You are here: Home » Comment »

PMQs verdict: David Cameron’s Mega-Shambles

April 18, 2012 12:38 pm

Author:

Anthony Painter

Tags:

Share this Article

If the Budget is an ‘omni-shambles’ then David Cameron’s performance at Prime Minister’s Questions was a mega-shambles. Something definitely has changed. The Tory forced laughter is more forced. The Prime Minster’s lack of a grip on the detail is more obvious. And George Osborne’s calamitous Budget is a renewable energy source for Her Majesty’s Opposition. It’s not getting any better for Cameron.

Faced with a series of questions about the Budget’s impact, the Prime Minister was simply all over the place. He tried parliamentary process as a defensive strategy. That failed. So he tried having a pop at Labour’s candidate for Mayor of London. It just sounded rather off-topic. He then decided to go for political commentary by raising the Bradford West by-election. It was all pretty desperate stuff.

The one thing he didn’t want to talk about was the Budget – it’s easy to understand why.

What was most amusing about this performance were the back passes which fell short giving Ed Miliband a couple of easy goals. In order to avoid talking about the Budget, he decided to raise today’s jobs figures instead. Good news indeed. But it shows how desperate things have become that while youth unemployment is over a million, the Prime Minister sees this as a big political win. Miliband framed George Osborne as the ‘part-time Chancellor’ today. It’s only a matter of time until people start to notice a flapping Prime Minister too.

At one point Cameron even brought up the fuel ‘strike’ that wasn’t. It suggests either a staggering degree of political disconnection to think that people don’t blame his Government for that whole situation or it further speaks of the political toxicity of his Chancellor’s Budget that he resorts to raising the ‘strike’. Times are a-changing. The Conservative collapse in polls has knocked the Prime Minister off balance it would appear.

It was an easy win for Miliband – the easiest he’s had. The Government is on its heels. It’s making mistakes. Authority is draining and the Prime Minister is, for the first time, visibly floundering. Miliband needs to be aware that it won’t remain this easy. The ‘what would you do?’ question is not going away. But for now he can score a few easy goals and bag a few wins. Stack up the points while you can. That’s what Ed Miliband did today. Job done.

jaime taurosangastre candelas

The budget debate seems to be continuing. Labour talk about 14,000 millionaires gaining a saving of £40,000 a year, the tories talk about highest rate taxpayers paying more than 5 times as much tax despite the 50p to 45p reduction.

This seems like a matter of simple mathematics. Can Labour prove there are 14,000 people earning £1 million or over per year, given that there is a huge distinction between millionaires and £1 million earners? I can believe there are 14,000 millionaires, but most of those have their wealth in houses or shares, so will not be gaining anything much from a reduction in income tax.

And what is the tory mathematics for the 5 times greater payment even after the cut?
- Brumanuensis
  
  I don’t know about the number of millionaires, but Full Fact did an analysis of the ’5x’ figure here: http://fullfact.org/factchecks/budget_tycoon_tax_Liberal_Democrats-6850
  - Hugh
    
    That would basically seem to suggest the claim Jaime referred to is broadly true.
    - Peter Barnard
      
      @ Hugh,
      
      What claim (of Jaime’s)?
      
      He asked a question about “14,000 millionaires,” by-the-by saying that he didn’t think there are 14,000 people earning £one million plus in the country.
      
      See my comment citing HMRC Table 3.3.
      - Winston_from_the_Ministry
        
        Isn’t there a difference between millionaires and earning £1m a year?
      - Peter Barnard
        
        @ Winston,
        
        Yes, there is a a difference between a millionaire and someone earning £1m a year, but Jaime was appearing to doubt that there are 14,000 people earning £1 million and over a year and I was responding to that doubt.
      - trotters1957
        
        One third of them are bankers.
        True.
      - Winston_from_the_Ministry
        
        Don’t worry Peter, not trying to catch anyone out, just wondered what the definition was.
        
        Doesn’t seem that suprising to me.
      - Peter Barnard
        
        Thanks, Winston – I appreciate the good tone of your comment.
      - Hugh
        
        Sorry, I meant the claim he attributed to the Tories, who “talk about highest rate taxpayers paying more than 5 times as much tax despite the 50p to 45p reduction”.
        
        That’s clearly not true, but I think he probably meant “paying five times as much extra as they will save from the income tax reduction” – which does appear to be broadly true.
      - Dave Postles
        
        Speculative because:
        1 Do we actually know how much the 5% would have raised in 2011-12 because £16bn was brought forward to avoid the tax and the calculation was produced within a few months of the final date for tax payments? The figure produced by the government has been viewed circumspectly.
        2 There is a year before the Stamp Duty is introduced, I believe, so we should expect some more bringing forward to avoid it. In the meantime, accountants, tax experts, and estate agents will be concentrating on avoidance – like selling houses for just below £2m (perhaps with hidden payments to compensate). It’s basically another capitulation by the LibDems from an unavoidable mansion tax to an avoidable Stamp Duty.
      - Hugh
        
        The figure wasn’t produced by the government but the OBR, I think; likewise the Stamp Duty. They may turn out to be wrong, but they’re not partial. They would also have to be very wrong to upset the overall story: a higher tax take from the rich.
      - Dave Postles
        
        ‘The figure produced by the government has been viewed circumspectly.’
        
