A good Ed start

It's easy to ask questions when your own policies are hidden from view.

Fantastic start by Ed Miliband. He certainly called the PM to account for not providing straight answers. In fact Cameron claimed that Labour had introduced a marriage tax; an outright lie!

Ed needs to clear up a few worrying policies such as not supporting scrapping child benefits for all high earners (why on earth has he not done this?!), but otherwise very encouraging. Let's hope his confidence at the box is reflected by confidence in making firm policies that Labour can stand behind.

Cameron certainly inherited power at a time when the country was in a mess, but I do hope he has better answers on how he's dealing with it other than "It's all Labour's fault" (true though that may, possibly, be). The Lib Dems got off lightly.

(also, shocking behaviour from MPs again, particularly when Ed was trying to speak. Introduce a red card system and send 'em off!)

Red Ed's single issue approach may have not hit the correct note with his own rank and file. Showing sympathy for the "squeezed middle" will sit well in middle England but not for the traditional labour voters, for they will have difficulty in relating to someone on over £44k not bearing some of the pain.

The experience was somewhat surreal where the Tories are saying that all must share the pain but Labour are calling for the wealthy to be left alone.

As for Red Ed's performance it was slow and thoughtful but laboured at times and at one point he appeared to loose his way completely only to be saved by the Speakers intervention.

He looked like he'd fell head first in sheep dip. Wheres that white tuft come from? Or had he walked under a ladder with a pigeon at the top of it?

Ye Olde SW1 jousting is not the point. Labour needs a smart way to oppose the cleggmeron cuts and open up a split in the coalition (should not be too difficult).

Oh and the "I'm new to this, but I ask the questions and you answer them" - where was he during the 2 years of Gordon Brown tractor stats? I'm sure he went back to Downing St after PMQ's under Brown and chided him, repeatedly for his evasiveness....


Not!

Are you going for a peerage if Lab manage to get back in Nick?

As a white, British middle aged married man running a small business, looking at how much I have been squeezed over the last decade, having that theme seems a bit rich.

I am not sure the Tories thought it was going to be particularly easy either.

Oh dear! This isn't the start of a left wing love in by the BBC is it?
Come on Nick, we expect a little less of the cheerleading and a bit more of the chastening of our politicians, or are we just trying to cuddle up to the new Labour leader so as to get to the news?

A fair analysis. For his first PMQs Ed did rather better than I thought he would...

The middle is squeezed only because Labour have been squeezing it for over 10 years...

Fubar @ 4

I take it you were impressed by his performance if you can only comment on his hair.

He did better than I expected and I agree with NR that this will put a stop to the recent hand-rubbing among Tory ranks.

Since fairness and balance are my watchwords, I have to add that Cameron came across as more likable that he used to in opposition to Brown. I even detected what may have been a genuine smile when Ed poked fun at him for calling his election hustings "Cameron Direct".

But Ed won hands down.

In addition, I think Ed had the right approach. Cameron's fine when speaking in broad terms, but he gets rattled when questioned on specifics...witness his sudden garbage on married tax allowances last week when pressed on the same subject.

Fubar @ 4.(lol) As ever your political insight is astounding...perhaps he's been decorating ?

Some strange reading of events today, that.

You could almost feel the wave on ridicule on the tory benches thinking 'god, he's even wierder and more wooden than we expected'.

Did he really push for answers? On the serious question of why the poorest in society should eb subsidising his own child benefit payments?

The public support for the cuts in universal child benefit is now well documented ranging from 53% to 83% support depending on which question you ask. How appropriate that the new labour leader should completely ignore the underlying question of how to reduce the deficit in favour of defending an outdated ideology.

It's a great time to be a tory...

Fubar @ 6

You were doing so well...one whole post without mentioning Gordon.

Uh-oh Robin's at 13...lets see...

I wish him all the best in the fight against the kinds of cut that we are seeing here in Spain - we have had precious little support in our fight against our own retrenchment

It was just the first round.

A bit like the start of a boxing match where each shows respect for the other and they dance around throwing a few air punches.

Not really one to get too serious about.

Miliband should have a good first few weeks - the cuts will dominate the news and will provide plenty of open goals, as they will be impossible to introduce without creating some winners and losers, and all he needs to do is focus on the losers.

At some point though, Miliband needs to articulate what he would do rather than what he wouldn't do.

We know that he is against VAT increases, against personal taxation increases, against child benefit cuts etc.

We think that he still favours 50% reduction in the deficit over 4 years, although I have not seen anything concrete on this.

How does he propose reducing the deficit by 50% if he opposes every single cut in spending or increase in taxation, which is what his current policy seems to be?

I thought Cameron was quite good in opposition - he realised straight away his job as to oppose and it seemed years before he actually came up with any policies - perhaps Miliband was taking notes. When Cameron was asking the questions he did well, but Gordon Brown was easy prey. Ed made David look under-prepared today, though how he's ever going to defend the arrant nonsense of Child Benefit allowed for a joint income of £80k, but not for a single income of £44k is a mystery.

rockRobin7 @ 13

None stranger than your reading...

