 billion PER ANNUM.

That's all.

PMQs is ghastly, he never answers any questions, vomits statistics over everyone, and lies, lies, lies.

Son of the Manse my ****. Liar. liar. liar

20 JeremyP

I'm surprised as your weak condemnation of GB. Surely you could be a little more blunt.

By the way, what did anyone think of Dawn Butler's contribution to the Daily Politics. I think she said oil is 190 dollars a barrel. Just shows how out of touch labour are!!!

#20

Who has let Paxman out before it gets dark? Don't they know that the daylight addles his brain?

12 Mikepko well Mike we havent crossed swords fo a while old bean.
If you call that being out classed then I am afraid that you have poor judgement but then I guess we are allowed to differ, what you saw and what I saw was entirely different I saw a man at the dispatch box that acted like a states man, he never even under extreme provication showed any intentions of sinking to the level of the man oposite, who had the oportunity to ask relevant questions about the economy the Eu or zimbabwe or maybe the financial state of America and how the problems that their having now might affect our country.
He could have asked about food prices or fuel prices but no he had much more important question than that. his question was which he repeated and wasted three times to which the PM treated rightly with disdain was the question that is of grave concern to the country "whose idea was it to take the perpetrators of knife crime to visit their victims" and we all waited with bated breath for a reply that he knew and we knew that he wasn't going to get.
Did Cameron think that Gordon would swing around and point the finger at someone and say he/she did, is that what you think that the PM of this country should do, he has no obligation to tell the leader of the opposition who said what at a cabinet meeting.
As each time he asked the question that was posed because he knew that he would make the PM look as he thought unable to answer.
It had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that he really wanted to know.What would he gain by knowing it was him/her what great benefit would that be to the nation, he was just out to try to score points and to people of your mind set he did.
Because he didn't get the answer he wanted he gradually became more enraged and abusive and the speaker should have rebuked him but he failed to do that. Cameron could have asked any questions about the above or anything about our or the world afairs and that what he asked.. What a prospect we've got to look foreward to if this uncontrolable clown ever gets behind the dispatch box,.

Did anyone else notice the "miss-speak" when Mr Brown answered Ken Clark. He stated that there was lower inflation now than when they took over.

The statistics are available at: https://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_economy/RP04.pdf. fro RPI From this you can see that inflation in June was 4.6% the highest since August 1991.
Using CPI data: https://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_economy/CPI.pdf
inflation is higher than at any time since June 1992 a time span of 16 years.
Interestingly it has been over 4% RPI since Dec. 2006, consistently higher than the last 4 years of the Conservative Government.
Mr Brown blames inflation on the Credit Crunch and imported inflation. I would suggest that most of the current inflation is home grown, the imported inflation has still to feed through to the statistics, not helped of course by the 14% devaluation against the Euro.

How about a new song to the Labour conference in September, the Bachman-Turner Overdrive song "You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet" Wasn't there something in the lyrics about big brown eyes in what was a an otherwise stuttering lyric.

23 GA

ho, ho, ho

My dear old chap, you certainly see GB through rose tinted glasses.

I like your comment about DC "Because he didn't get the answer he wanted ..." No-one gets any answer at all, unless GB sets the question. That's the proble, GB has NO answers.

Off to collect my wife from the station. Battle to commence later this evening.

Best regards

Mike

18 pot kettle typical tory double speak.
I agree that on this occasion the speaker failed when he allowed a Tory mob to shout down a back bencher.
I do not agree that the speaker allowed GB to get away with answering a question that was deliberately asked knowing that protocol would not allow the question to be answered it was also a question that the PM was not under any obligation to answer. I am afraid that you dont seem to understand PMQs the PM is not compelled to answer every question asked and if the question is asked more than once that doesn't give it any more significance than the first time it was asked, I have in the past heard Cameron ask the same question three times and each time he was given a explicit answer but he still kept asking the question because the answer didn't fall into his prearranged plan so he was thwarted much to his chagrin, so my friend there is nothing whatsoever in your post that I agree with.

25 mikepko I am afraid that I probably wont be able to do battle this evening. but just in case I'm unable to I'll leave you with a question, do you honestly believe that Gordon brown should have said yes it was him/her, and if he had dont you think that would have been inapropriate.and at the least a betrayal of the trust put in him by his cabinet, what is said behind those closed doors and who said it the leader of the opposition and nobody else has privy too.

#24 skynine :"I would suggest that most of the current inflation is home grown"

And your evidence for that is......?

