So you didn't say Labour ran a structural deficit for every year they were in office then.
No I didn't say that. I said nearly every year, which is the truth. The problem with the truth is it doesn't match your warped beliefs and prejudices, so you end up posting muck. Ironic, right?
I'm sure this photo/caption has been debunked. I will struggle to find the blog about it.
I think the bottom 2 photos are from big events and not the debates mentioned. And the top photos are several hours into debate.
You could well be right. Mind you I am interested in politics, but I swear that if ever I need a nap in the afternoon I put the Parliament Channel on, and really try to get into whatever they're saying, usually takes about 5 minutes to doze off. What I do remember about my pre-nap ritual is that the chamber(s) are very sparsely attended. Very. I often think if anybody appears to be on zero hours contracts, it's the MP's.
So nearly every year suggests not every year rich is a bit of an achievement and is contrary to the image portrayed about a Labour Government. Apologies for missing the nearly though. Seems a strange point to make!
I'm sure this photo/caption has been debunked. I will struggle to find the blog about it.
I think the bottom 2 photos are from big events and not the debates mentioned. And the top photos are several hours into debate.
The photo has been debunked but it doesn't stop people using it to prove some point.
The fact is most people are completely unaware of how Parliament and Government actually operates. Ask someone to describe the lifetime of a Bill or how a motion is tabled and they will probably not know the answer. Most MPs do constituency work after Wednesday and most will also have work outside of being an MP. If you're a minister then you spend even less of your time in the chamber unless the debate is regarding your department.
I'm sure a FOI request to The House Of Commons might reveal who attended what and when. The pictures may not be factual but I bet it's not a million miles from reality.
It was great to see Paxman give both of the leaders a grilling. Particularly Cameron who Paxman had on the ropes in a way that you don't see often. Particularly on all the pledges broken / deficit / debt question and where 12 billion of cuts would come from. The Conservatives like to go on about reducing the deficit but don't like to mention about the 1.5 trillion debt which has doubled under the Conservative government.
I thought Miliband handled the brother question and general Paxman rudeness quite well. I thought the immigration question about an exact figure of people able to live in this country did not make a lot of sense and Milliband did well not to be pinned down on that.
The 'did the Labour spend too much question' and the whole 'caused the world economic crisis' is badly handled by Labour. Labour's spending percentage of government spending was pretty standard for any government of that time. It was not Labour's overspending that was a cause of the crash. This is a Conservative theme for years and needs to be challenged and nailed down.
A Conservative Government or any shade of government in power at the time would have suffered just as badly, It is disingenuous of Conservatives to try and blame the world wide crash on Labour, when this related to sub prime mortgages and deregulation of the financial sector. The deregulation that they had enthusiastically started and supported for the preceeding 20 years.
Milliband hinted that Labour could have had more regulation with regard to the banks but they have failed to challenge the Conservative assertion that it was down to Labour overspending. This does not help with voters perception about how Labour handles the economy.
I think most of us would struggle to manage a Paxman grilling though. It was fun to watch both leaders wither under the Paxman scrutiny.
Quite agree. Don't know who is advising on Labour strategy but not only are they failing to defend these key issues but they are allowing opponents to set the political agenda. Crash, immigration, scroungers (not the rich kind). They should be challenging that the backbone of capitalism is broken. We now have "Cronyism". There is no real competition. Large parts of Government privitisation means that companies win long term contracts, fail to meet targets and rely on huge cost of legal action to coin it in on underperformance. Companies in many areas no longer advertise because there is no competition. Petrol, energy, banking, ANUITIES!! (turnover of reasonably sized countries economies) water bus & train monopolies, BT monopoly of landlines that you need to get broadband, TV sport, pubs, freight etc. You now have what I call "slippage". Five mobile phone companies lose 10% business a year due to poor service but the other 5 pick up 2% each. They each get 2% off each other so nobody is worse off but all enjoy natural growth. This lack of competition means no customer service of merit, poor products, so no competition for decent staff, little training and poor wages, zero hour contracts, and demotivated workforce. All the above gives increased profitability and bonuses for the few. Toothless regulators who earn big slices of taxpayers money for doing nothing.