I like the way Cameron goes slightly red in the face and starts to bluster when questioned in any detail....expect more.

On the CB poll. Only 41% supported the measures as announced by Ozzy...46% against. The 83% agreed in principle that those paying the higher rate of tax should not receive CB.

Outdated ideology ? Blimey not even your glorious leader thinks that. I assume you refer to universal benefits...did he not say in the same PMQs that he would not tinker with the Winter Fuel Allowance, a universal benefit I believe.

C'mon Robin, you haven't even mentioned Gordon yet...not had your weetabix today ?

Was Gordon Brown the architect of the mess in the House. Perhaps the PM will start to identify the team members that helped create this mess, that are in Ed;s team that are also trying to avoid defining the cuts that they would have made.

Given that AD had already indicated the scale of the cuts, Shame that the BBC did not run more on the cuts before the election that would have really put labour on the spot, but given that the BBC is the media arm of the labour party its not supprising really.

I am fed up with politicians and the media trying to tell us £44,000 is a 'middle class wage' and how this child benefit will 'squeeze the middle' - people on £44,000 a year are in the TOP TWELVE PERCENT of income earners! Tell me how being above 88% of the population puts you in the middle!

10. At 1:56pm on 13 Oct 2010, ouzo12 wrote:
The middle is squeezed only because Labour have been squeezing it for over 10 years...
=============================

I tend to agree - labour did hammer the people in the middle.

Trouble is, this is supposed to be a new government. Yet on this issue it looks like business as usual.

Other than the cuts I really can't see how the ConDems are any different to the last lot.

It's a double whammy - worse than thatcher for the economic destruction, no better than labour for the PC.

Yes indeed, I liked Ed Miliband’s debut at PM questions.
I didn’t agree with everything he said, but I liked his tone.
Miliband Q: "Why should a family on 45,000 pounds where one person stays at home lose their child benefit ... but a family on 80,000 pounds where both partners in a couple are working should keep their child benefit?" And then came the direct question right, straight to Cameron: "That doesn't strike people as fair. It doesn't strike me as fair. Does it strike you as fair?"
Cameron limbed through the tired-old answer: Labour government was to blame for the record deficit…” Right! As though the American loose finance regulations, the derivatives, the credit dsefault swaps had nothing to do with the deficit.
Miliband undistrated attacked again: "There are thousands of people in your constituency earning one sixth of what you earn. Through their taxes they will be paying for your child benefit. Is that really fair?"
The Coalution Party got dirty - several references made to his narrow victory, which he won thanks to trade union support.
Was Miliband distracted? Nope.
He cleared his throat and quoted Cameron himself: "I like child benefit. I wouldn't change child benefit. I wouldn't means test it. I don't think that's a good idea."
Cameron appeared momentarily stunned.
Miliband wisely steered clear of university funding. I say wisely because because the Labour Party seems just as divided about how to proceed as The Coalition Government.
In my mind, Ed Miliband came out of his first PM Q. unscathed and shining like a diamond.
He certainly had the better quotes.

He seemed extremely nervous, understandably, and was quite shaky in putting his questions, again understandably.

It wasn't impressive. It wasn't a disaster. He survived it.

Overall he needs to make it clear what he is going to do about the state of the economy. Until he does any criticism of the government's attempts to deal with the deficit will lack substance and will fail to impress.

To have been at the heart of the Labour government, which was so irresponsible with our national finances (and our country's future) and now criticise people for taking the supremely difficult decisions to deal with the mess, it is a very poor effort and unless he does better I believe people will think he is a charlatan.

Yes Nick, praise his speech by all means, but even the mighty "Red Robbo" Nick Robinson simply cannot hdie the fact that whenever we talk about cuts, it is only fair to revisit EVERY TIME, the reason for those cuts. And the reason Nick, no matter how much you wirggle and kick, is that YOUR boys bankrupted the country, largely, going back through your pro labour blogs, with your tacit approval. To me, hearing anyone who was involved in the underlying reason for those cuts, now pontificating about how (Not if you notice, but how. The fact that cuts have to be made is accepted even by Ed)is just a little obscene. Where was dear middle class loving Ed when his party were in power? His performance at PMQ's was nothing more than a very very shallow vote catching exercise. Verdict: Must do better.

Looking at the figures coming out I'm not sure it matters what the leader of the failed party says ....

* 1 million direct job losses coming - half to be in the 'private sector'
* Unemployment claimant count UP
* Consumer confidence DOWN
* Car sales DOWN
* Growth forecasts DOWN
* House prices DOWN

etc etc etc

Looking at the way the tories have reversed the recovery, and worse to come, I don't think it matters who leads the opposition.

@rockRobin7

>> "It's a great time to be a tory..."

LOL, sticking to the same catchphrase and repeating the same mantra - just like a true professional! (You might even start to believe it yourself before long. Try standing in front of a mirror and doing it... )

sorry craigmarpool

You're right, I forgot to mention that yet again Gordon Brown failed to turn up to do the job for which we pay him.