I think I have seen that the estimate without oil/food prices gives an inflation rate of about 1.5%, though I can't find the basis for that.

The big difference between now and then is that our inflation was usually higher than the US or our main European competitors. Now it is lower, and that is because our 'home-grown' inflation is quite low. Since oil/food affects most economies reasonably equally the international comparison gives a good indication of the underlying position I think. Of course, things might well change if the imported inflation results in higher wage costs.

Gordon Brown is incapable of answering a straight question - I can't remember a time during PMQ's since he has been PM where he has directly answered David Cameron on any subject!

The closest we ever get to an answer are the two options as follows:

1) Anything mildly positive is the "great work of this Labour Government".

2) Anything negative is "A global problem".

He, and his government are so out out of touch with the country it is astounding.

I am seriously worried that we potentially have another 2 years of this government as this country is in my opinion being ruined by these clueless idots.

28 jimnbrant And your evidence for that is......?

I didn't say than I had evidence I use the word suggest. I reason that I suggest that it is home grown is that the RPI has been about 4% for the last 16 months which is well before the credit crunch and high oil prices.
As the CPI does not measure housing costs (helpfully) I would suggest that the credit crunch will have absolutely nothing to do with the UK CPI.
On another point Jim, you don't seriously believe the the CPI accurately reflects the amount of inflation experinced by people in the UK do you? If so welcome to La La land.

23 wrote:
"Gordon Brown acted like a a states man."

Surely not a supporter of George Bush with a small 's'. The cheek of it!
The knife idea of course was his as are every idea his ministers come up with. Who would dare to run an idea past The Electorate that wasn't first checked by The Almighty?

I think we should coin a new phrase 'Brown coloured glasses'. It applies to quite a few people on here.

That should of course read 'Brown tinted'.

#30 skynine:

"the RPI has been about 4% for the last 16 months which is well before the credit crunch and high oil prices. "

If that was the basis for your suggestion, it is not surprising that (IMO) you are wrong. The price of oil in June of each year (I have taken alternate years from 2000) has been:

2000 31.83$/barrel
2002 25.52 (-19%)
2004 38.02 +49%
2006 70.96 +87%
2008 138.44 +95%

So oil prices have been rising dramatically since 2002, and have all but doubled since 2006. Hardly surprising then that the CoI (however you measure it) has been tending to rise.

The CPI is one measure of inflation. It is based on an international agreement about what should be measured, so that comparisons are possible between countries. It clearly does not accurately reflect the rate of inflation being experienced by all groups, and nobody suggests that it does. That is why my OAP (for example) increases in line with the RPI, but that index also does not reflect the rate of inflation experienced by all groups, and of course there is always a lag before the index picks up changes, especially when things are moving quickly.

BTW, one of the reasons that inflation was relatively low in the 90's (compared to the horrendously high levels seen earlier) was that oil prices were low and stable. Again taking the figure at June each year, the price in 1991 was $20.19, and in 1997 $19.17; the price hardly varied by more than a couple of dollars a barrel throughout that relatively benign period. All inflation at that time was home grown, not imported, I would think.

I was watching PMQ's today in a cafe which happened to be showing it on a large TV. As I was halfway throungh my panini, I heard another diner, a scouser, laugh out loud and say to his mates 'He can't answer anything! He just fobs it off...' We had a bit of a chat - he has no big interest in politics and had never even heard of PMQ's before - it proved a point to me - that we can argue the fine points of procedure and policy, pr and spin, but he was an ordinary guy with no axe to grind and it only took him 5 minutes to see what Browns about.

You are typical of the left leaning ersatz liberal organization that draws its personnel from a totally unrepresentative section of British society. In no way shape or form does the BBC even attempt to speak with the voice of the people who pay its wages. I totally agree with Michael Burleighs view that the BBC should be drastically cut back and the money given to worthwhile independent broadcasters who can make vastly better programmes than the BBC. You and your colleagues Marr and Vine are an insult to the viewer. Your cosy snuggling up to the Labour politicians with the occasional slap on the wrist is an obscenity, the best that the viewers can hope for is that we will be rid as quickly as possible of the whole lot of you.
Malty
Scottish borders.

4 jimbrant

Highly competent, comfortable with the detail, but not a communicator and with a tendency to paranoia


Hardly leadership qualities are they?