        It was produced by the Treasury – the £100m which they claimed was all that the 5% achieved.
        
        On the rest, we shall see. Should the tax take for the 5% actually be higher, then the prospective multiple will be lower, even without avoidance of Stamp Duty.
      - Hugh
        
        “It was produced by the Treasury – the £100m which they claimed was all that the 5% achieved”
        
        With the help, checking and endorsement of the OBR.
        
        p50 of the budget:
        
        Heading: “Budget 2012 policy decisions(1)”
        
        Entry 3: “Income tax: reduce additional rate to 45p in 2013-14…. -100 [million].”
        
        Footnote (1): “Costings reflect the OBR’s latest economic and fiscal determinants.”
        
        cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/budget2012_complete.pdf
      - Dave Postles
        
        I’ve no idea what that footnote means – do you? Was the OBR involved in going through the figures with the Treasury bods? Or does it mean that the OBR checked some modelling? We know that the original Treasury estimates were based on modelling of the income and avoidance (the level of avoidance in their original estimates was based on modelling). Still, as you wish.
      - Dave Postles
        
        So, supposing that £16bn had not been brought forward, what would the tax take of the 5% have been? It’s time that the Treasury answered that one. It’s also time that they revisited the figure of the actual tax take, instead of their rapid calculation.
      - Dave Postles
        
        As to the OBR, does it not simply check the figures provided to it by the Treasury to validate them?
      - Hugh
        
        As far as I know if came out with its own estimate on the 50p rate. Either way, it doesn’t really change the fact that those are figures it is happy with.
      - Dave Postles
        
        I think you are wrong. The Treasury worked out the figure for the income from 45%-50%. How can the OBR not be happy with those figures? It has no independent means of checking them. It has to accept the figures which are produced by the Treasury. If you want the figure for the 50% rate, then the Treasury estimated that the gross income of 40%-50% would accrue an estimate of £2.9bn p.a. (I believe), but that, making allowance for avoidance, it might be only £1.2bn p.a. – but the allowance for avoidance was ‘modelled’. So the original Treasury estimate was for a gross income of over 12bn over five years. Osborne wished to remove the 50% tax altogether, I understand, but Clegg and Cameron argued against that. The evidence so far is that the OBR has been repeatedly wrong, perhaps because of its dependence on Treasury figures. My comment is an inexpert speculation, of course, only informed by what I read in the papers.
      - Hugh
        
        “How can the OBR not be happy with those figures? It has no independent means of checking them. It has to accept the figures which are produced by the Treasury.”
        
        The OBR itself begs to differ:
        
        “We have four main roles… [one of which is] We scrutinise the Treasury’s costing of Budget measures: During the run-up to Budgets and other policy statements, we subject the Government’s draft costings of tax and spending measures to detailed challenge and scrutiny. We then state in the EFO and the Treasury’s costing documents whether we endorse the costings that the Government finally publishes as reasonable central estimates.”
        
        http://budgetresponsibility.independent.gov.uk/about-the-obr/what-we-do/
      - Dave Postles
        
        I take all that as simply confirming that the OBR looks at the figures provided by the Treasury. What can it do about them? It does not, as far as I am aware, have access to the Treasury’s datasets. Perhaps I am wrong – I probably am. OTOH, the OBR has not so far covered itself with glory. There doesn’t seem to be much point in pursuing this point. I certainly do not have the technical knowledge, but can only comment from what I read in the papers. I do not know about your expertise. Since I’ve been denounced as a pedant or worse, there seems no point in my discussing such matters. I’m giving it a rest.
    - Brumanuensis
      
      Well, that’s what the projection claims.
      
      The reality, I suspect, may prove different. I don’t, for one thing, buy the idea that stamp duty is somehow harder to avoid than income tax. And given the OBR’s general record, I wouldn’t trust them to predict the result of an egg-and-spoon race.
      - Hugh
        
        No offence, but I’m not sure there’s great cause to take your projections over theirs.
        
        Either way, we do come up against the fact that the government’s ‘friends of the rich’ budget is independently forecast to get significantly more money from them.
- Peter Barnard
  
  @ Jaime,
  
  “Millionaires” – refer to HMRC table 3.3 (Distribution of total income before and after tax, 2009-10).
  
  HMRC estimate that 16,000 individuals had incomes of £1,000,000 and over in fiscal 2009-10. Aggregate income was £38.5 billion (a mean of £2.4 million) and aggregate tax paid was £13.4 billion (= 29 per cent effective rate) and a 5 per cent reduction in the top rate will reduce average tax paid by an average of about £110,000, ie an aggregate reduction of about £1.8 billion.
  - trotters1957
    
    The rich may pay 25% of all income tax but income tax only accounts for 25% of all taxation received.
    
    Lies, damn lies etc.
    - Peter Barnard
      
      Trotters,
      
      Actually, I didn’t touch on the subject of what proportion of the whole (of income tax paid), but you are (nearly) correct : OBR forecasts £155 billion in income tax out of a total of £569 billion (= 27 per cent).
      