Should we read anything into this? Idleness? embarrassment? Lack of 'courage'? Frit? Or just plain old guilt that this is all his fault?

It's a great time to be a tory...

A Labour leader highlighting the unfairness of benefit cuts for top rate tax earners. I'm sure there is something wrong in this statement.

@17

For better or for worse, the political advantage of Milliband's position is that he doesn't really need an alternative. Labour can simply get away with saying we'll do less of this nasty stuff slower.

But that's no different to the Tories claiming that they wouldn't have put the country in this situation without ever having offered an alternative along the way.

The really depressing thing for me is that a confrontational two-party system makes this sort of mess inevitable (at any given time half of parliament - the opposition - has a vested interest in the government messing up the country and will simply oppose and criticise for the sake of it), but the actions of the Lib Dems in coalition make me pessimistic about ever having multi-party government by consensus in the best interests of the country as a whole.

Ed cruised while Cameron flapped.

It is quite evident Cameron doesn't do detail and when pushed on it, is all over the place.

Ed briefly came out of first gear when he laucnhed a scathing attack on Gideon Osborne.

I think the fact the Tories were howling so loudly shows how much they were taken aback by little Ed's performance.

I'm not an Ed supporter, but you underestimate this man at you OWN peril.

Can't wait for Ed to come out of cruise mode and start to accelerate!

Tories - underestimate Ed at your own peril! Cameron just got a first taste and most of the comments on the Twittersphere seem to pick Ed as the clear winner!

I think Nick must have been watching a different PMQs to other people, or perhaps doesn't understand the arguments.

The BBC PMQs summary has this as one of its points:
"Ed Miliband says families will face an "enormous loss" due to the child benefit changes and the PM had to show changes were "fair and reasonable". Mr Cameron - says it is not fair for the poorest constituents in Mr Miliband's own constituency to pay for his child benefit."

ie Ed's argument is that someone with no kids who's on the minimum wage should be paying for the child benefit of a millionnaire. To me that's a nonsensical argument, and polls show that virtually nobody agrees with it.

The "household income" versus "higher-rate-tax-payer" aspect is a situation that creates unfair anomolies, but the overall idea that someone on the higher rate tax band should have their income increased by someone on the minimum wage is something that won't win Ed many/any votes.

It's long overdue that child benefit is subject to some kind of means-testing; having it as a universal benefit makes no sense, and is intrinsically unfair.

So, in summary, Ed's approach was that he wanted people on the minimum wage to put their money towards helping out a millionaire, and that labour has no plans to cut the deficit and wants to rack-up the accumulated debt by about half a trillion quid over the next 4 years. Is that an "impressive debut" ? Well, I don't think so, but obviously the BBC thinks different.

pd, one swallow does not a summer make. This is just one PMQ's and I doubt very much whether all of them are going to be quite so benign as this one. Hence my comment regarding the "I ask the questions, you are supposed to answer them". He's going to have to watch that, otherwise it'll come back to haunt him if he's not careful

Yes, he did perform better than expected. Call Me Dave didnt appear to be his usual self, for whatever reason.

But look at what you've got in reality.... Two former SpAds who are both products of the same tertiary education, both elevated to positions that are, lets be honest, frankly above them, exchanging witticisms.

{irony alert}
Its just what's needed, isnt it?
{irony alert off}

Am I the only one getting repeatedly annoyed at that pint sized upstart egomaniac Bercow thinking that the show is as much about him as it is the PM?

Anyone else hear the ghostly "woooooo" noise from the Labour benches when the late Claire Rayner was mentioned?

They're all still acting like a bunch of kids. No less punch and judy than before.

JJ, #21
"I am fed up with politicians and the media trying to tell us £44,000 is a 'middle class wage' and how this child benefit will 'squeeze the middle' - people on £44,000 a year are in the TOP TWELVE PERCENT of income earners! Tell me how being above 88% of the population puts you in the middle!"

I agree. I might have more respect for Miliband and Labour if they were being less opportunistic on this.

"13. At 1:58pm on 13 Oct 2010, rockRobin7 wrote:


It's a great time to be a tory..."


So great that they are neck and neck with Labour in the polls?

So great that they have to be propped up by the Lib-Dems?

Are you deluded? Tories are going to cause a double dip!

AS has rightly referred to the fact that Continuity Brown - I mean, Red Ed - is going to be facing a lot of open goals over the coming months, as many probably as Cam faced when Brown was the fish to be shot in the barrel. Even Andy Cole in an England shirt had a better strike rate than Cameron did between 2007 and 2009.

The making of him (Ed) is going to be whether he takes those open goals that Cam did not, during Brown's tenure. And, to be honest, it is far too early to say. If he does, and he makes it stick AND, if he carries the party with him, with a CREDIBLE plan for deficit reduction, then I readily acknowledge that he may be onto something. The public might just buy it.