It was great to see Paxman give both of the leaders a grilling. Particularly Cameron who Paxman had on the ropes in a way that you don't see often. Particularly on all the pledges broken / deficit / debt question and where 12 billion of cuts would come from. The Conservatives like to go on about reducing the deficit but don't like to mention about the 1.5 trillion debt which has doubled under the Conservative government.
I thought Miliband handled the brother question and general Paxman rudeness quite well. I thought the immigration question about an exact figure of people able to live in this country did not make a lot of sense and Milliband did well not to be pinned down on that.
The 'did the Labour spend too much question' and the whole 'caused the world economic crisis' is badly handled by Labour. Labour's spending percentage of government spending was pretty standard for any government of that time. It was not Labour's overspending that was a cause of the crash. This is a Conservative theme for years and needs to be challenged and nailed down.
A Conservative Government or any shade of government in power at the time would have suffered just as badly, It is disingenuous of Conservatives to try and blame the world wide crash on Labour, when this related to sub prime mortgages and deregulation of the financial sector. The deregulation that they had enthusiastically started and supported for the preceeding 20 years.
Milliband hinted that Labour could have had more regulation with regard to the banks but they have failed to challenge the Conservative assertion that it was down to Labour overspending. This does not help with voters perception about how Labour handles the economy.
I think most of us would struggle to manage a Paxman grilling though. It was fun to watch both leaders wither under the Paxman scrutiny.
Quite agree. Don't know who is advising on Labour strategy but not only are they failing to defend these key issues but they are allowing opponents to set the political agenda. Crash, immigration, scroungers (not the rich kind). They should be challenging that the backbone of capitalism is broken. We now have "Cronyism". There is no real competition. Large parts of Government privitisation means that companies win long term contracts, fail to meet targets and rely on huge cost of legal action to coin it in on underperformance. Companies in many areas no longer advertise because there is no competition. Petrol, energy, banking, ANUITIES!! (turnover of reasonably sized countries economies) water bus & train monopolies, BT monopoly of landlines that you need to get broadband, TV sport, pubs, freight etc. You now have what I call "slippage". Five mobile phone companies lose 10% business a year due to poor service but the other 5 pick up 2% each. They each get 2% off each other so nobody is worse off but all enjoy natural growth. This lack of competition means no customer service of merit, poor products, so no competition for decent staff, little training and poor wages, zero hour contracts, and demotivated workforce. All the above gives increased profitability and bonuses for the few. Toothless regulators who earn big slices of taxpayers money for doing nothing.
So you didn't say Labour ran a structural deficit for every year they were in office then.
No I didn't say that. I said nearly every year, which is the truth. The problem with the truth is it doesn't match your warped beliefs and prejudices, so you end up posting muck. Ironic, right?
You did indeed say nearly every year which suggests in some years they ran a structural surplus. It's my, albeit layman's understanding, that pretty much every government runs a structural deficit so I'd still be interested in having a look at the figures for the respective parties history of running structural deficits please?
I'm sure a FOI request to The House Of Commons might reveal who attended what and when. The pictures may not be factual but I bet it's not a million miles from reality.
Take Gordon Brown, for example, (chosen not entirely randomly) who has spoken in the House seven times since last summer. The topics were Nigeria; international development; Scotland three times; trading relations with Europe; and lastly, on 26 March merely saying thank you for having me and the cleaners and catering staff have been great. There have also been three written questions on nuclear waste in Fife. I'm not entirely convinced that his constituents have been getting value for money.
I wonder how come Dennis Skinner is always in the chamber though. Teachers don't leave their classrooms empty because they have other work to do, they have to work early, late, weekends and breaks to do it. Politicians ought to be in the chamber at least 85% of the time, and do the other work at other times, or reduce the stupid hours that Parliament sits.
It was great to see Paxman give both of the leaders a grilling. Particularly Cameron who Paxman had on the ropes in a way that you don't see often. Particularly on all the pledges broken / deficit / debt question and where 12 billion of cuts would come from. The Conservatives like to go on about reducing the deficit but don't like to mention about the 1.5 trillion debt which has doubled under the Conservative government.
