I didn't see PMQs today (too busy watching the cricket) but Labour's attitude to bankers' bonuses seems to be a little odd. They see them as a bottomless source of taxation that will pay for everything yet they complain when the bonuses are paid. The fact the the bonuses are on the way up should be taken as a sign that the economy is recovering.
I'd love to see a list of all the things that the tax on bonuses is going to be spent on.
If the Bankers have to wait 10 years to get their bonuses then Labour aren't going to get their hands on any bonus taxes.
Do you know from Camerons answer why two thirds of the children in poverty today come from families where at least one adult is in work, and why that figure rising?
Is it me or is there something fundamentally wrong with this question?
If living in poverty is defined as living on or below 60% of the average wage then surely there will always be the same % of the population living in poverty. By definition it surely cannot be rising?
Isn't it like complaining that 50% of the kids are below average intelligence?.
Just viewed this. Ed didn't come close to landing a single blow (and that's what PMQs is largely about). Who on earth advises him of the topics to bring up? He just sets himself up for failure.
Is it me or is there something fundamentally wrong with this question?
If living in poverty is defined as living on or below 60% of the average wage then surely there will always be the same % of the population living in poverty. By definition it surely cannot be rising?
Isn't it like complaining that 50% of the kids are below average intelligence?.
Take a business who's employees have had their salares frozen for a couple of years but the boardroom awarded themselves ruddy great pay increases. The average would have gone up and more of the lower paid jobs could fall into that category.
Had that same company frozen pay right across the board and got shot of a tier of managememt in a restructuring exercise the average salary would have gone down and miraculously those same people at the bottom might now no longer be below that threshold so wouldn't be classed as poor erven though they still earn the exact same amount , hence why I think it's a bloody stupid measure.
Just viewed this. Ed didn't come close to landing a single blow (and that's what PMQs is largely about). Who on earth advises him of the topics to bring up? He just sets himself up for failure.
Could it be Ed Balls.:rolleyes:
What I would like an answer to is that if Miliband gets his hands on every single banker's bonus. approximately how much would his be in cash terms and how far would it go on the "improvements" he wants to make. I would think it would not go very far.
This bankers bonus argument appears to be the Labour Party's answer to everything which is not a good sign we know when they left power after 13 years there was no cash left because Liam Byrne verified that in writing.
Guaranteed fully-paid jobs for all of Britain's 1m young unemployed
The reversal of legal aid changes
A national insurance holiday for small businesses
An economic stimulus package
New Houses
The 'bankers bonuses' won't be enough to cover all that lot.
As Ed Balls confimed a week or so back, if Labour got into power they would borrow more to finance their policies. The UK will be bankrupt by 2020 if they do.
Watched PMQ's last night. Ed's first question was fine and solid, a good base to move on from. He just wasn't expecting the reply and couldn't think on his feet (the same problem he's always had at PMQ's, and its been a good while now) and so both his second and third questions were completely pointless. He's always had the same problem, an inability to deal with a reply from Cameron he hasn't prepared for, he has a set script that he never leaves from. After over two years you'd think he'd have got better at this by now, but he never seems to change. His third question, where he stated if the government doesn't bring the amendments needed Labour would, was utterly pointless as Cameron had just said twice that they would do. If Cameron had said they were thinking about it or might not do (as Ed's little script said he would do) it would have worked, instead he looked an idiot.
Watched PMQ's last night. Ed's first question was fine and solid, a good base to move on from. He just wasn't expecting the reply and couldn't think on his feet (the same problem he's always had at PMQ's, and its been a good while now) and so both his second and third questions were completely pointless. He's always had the same problem, an inability to deal with a reply from Cameron he hasn't prepared for, he has a set script that he never leaves from. After over two years you'd think he'd have got better at this by now, but he never seems to change. His third question, where he stated if the government doesn't bring the amendments needed Labour would, was utterly pointless as Cameron had just said twice that they would do. If Cameron had said they were thinking about it or might not do (as Ed's little script said he would do) it would have worked, instead he looked an idiot.
What is odd is that sometimes Miliband's scripted responses rely on the premise that Cameron won't answer the question. Of course when Cameron does the unexpected and does provide an answer Miliband cannot think on his feet and therefore resorts to reading out his scripted response
How can Miliband win when Cameron refuses to answer the questions he asks him ?
According to your link he did it again yesterday when he once again twisted a question about social mobility to one about Labours school policies
Stepping up: There was certainly an element of brutality yesterday when David Cameron set about Labour's schools policies (he had been asked about social mobility but soon twisted it round to schools)
I wonder how Cameron would have fared if the Speaker had insisted he answered the question... because he obviously didn't have one.
How can Miliband win when Cameron refuses to answer the questions he asks him ?