I wouldnt be getting too cocky about it just yet though. Theres a long way to go and there is still too much toxicity by association with the previous incumbents. And there are numerous other internal factors and factions at play such as the Cooper-Balls pairing, a very dodgy choice of Home Office Shadow minister and the unions as well.

Thats a lot of balls to keep under control at once. If he can do all that, then... we'll see.

Still think he, Cam and Clegg are over-promoted policy wonks, but there you go, maybe thats just me.

"20. At 2:34pm on 13 Oct 2010, IR35_SURVIVOR wrote:
Was Gordon Brown the architect of the mess in the House."


If you can prove that Gordon Brown was the architect behind the misselling of the Sub-Prime market in America which caused this Global Mess, then you'd be correct.

But you don't care about that because you are a Tory and according to you the reason why the Chilean Miners were trapped was because it was Labours Fault as well!

Good performance from Ed Milliband today. To be fair Gordon Brown was terrible at PMQ's and DC must now be thinking the weekly knockabout maybe about to become rather less enjoyable.
By nature Cameron tends to be a rather sneering chracter. This tactic works less well when you are in Government. It is also flawed when the Leader of the Opposition is extoling the virtues of fairness and standing up for the "squeezed middle". Cameron may need a new tactic fast.

The poor planning, slow implementation allied to the inate unfairness of the current proposals ex the Coalition mean that as long as Red Ed does not make any bold pronouncements on what he will do he can sit tight.

This is a one term coalition - a profacy that will be proven in a weeks time when a series of poorly planned, incoherent and slowly implemented measures will be released on an unsuspecting public.

I'm finding it a bit odd that some posters are talking about "Nick Robinson going for a peerage when Labour get back in" and "Nick Robinson showing the usual left wing bias" when from all I've heard Nick Robinson is actually a tory.

Maybe it's just that some commentors can't get their heads around the idea of someone trying to do an unbiased report because it is his job, regardless of his personal views?

I reckon Ed Miliband tackling the Child Benefit issue, which has been badly handled by Cameron and has alienated Cameron's natural supporters is an astute first move - and a good way to counter all the "Red Ed" rubbish that has been hyped up by the media (especially the print media) during the Labour leadership campaign. It's odd, though - last week I was talking with another Labour voter about how we both agreed that it was about time Child Benefit was reformed, because it was a bit odd that it was paid to so many people who didn't really need it at a time when we are all being told to tighten our belts.

A good solid start. Find it strange how everyone seems to be refering to DC as a veteran at PMQs.... yes maybe as leader of the opposition but not as PM. This is the first time he will be put under real pressure as PM and it will certainly be interesting to see how he handles it. He seemed rattled today.

29#

It is deliciously ironic, isnt it?

rockRobin7 @ 28.

Had me worried there Robin,thought you were feeling below par...normal service resumed.

You shouldn't embrace the american blame culture so much...

..................................

I understand Clegg is sending the LD rebels on a fact-finding mission to Chile...spaces will be shortly available for 33....that should be enough.

response to crowbird, post 24

"Overall he needs to make it clear what he is going to do about the state of the economy"

You know, I don't think he does, actually.

He's the leader of the opposition, not the Prime Minister - and if the coalition are to be believed, their deal means this government is meant to last for five years, so we are nowhere near an election yet.

It's not Ed Miliband's job to make or defend the tough choices - that was the job David Cameron applied for in May. It's up to Ed Miliband to keep him to account and expose the things he and maybe we might think he is doing wrong. Or does David Cameron want to spend his government complaining that Gordon Brown wasn't a better PM?

31#

Yawn.

You strike me as the sort of person at a football match who starts singing "you're not singing any more" after having gone 1-0 up in the first five minutes and is already seeing the Championship as being in the bag.

Its a bit early to start crowing just yet.

37#

And you're just another Labour stooge mate. Get over yourself.

I see an attempt to allow some exceptions to labours smoking ban has just failed.

So basically no action whatever from the 'no more big government' tories to restore even small scale freedoms.

As I say - the worst possible combination...

..... Thatchers economic destruction + labours oppressive political correctness = ConDem conspiracy government.

35 toriesbrokebritain..

don't be silly..if we have a double dip it will have 'started in America'

It's a great time to be a tory...

#36 wonder if ms Cooper has all the balls undercontroll too, are they on the chest, wall or the chin? ;=))

#40 is just like Robert Peston, Ms Flanders all on the left the BBC does not employ jurnos from the right

If its "only fair that the middle class make a bigger contribution when times are tough", can they look forward to being first in the queue to benefit from tax cuts when the economy improves ??
I thought not.
The sqeezed middle were squeezed mercilessly by Brown for 10 years and now they are getting squeezed again.
What IS the point in trying to better yourself if you have to give all your gains back in tax and lost benefits? My advice to teachers, nurses, policemen, sales people, engineers, shop managers, and millions of others is DONT have any ambition, DONT go for promotion, DONT waste your time trying to do better for your families.

It would be interesting to reread this blog the first time David Cameron did PMQs as leader of the opposition. I suspect the comments would have been the same, only the names were different.