I thought Miliband handled the brother question and general Paxman rudeness quite well. I thought the immigration question about an exact figure of people able to live in this country did not make a lot of sense and Milliband did well not to be pinned down on that.
The 'did the Labour spend too much question' and the whole 'caused the world economic crisis' is badly handled by Labour. Labour's spending percentage of government spending was pretty standard for any government of that time. It was not Labour's overspending that was a cause of the crash. This is a Conservative theme for years and needs to be challenged and nailed down.
A Conservative Government or any shade of government in power at the time would have suffered just as badly, It is disingenuous of Conservatives to try and blame the world wide crash on Labour, when this related to sub prime mortgages and deregulation of the financial sector. The deregulation that they had enthusiastically started and supported for the preceeding 20 years.
Milliband hinted that Labour could have had more regulation with regard to the banks but they have failed to challenge the Conservative assertion that it was down to Labour overspending. This does not help with voters perception about how Labour handles the economy.
I think most of us would struggle to manage a Paxman grilling though. It was fun to watch both leaders wither under the Paxman scrutiny.
Quite agree. Don't know who is advising on Labour strategy but not only are they failing to defend these key issues but they are allowing opponents to set the political agenda. Crash, immigration, scroungers (not the rich kind). They should be challenging that the backbone of capitalism is broken. We now have "Cronyism". There is no real competition. Large parts of Government privitisation means that companies win long term contracts, fail to meet targets and rely on huge cost of legal action to coin it in on underperformance. Companies in many areas no longer advertise because there is no competition. Petrol, energy, banking, ANUITIES!! (turnover of reasonably sized countries economies) water bus & train monopolies, BT monopoly of landlines that you need to get broadband, TV sport, pubs, freight etc. You now have what I call "slippage". Five mobile phone companies lose 10% business a year due to poor service but the other 5 pick up 2% each. They each get 2% off each other so nobody is worse off but all enjoy natural growth. This lack of competition means no customer service of merit, poor products, so no competition for decent staff, little training and poor wages, zero hour contracts, and demotivated workforce. All the above gives increased profitability and bonuses for the few. Toothless regulators who earn big slices of taxpayers money for doing nothing.
It was great to see Paxman give both of the leaders a grilling. Particularly Cameron who Paxman had on the ropes in a way that you don't see often. Particularly on all the pledges broken / deficit / debt question and where 12 billion of cuts would come from. The Conservatives like to go on about reducing the deficit but don't like to mention about the 1.5 trillion debt which has doubled under the Conservative government.
I thought Miliband handled the brother question and general Paxman rudeness quite well. I thought the immigration question about an exact figure of people able to live in this country did not make a lot of sense and Milliband did well not to be pinned down on that.
The 'did the Labour spend too much question' and the whole 'caused the world economic crisis' is badly handled by Labour. Labour's spending percentage of government spending was pretty standard for any government of that time. It was not Labour's overspending that was a cause of the crash. This is a Conservative theme for years and needs to be challenged and nailed down.
A Conservative Government or any shade of government in power at the time would have suffered just as badly, It is disingenuous of Conservatives to try and blame the world wide crash on Labour, when this related to sub prime mortgages and deregulation of the financial sector. The deregulation that they had enthusiastically started and supported for the preceeding 20 years.
Milliband hinted that Labour could have had more regulation with regard to the banks but they have failed to challenge the Conservative assertion that it was down to Labour overspending. This does not help with voters perception about how Labour handles the economy.
I think most of us would struggle to manage a Paxman grilling though. It was fun to watch both leaders wither under the Paxman scrutiny.