      And, of course, taxes on consumption, and use (eg road vehicle duty and council tax) bear down more heavily, in proportion, on low earners than on high earners.
      - trotters1957
        
        I was just trying to use simple figures for the Tory boneheads on here, Peter.
        
        In fact the easiest tax for the wealthy to avoid is National Insurance. Dividends paid in lieu of salary by company directors are tax free at the basic rate and avoid all employees and employer NI.
        
        A simple way to rectify this anomaly/loophole would be to resurrect the investment income surcharge but don’t hold your breath that this government would do the right thing.
        Their attempts at preventing avoidance and evasion are a joke.
      - Peter Barnard
        
        My mistake, Trotters – I’m sorry, I’ve forgotten the name that you used to use before LL went Disqus – from Lache, aren’t you?
        
        Agree with your last sentence, wholeheartedly. Indeed, it’s not in the modern Conservative DNA to increase taxes on “wealth-creating and entrepreneurial high earners” and all this “five times as much” is nonsense.
        
        What we are seeing is smoke and mirrors …
      - trotters1957
        
        Its Paul Hillyard, Peter.
        The best tax blog around is Richard Murphy’s at Taxresearch.com
        
        He’s brilliant.
      - Peter Barnard
        
        Thanks, Paul. Your first name came to me as I was rattling the grey cells around while walking the dog.
        
        Don’t mention Richard Murphy in the presence of ”our guests” : red rag, bull an’ all that …
      - trotters1957
        
        He’s a tax extremist but very difficult to argue against.
        I think sometimes though he forgets that the tax system is not just about tax, it’s also about encouraging certain types of behaviour and is deeply political.
        He see’s the world in black and white.
      - Hugh
        
        “A simple way to rectify this anomaly/loophole would be to resurrect the investment income surcharge”
        
        How does that work?
      - trotters1957
        
        Dividends were treated as unearned or investment income along with rents and bank interest.
        The investment income surcharge was levied to equalise earned income and unearned income, as unearned didn’t attract NI.
        
        The tax system effectively favours unearned income and encourages rents, dividends and interest as opposed to the real wealth creators who work and pay income tax and NI.
        
        It’s one of the main reasons why we have such an unbalanced economy. Sitting on your arsexx doing nothing is more tax efficient than going out to work.
        A scroungers charter for the wealthy.
      - Hugh
        
        Thanks, that’s helpful.
  - http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZPXYLRVP4XOIGGDJWAL6HUO7U4 David
    
    Peter, thanks for the facts there. I’m not clear if it’s your assumption or HMRC’s, but doesn’t the assumption that moving from 50% -> 45% = 5% of total tax take on a group with an aggregate 29% tax rate (i.e. in a situation where plainly most are apparently not using simple PAYE arrangements and therefore one can assume are not paying the 50% at present) not look a little optimistic/naive?
    - Peter Barnard
      
      Thanks, David.
      
      My calculation was very “theoretical” ; with a salary of £2.4 million, the 50 per cent rate should apply to about £2.2 million of income (ie everything above £150,000) and 5 per cent of £2.2 million = £110,000.
      
      Obviously, people at these levels are using every fiscal device that they and their accountants can find to reduce the amount of personal income tax payable, to the extent that the Chancellor was “shocked” to find that some of them were only paying an effective tax rate of 10 per cent or thereabouts.
      - GuyM
        
        So in other words the 50% rate was almost an irrelevance then?
  - GuyM
    
    Most people with “income” of over £1,000,000 won’t be going through PAYE for the majority of it, so the figures are highly speculative.
    - trotters1957
      
      Bankers bonuses do, don’t they?
      Prey, tell us how they avoid it, I’m all ears.
      - Hugh
        
        Pray tell.
      - trotters1957
        
        I know, I just wonder if he knows.
      - Peter Barnard
        
        Usual bulls*it from Mr M, Paul.
        
        According to Budget 2012 (Table D4), of the £155 billion estimated in income taxes, £133 billion will be collected PAYE and just £22 billion from self-assessment, ie PAYE collects 86 per cent of all income tax.
      - jaime taurosangastre candelas
        
        I interpreted GuyM’s point a different way. I think what he is saying is that a large proportion of the income the £1 million and over club get comes from sources not ever liable to PAYE income tax, e.g. dividends, interest, etc (I don’t myself get any of these things, so my knowledge of tax avoidance is very small).
        
        So your figures above, while undoubtedly correct, do not show the full picture. It may well be that one of these £1 million people pays PAYE on only £149,999 as “salary”, and takes the rest in other types of non-PAYE income at a reduced rate of tax.
        
        You’d have to ask Ken Livingstone for a more informed opinion though.
      - GuyM
        
        That was exactly my point Jaime.
        
        There is no reason why most millionaires need take the majority of their income as “income” rather than dividends etc.
        
        That applies to footballers, BBC stars, civil servants and Ken Livingstone as well it seems.
        
        You point about only taking £149,000 as income is correct as well. I believe there was a story recently about how much tax Blair paid, with suggestions he did much the same.
        
        As I understand it accountant advice would be to use up personal allowances and then have income paid as dividends and the like.
        