As for comment #1 I cannot recall much transparency from DC on his policies when he was in oppostion.

Ed is going to be facing DC for at least a year (could be five) the last thing he wants is to be seen to be ridicules by DC straight away. DC knows that he will be the target of several big hits in the next few weeks and is not sure whether the mantra that it is all Labour's fault will get him through it. DC almost failed to succeed because his sound bites ridiculing Brown made people doubt his substance. Too many quips now could make people doubt his ability to deal with the economy. It was only the start of the first round.

#1

Have two party leaders ever done this more blatantly than Cameron and Clegg in the last few months. No, I don't think so either.

For those slating Ed M, Labour is at that natural point in the cycle where they have lost an election, have been through a leadership election and are now fleshing out all of their policies... we haven't actually had much "policy" from the coalition, save for its relentless bleating about "the(?) cuts" they are about to enthusiastically heap upon us. Today was all about debating skills and Ed was the clear victor. It was a start and that's all it was but he did what he had to and better than the Tories believed he would.

Sticking to the facts, Mr Milliband is right. The axe is falling over a very specific band of the population: middle class with children. Middle class without kids won't be affected AT ALL! And rthe richer upper classes will be slightly affected by paying at the University level what they already pay for Secondary School education for theis children. And good news for middle and upper class without children, they might even get some tax allowance if they are married under God!

#1,#53 but only in may they were telling us that they had the right policies and nothing was their fault

No pre-rehearsed soundbite or gag for the new headlines?

Come on Nick. I can't believe Ed's spin doctors have got to you already.

Nick please ask Ed if he can remember Labour's 10% tax debacle? This was even more unfair than the child benefit restrictions - which although unfair are, I understand, only being enforced in this way because of the archaic structure and complexity of UK tax collection and inflexibility of personal allowances, achieved under Labours watch, which do not enable entitlement differentiation of the type Millibrand wants at the moment.
Any comment from Labour on Tory proposals to restrict currently crazy child benefits to £500 to couples who regard having children as a profession? No, I didn't think so.

@Workingboy92 writes:

"A Labour leader highlighting the unfairness of benefit cuts for top rate tax earners. I'm sure there is something wrong in this statement."

The only thing wrong is your understanding. He was highlighting the unfairness of a family earning £80K total keeping the benefit compared to earning £44K losing it.

Then again you know that is what he was on about. As does everyone.

Ed Milliband comes across as sincere, genuine and answers all questions put to him, openly and honestly. A refreshing change.

@13. At 1:58pm on 13 Oct 2010, rockRobin7 wrote:

It's a great time to be a tory...
---------------------------------------
It's not a bad time to be a Tory, however it will be a better time to be a Tory once we get rid of the wishy washy, namby pamby Libdem element that is holding us back at the moment.

I also think that we need to get rid of Cameron at some point, we thought that we needed him to convince the electorate that we were voter friendly and elected a Blairalike for this purpose, however as soon as Brown was PM we could have had a monkey as a leader and we would have romped home in the election.

Perhaps mid-term would be the best time to do the change, so the next PM will have time to prepare for the next election, Iain Duncan Smith would be a good choice for this, although he is a tad left wing for me he might present a more acceptable face to the electorate.

We will win the next election, once we have carried through the necessary social changes, we can pull the money back from the banks and the deficit will disappear overnight. However we must totally destroy the welfare state before we take that option, get the education system back to working for the people that truly deserve and can afford it, privatise the NHS, stop all welfare benefits and re-introduce work houses and soup kitchens. This would do as a start.

In short get the riff raff back working for realistic wages and if they won't do that, make them work for their house and board.

It's a not bad time to be a Tory, but until we stop being so soft and easy on the riff raff, it will not be,

A great time to be a Tory.

Poor old Hattie looks a bit glaikit in your pic, Nick.

Milliband looked to be far more formidable than first considered.With the amount of soft targets on offer after October 20th cuts he can only appear even stronger.Now in opposition,he can afford to play the waiting game and in 2-3 years will be a force to be reckoned with.Mr Cameron's scriptwriters may have to work overtime before every PMQ is broadcast.

re #47
Never mind! It may get better one day ...

21. At 2:41pm on 13 Oct 2010, JJ wrote:
I am fed up with politicians and the media trying to tell us £44,000 is a 'middle class wage' and how this child benefit will 'squeeze the middle' - people on £44,000 a year are in the TOP TWELVE PERCENT of income earners! Tell me how being above 88% of the population puts you in the middle!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you sure on this? There is some good evidence that to make the top ten per cent of EARNERS you have to be paid over £150,000.

As a Tory voter , I think Ed Milliband was good, he struck at the heart of a policy which has caused David Cameron pain since last week . He could not give a straight answer . The Prime Minister has had numerous chances to tell everyone that this cut will have some loosers and thats they way it is . All the cuts will have people who will be worse off thats life ED but not as you would have us beleive.