Quite agree. Don't know who is advising on Labour strategy but not only are they failing to defend these key issues but they are allowing opponents to set the political agenda. Crash, immigration, scroungers (not the rich kind). They should be challenging that the backbone of capitalism is broken. We now have "Cronyism". There is no real competition. Large parts of Government privitisation means that companies win long term contracts, fail to meet targets and rely on huge cost of legal action to coin it in on underperformance. Companies in many areas no longer advertise because there is no competition. Petrol, energy, banking, ANUITIES!! (turnover of reasonably sized countries economies) water bus & train monopolies, BT monopoly of landlines that you need to get broadband, TV sport, pubs, freight etc. You now have what I call "slippage". Five mobile phone companies lose 10% business a year due to poor service but the other 5 pick up 2% each. They each get 2% off each other so nobody is worse off but all enjoy natural growth. This lack of competition means no customer service of merit, poor products, so no competition for decent staff, little training and poor wages, zero hour contracts, and demotivated workforce. All the above gives increased profitability and bonuses for the few. Toothless regulators who earn big slices of taxpayers money for doing nothing.
If you feel as if your bank is rubbish - move to another one! (I use three different banks and none of them are what you'd call "high street names".
Wasn't saying banking were a monpoly (water, bus & trains) merely that there is no proper competition as illustrated by the lack of advertising because they are all as bad as each other. Each bank loses customers every day but gains them from their equally poor high street neighbours.
It was great to see Paxman give both of the leaders a grilling. Particularly Cameron who Paxman had on the ropes in a way that you don't see often. Particularly on all the pledges broken / deficit / debt question and where 12 billion of cuts would come from. The Conservatives like to go on about reducing the deficit but don't like to mention about the 1.5 trillion debt which has doubled under the Conservative government.
I thought Miliband handled the brother question and general Paxman rudeness quite well. I thought the immigration question about an exact figure of people able to live in this country did not make a lot of sense and Milliband did well not to be pinned down on that.
The 'did the Labour spend too much question' and the whole 'caused the world economic crisis' is badly handled by Labour. Labour's spending percentage of government spending was pretty standard for any government of that time. It was not Labour's overspending that was a cause of the crash. This is a Conservative theme for years and needs to be challenged and nailed down.
A Conservative Government or any shade of government in power at the time would have suffered just as badly, It is disingenuous of Conservatives to try and blame the world wide crash on Labour, when this related to sub prime mortgages and deregulation of the financial sector. The deregulation that they had enthusiastically started and supported for the preceeding 20 years.
Milliband hinted that Labour could have had more regulation with regard to the banks but they have failed to challenge the Conservative assertion that it was down to Labour overspending. This does not help with voters perception about how Labour handles the economy.
I think most of us would struggle to manage a Paxman grilling though. It was fun to watch both leaders wither under the Paxman scrutiny.
Quite agree. Don't know who is advising on Labour strategy but not only are they failing to defend these key issues but they are allowing opponents to set the political agenda. Crash, immigration, scroungers (not the rich kind). They should be challenging that the backbone of capitalism is broken. We now have "Cronyism". There is no real competition. Large parts of Government privitisation means that companies win long term contracts, fail to meet targets and rely on huge cost of legal action to coin it in on underperformance. Companies in many areas no longer advertise because there is no competition. Petrol, energy, banking, ANUITIES!! (turnover of reasonably sized countries economies) water bus & train monopolies, BT monopoly of landlines that you need to get broadband, TV sport, pubs, freight etc. You now have what I call "slippage". Five mobile phone companies lose 10% business a year due to poor service but the other 5 pick up 2% each. They each get 2% off each other so nobody is worse off but all enjoy natural growth. This lack of competition means no customer service of merit, poor products, so no competition for decent staff, little training and poor wages, zero hour contracts, and demotivated workforce. All the above gives increased profitability and bonuses for the few. Toothless regulators who earn big slices of taxpayers money for doing nothing.
If you feel as if your bank is rubbish - move to another one! (I use three different banks and none of them are what you'd call "high street names".
Wasn't saying banking were a monpoly (water, bus & trains) merely that there is no proper competition as illustrated by the lack of advertising because they are all as bad as each other. Each bank loses customers every day but gains them from their equally poor high street neighbours.
I notice that advertising for many banking and other organisations often coincide or arrive just after when they have stuffed up really badly or been found out about something not great they have done or being criticised for another reason.
On a side note, does anybody know the name of the old man/peer/Lord fellow whom Kay Burley patronised/ spoke to like a deaf old man once? It was at a party conference I think. I'm just showing mum Burley's history of hilarious screw ups and I can't find that one.