        I did it when consulting (including with the NHS) as did most of the consultants I managed over the years. It’s standard practice…. as Ken Livingstone proved.
      - Peter Barnard
        
        @ Jaime,
        
        So from whom does the £133 billion collected via PAYE come ?
      - jaime taurosangastre candelas
        
        @ Peter B,
        
        well, from all of us. Unless I am being stupid, the £1 million peoples’ taxes are accounted for in both PAYE + Self Assessment (i.e. Income tax, at whatever rate), and various other more “efficient” sources of income that are collected at lower rates, e.g. dividends.
        
        If it was not possible for the £1 million people to do this, you would see a greater sum than £133 billion collected in PAYE, and a lesser sum collected in other non-PAYE taxes. The difference represents the “tax efficiency”.
        
        What that difference may actually be I have no idea, but the Revenue people would collect more if 100% of income was subject to PAYE.
        
        I’m not trying to be argumentative on this, it is my understanding of how the system works. I do know that my wife (a partner in a private vet practice) pays a lot less of her income in PAYE and Self Assessment than I do, as a %. She has a clever accountant, and earns about double my salary. I am unwilling to broach this with her as a moral point however, for 3 reasons.
        
        1. She is a tory, and will spit in my eye.
        
        2. It is all perfectly legal.
        
        3. I will be in that delightful English phrase “off games” for months. She will show me the red card, and wear the Victorian nightgown that goes down to her ankles.
      - Peter Barnard
        
        Jaime,
        
        According to ONS (Annual Abstract 2011, table 19.2), employee compensation was £800 billion in 2010.
        
        Note the word “employee.” As far as I am aware, all employees are subject to PAYE – they can’t escape it.
        
        “Mixed income” (which is basically self-employed and sole traders) in the same period was worth £81 billion in the same period. This generated “self-assessed” tax of £22 billion in 2010-11.
        
        Onshore Corporation tax generated £36 billion in 2010-11. Much of this would have been via the FTSE-350 companies.
        
        I really don’t want to get into an endless argument/semantics on this, but it would be nice – for once – if you and the execrable Mr M would come up with some numbers to support your assertions on this.
      - jaime taurosangastre candelas
        
        @ Peter B,
        
        that sounds a little confrontational. All I am saying is that in my observation, and in what is widely reported in the media, very rich people use all sorts of schemes to reduce their overall effective amount of tax. I don’t know how much that costs the Revenue across every taxpayer, but it is a cost.
        
        If you want me to “prove” what seems self-evident, I’m not going to play that game.
        
        As far as “for once” is concerned, I do believe that where I am trying to prove a point, I have a track record of putting out figures. you may take issue with them, that is another matter, but I am not shy in producing figures, with a link, and to a reputable source. I cannot speak for others, but am dismayed that you do not acknowledge my efforts.
      - http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZPXYLRVP4XOIGGDJWAL6HUO7U4 David
        
        The insurance industry, and this is seen increasingly commonly in banking, will pay bonuses in the form of shares, some of which have restrictions on when they can be redeemed to ensure a “tie-in” for the employee.
        
        I am no accountant, but I would not be surprised if these methods of payment cannot be dealt with by PAYE (which is a truly archaic system that cannot even take into account for a person having two sources of income I understand – hence the ongoing issues governments of all colours have with collection), and quite possibly would be subject to capital gains or dividend taxation rules, neither of which relate to the 50%/45% top rate of income tax.
      - trotters1957
        
        Yes, David, that is one way that bonuses are dealt with by the bankers.
        They use Discretionary Employee Benefit Trusts which “loan” money to the employee to buy shares in the company. At a later date the loan is written off. The sale of the shares is liable to capital gains tax at much lower rates of tax and free of NI.
        This is the way that Stephen Hester of RBS was to receive his contentious bonus recently.
        
        There are several other ways.
  - GuyM
    
    In addition, you can’t see the dichotomy of thinking that the 50% tax rate was effective whilst stating “29 per cent effective rate” on millionaires income?
    
    Do you also not think that 29% rate looks remarkably close to capital gains rates?
    
    You don’t think…. shock horror…. that millionaires were managing income,, tax reliefs and avoidance measures to bring their effective income tax rates to capital gains tax levels before switching income to divident payments?
    
    Surely not….. not the sort of thing Tony Blair and Ken Livingstone might do is it….. is it Peter?
  - jaime taurosangastre candelas
    
    @ Peter Barnard and @ Hugh,
    
    I forgot to say “thank you” in a lower post for your data and insight on this. We all learn everyday. 16,000 greater than £1 million earners in the country. I’m surprised, but the data is what the data is.
aracataca

My local MP Jonathan Djanogly has refused to say whether he will benefit from the reduction in the top rate of tax (which of course is code for yes he will). The Tory millionaires’ cabinet have awarded themselves up to £40,000 extra a year while making pensioners and disabled children pay a full and exacting price.
It’s disgraceful and the PM and the Chancellor and all the rest of them should hang their heads in shame
- treborc1
  
  With all due respect so will the Liberal and labour millionaires.
  - aracataca
    
    Maybe I don’t know but all Labour MPs will be voting against the proposed reduction in the top rate of tax. The Tories and Fib Dems will of course be voting in favour of the reduction this afternoon. That’s the difference.
    - treborc1
      
      So then why is it labour attacked the poorest when they were in power not the richest, the problem I have with labour most of the stuff they moan about they either did them selves or were going to do.
      