25. At 3:00pm on 13 Oct 2010, snarlygronkit wrote:

Yes Nick, praise his speech by all means, but even the mighty "Red Robbo" Nick Robinson simply cannot hdie the fact that whenever we talk about cuts, it is only fair to revisit EVERY TIME, the reason for those cuts. And the reason Nick, no matter how much you wirggle and kick, is that YOUR boys bankrupted the country, largely, going back through your pro labour blogs, with your tacit approval.

__________________________________________________________________

You don't seem to quite who his boys are, do you? I'll give you a clue, Nick was the president of the Oxford University Conservative association, you know who The Conservatives are, right?

As for PMQ;s, like Alan Johnson before, these early exchanges will be pleasing on the eyes and ears from all sides, the real challenges come further down the line.

So... Ed has a good first outing. Clear winner really, as confirmed by the feeble efforts F_S, Rock Robin, virtualsilverlady, and IR35 to deny or deflect.
Cameron was lazy, lounging unattractively and sneering while utterly failing to come anywhere near giving an answer. Wrong image - especially from a PR man. Going to have to up his game.
I'm not that optimistic but anything that holds this government to account for their decisions and gives the lie to their whining and cowardly 'It's not our fault. Everything is Labours fault' nonesense, has to be a step in the right direction.

#67 I have not actually seen it yet but will comment when I have.
too busy working to earn a crust AND pay taxes to pay of the spend spend spend debt given to the nation by Crash gordon and his team that included ed , balls and cooper to name a few

@32. labourbankruptedusall

>> ie Ed's argument is that someone with no kids who's on the minimum wage should be paying for the child benefit of a millionnaire. To me that's a nonsensical argument, and polls show that virtually nobody agrees with it.

Strange that people see taxes from certain sections of society (min wage) as being earmarked for specific benefits of other sections (millionaires). It's just a pot of money which people pay into. You could easily just say that higher rate tax payers are paying taxes for their own child benefit - and if you look at it like that, it's just a tax rebate for having kids. Which doesn't seem unreasonable at all.

Yes, perhaps higher income households shouldn't get it - but definitely not in the way proposed with it's ridiculous anomalies.

66

So if you join the Conservative party when at University that makes you a lifelong Tory huh? So by your arcane logic Ed Balls must also be tarred with the same brush....

When I was at Uni many students joined fringe hard left political parties and on graduating shed that image to work in merchant banks etc.

At 3:37pm on 13 Oct 2010, ToriesBrokeBritain wrote:
"20. At 2:34pm on 13 Oct 2010, IR35_SURVIVOR wrote:
Was Gordon Brown the architect of the mess in the House."

If you can prove that Gordon Brown was the architect behind the misselling of the Sub-Prime market in America which caused this Global Mess, then you'd be correct.

the sub prime market in america was the spark that lit the fuse - when will labour minions come out of the denial camp?
the bank of england had the powers to stop banks overstretching in their borrowings (the money they borrowed cheaply on the markets, then lent to customers, charging a higher rate of interest to make profits)
the BOE could step in and force banks to refinance themselves, therefore protecting the banking world from problems, should the credit markets dry up.

in 1997 - gordon brown REMOVED these powers from the BOE, giving them instead to the FSA
the FSA were brown's lapdogs and did nothing to upset LABOUR'S financial policies, these powers were not used when the banks started to struggle to find cheap credit (and lend to us at a rate where it could be afforded)

it matters not where the spark came from, it was america, it could easily have been from any number of countries economical collapse, the fact is that had gordon brown/labour not REMOVED the bank of england's powers to hold banks to account and stop them over stretching, at the very least the damage to the UK would have been considerably less than we face today.
factor in the choice that labour made, to prop up the banks, bailing them out, instead of letting them fall and keeping market competition in place, and the subsequant "quantitive easing" - ie, printing new money weakening the pound in the long term - that they brought in, there's a big hole in your perceptions

LABOUR in government were responsible for protecting the british economy from harm, they failed in that duty on a level not seen before.

I wonder how long the heavies of the old brigade will let this nincompoop who appears to be the champion of the upper middle class lead the great class struggle on behalf of the party of the poor downtrodden worker. Then again, he might feel that even with his inflated salary he might someday need the child allowance for his kid and any to follow. He didn't appear to be able to move on from the same theme which was getting little response, to anything more substantial.Maybe the garbage he's been fed as a part of a Labour government precludes any chance of rational thought getting in the way of his pre programmed dogma.

I think before long red ed will become Steady eddy as he rips into Dopey Dave

re: 69. At 6:33pm on 13 Oct 2010, PeteB

yes; the anomaly is annoying; they could easily have got around it by using the household income. I don't understand why that would have been too complex to implement. Instead of asking "is anyone in your household a top-rate tax payer? (excluding your own grown-up kids or lodgers etc)" you just ask "does the amount your household earn (after tax) add up to more than £x? (excluding your own grown-up kids or lodgers etc)" I don't see how that's too complex for the child benefit system to handle.

Tax does indeed just go into a big pot, so a specific tax doesn't necessarily pay for a specific benefit. My argument was more along the lines that benefits should only ever be given to people who actually need it, and should never be used as an un-needed income-booster.