Nick,

Re todays PMQs, like most people I do not like to see / hear MP's get that personal with each other. However, I can understand the frustration of Cameron and Clegg at the refusual of Brown to give a direct answer to any question, often answering by asking another question. (And the awful Speaker lets him get away with it). Blair was the same but Brown is even worse in that he just spews out endless uncheckable statistics that go over everyones head. It is no wonder Cameron gets a little bit too personal at times. What Cameron should do is point out that Brown has re-hashed the way inflation is calculated, continually fiddles the unemployment figures and hides true government borrowing levels with slick, not say deceitful accounting. After eleven years of hearing Brown brag about how good he is one can have little sympathy for him as his chickens are well and truly coming home to roost.

#37 CarrotsneedaQUANGO2:

"Hardly leadership qualities are they?"

Well two are, I think; and while paranoia may not be, it is fairly rare for it not to be found in a leader. The problem is communication (in the broadest sense), IMO.
But there have been far worse.

#38 Billyblueeagle:

"he just spews out endless uncheckable statistics that go over everyones head"

You mean facts - they are b.....y inconvenient aren't they?

#40, Jimbrant
So called "facts" like i"nflation is lower now than when Labour came to power" (Gordon Brown PMQ's). I call it a miss-speak or a l**. How inconvenient.
PS Haven't you got a home to go to? You must be increadably lonely spending all your time on this blog.

#41 skynine :

Certainly he was wrong, unless there is some arcane statistic to back him up (eg average inflation in the 10 years up to 1997 5.5%, and in the ten years after 3.8%, based on the RPI). I think he got so used to being able to make the claim that it came out automatically - but that dosn't make it any less wrong.

As for your PS, my wife has dementia and I can't leave her for long. So while she watches rubbish TV I read and have the occasional break on here. I also watch Parliament TV webcasts, and especially the Select Committees. You should try to catch Nick's appearance this morning.

re comment number 40 - Jimbrant

'Brown's statistics are facts'

Even the most loyal New Labour supporter will agree that it is almost impossible to differentiate between fact and fiction when it comes to New Labour spin. It would be nice to believe that Brown's endless tirades do mean something but, and this is the rub, telling us he has spent millions on something does not mean a lot because generally the butter is spread so thin on the bread there is hardly any benefit to anyone. e.g the armed forces and Soldiers homes, immigration levels, crime figures, the list is endless. Yes facts do matter but when quoted they have to be understood and what Brown says cannot easily be verified because it is all part of Brown's evasive persona and his desire to prove he is intellectually superior to the rest of us.

ref.34.
If you are right about the inflation vs. $oil price ratio then we are going to see higher inflation for a long time to come because there isn't enough oil to go round and it's unlikely the price will drop substantially from current level.
It's probably a good time for the Government to develop incentives for the private sector,through tax breaks,to accelerate the renewables business(wind,wave power etc.) and construction of nuclear power to free up our independence on oil.That's the only way the oil price will fall.

#43 Billyblueeagle:

More 'spin' for you to complain about today. Crime down by another 10% in a year, and by 50% since New Labour took office. Obviously can't be right, can it? Even though the figures are produced by bodies independent of government.

In the face of these figures, described by the BBC as remarkable, you would no doubt want to concentrate on the Daily Mail headline "Shock figures reveal no part of Britain is safe as knife violence spreads EVERYWHERE". They do mention in passing that crime is down, and that we don't know what is happening to knife crime because the figures have never been collected before, but since that is good news it isn't news at all.

You might also have noticed that the target for reducing MRSA infection has been met ahead of schedule - a target that many said was impossible to achieve when it was announced. But of course that is just spin, isn't it? If as you say you can't understand the stats, I think that is more your problem than the government's.

As they say, please stop confusing my prejudices with facts.

#45, jimbrant, yes, I've seen the report and suspected this might be the case.

Some weeks ago, I read something about a study undertaken in the US that suggested that as people became wealthier, they also became more suspicious and fearful - they tended to perceive threats when they didn't exist (call it paranoia if you like).

This fear has obviously not been helped by daily publications like the one you suggest.

ref comment 45 Jimbrant - Crime figures New Labour Spin.