According to your link he did it again yesterday when he once again twisted a question about social mobility to one about Labours school policies
Have you just started watching PMQs, Gummy? I thought you had been around awhile. "Twisting the question" is all part of the art form of the process.
Besides, Cameron did give a straight answer to the questions on banking reform, it's just that Miliband refused to listen and just kept repeating the point.
Paraphrasing it was:
M: "Will you introduce these reforms?"
C: "Yes"
M: "Can you confirm that you will because if you don't then we will"
Ed then mentions the "part time Chancellor" which is always a sign that he's lost for anything to say. It's always a mistake as that opens him up to taunts about Balls and their previous record at the Treasury.
I've never understood the "part time" criticism anyway. All Cabinet ministers are part time in their departmental job as they also have constituency and party responsibilities.
How can Miliband win when Cameron refuses to answer the questions he asks him ?
According to your link he did it again yesterday when he once again twisted a question about social mobility to one about Labours school policies
I wonder how Cameron would have fared if the Speaker had insisted he answered the question... because he obviously didn't have one.
As has already been pointed out earlier in the thread, Ed only asked three different questions and Cameron answered two of them. Contrary to what you may think Cameron is under no obligation to provide a direct answer to the questions put to him (one would have thought that if Gordon Brown taught the UK anything, it was that). The PM can talk on the subject, he can point out that the question itself is misguided, he can use the subject as a springboard to a different topic etc. etc. and he can, of course, answer the question directly is he so chooses. Considering that the primary objective for 95%+ of the questions is to embarrass him, deflecting questions is the obvious route to take.
I could be wrong on this but AFAIK the Speaker doesn't have the power to insist that a question is answered. He has the power to ensure that a question is put to the chamber and he has the power to terminate an answer. I would imagine that might have the power in extreme circumstances to ask for the question to be repeated but that's about it. The Speaker is to be seen as completely impartial. PMQ's is a political bunfight - were the Speaker to intervene on behalf of one party in the middle of that it would seriously damage his integrity.
How does Ed win? From a debating point of view by studying and learning from all the other opposition leaders who managed to maul a PM at question time. By asking the right questions, not the ones that inevitably end up with him having egg all over his face. By stopping this ridiculous habit of asking a question, getting an answer and then thundering on with the same scripted questions that assumed he wasn't going to get an answer - yesterday's PMQ's being a perfect example.
How does he win? He stops being quite so clueless when he's stopped in his tracks.
He's shown he can do it. There was a period sometime back of two or three weeks where he consistently had Cameron on the ropes. He never quite failed to land a knockout blow but there was enough evidence that with the right ammunition and the right approach he could definitely go toe to toe with the PM. Unfortunately, these days it's more likely that Cameron is the one with the ammunition.
Have you just started watching PMQs, Gummy? I thought you had been around awhile. "Twisting the question" is all part of the art form of the process.
Besides, Cameron did give a straight answer to the questions on banking reform, it's just that Miliband refused to listen and just kept repeating the point.
Paraphrasing it was:
M: "Will you introduce these reforms?"
C: "Yes"
M: "Can you confirm that you will because if you don't then we will"
Ed then mentions the "part time Chancellor" which is always a sign that he's lost for anything to say. It's always a mistake as that opens him up to taunts about Balls and their previous record at the Treasury.
I've never understood the "part time" criticism anyway. All Cabinet ministers are part time in their departmental job as they also have constituency and party responsibilities.
Osborne has a reputation for being somewhat hands-off. The polar opposite of Gove or IDS. I don't know whether the reputation is justified or not.
What is odd is that sometimes Miliband's scripted responses rely on the premise that Cameron won't answer the question. Of course when Cameron does the unexpected and does provide an answer Miliband cannot think on his feet and therefore resorts to reading out his scripted response
That's Camerons trump card, he knows Ed is heavily scripted in his questions, so he knows he'll regularly catch Ed off guard with a reply. Recently this has become evident again, especially this PMQ's. Ed's second questions was in essence a repeat of the first, and his third was completely pointless and so gave Cameron space to attack him.
At prime minister's questions Ed Miliband seized on figures from the Office for National Statistics, which showed a 64% increase in bonuses over the past year, to attack the prime minister for giving bankers a tax cut. The cut in the top rate of income tax from 50p to 45p was introduced in April.
Cameron said bonuses were a fifth of the size they were when under Labour was in power. Miliband retorted: "He cannot deny the figures I read out to him. He doesn't even know the facts. Bonuses are up so that people can take advantage of his massive tax cut."
Cameron sticking up for the working man once again i.e. the working banker
Cameron said bonuses were a fifth of the size they were when under Labour was in power. Miliband retorted: "He cannot deny the figures I read out to him. He doesn't even know the facts. Bonuses are up so that people can take advantage of his massive tax cut."