A single person on the minimum wage is effectively paying for the child benefit of a millionnaire, but only indirectly.

Cameron's argument (and mine) is that by not paying benefits to people who don't need it, you allow the government to give bigger benefits to those who need it (or tax them less) (or use it to pay off the debt, but that has the same effect in the end).

Ed's argument is that everyone should be given tax payer's money simply for having kids, regardless of their income, and to me that's just plain wrong.

I find it odd listening to the Left suddenly in tune to the anomolies of the tax and benefits system that might disadvantage some middle class families.

Suddenly they are bellowing how unfair it might be.

For 13 years under labour it was the case that the single high earner whose wife stayed at home was taxed hugely more than a dual earning couple (around £8k more in tax).

Were the lefties out pounding the streets complaining?

No, the latest moans are, as always with the left, ideology.

Personally, I favour a massive increase in council tax for un lived-in properties. By a factor of 10.

What say you saga? Let's bash the property speculators who don't even rent out their second properties.

Kaybraes @72
Thankyou for adding your vote to the 'did Ed do well at PMQs' poll. Duely recorded. The boy done well.

It was a good start by the new Labour leader as he stood his own. Though, he started off well and threw the PM into an uncomfortable position with the unexpected question about the numbers of people affected by the child benefit cuts to middle income earners to make the PM look stupid because he would not have come prepared with the figure, which is what all smart Labour politicians tend to do, I think the Labour leader missed the point that should have been the basis of his question and not as a secondary point which is the issue about whether it is fair for a one-parent high income household earner not to receive the benefit while a two-parent high income household earners would? That's the issue and not whether to withdraw the benefit from high income earners altogether given that majority of the public and voters according to the polls – 85% support the idea to withdraw child benefit for high income earners. But as we already know the premise of the Labour leader’s question was his belief that everyone should receive child benefit, irrespective.

The Beeb will always back Labour.Truth is they have left us in an almighty mess and you seem to be already supporting them attacking The Coalition for trying to sort it.Sorry but some even handed reporting circa Sky would not go amiss.

Additionally, I have been wondering why the obvious error was made or was it a deliberate policy to promote the family unit which the Tories have often wanted to protect? Only the people involved can tell what informed the decision for a one-parent high income household earner not to receive the child benefit whilst a two parent high income household earning twice the amount will. To make it fair, it's either both one parent and two parent household income earners receive it or they all don't. It would be interesting to find out how much it would cost and what savings will be made using the various scenarios for better and well informed decision-making.

Typical Tory twaddle and deflection tactics on here today. Your boy lost fair (does he know the meaning of that word?) and square. Current score;

Cameron 0 Miliband 1

And if you don't believe me, ask that bastion of left wing virtue Andrew Neil who also thought so.

This child benefit debacle just will not go away. Interestingly I wonder how many would be complaining about losing their child benefit if they decided to do away with all child benefit for either a single high earner or dual incomes over the 44k threshold and deducted the cost of means testing from the overall saving? Ed Moribund has no way of knowing how many couples are out there really in the situation he says as we do not have a household taxation system. I think by the time it comes in in 2013 things will have moved on.

There really is no easy answer to this and maybe Cameron should just say no it is not fair but neither is the following:
For couples on benefits they get less together than when living apart.
Anomalies between those forced to live in private rented accommodation and those living in council house for life.
People who have not saved for retirement or to buy their own home get care fees paid by state whereas the prudent have to pay for themselves.

Many more like that but you get my point. Some things in life just do not seem fair. The fact that someone on 44k loses their child benefit will not cost me any sleep any more than the celebrations of a couple who get to keep theirs even though they can earn up to 80k. 44k is still almost twice the average salary.

Unfortunately I didn't see the full P.M.Q's only the news' highlights but it seems very difficult to draw a clean line between the main partys these days. One point I would make is that the middle will always be squeezed first as they make up the majority and earn the bulk of earnings for tax purposes. Whether it's right or wrong the middle pay the most.

Haverstock Comp trumps Eton. Brains over brawn. We'll be seeing a great deal of this from now on.

TrueBlueTory @60

"We will win the next election, once we have carried through the necessary social changes, we can pull the money back from the banks and the deficit will disappear overnight. However we must totally destroy the welfare state before we take that option, get the education system back to working for the people that truly deserve and can afford it, privatise the NHS, stop all welfare benefits and re-introduce work houses and soup kitchens. This would do as a start.

In short get the riff raff back working for realistic wages and if they won't do that, make them work for their house and board."
...................................................................



Happy 85th birthday madam.

Good start for Ed.
Funny to read people on here who think ex-card carrying Tory Nick Robinson is a lefty. If you compare him with the Guardian rather than what Rupert Murdoch or Associated Newspapers want you to hear he seems very different.
I think Cameron himself is losing belief in the need to cut as much as possible as quickly as possible to make things look worse than they really are.

Nick, what is the "alleged" unfairness of the child benefit plan? As it stands, it has a clear, demonstrably unfair element to it. There's nothing alleged about it.