I see no need for such sarcasm to mine, and others' views. We simply have a different slant on New Labour. All I know is that since New Labour has been in power my general way of life has life has altered for the worst. Brown killed my private pension leaving me pretty broke, crime in my area has rocketed ( four burglaries in my road last week and no policemen in sight), I am being taxed to death and my council tax is nothing short of criminal levels. All I have heard for the past eleven years is that New Labour has looked after us all and we are better off. Well I am not. I respect your views as being your honest opinion. You may well have prospered under New Labour, many have not. Just before you send another exorcet comment, I am truly working class. My father was unemployed for thirty years and my mother worked all that time rather than take a penny from social security. She retired and died. I went to Grammar school and worked very hard until I was 68 to try to look after myself and my family. Brown has demolised and continues to demolish and take from me everything I have worked for over the past fifty years. As such I do feel I have the right to be at least the tiniest bit cynical about what Brown claims.
I trust you will at least respect my opinion as being my honest appraisal of how I see New Labour - Thank you.

37 carrotsneed quangoes,
Tell us about Camerons attributes that would suggest that he would make,not a great leader, but just an average leader. I am a socialist but I see in the opposition benches a couple of guys that would make a better leader of the conservatives than ever Dave would but of course they didn't go to Eton.

45 Jimbrant the figures that you show are of no importance to Cameron or his supporters, crime not worth talking about . MRSA well thats alright but not really very interesting.
What Dave and the conservatives are really interested in as was shown by Dave the Uncouth at PMQs,he wasnt going to use this opportunity to ask about crime figure's or MRSA, the question he asked which is really what every one wanted to know. who's idea was it to intruduce perpetrators of knife crime to their victims.That was the best he could come up with and it got the response it deserved.

Of course they were just going to march these thugs to the victims bedside and say this is the guy that stabbed you. Irrespective of the victims wishes, not likely.

47 billy blueagle, I can understand much of what you say but what puzzles me is why on earth your father was on unemployment benefit for thirty years, and if he was then presumably, most of that time it was under the Tories.
If your mother and I say this with respect, was to proud to take what she was entitled to then she was misguided and perhaps you should have explained that to her, she wasn't too proud for you to go to school or perhaps for her or your father to recieve hospital treatment, It all comes from the same saurce and she should have been encouraged to see that, there is no pride in not taking what your entitled to and old people must be made to see that.

Many comment on how Brown will not EVER give a straight answer. One should also note that he frequently - against ALL the conventions of PMQs - asks Cameron questions. When he does, does the Speaker stop him, as he should? No, he doesn't.

The reason that PMQs is a shambles and a bearpit is that Brown has demeaned it. Indeed, he and New Stasi (in cahoots with the BBC, castrated by the Hutton Report) have demeaned and corrupted the whole political process. We do not have a democracy, we have an electoral oligarchy, and watch New Stasi get dirtier and dirtier as their time runs out.

E.G. It is not allowed to make policy statements before bye-elections.

1. Crewe - £2.7 billion 10p tax bribe
2. Glasgow East - £4 billion shipbuilding bribe, 2p fuel tax bribe.

None of the above announcements should have been made when they were.

Me - I suspect a MAJOR terrorist "threat" will happen just before the next General Election, and it will be "postponed".

All hail the Dear Leader

47 Billyblueeagle:

The post you complain about had nothing to do with whether you agreed with New Labour or not. It was concerned with your determination not to believe the statistical and other evidence that the government and independent agencies provide. Can't you see that your own personal experience (four burglaries in your road in a week) does not invalidate the overall statistical evidence that crime is almost half what it was ten or so years ago, for example?

You have every right to believe that Brown stole your pension, though that belief is in my view extremely questionable. You say that you are 'taxed to death', though I think that tax levels are actually very much what they were before 1997. You say that Brown is 'demolishing' what you have worked for, and yet as a pensioner you will be getting a much better pension than you would have done before 1997.

I just ask you to look at the position honestly and objectively (in other words look at the facts). And BTW, it looks as if I am about the same age as you, and come from a similar background (though my Dad moved away from an area of very high unemployment rather than staying on the dole). My Mum worked in the weaving sheds, and like yours that allowed me to stay on at school and go to Grammar school. I am thankful that I am much better placed in retirement than they were, and that is at least partly because of Labour governments over the years, including this one.

comment 50 grandidote - re Billy Blue Eagle comment

Just to round this off. My Dad was smashed up in a pit accident and it took fourteen years for him to get miniscule compensation. Re Hospital treatment my Mum paid his National Inusarance stamp as women had very few rights in those days and the payment of a stamp was everything. I appreciate your observations are well intended and I accept them as such, but your assumptions are way off. My Mum and Dad' like so many working class people, were very proud. My Parents never accepted a penny benefit off the State whilst they were alive and together. Incidently, we lived in PRIVATE rented accomodation not a Council property in case that's the next point. I would add that my wife and I have worked all our lives and paid our dues. We have never claimed benefits of any kind and to date we have been very lucky with our health. In short we feel we have done our bit and paid our dues to help towards the treatment of others. We will of course undoubtedly need to avail ourselves of State aid in the future, which is the New Labour way isin't it? To close, we can only comment as we see the situation today and as an old age Pensioner it certainly looks pretty bleak under New Labour.

comment 45 jimbrant - Billy Blue Eagle comment.