It was great to see Paxman give both of the leaders a grilling. Particularly Cameron who Paxman had on the ropes in a way that you don't see often. Particularly on all the pledges broken / deficit / debt question and where 12 billion of cuts would come from. The Conservatives like to go on about reducing the deficit but don't like to mention about the 1.5 trillion debt which has doubled under the Conservative government.
I thought Miliband handled the brother question and general Paxman rudeness quite well. I thought the immigration question about an exact figure of people able to live in this country did not make a lot of sense and Milliband did well not to be pinned down on that.
The 'did the Labour spend too much question' and the whole 'caused the world economic crisis' is badly handled by Labour. Labour's spending percentage of government spending was pretty standard for any government of that time. It was not Labour's overspending that was a cause of the crash. This is a Conservative theme for years and needs to be challenged and nailed down.
A Conservative Government or any shade of government in power at the time would have suffered just as badly, It is disingenuous of Conservatives to try and blame the world wide crash on Labour, when this related to sub prime mortgages and deregulation of the financial sector. The deregulation that they had enthusiastically started and supported for the preceeding 20 years.
Milliband hinted that Labour could have had more regulation with regard to the banks but they have failed to challenge the Conservative assertion that it was down to Labour overspending. This does not help with voters perception about how Labour handles the economy.
I think most of us would struggle to manage a Paxman grilling though. It was fun to watch both leaders wither under the Paxman scrutiny.
Quite agree. Don't know who is advising on Labour strategy but not only are they failing to defend these key issues but they are allowing opponents to set the political agenda. Crash, immigration, scroungers (not the rich kind). They should be challenging that the backbone of capitalism is broken. We now have "Cronyism". There is no real competition. Large parts of Government privitisation means that companies win long term contracts, fail to meet targets and rely on huge cost of legal action to coin it in on underperformance. Companies in many areas no longer advertise because there is no competition. Petrol, energy, banking, ANUITIES!! (turnover of reasonably sized countries economies) water bus & train monopolies, BT monopoly of landlines that you need to get broadband, TV sport, pubs, freight etc. You now have what I call "slippage". Five mobile phone companies lose 10% business a year due to poor service but the other 5 pick up 2% each. They each get 2% off each other so nobody is worse off but all enjoy natural growth. This lack of competition means no customer service of merit, poor products, so no competition for decent staff, little training and poor wages, zero hour contracts, and demotivated workforce. All the above gives increased profitability and bonuses for the few. Toothless regulators who earn big slices of taxpayers money for doing nothing.
If you feel as if your bank is rubbish - move to another one! (I use three different banks and none of them are what you'd call "high street names".
Wasn't saying banking were a monpoly (water, bus & trains) merely that there is no proper competition as illustrated by the lack of advertising because they are all as bad as each other. Each bank loses customers every day but gains them from their equally poor high street neighbours.
I notice that advertising for many banking and other organisations often coincide or arrive just after when they have stuffed up really badly or been found out about something not great they have done or being criticised for another reason.
That is true isn't it? I mean exactly how stupid do RBS think we are with the "Goodbye unfair banking. Hello NatWest." campaign?
I have always believed that it is the forces of conservatism (small c) are the ones that want us to believe that all parties are just the same. If you don't vote for/want something else they will always retain power.
HarveysGardener - "They should be challenging that the backbone of capitalism is broken. We now have "Cronyism". There is no real competition"
Socialism is about eliminating competition not improving it, so a bit confused why a left wing politician would fly a flag for it.
Cronyism is nothing to do with capitalism, it's the domain of ministers and civil servants as a route to lucrative work in the private sector. Eliminate capitalism and the cronyism just gets you the plum job within the State machinery.
You don't end cronyism by bashing the businesses, you bash the civil servants and ministers that makes it impossible to get a contract unless you know who pulls the strings and find out whether you will get the contract. Spending £30m to put a tender together without any guarantee that you will get the contract means you have to employ an ex minister or civil servant who can pull the right strings.
