He could quite easily have said " we will look into these redundancies" instead of avoiding the question.
I don't think he can even say that because it's not his place to get involved in redundancy decisions. There is a process to be followed. DC has said they'll do everything required.. that should be enough to satisfy EM. Yet EM seems to have found a group of redundancies and expected DC to overturn them during PMQs.
first off if you wanna make a dig do it directly to me and not the 2 faced version.
all he had to say is we'll look into it, instead he avoided it.
Pardon? Sorry to bust your bubble, but I don't find you relevant enough to talk about you behind your back.
FWIW
Ever since I have been a member here, in every PMQs session someone accuses the PM of not answering questions because they haven't been answered in the way the poster wanted him to. So not only are you not that important you're not being very original either.
sorry not to bright, what the difference between avoiding/evading??
off to pick up little one from pre school, back tonight.
Avoiding - Legal, managing your affairs to ensure you pay the smallest amount of tax possible within the constraints of the law, such as employing an accountant to identify where you might be entitled to tax relief you would otherwise have missed.
Evasion - Very much not legal, falsifying your taxable status to avoid paying tax that you are legally obliged to pay, such as blatant lying about profits or claiming inappropriate payments as legitimate business expenses.
Cameron says that the names of the offending employers will be published unlike in the previous government.
it is a good question considering this scheme was suppoed to come into effect in October 2013.
The revised NMW naming scheme, which will come into effect in October 2013, will strip back restrictions, making it simpler for government to name more employers who break the law.
So how many names have been published to date?
They obviously know of enough employers who have failed to pay the minimum wage to be able to name them.
In 2012 to 2013 HMRC identified 736 employers who had failed to pay the national minimum wage leading to the recovery of £3.9 million in unpaid wages for over 26,500 workers.
If those people work on flood defence it hardly makes sense to make them redundant in the current circumstances.
Skip forward a few years and assume flood "prevention" methods have been introduced like the ones around Cypress Gardens in Gloucester (an area that appeared on national telly on a daily basis during the 2007 floods)....
....those measures have worked, so what do those people from the EA do for gameful employment now they're not really needed in the same capacity?
Ed Milliband hasn't read the book "how to answer at PMQs". On the first page it will tell you - never commit to anything off the cuff, and if answering puts you in a trap, don't answer it and give a response on a related topic.
EM gets frustrated when he tries to catch DC out and he won't answer, so he wastes two or three more questions, despite the fact that DC won't answer them.
As for today, in the sombre mood in the chamber, I'd say it was a no-score draw.
EM gets frustrated when he tries to catch DC out and he won't answer, so he wastes two or three more questions, despite the fact that DC won't answer them.
It depends. I think sometimes it can work.. especially if EM is asking about an issue a lot of people feel is relevant and DC appears to be running from the issue or behind the curve on it. For example the energy prices etc.
But today it just didn't work. Whenever EM asked the question, DC just stood up and said lots of positive things and highlighted what the government is doing.. and when EM re-asked the question, DC stood up and gave more of the same. It just didn't work.. especially when EM had no alternative to propose himself.
It's an interesting tactic from DC. Use every opportunity to highlight the positive steps the government is taking and trust EM won't propose any real alternatives because he's always been lacking in that area.
The Prime Minister:
What I said last night is exactly what I have said today: when it comes to this relief effort, money will be no object. I do not want people to worry about penny-pinching as they see the vital work that is needed to help them with their houses and to deal with the floods. This is what this Government are doing: we are deploying the military when we are asked for the military; we deployed extra pumps when we were asked for pumps; we are raising the compensation to local government to 100%, because that is what local communities should have. I am only sorry that the right hon. Gentleman seeks to divide the House, when we should be coming together for the nation.
Sky News
There will be no new money to pay for flood relief, Downing Street sources have told Sky News.
Less than 24 hours after the Prime Minister pledged "money is no object" in the effort to helping flooded communities recover, the Number 10 source confirmed his comments did not mean extra money would be found.
Instead, Whitehall departments would be expected to find the money to deal with the aftermath of the crisis from their existing budgets.
Nigel Farage says international aid money should be diverted for flooding
However, at Prime Minister's Questions, Mr Cameron continued to insist that "money is no object" and said: "I want communities who are suffering and people who see water lapping at their doors to know that when it comes to the military, when it comes to sandbags, when it comes to restoring broken flood defences, all of those things, money is no object."
That's not how I read it. The flood relief will get extra money - but other departments are going to take a hit to pay for it. In other words, there will be no extra money for total Government spending.
PMQ's: Miliband decided the issue was about 550 people. Presumably if they all wore waterproofs and laid down sideways they might make an effective barrier somewhere....
That's not how I read it. The flood relief will get extra money - but other departments are going to take a hit to pay for it. In other words, there will be no extra money for total Government spending.
PMQ's: Miliband decided the issue was about 550 people. Presumably if they all wore waterproofs and laid down sideways they might make an effective barrier somewhere....