I think we will have to call this an honourable draw. I am sorry but I just cannot see where Labour have been so good over the years. They are a tax and spend party and the rich always get richer and the poor always get poorer. Just one last point if I may. How do you think the country would have reacted if a ANY OTHER political party had taxed us like Brown and decimated private pensions as he has done? Be honest there would have been a national strike. No other Political party would have been able to do what Brown has done and he was only able to do so because he is so called 'Labour'. Sadly Labour has good intentions but have proved themselves to be totally incompetent in administration and with the cash for honours affair and the likes of Blair, Prescott and Mandleson proving that sleaze is not confined to the Tories I just feel New Labour is nothing to shout about - sorry.

#50 grandantidote, #52 jimbrant and #53 billyblueeagle, I take on board all of your arguments and can relate to both sides.

- In my mind the government is doing a great job on improving the health service and I know this as I am completely dependent on it on a daily basis. At what cost? I don't think we'll ever know so in a way it's irrelevant.

- Crime and justice, they're doing well although I am dismayed at the fact that prison numbers are dramatically increasing when crime is falling. It does concern me more that a change in government will make crime rise again along with prison numbers (I think they'll rise more).

- They've failed on taxation due to not closing loopholes exploited by some major corporations and the very rich, but again, it will only get worse with a change.

- Foreign policy has been a disaster - by sticking to the bellicose policies of our 'friends' across the Atlantic we have lost much credibilty over those we wish to influence overseas. Would Cameron do better? I doubt it.

#53 Billyblueeagle, I would say to you specifically because I often resent the government and hold a particular loathing for Tony Blair.... what's the alternative? Do you think Cameron's going to give you a better life? He's not come up with any substance to convince me yet. Has blue turned red or even yellow? I don't think so.

48. grandantidote

David Cameron has a few personal attributes that I rather like.

So in no particular order of importance:

1.He is not Gordon Brown.

2.He has not squandered a trillion quid in the past decade.

3.He hasn’t lied to me.

4.He is not a control freak.

5.He has not spent years brooding and waiting for his turn.

6.He did not sabotage a range of public sector reforms that were well over due.

7.He will be properly elected and not be a shoe in.

8.He is not responsible for policy that favours Scotland and that will eventually lead
to the break up of the UK.

9.He has not destroyed private sector pensions while at the same time maintained public sector final salary schemes.

10.He has not laid down endless government targets that tie up our institutions in red tape.

11.He has not broken the military covenant.

12.He has not denied me a vote on the Lisbon Treaty.

13.He has not taxed me at ridiculous rates while at the same time increased borrowing. (I could have handled one but not both)



Socialism has no place in 21C Britain.

comment 55 Extreme sense.

re could anyone do any better. Well, like most of us I feel pretty despondent about the whole political scene. However, I do feel that it is imperative New Labour are ousted because I firmly believe, whilst acknowledging it has some excellent aims, it is totally incompetent and now so arrogant and dismissive of the electorate that to put them in again would be the final nail in our coffin. Whoever gets in will not be able to govern by way of left or right or any extreme, as necessity will make a new government take the middle road. That is in fact the reason the political scene is in such turmoil. i.e. because all Politicians realise this and gaining an edge in policy terms is extremely difficult. The human rights act, unchecked immigration and an aging population are all having a massive effect on our society and emanating from these factors we have crime, Judicary, education and employment problems. What we need is competent management, something New Labour seems totally unable to provide. If New Labour has proved one thing, it is the fact that throwing money at problems is not the answer, nor is wasting millions on Quangos.
Re Cameron, I believe the Tory problem is simple. The party cannot tip its hand because everyone is on the middle road and policies will just be 'poached' and /or rubbished. I am sure when the election is due things will frm-up a great deal and we will all have a choice to make. To reiterate, re an alternative I can only say for myself that when I see Blair, Brown, Prescott, Mandleson, Vaz, Hoon, Blears, Harman and Tessa Jowell etc., my heart just drops because I feel I can only look forward to a dumbed-down nanny state existence and a country that is grey, humourless and full of political correctness! Of course this will not be the case for New labour Ministers, as has been proved by Blair who took us into an illegal war and is now making millions whilst our disabled and crippled soldiers have to beg New Labour for adequate compensation. To close, believe it or not I am jolly by nature having been a successful sportsman all my life and been lucky enough to have been extremely happy
(outside politics that is) Thank you all for your comments and keep well!