      The crises came in 2007 hit home in 2008 remind me when did labour slap on the 50p tax rate, I suspect just before they left silly notes about leaving no money.
      
      Question if labour had not been close to an election, would they have put up the higher rate of tax to 50% I very much doubt it.
      - keggsie
        
        What Labour did or didn’t do is past history. It’s now irrelevant. What matters is what they are going to do when they are next in Government. Stop harping on about the past. Learn from it.
      - AlanGiles
        
        Just as long as the party do as well, surely?. Or will it be more of the same?
        
        It is all very well for example for the Opposition to lay into the Coalition about the Freud Welfare Reform plans – but never forget it was the 2009 Labour government that set the process in motion, and loriginally gave Freud the opportunity to wreak havoc - and Byrne says he “supports three quarters” of that bill.
        
        Great if they really do learn from the past, but given Byrne’s remark you do have to wonder.
      - keggsie
        
        I agree but New Labour are all but dead now. Byrne is on his way out.
      - AlanGiles
        
        We can but hope! – but the problem is there are plenty of misguided people, not least on LL, who would love to return to Blairism and New Labour.
      - keggsie
        
        I started to believe that New Labour people were simply entryists like Militant. Their recent antics still maintains that view. They should do the decent thing and go before they are pushed.
      - http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone
        
        There has definitely been a sea-change. New Labour preferred to engage with the electorate via Murdoch. They no longer have that option and are realising they need the membership to help deal with the electorate directly and to endow the Party with non-Oxbridge credibility.
        
        It’ll take a little time but the mood is changing. We won’t be ignored or pushed around for much longer.
      - treborc1
        
        Murdock may well return to labour now to show he is unbiased and labour will use it as they did before. lets hope James does not have any more children, the rush to be the good father would be interesting
      - treborc1
        
        New labour are all but dead, let me remind you about Miliband view on the pension strike as people fight to keep a decent income in retirement, the strike is wrong.
        
        Let me remind you that labour have said they will hold public sector wages down.
        
        I know a man who is disabled, but it was obvious he could do something.
        
        The way you end a party is not by removing a line from the internet address but by policies, but sadly labour is unable to do that in case the Tories pinch it
      - treborc1
        
        I cannot forget the past it still affecting me, and affecting millions of others.
        
        History rubbish Newer labour are the same party, Miliband is still going on about Welfare reforms the squeezed middle, it’s still new labour for god sake.
      - keggsie
        
        I understand how you feel. I rejoined the party when Ed was elected leader.
        
        The only thing I can say is you have to start trusting again as I am. If he is still New Labour then that’s me finished with the party for good, but I don’t believe he is.
      - aracataca
        
        This is supposition.No one knows what Labour would have done had there not been an election. However, it is a fact and not supposition to say that every Labour MP voted against the cut in the 50p rate today while every Tory and Fib Dem MP voted in favour of it many knowing that they would personally benefit from the cut.
      - Dave Postles
        
        LibDems That snake Simon Hughes earlier in the week defended the budget complaining that Labour had done nothing to prevent tax avoidance, but that Osborne would. Hughes conveniently forgets that Labour introduced two detailed consultation papers on a GAAR (1998 and 2006), to which the Tories and their clients objected. Does Hughes really believe that Osborne will introduce a GAAR of any significance. It’s just total cant from the LibDems again.
      - aracataca
        
        The man ( Hughes) is beneath contempt.
      - treborc1
        
        No he’s not he’s a politician
- Dave Postles
  
  What about Djanolgy and the legal aid reforms? What’s happening about the inquiry?
- GuyM
  
  Can you explain why in 13 years of government Labour only increased the top rate 87 days before the 2010 election?
  
  Tax rates shold be based upon likely income, international competitiveness and incentives not to avoid (i.e. laffer’esque issues), not on the basis that you or anyone else don’t like rich people or think no one should earn that much (i.e. the current French election).
  
  Pensioners are paying nothing more, they are having allowances temporarily frozen. “Fiscal drag”, an old favourite of Gordon Brown… which of course you were always against when he used it year after year?
  - http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone
    
    “Can you explain why in 13 years of government Labour only increased the top rate 87 days before the 2010 election?”
    
    Because we knew the Tories were so cack-handed they’d wouldn’t be able to stop themselves from abolishing it and, in doing so, shoot themselves in both feet.
    
    Soon after the budget you claimed all the fuss would be quickly forgotten but here you are, still banging on about it and perpetuating the discussion.
    
    Where did it all go wrong? Probably when the inept Tories employed advisers of the same calibre as those who ask: “Can you explain why in 13 years of government Labour only… etc. etc. etc.”
    - Bill Lockhart
      
      So a guiding principle of Labour fiscal policy in government is to leave political traps for its successors…I see. That explains a great deal about Labour governments’ economic performance since the War.
      - http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone
        
        You don’t want to be worrying your pretty little head about that, there’s nothing particularly pragmatic about the Tory approach to the economy – it’s entirely ideological.
        
        What we’ve got is Maggie running on empty.
      - Peter Barnard
        
        @ Dave S,
        
        ” … Maggie running on empty.”
        