Impressive opening by Miliband.

Sadly (as a Conservative supporter) this was not just because his delivery was good (and this should be a minor matter) but more importantly because on the particular issue discussed (child benefit) the coalition policy is confused (and obviously has not been run through the Treasury computer).

Ed Miliband for P.M. as soon as possible!!

Given the state of play in nations who had centre-right governments leading up to the financial meltdown, I find it hard to believe that we would be any better off if the Tories had been in power for the last 10 years. Perhaps slightly better off financialy, but with many more crumbling schools and hospitals as a trade-off.

Almost nobody watches and even fewer actually care what the posturing idiots say.

The politicians waste money trying to get a good soundbite.
The BBC waste even more by discussing it.

I wonder how many voters even know what PMQs is.

my god! Have I stepped into some parallel universe? An opposition Labour leader championing fairness for the middle class? Whatever next?

but the reality is that the current proposal for child benefit is not fair is it. A household of two workers bringing in £80K could still claim while a houshold of one earner on £44K will lose their benefit. The often used statement of DC of the ones with the broadest shoulders should bear their share of the burden, doesn't quite ring true here does it?

I am a so called high earner, although it doesn't really feel like it, and for all the high income tax I pay the only benefit I get in return is child benefit. No tax credits for me because, as a household, we earn too much......... not enough it seems to keep my child benefit!!

88. At 9:03pm on 13 Oct 2010, johnharris66 wrote:
Impressive opening by Miliband.

Sadly (as a Conservative supporter) this was not just because his delivery was good (and this should be a minor matter) but more importantly because on the particular issue discussed (child benefit) the coalition policy is confused (and obviously has not been run through the Treasury computer).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tis also at odds with stated Coalition policy to review all, not pick at individual items or Departments, and then make an overall policy statement on 20 October.

Was it Nick Robinson, or another Beeb journo, suggesting it was a deliberate smokescreen effort for Conference week to show that they were going to take from the rich and lead Labour with new leader into looking like numpties defending higher earners?

While they may have succeeded on the latter point, Dave & GO have joined them in The Numpty Club by appearing incredibly inept, especially when you add in Dave's statement on R4 about Trident.

This blogger does not have the time to follow all the daily ins-and-outs of our politics but there is always one thing to bear in mind.

The people of this country will now suffer for an uncomfortable duration, but it was the political cohort both Tory (£320 billion) and Labour (£400 billion) whose mismanagement over at least three decades has delivered us to this low point.

You can see why these politicians are so keen to blame the bankers (£117 billion - which at least will be repaid), anything that deflects public opinion from their errors.

37. At 3:37pm on 13 Oct 2010, ToriesBrokeBritain wrote:
"20. At 2:34pm on 13 Oct 2010, IR35_SURVIVOR wrote:
Was Gordon Brown the architect of the mess in the House."


If you can prove that Gordon Brown was the architect behind the misselling of the Sub-Prime market in America which caused this Global Mess, then you'd be correct.

But you don't care about that because you are a Tory and according to you the reason why the Chilean Miners were trapped was because it was Labours Fault as well!
===================

Hoist by your own petard hey? I remember when it would have been Maggie's fault - so get used to it, you may have 20 years of Gordon taking the blame!

David Cameron does often say that those with the broadest shoulders should pay their fair share.

So, that would be HIS cohort, the 2% of the population who control 90% of the countries wealth (consultants AT Kearney).

At the risk of being labelled rude or a crypto-Communist, might I suggest that 'Dave', George Osborne, Nick Clegg, other multi-millionaire Ministers and Labour champagne socialists, pause to reflect deeply on what it means to be a public servant and then do the right thing.

Extremely wealthy politicians, camels, eyes of needles ...

The problem with all of this is the politicians.

The whole system needs to be re-designed from the ground up - maybe we should bring in someone who knows how to make stuff: like James Dyson (rather than make money, like Sir Alan Sugar).

Just watched a rerun - Ed Miliband was VERY good, wasn't he? Rather better than I thought he'd be (and I thought he'd be good). One thing struck me in particular ... he made Cameron look so old. It's almost like he's yesterday's man already.

Ed looks like a putty figure from a wallace and grommet set .The passion with which he defended the rights of those singletons earning over £800 to some extra non taxable freebie was so heart rending that I almost forgot about the Chilean miners

Ed showed total disrespect for those couples where both work paying a considerable amount of tax to claim 1 families[couples] tax credit entitlement

Well done George Osborne hold your head up high and just think of the other side of the house as a hang out for balls that hasn't been cleaned for 13 years , well posted with new labour economic gems such as "If you are reading this then your liquidity is probably running down your inside leg", "a penny for our thoughts "and "Kilroy was here".

There was a honesty to the tributes to the hard work and sacrifice of the aid worker killed I found refreshing and I think it took Cameron by suprise.

I also felt the straightforward nature of his questions worked well against Cameron with his simplistic soundbites that dodged giving a straight answer.