57 BillyblueEagle

An excellent post IMO and I couldn't agree more with the points you make in it.

Left, right, centre or whatever your political persuasion, the current government are simply not up to the job and it is time for a change.

57. Billyblueeagle

You sum up the mood of 21C Britain rather well.

#54 Billyblueeagle: "if a ANY OTHER political party had taxed us like Brown and decimated private pensions as he has done? Be honest there would have been a national strike"

If what you think has happened to taxation was the case, or if Brown really had destroyed private pensions, then you might be right. However, I think that both your assumptions are false,

I think that levels of taxation now are much the same as they were before 1997, and while I do not know which particular private pension scheme you feel was damaged I doubt whether Brown's actions had much to do with it (though the Tories are very keen to make you think so). What really damaged private pensions was two factors:

- the tendency of people to live longer. If your scheme was costed on the basis that you would live until 74, after retiring at 65, the contributions would be set at a level to pay 9 years of pension. If the average pensioner now lives until 77 that three years of extra pension increases costs by 33%, and that has been the main problem.

- a secondary issue was the Conservative decision in the early 90's to prevent schemes from building up their reserves to a level thet they thought too high. So if your scheme had reserves that represented 107% of the actuarialy calculated liability, the scheme was required to get rid of the difference ( the amount above 105% if I remember correctly). Many schemes gave employers a pension contribution 'holiday', and perhaps also improved benefits, to achieve this adjustment. The problem was that when the environment changed (stock market, people living longer), schemes could easily find that they were in deficit - and employers were reluctant to meet the shortfall (though they had been keen on the 'holiday' idea).

Brown's tax changes had a short-term and very marginal effect compared to these major influences; in fact in the medium to long term they were probably beneficial by improving the performance and competetiveness of businesses.

I was involved in running a couple of pension schemes before I retired, so I know that I have simplified a complex situation somewhat. But I think that the generality of what I have said is correct.

60 jimbrant

"I think that levels of taxation now are much the same as they were before 1997"


????????????????????????????



Regarding the pensions issue, you are correct that there were many factors contributing to the pension fund problems.

I would not , however, regard a 5 billion grab in 1997 and an increasing amount each year since then as being "marginal" or "beneficial". How can taking so much money out of a system improve it ?

It has always struck me as odd that the advances in science, living standards etc etc that mean that people live longer hence affecting their private pensions do not seem to similarly impact on the people in the public sector, many of whom still retire at 60 with the same guarenteed benefits while the taxpayer picks up the ever increasing bill for them. I believe this was the point that was trying to be made earlier.

#61 U11714077:

The £5bn is marginal compared to the value of pension schemes - over £700 bn now I think.

The benefit comes from the fact that the tax change was to reduce the incentive for business to fund dividends (much of which went to pension funds of course, which is where the complaint arises), and instead to provide a greater incentive to invest. That extra investment would be expected to make firms more competetive etc etc, and so better able to fund pensions, and in the long term pay better dividends from which the schemes would also benefit.

The government's argument is that the very large growth in the value of pension funds (more than double?) since the change is evidence that this beneficial effect has actually happened. I certainly don't know enough to be able to judge whether this is actually the case.

BTW, I think it is the case that the Tories (Lawson) started this process, and that Brown just completed it.

61 jimbrant

You are correct, the Tories did actually start this process, it may have been Lamont/Clarke or Lawson.

Just goes to show that even then Gordon Brown was stealing their ideas!!!!!!

comment 60 Jimbrant.