        Maybe not ; she would have taken Mr Maude’s advice and filled up a jerry-can or two …?
      - http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone
        
        She did. But Maggie Mk. 2 doesn’t have sufficient North Sea reserves to fill a Maggie-sized jerry-can.
      - Bill Lockhart
        
        Labour’s creation of a limitless structural deficit in order to create a public sector payroll vote was certainly pragmatic. It was also catastrophic for the country.
      - treborc1
        
        Lucky Thatcher did not leave any traps for the Labour party.
derek

Ed Balls raised a point of order at the end of PMQ’s, asking the PM to clarify the amount the 50p tax rate collected? So why did the PM take to his heels and run away from answering the point of order?If the PM wants to run away every time a question is asked then why doesn’t he just call a general election and he can run as far away as possible.
- treborc1
  
  I think he was glad to get out, it was a nightmare all around really, but labour did not have any winning, when talking about pensioners money of course Cameron replied from a Government which gave the pensioners 75p .
  
  But of course labour then gave the pensioners the cold weather allowance to placate them, what will the Tories do in the coming years because pensioners can win/lose elections for parties these days.
  
  All in all I think it was pretty much another PMQs to sleep through
  - derek
    
    He seems to just run away from most things nowadays. He goes to European summits, throws the towel in and runs away.When asked about the economy and jobs he just replies with quaint jibes.75P pathetic rise and takes £320 on tax from pensioners, food costs and energy cost rise.Flashman! is the worst PM this country has ever had the misfortune to be represented by.
    - Hugh
      
      ”He goes to European summits, throws the towel in and runs away.”
      
      Ah, yes, what a difference to the Labour years of hard-nosed EU negotiation.
      - http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone
        
        Tory supporters aren’t impressed – that’s why they’re defecting to UKIP.
      - Hugh
        
        Yes, that’s right. You’ll notice they’re not defecting to Labour. Did we ever hear whether Ed would have signed?
      - http://twitter.com/HarryThompson11 Harry Thompson
        
        You’ll note that nearly half of Liberal Democrat voters have defected to Labour. Tory voters who defect to UKIP would obviously not defect to Labour (being intolerant of all other cultures and everything)
      - Hugh
        
        ”You’ll note that nearly half of Liberal Democrat voters have defected to Labour.”
        
        Yes, and Lib Dems are fairly europhile. I’m grateful for these efforts in helping substantiate my point that it’s hard to argue Labour are harder nosed negotiators in the EU than the Tories.
      - derek
        
        Isn’t it about getting around the table and negotiating your position as opposed to Cameron’s position of refusing to talk and negotiate on Britain’s behalf ?
      - http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone
        
        That’s correct. Cameron’s non-veto left the situation unchanged – he performed only for the media, had a two week bounce and now even his own MPs are tiring of his ineptitude.
        http://order-order.com/2012/04/11/toryukip-defection-runners-and-riders/
      - Hugh
        
        I’m still slightly struggling to see how Labour’s going to make political capital out of an issue where their own position is a secret.
      - http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone
        
        Ed doesn’t need to do anything – Cameron’s destroying himself.
      - Hugh
        
        The polling on Europe suggests otherwise.
      - Hugh
        
        Miliband’s position on this would be what, exactly?
      - derek
        
        Not to run away from negotiations and hard talk but to be present and clear on direction.
      - geedee0520
        
        So would he sign the treaty (or agreement or whatever it was) or not?
      - Hugh
        
        And what direction would that be for Ed?
      - treborc1
        
        Use his political sat nav
      - Hugh
        
        Well, he was good at triangulation.
      - keggsie
        
        UKIP is the Tories natural ally really. Why would they defect to Labour.
- GuyM
  
  Perhaps because he hates Balls, thinks he is a joke and can’t be bothered wasting time on his stupid questions?
jonathanmorse

Blair would argue politics, Brown and Ed M don’t, the current PLP seem only in it to attack the Tories, not interested in winning elections. If you win elections, or are on a campaign to win an election, you have to toe the party line which has to be electable policy which most of the current MP’s in seats we’re never going to lose don’t care for. They don’t want to be back in power. I keep saying this but now because I don’t understand why they didn’t defend Ken Livingstone’s company, which was set up years ago when corporation tax law didn’t make it easy to use companies to avoid paying tax, so it wasn’t set up as Dave claimed to avoid tax, back in the old days Ken would have put this to bed on day 2 of the argument so maybe I’m missing something, but when the company was set up I understood it was so his income and tax affairs would be transparent, in that his company records would have to be published and certified by an accountant, which was much more than anyone else was doing.

Angela Eagle said as a by the way on the Daily Poliitcs that the Treasury had suggested the pasty tax when they were in office and they rejected it. If Ed M had really wanted to win the next GE this could be a successful point they could make but ed’s held back by a PLP that’s enjoying safe opposition.

Your suggesting the Tories lost it. I think dave has changed policies, has the same advisor as Boris, is going for the attack even if facts are a bit weak, and winning because he knows even if Ed would like to win the next GE his party don’t.