If bonuses are up then that means the Treasury is also a winner. 45% taxation of a 68% increase raises more in tax than 50% of the previous bonus level. Do Labour want to increase the amount of tax that bankers pay or not? Their entire spending plan is built upon that income so you'd think they'd welcome the news.
At the extreme level you could have a bonus tax of 100% but if the bonuses were nothing then you wouldn't raise a penny.
If bonuses are up then that means the Treasury is also a winner. 45% taxation of a 68% increase raises more in tax than 50% of the previous bonus level. Do Labour want to increase the amount of tax that bankers pay or not? Their entire spending plan is built upon that income so you'd think they'd welcome the news.
At the extreme level you could have a bonus tax of 100% but if the bonuses were nothing then you wouldn't raise a penny.
You're defending banking bonuses and the fact the Tories cut the tax on bonuses from an industry that is rewarding itself for failure
I guess that's a tory policy just can't agree with you on it
You're defending banking bonuses and the fact the Tories cut the tax on bonuses from an industry that is rewarding itself for failure
I guess that's a tory policy just can't agree with you on it
Well, being "rewarded for failure" is a genuine problem that has been around for years (including the Blair, Balls and Brown era) but it looks like banks and the regulators are finally starting to tighten up on it. On the other hand, if someone does really make a lot of money for their company then it's only fair that they get a bonus - why should the employer keep everything?
If you totally ban bonuses then that will just mean that base salaries will rise and people will get paid the same regardless of how good, or bad, a job they do. I don't think that's fair either.
And remember this "tax cut" will still make the rate higher than it was for most of Labour's 13 years in office. It was 40% for most of that time, increased to 45% in 2008 and then only increased to 50% in the dying days of the last Parliament.
Have you just started watching PMQs, Gummy? I thought you had been around awhile. "Twisting the question" is all part of the art form of the process.
Besides, Cameron did give a straight answer to the questions on banking reform, it's just that Miliband refused to listen and just kept repeating the point.
Paraphrasing it was:
M: "Will you introduce these reforms?"
C: "Yes"
M: "Can you confirm that you will because if you don't then we will"
Ed then mentions the "part time Chancellor" which is always a sign that he's lost for anything to say. It's always a mistake as that opens him up to taunts about Balls and their previous record at the Treasury.
I've never understood the "part time" criticism anyway. All Cabinet ministers are part time in their departmental job as they also have constituency and party responsibilities.
If you care to look at my posting history I think you will see that I have said I don't usually watch PMQ's. That is one of the reasons why I don't always post on these PMQ's threads.
Comments
Fantastic! So Labour are going to solve all of those problems and a few thousand people are going to pay for it all.
Surely, there can't be a flaw in that plan?
I'm up for that, lets vote Labour:o
If the Bankers have to wait 10 years to get their bonuses then Labour aren't going to get their hands on any bonus taxes.
Not that I can see. History in the making here. Maybe the **** packet they wrote it all out on could be put on permanent display in the V&A.
Is it me or is there something fundamentally wrong with this question?
If living in poverty is defined as living on or below 60% of the average wage then surely there will always be the same % of the population living in poverty. By definition it surely cannot be rising?
Isn't it like complaining that 50% of the kids are below average intelligence?.
Take a business who's employees have had their salares frozen for a couple of years but the boardroom awarded themselves ruddy great pay increases. The average would have gone up and more of the lower paid jobs could fall into that category.
Had that same company frozen pay right across the board and got shot of a tier of managememt in a restructuring exercise the average salary would have gone down and miraculously those same people at the bottom might now no longer be below that threshold so wouldn't be classed as poor erven though they still earn the exact same amount , hence why I think it's a bloody stupid measure.
Could it be Ed Balls.:rolleyes:
What I would like an answer to is that if Miliband gets his hands on every single banker's bonus. approximately how much would his be in cash terms and how far would it go on the "improvements" he wants to make. I would think it would not go very far.
This bankers bonus argument appears to be the Labour Party's answer to everything which is not a good sign we know when they left power after 13 years there was no cash left because Liam Byrne verified that in writing.
The 'bankers bonuses' won't be enough to cover all that lot.
As Ed Balls confimed a week or so back, if Labour got into power they would borrow more to finance their policies. The UK will be bankrupt by 2020 if they do.
What is odd is that sometimes Miliband's scripted responses rely on the premise that Cameron won't answer the question. Of course when Cameron does the unexpected and does provide an answer Miliband cannot think on his feet and therefore resorts to reading out his scripted response
It also appears that Miliband is another Labour leader who cannot think on his feet, Brown was exactly the same.
This was the third time Ed's rockets failed to ignite.
How can Miliband win when Cameron refuses to answer the questions he asks him ?