Whilst you are clearly a very well educated and informed individual whatever argument and whatever the weight of opinion you are just a dyed -in the wool Socialist who can see see no wrong in New Labour. Much of what you say is true of course but you are just flying in the face of the fact that many ordinary families struggle now like never before. We cannot even pass on our hard earned material 'wealth' to our children because Brown wants his chunk of that as well. I am just talking about the average working family who have built up some assets over a lifetime. If we were able to pass on our so called wealth to our children they could manage so much better without hocking themselves with so much debt. As it is Brown takes a huge chunk of the proceeds of a lifetimes slog and hard work and distributes it as he sees fit. What right has he to do so? We have accumulated what we have after paying all our taxes, it is ours not the States. e.g. It is interesting to note the huge amount of outstanding Council tax owed by ratepayers ( I mean voters) in Labour heartlands. That is never collected, (Hazel Blears please note) yet Labour Councils are now sending the baliffs into what is seen as 'middle class' families to collect the council tax in kind if they refuse to pay on principle and are prepred to go to jail. That is too embarrassing for New Labour so now it takes what it wants in kind whilst its core voters are left to owe millions in Council tax. Silly me, I thought Socialism meant that everyone was to be treated the same. I am afraid to say that if anyone is looking at the situation with rose coloured glasses it is your goodself. New Labour is clearly on mission to dumb us all down to the minimium level and have us all dependent on the State. Also, I am sure New Labour will do anything to stay in power as its core personnel are more interested in power and trappings than they are in the Country. ( Messrs Ball, Milliband, Straw and Harman take note) Anyway the next election will see who is right here. If New Labour has been so great for us all they will walk the next election. If not, despite your obvious intellect ( that is a genuine compliment not a sarcastic comment) you may have to
re-examine your analysis and conclusions of New Labours time in office. I assume of course that if Labour lose you will at least concede at that juncture that the majority of the electorate are not enamoured with New Labour. Albeit, you may well still believe we are not as well informed as your goodself.

56 carrots need quangoes,

!/ Irrelevant

2/ The oportunity to spend any of the countries money has not been available to him.

3/You think not.

4/ I suspect that he may be if given power at the moment he is contrained by his old school backbenchers.

5/He has been and still is.

6/ Debatable depending on your opinion.

7/ His position in the conservative party was attained in exactly the same way as GB by election of the electorate then by his party

8/ Neither is Gordon Brown that began under Tony blair but the break up of the union will only be arcieved by the election of a Tory government.

9/ See 60

10/ As yet he hasn't had the oportunity but I think you'll find he wont change much.

11/I am afraid that you have lost me here , I have no idea what military covenants your refering to but once again he hasn't had the authority to do so or not.

12/ the same applies as above but judging by history the tories are pretty low on giving people the right to vote on treaties, Debating the was there wasn't there a promise to hold a referendum has been exhausted on these blogs I think.

13/ I think that Jimbrant is more qualified to answer that one than I so I'll leave it to him.

If it wasn't for socialism the tories would have us still in the 1800s. everything thats happened of any value for the working class in the last hundred years has been brought about by the socialists and socialism is alive and well despite attempts by the Tories and Tory press to try to convince us otherwise.

@65

And what pray tell has socialism done for the working class.

I see increased debt, increased poverty, continuing complaints about haves and have nots. Social mobility is back to the levels of pre1970's in the last ten years.
The only "working class" people that have anything better are the ones that have worked for it themselves and they would have done that with or without socialism. The only thing socialism does is sell the myth that "things can only get better"

GA

As you well know, socialism hasn't done anything for me either. Our pay packets are stretched to capacity, with the increases in fuel and food, and with the impending rise of energy (again) at the end of the year, many people (including me) will be extremely hard-pressed to make ends meet.

Mr Brown hasn't made a good fist of being Chancellor, or PM, so let's give Mr Cameron a chance. He sure as hell can't do any worse.

#65 grandantidote: "13/ I think that Jimbrant is more qualified to answer that one than I so I'll leave it to him."

Gee, thanks!!

I can only say that I think that levels of both taxation and borrowing are currently about in line with what they have been for some time, and before 1997. They are both considerably lower than in a number of other countries. Whether they will remain that way in current circumstances is another matter.

#66, #67 : IMO these comments just go to show how short peoples' memories are.

68/69 jimbrant, Sorry about that ,69 It really is a waste of time posting, these Tories are so full of themselves because there is a recession, that common sense has gone out the window.
Maybe they do need to win the general election if its only to let people realise how the media has let them down and to see just how shallow Cameron and Grinning Gideon are, perhaps after four years of Tory policies, the ones that no one can find, the public will wake up and realise that it wasn't so bad under Labour after all.

@69

How far back do we have to look Jim.

As I stated social mobility, a socialist bedrock policy, is worse now than it was pre 1970. It was better under the old grammer system and free uni places

jimbrant

On the contrary. I have an extremely long memory.