I think a cautious welcome of one employment figure, not the one the Tories critizied Labour for when they were in opposition, might have been a better start.
- Hugh
  
  ”Ken Livingstone’s company, which was set up years ago when corporation
  tax law didn’t make it easy to use companies to avoid paying tax, so it
  wasn’t set up as Dave claimed to avoid tax,”
  
  Can you elaborate on that? Wasn’t Silvetta set up in 2008? What’s changed? Surely the benefits of splitting earnings 50/50 with your wife, taking dividends rather than a salary and spreading earnings over a number of years are all roughly the same.
  - treborc1
    
    I like ken always have, he is one of those people who will chat to you, look at you, not like some others like Brown speak to you while looking for his next move. I like Ken as a person and as a labour politician, but like all politicians they can be the most stupid group of people on earth.
    
    Does not matter when he set up the tax avoidance, it has damaged him he has to hope that people will not bother and vote for him, but he really should have known better.
- Dave Postles
  
  For crying out loud, don’t resuscitate Blair on the day when we read that the Kuwaitis are investigating £27m paid to him by the Kuwaiti government in 2009 for ‘advice’ and on the same day when Tom Clark reveals that it was Blair who every year requested an ‘initiative’ on welfare (The Guardian, ‘Society’). The words ‘Blair’ are the shortest suicide note in the future.
  - derek
    
    @Dave Postles, Blair is beyond the pale.£27m there’s got to be an enquiry, surely the hand which rests in justice should fall heavily on his shoulder.
    - Dave Postles
      
      Derek: ‘Blair is beyond the pale.’
      
      No, I think that you’ll find that he still has the orange tan.
      - derek
        
        LoL @Dave, Jeez! Id like to tango him to. Truly shocking.
      - Dave Postles
        
        Hahaha.
      - treborc1
        
        Hearing now that Jack is saying rendition was not his problem, how was he to know what the secret service were doing, it was secret.
        
        Now we are hearing rendition was signed off from the top, I can see a bitter battle coming up between labours hierarchy, saying it was not me it was him, no no it was him he did it.
        
        Boy we all knew this would come back to haunt labour.
      - Alexwilliamz
        
        If DM gets fingered then we will know we picked the right horse after all. The potential rendition issue was the pragmatic reason not to have DM as leader, although there were other reasons too.
      - AlanGiles
        
        Uncle Jack I heard on the news last night will be interviewed by the police. Straw claims that the Secret service “didn’t tell him everything” but it would be hard to believe they didn’t tell him about something as serious as this.
        
        So many of Blair’s friends end up down at the police station……
      - treborc1
        
        And the people will ask do we want this lot back
jonathanmorse

somebody raised the issue of postal votes, implying it was how Labour won seats like the last by-election, except we Galloway won I suspect mostly on student votes, as his second string was to oppose tuition fees which young votes like although this tory was implying the postal votes are ordered by the house holder and intercepted and voted in their place.
Steven Macari

It was terrible. I just wish Cameron would act like a grown up statesman and answer PM Questions. Surely he knows what his own party’s policy is and contents of the budget with reasons to be able to answer questions intelligently.
Mike Murray

Today, Cameron demonstrated what a totally inept politician he is. He was on course to get away without the petrol fiasco being mentioned. But he introduced the subject himself when he accused Ed of being in the pocket of Unite. This gave Ed a wonderful opportunity to turn on a sixpence and remind everybody of the shambles and panic that Cameron and Maude created without any justification. This only enhanced Ed’s brilliant performance.

The best joke was provided by the Labour MP who described Clegg as a broken arrow: he doesn’t work and Dave can’t fire him!

Cameron is now revealing what we all suspected about him: that under fire he is a headless chicken capable only of providing insults not answers. Meanwhile, the people bleed.
- billbat
  
  It is just a shame that when Dodgy Dave mentioned the Petrol Strike Ed didn’t manage to remind him of his boast that this would be his Thatcher Moment. Could have burst the Cameron bubble completely.
alexagiusuk

So Labour abstained on reducing the additional income tax rate from 50p to 45p 3 weeks ago because it wasn’t a big enough reduction for them!

Good luck with Labours attempt to the the additional income tax rate abbolished altogether tonight.
derek

Another point Cameron ran away from was George Galloway’s question on troops leaving Afghan, Cameron tried to make out George wasn’t supporting our troops but the truth is pulling troops out is protecting them from future losses.
- Dave Postles
  
  Afghanistan is a very worrying situation. US troops are behaving erratically and there is the prospect of another Mai Lai.
  - Bill Lockhart
    
    What, all of them?
    - Dave Postles
      
      Actually, I would have phrased it: ‘All US troops’ if that is what I had meant.
      - Erica Cowley
        
        You really are a boring and smug old pedant. How about another picture of a piece of machinery?
      - Dave Postles
        
        Lant trough.
  - treborc1
    
    America is good at Vietnam’s and Afghanistan could turn out to be Tehran for America and the UK
billbat

How I wish that we show the video clips of a younger , slimmer and smugger Cameron as Leader of the Opposition complaining that he never got answers to his questions. Now we either get lies or bluster from Dodgy Dave. It was also interesting to see how badly his Backbenchers were at reading the planted questions. Great that Osborne now treats PMQ’s like attending a Funeral judging from his facial expressions.
GuyM

I think what you have is a Tory PM who actively loathes the Labour leader and doesn’t see any point being polite to him or answering his questions.

I can’t say I disagree much with that view.