Oh dear there goes the regeneration monies for the north of England then.
Personally I think the residents of Datchet would be more gainfully employed as flood barriers for their settlement rather than commuting to their jobs in the City.
Oh dear there goes the regeneration monies for the north of England then.
Personally I think the residents of Datchet would be more gainfully employed as flood barriers for their settlement rather than commuting to their jobs in the City.
Oh dear there goes the regeneration monies for the north of England then.
Personally I think the residents of Datchet would be more gainfully employed as flood barriers for their settlement rather than commuting to their jobs in the City.
You are a rather nasty piece of work with one huge chip on your shoulder aren't you dear?
Comments
Somehow I think some people on here would say a reply like that was also avoiding the question, they only want a "yes" or "no" answer ;-).
there are so many flood vids its gonna take awhile.
I don't think he can even say that because it's not his place to get involved in redundancy decisions. There is a process to be followed. DC has said they'll do everything required.. that should be enough to satisfy EM. Yet EM seems to have found a group of redundancies and expected DC to overturn them during PMQs.
They have been. Avoiding tax is not breaking the law though.
first off if you wanna make a dig do it directly to me and not the 2 faced version.
all he had to say is we'll look into it, instead he avoided it.
so if i refuse to pay tax on everything just how quick do you think i will get a letter from HMRC??
my petrol should now cost about 80p now, thanks aftershow^_^
Avoiding tax is perfectly legal. I pay no tax on the interest on my ISA for example. And I pay no tax on the money that I donate to charities.
Tax evasion is of course illegal.
sorry not to bright, what the difference between avoiding/evading??
off to pick up little one from pre school, back tonight.
Pardon? Sorry to bust your bubble, but I don't find you relevant enough to talk about you behind your back.
FWIW
Ever since I have been a member here, in every PMQs session someone accuses the PM of not answering questions because they haven't been answered in the way the poster wanted him to. So not only are you not that important you're not being very original either.
One is using the tax laws to minimise the amount of tax you pay. The other is breaking the tax laws and not paying the tax you are supposed to pay.
Avoiding - Legal, managing your affairs to ensure you pay the smallest amount of tax possible within the constraints of the law, such as employing an accountant to identify where you might be entitled to tax relief you would otherwise have missed.
Evasion - Very much not legal, falsifying your taxable status to avoid paying tax that you are legally obliged to pay, such as blatant lying about profits or claiming inappropriate payments as legitimate business expenses.
it is a good question considering this scheme was suppoed to come into effect in October 2013.
So how many names have been published to date?
They obviously know of enough employers who have failed to pay the minimum wage to be able to name them.
http://www.robertsoncooper.com/good-daily-work-article/642-minimum-wage-rogues-to-be-named-and-shamed
Skip forward a few years and assume flood "prevention" methods have been introduced like the ones around Cypress Gardens in Gloucester (an area that appeared on national telly on a daily basis during the 2007 floods)....
....those measures have worked, so what do those people from the EA do for gameful employment now they're not really needed in the same capacity?
EM gets frustrated when he tries to catch DC out and he won't answer, so he wastes two or three more questions, despite the fact that DC won't answer them.
As for today, in the sombre mood in the chamber, I'd say it was a no-score draw.
Youtube pmqs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJxpfv79R8Q
Hansard pmqs http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/hansard/commons/todays-commons-debates/read/unknown/104/
It depends. I think sometimes it can work.. especially if EM is asking about an issue a lot of people feel is relevant and DC appears to be running from the issue or behind the curve on it. For example the energy prices etc.
But today it just didn't work. Whenever EM asked the question, DC just stood up and said lots of positive things and highlighted what the government is doing.. and when EM re-asked the question, DC stood up and gave more of the same. It just didn't work.. especially when EM had no alternative to propose himself.
It's an interesting tactic from DC. Use every opportunity to highlight the positive steps the government is taking and trust EM won't propose any real alternatives because he's always been lacking in that area.
Sky News
http://news.sky.com/story/1210368/no-new-money-for-flood-relief-says-no-10
Maybe Miliband was right to keep asking ;-)
That's not how I read it. The flood relief will get extra money - but other departments are going to take a hit to pay for it. In other words, there will be no extra money for total Government spending.
PMQ's: Miliband decided the issue was about 550 people. Presumably if they all wore waterproofs and laid down sideways they might make an effective barrier somewhere....
Oh dear there goes the regeneration monies for the north of England then.
Personally I think the residents of Datchet would be more gainfully employed as flood barriers for their settlement rather than commuting to their jobs in the City.
They'll have to learn to lie still first.
UK floods: Datchet residents scramble to protect homes
You are a rather nasty piece of work with one huge chip on your shoulder aren't you dear?
You've hit the nail on the head. These Labour supporters call the Tories the nasty party, but they are nastier than the Tories could ever be!