@70

Gordon Brown " No More Boom And Bust"

Potkettle "Whats this then if it isnt a bust"

Grandantidote "Potkettle you're a tory this isn't a bust"

Joe Public in unison "GA if it waddles and quacks its a duck"

@70 Again

thank you for telling us all "we've never had it so good"

Can we use this defence when we go and see our collective bank managers and mortgage companies to explain why we have so much cash sloshing around in our accounts

70 pot kettle , Its funny how you Tories all seem to be having trouble with your finances. I on the hand have no problems with my bank and the last time I had trouble with a mortgage was when the interest rate was 15% under the Tories, as for my food bill for my wife my dog and myself about one pound fifty a week more than six months ago. I can go to my bank with a clear consceince, if I wanted to borrow cash I can do, and I am on a state pension, I also drive a mercedes 2.2 diesol, fuel is a bit of a problem at the moment but who do you blame for that not the government I hope whether Cameron gets in or not.Its all down to managing your money and we socialists are used to doing that. I have checked but cant see any reference to "never had it so good" in my post, " I said it's not so bad under Labour"and considering we are in the worst recession for many years I think that statement is quite true.

Makes no odds mate. This present lot are dead meat!

i'm fed up of this constant up and down economy system we always go through. it doesnt matter whose in power because it always happens.
gordon brown now blames the "world ecomony" for all his current woes, but then says he can sort it out because he did a great job for 10 years. well actually GB you did an absolutely terrible job. the world economy and GB was doing great for 10 years. in the time you raised taxes more than ever so brought loads more money in. you also sold off half OUR gold reserves, sold the airwaves to phone companies, sold half of all building owned by the civil service. windfall taxed the utilities and god know what else. so it has to be said that you got in more money than any previous chancellor ever, but what did you do with all this money? did you put loads aside just for times like this? nope - you got the country in more debt than anyone has ever seen. so did you really do a good job? Nope!!

anyway, heres a tip to start sorting things out. little by little.
scrap road tax for cars and add on quarter a pence per gallon on petrol. that way people who drive more - pay more. you also get the added bonus of saving a huge amount on the department that deals with road tax. not forgetting the police time effort and money used to catch those not paying it. its a win win situation and one that can immediately show some benefit to all.
your next job - really really simplify the tax system. dont just talk about it. scrap a load of stupid taxes and create much less, i.e. remove VAT. find something else. everything is taxed, everything! so lets change that

Nick

that pmq's are always interesting and fun to watch.....

77 kardifflad, so you think that Gordon brown had more money than any previous chancellor ever.
Short memory or to young to remember I dont suppose you remember the sale of the oil fields or the sale of the electricty industry or the gas industry, the water, steel, BT, the bridges.That must have brought in a few bob.
I dont suppose your old enough to remember the building of the A4232 or the estate that it leads to and the complete regeneration of the Docks do you think they picked the money of the trees for that, or the massive improvment in the schools and hospitals in your area Llandough and the Heath hospital all now with the very latest equipment and now with the thousands of doctors and nurses to run the countries hospitals, look around you young man and you must be a young man not to know where the money has been spent,have a look up the valleys and see all the employment thats there now unlike the devastation there was when the mines were closed overnight. I call you young as you call yourself lad, I cant imagine that your over thirty five not to have noticed the changes.
Your idea for the tax on fuel has been brought up many times over the years in my lifetime, it never seems to get any interest from any government, I cant see why though, it seems pretty fair to me but I think it would have to be 1p dont see much of 1/2p these days.
I am afraid your last paragraph is just nonsense.

Did i not see last week where the crude oil dropped in price. Did the robbing super stores drop it. NO. Speaking to a friend in Canada their gas/ petrol dropped 4 cents the following morning. Over the week it came down from one dollar thirty four to one dollar twenty seven.

Are we being RIPPED OFF here or not. What the H--l are our scroungers of MLA's doing that can't get us a fair deal. Their not interested their fuel bill most likely in on their ridiculous expense account.

It was left to Nolan to pull Tesco's over the coals over their exclusion of their offer to Northern Ireland Customers. Where do i buy my petrol from now. Not Tesco's one of their competitors where it is always at least 2p cheaper

65. grandantidote.

Socialism has no place today because it, in its true form has no place in it for competition and individualism.

I quite agree it had a function in the 1800s

Its just I for one have moved on a bit since then, actually about 200 years.

And shame on you for not knowing what the Military covenant is. you should.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/war/overview/covenant.shtml

I'm looking forward to PMQs after the holidays. Should be interesting! I'm away for 3 weeks but go away with an extra skip to my step.

Gordon Brown doesn't need to resign as Prime Minister as he's not Prime Minister anyway .