According to your link he did it again yesterday when he once again twisted a question about social mobility to one about Labours school policies
I wonder how Cameron would have fared if the Speaker had insisted he answered the question... because he obviously didn't have one.
Have you just started watching PMQs, Gummy? I thought you had been around awhile. "Twisting the question" is all part of the art form of the process.
Besides, Cameron did give a straight answer to the questions on banking reform, it's just that Miliband refused to listen and just kept repeating the point.
Paraphrasing it was:
M: "Will you introduce these reforms?"
C: "Yes"
M: "Can you confirm that you will because if you don't then we will"
Ed then mentions the "part time Chancellor" which is always a sign that he's lost for anything to say. It's always a mistake as that opens him up to taunts about Balls and their previous record at the Treasury.
I've never understood the "part time" criticism anyway. All Cabinet ministers are part time in their departmental job as they also have constituency and party responsibilities.
As has already been pointed out earlier in the thread, Ed only asked three different questions and Cameron answered two of them. Contrary to what you may think Cameron is under no obligation to provide a direct answer to the questions put to him (one would have thought that if Gordon Brown taught the UK anything, it was that). The PM can talk on the subject, he can point out that the question itself is misguided, he can use the subject as a springboard to a different topic etc. etc. and he can, of course, answer the question directly is he so chooses. Considering that the primary objective for 95%+ of the questions is to embarrass him, deflecting questions is the obvious route to take.
I could be wrong on this but AFAIK the Speaker doesn't have the power to insist that a question is answered. He has the power to ensure that a question is put to the chamber and he has the power to terminate an answer. I would imagine that might have the power in extreme circumstances to ask for the question to be repeated but that's about it. The Speaker is to be seen as completely impartial. PMQ's is a political bunfight - were the Speaker to intervene on behalf of one party in the middle of that it would seriously damage his integrity.
How does Ed win? From a debating point of view by studying and learning from all the other opposition leaders who managed to maul a PM at question time. By asking the right questions, not the ones that inevitably end up with him having egg all over his face. By stopping this ridiculous habit of asking a question, getting an answer and then thundering on with the same scripted questions that assumed he wasn't going to get an answer - yesterday's PMQ's being a perfect example.
How does he win? He stops being quite so clueless when he's stopped in his tracks.
He's shown he can do it. There was a period sometime back of two or three weeks where he consistently had Cameron on the ropes. He never quite failed to land a knockout blow but there was enough evidence that with the right ammunition and the right approach he could definitely go toe to toe with the PM. Unfortunately, these days it's more likely that Cameron is the one with the ammunition.
Osborne has a reputation for being somewhat hands-off. The polar opposite of Gove or IDS. I don't know whether the reputation is justified or not.
That's Camerons trump card, he knows Ed is heavily scripted in his questions, so he knows he'll regularly catch Ed off guard with a reply. Recently this has become evident again, especially this PMQ's. Ed's second questions was in essence a repeat of the first, and his third was completely pointless and so gave Cameron space to attack him.
Cameron said bonuses were a fifth of the size they were when under Labour was in power. Miliband retorted: "He cannot deny the figures I read out to him. He doesn't even know the facts. Bonuses are up so that people can take advantage of his massive tax cut."
Cameron sticking up for the working man once again i.e. the working banker
What a shower
Ah I see. Well, given that many people don't think he's up to the job then maybe it's a good thing that he's not micromanaging his department!
If bonuses are up then that means the Treasury is also a winner. 45% taxation of a 68% increase raises more in tax than 50% of the previous bonus level. Do Labour want to increase the amount of tax that bankers pay or not? Their entire spending plan is built upon that income so you'd think they'd welcome the news.
At the extreme level you could have a bonus tax of 100% but if the bonuses were nothing then you wouldn't raise a penny.
You're defending banking bonuses and the fact the Tories cut the tax on bonuses from an industry that is rewarding itself for failure
I guess that's a tory policy just can't agree with you on it
Well, being "rewarded for failure" is a genuine problem that has been around for years (including the Blair, Balls and Brown era) but it looks like banks and the regulators are finally starting to tighten up on it. On the other hand, if someone does really make a lot of money for their company then it's only fair that they get a bonus - why should the employer keep everything?
If you totally ban bonuses then that will just mean that base salaries will rise and people will get paid the same regardless of how good, or bad, a job they do. I don't think that's fair either.
And remember this "tax cut" will still make the rate higher than it was for most of Labour's 13 years in office. It was 40% for most of that time, increased to 45% in 2008 and then only increased to 50% in the dying days of the last Parliament.
If you care to look at my posting history I think you will see that I have said I don't usually watch PMQ's. That is one of the reasons why I don't always post on these PMQ's threads.