I though Cameron won PMQs today, but then I would say that.

In the end it is a slanging match and who you’d rather have a drink with socially. I’d not want to spend 5 minutes in Milliband’s company so I’m all for Cameron to keep calling him pathetic and useless.
barsacq

Wekk then that’s a new source of renewable energy in the chamber. Prior to that it was the solar energy from all those elected members who think the sun shines out of it.
Peter Barnard

I really can’t be bothered, Jaime (“confrontational”). You put up the bl**dy numbers.

I suppose it was “self-evident” that there are 14,000 people with a net worth of £1 million, but you found it difficult to believe that there are 14,000 people with an income of £1 million a year.
treborc1

And that’s it your total Labour list comment how hilarious
- Dave Postles
  
  If you are referring to Ms Erica Cowley of Witney, she seems to have forgotten the processes by which Witney became famous for its cloth, so I have posted up a lant trough for her, which probably also reflects what she thinks of my comments.
Patricia Shepherd

I was quite shocked when I watched,cameron was just shouting and insulting like a bully in the playground ,really unacceptable behaviour.
Peter MacDonald

I watched some of PMQ’s yesterday and don’t agree that Ed Milliband “won” – and if he did, it certainly wasn’t an easy win – which as a Labour supporter, worries me.
Harriet Harman handles PMQ’s much better when she steps in for Ed. It’s a real shame, but admit it or not, Cameron is a better speaker, seems more at ease, and speaks more naturally at the dispatch box.
When Ed won the leadership, though he wasn’t my first choice I thought “he’ll grow into it” – but it’s so dispiriting to watch Cameron do so well – particularly when we have had so many examples of not only objectionable Tory policies to complain about – but also so many examples of ministerial incompetence – Theresa May supplying the latest example.
Please please PLEASE someone take Ed aside, teach him how to ask a question in PMQ’s (I hate it when he starts a question…..starts a question…..starts a question two or three times while waiting for members opposite to be quiet or pay attention – either wait until they calm down or shout over them for heaven’s sake!)
By suggesting that Ed Milliband is somehow “winning” at PMQ’s is very dangerous – because he’s not and the party needs to do something about it urgently!

Latest

News
Equal marriage – How every Labour MP voted at every stage of the bill

By Kirstin Hay

With much jubilation, the 3rd reading of the same-sex marriage bill passed the House of Commons last night, carried through on the weight of Labour votes, but how have individual MPs voted on this bill? In the 2nd reading of the equal marriage bill, Labour MP voting totals were: 217 – for 22 – against 14 – non-voters For the third reading 192 – for 14 – against 49 – non-voters —————————————————————- 192 Labour MPs who voted yes on 3rd reading (9 didn’t [...]
Read more →
News
Ed Miliband’s Google Speech – full text

Speaking at the Google Big Tent event Ed Miliband said (please note, Miliband spoke without notes, but this is the text released by the party): It is great to be here inside the Google Big Tent. My sons Daniel and Sam think I do a very boring job, so they will be excited when I tell them I appeared along with the “Killer Robots” and the “Captain of the Moonshots” at your sessions. I’d like to start by showing you [...]
Read more →
Comment Unions
The chutzpah of Peter Mandelson – and why we need more trade unionists

By Mark Seddon

Lord Mandelson, or Baron Mandelson of Foy, as he should be referred to since he was packed off to the House of Lords by a small cabal, recently accused the Unite union of ‘manipulating selection procedures’ in the Labour Party. He went on to warn Ed Miliband that this ‘stores up danger for a future Labour government’. Irony has always been in as short supply as sheer chutzpah has been plentiful with old Mandy – but since his faithful disciple [...]
Read more →
News
Cameron says no more EU-turns – Media roundup: May 22nd, 2013

Subscribers to our morning email get the best of LabourList – including the Media and blog round up – every weekday morning. If you were a subscriber you would have already received this in your inbox. You can sign up here. Cameron says no more EU-turns “After one of his most difficult weeks since becoming prime minister, David Cameron put in a polished and assured peformance on the Today programme this morning. The most notable line came on Europe, with Cameron [...]
Read more →
Featured
Miliband is off to speak to Google – but it’s not all about tax avoidance

By Mark Ferguson

Ed Miliband is speaking at the Google “Big Tent” event this morning, and as we noted earlier this week, he’s picking a bit of a fight with them over their tax affairs. Understandably, most of the press coverage in advance of Miliband’s speech (and presumably afterwards too) is about Google’s tax affairs. That’s in part due to David Cameron’s unwillingness to challenge his adviser, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt, when the two met earlier this week. The Downing Street media team [...]
Read more →

← previous next →

DOWNLOAD IT NOW: One Nation Labour – Debating the future

Signup to our daily email

Proudly sponsored by

LabourList Videos

Latest Posts

PMQs verdict: David Cameron’s Mega-Shambles

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

Latest

Equal marriage – How every Labour MP voted at every stage of the bill

Ed Miliband’s Google Speech – full text

The chutzpah of Peter Mandelson – and why we need more trade unionists

Cameron says no more EU-turns – Media roundup: May 22nd, 2013

Miliband is off to speak to Google – but it’s not all about tax avoidance

Email*
Forename
Surname