The public sector's procurement process is why there is no competition amongst service providers. The public sector is unable to procure a supply of tea and biscuits without suppliers having to complete an online form, which being an approved departmental standard, is the same as that completed for a £30bn PFI contract. Competition is squeezed out at the first hurdle and everything goes to Capita or Serco regardless of past incompetence because they are the only two companies who can afford to tender.
On a side note, does anybody know the name of the old man/peer/Lord fellow whom Kay Burley patronised/ spoke to like a deaf old man once? It was at a party conference I think. I'm just showing mum Burley's history of hilarious screw ups and I can't find that one.
Although, not so keen on this one. Where Ms Burley decides to turn the spotlight on that political and intellectual heavyweight Peter Andre: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6tnxz18sFI
Or, how about this compilation, in which Ms Burley utters the stunning phrase to friends of a missing girl "We've spoken to the family, they don't expect to find her alive... would you like to say anything?": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vnj2M28pDi0
Comments
I think the bottom 2 photos are from big events and not the debates mentioned. And the top photos are several hours into debate.
Mind you I am interested in politics, but I swear that if ever I need a nap in the afternoon I put the Parliament Channel on, and really try to get into whatever they're saying, usually takes about 5 minutes to doze off.
What I do remember about my pre-nap ritual is that the chamber(s) are very sparsely attended. Very.
I often think if anybody appears to be on zero hours contracts, it's the MP's.
The fact is most people are completely unaware of how Parliament and Government actually operates. Ask someone to describe the lifetime of a Bill or how a motion is tabled and they will probably not know the answer. Most MPs do constituency work after Wednesday and most will also have work outside of being an MP. If you're a minister then you spend even less of your time in the chamber unless the debate is regarding your department.
The bottom left photo is a vote on university fees. The bottom right is the first day of new Parliament in 2010.
SethPlum - the article also covers your comment about watching Parliament live.
It's a difficult balance between time spent in debates and time spent doing other work, but these photos taken out of context do not help.
And then there's the Building Societies.
If you feel as if your bank is rubbish - move to another one! (I use three different banks and none of them are what you'd call "high street names".
Take Gordon Brown, for example, (chosen not entirely randomly) who has spoken in the House seven times since last summer. The topics were Nigeria; international development; Scotland three times; trading relations with Europe; and lastly, on 26 March merely saying thank you for having me and the cleaners and catering staff have been great. There have also been three written questions on nuclear waste in Fife. I'm not entirely convinced that his constituents have been getting value for money.
Mind you following on from their previous laughable campaigns I suppose it counts as progress. This is hugely entertaining. https://mervyndinnen.wordpress.com/2013/06/06/the-bank-that-doesnt-like-to-say-natyes/
Socialism is about eliminating competition not improving it, so a bit confused why a left wing politician would fly a flag for it.
Cronyism is nothing to do with capitalism, it's the domain of ministers and civil servants as a route to lucrative work in the private sector. Eliminate capitalism and the cronyism just gets you the plum job within the State machinery.
You don't end cronyism by bashing the businesses, you bash the civil servants and ministers that makes it impossible to get a contract unless you know who pulls the strings and find out whether you will get the contract. Spending £30m to put a tender together without any guarantee that you will get the contract means you have to employ an ex minister or civil servant who can pull the right strings.
The public sector's procurement process is why there is no competition amongst service providers. The public sector is unable to procure a supply of tea and biscuits without suppliers having to complete an online form, which being an approved departmental standard, is the same as that completed for a £30bn PFI contract. Competition is squeezed out at the first hurdle and everything goes to Capita or Serco regardless of past incompetence because they are the only two companies who can afford to tender.
Here she is introducing Zayn Malik (Zayn Malik, right? One Directioner) as part of the debate this week:
http://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/kay-burley-introduces-zayn-malik-to-david-cameron-during-battle-for-number-10-gaffe-10138126.html
I love this one too... "you seem to be a bit dim, if you don't mind me saying..." and "don't say what you don't know, Madam":
Although, not so keen on this one. Where Ms Burley decides to turn the spotlight on that political and intellectual heavyweight Peter Andre:
Or, how about this compilation, in which Ms Burley utters the stunning phrase to friends of a missing girl "We've spoken to the family, they don't expect to find her alive... would you like to say anything?":