Did you watch PMQs?

Will it be like a tag team event?

What and watch our elected representatives behave like naughty children that would be excluded from school for the same behavior, i think not.
What listen to our elected representatives stand up in OUR parliament and LIE through their teeth, i think not.
I couldn't post what i truly feel.

i expect buisness as usual, waffle, drone, froth, batter, spin, and lies.

What do I hope to hear?

That there'll be an easing off on the hysterical measures to cut benefit claimants and a rethink toward measures that'll actually work properly!

Lets see if the new batch can truly end 'Punch & Judy politics'.

Or will it be the week in week out national embarassment that disgusts the British public so much?

The question I`d like to ask is - will any of this new government`s departments be fit for purpose, especially the Child Support Agency.

Answers instead of irrelevant statistics being quoted to bleed down the clock.

I cant wait to hear what DC has to say about David Laws, if ever we needed proof that there is one rule for them and another for the rest of us just check out this link from BBC Scotland: https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/10214736.stm

WASTE OF TIME
THEY SHOULD BE SORTING THE COUNTRY'S PROBLEMS
NOT ENGAGING IN SCHOOL BOY'S BULLING BEHAVIOUR

I wonder just how much could be saved by simply removing crass stupidity from government. I have a nice little card from the DSS that allows me to sign on. The "perfect" job came up through the Jobcentre a couple of days ago. Unfortunately it was through an agency, and guess what? I don't know where my birth certificate is, and my passport has expired (there's no way I can afford to renew it, even if I wanted) so I cannot register with an agency, never mind get an interview. The agencies are tied by government rules - yet it is the government that gave me the nice little DSS card that I could not have got if I was not entitled to work! Does anyone in government actually ever look outside their front door to see how the world, which they have largely created, really works?

Is this relevant to savings? Yes. I should have been able to get that job with my eyes closed, but the governments own rules prevented it. At the end of next month my car tax and MOT expire, and without that job there is no way I can find £150 odd (assuming it passes the MOT) so the car will go (I have no off road parking, so cannot keep it SORNed) - and being in a rural area no car means a 99.9% certainty of no job. So, far from encouraging me back to work and thereby saving expenditure, the governments own rules have ensured that I will continue to be a burden to the tax payer, probably until retirement. Well done!

when will they consider legalising and taxing marijuana?

The gaza incident will be the first major icident that the coalition have had to deal with, knowing people were killed by Israeli's I am eager to see which stance Cameron will take, or will he lean on the
inquiry results' tactic....infact no expressing an opinion other than unacceptable...which didnt show leadership it show compliance.

I would like to hear our new government laying bare the deceit, corruption, bare faced lies and utter incompetence of Gordon Brown and the rest of his unelected and now faceless cronies.

I can't say I ever watch PMQs, it's usually just a bunch of questions that never get answered, accompanied by the howls of the baying yobs on the opposition benches.

I'd like to think that the new coaltion might give better answers than the previous spin-ridden government, but I don't hold out any hope of a more civilised parliament generally. Now that Labour are in opposition, they'll continually oppose any sort of cuts or tax rises, as they won't have any responsibility for the economy.

Yes, I'll watch.

It'll be just the same as usual; non-answers, lies and evasion, but the opportunity to see Harridan Harman tie herself up in knots whilst at the same time being totally out of her depth is too good to miss!

I want the first question to be does the first minister think its about time the UK had a bona fide PM given the last one we had wasn't elected with an majority vote and neither was he?

PMQs is now only an oportunity to showboat as we only have one opposition party. Cameron doesn't even try to answer questions he just goes into his "Now look hear, what the people want to know" routine. Don't think I'll be to dismayed if I miss it.

If I wrote what I think of the ConDem debacle I would be moderated for ever so won't bother thanks.

An MP just stood up, and mentioned 'Ernest and Young' - should all such comments by MPs of all private companies be totally abolished during PMQs?

About five minutes ago, I heard how they wish to reward marriage and commitment and families through the tax system.
Always bleating on about families and people with children. I have none and am single. So because I am not pretty enough(or whatever) for any man to either marry, commit to or impregnate me, my life somehow means nothing to the government? Are there ever any policies for single people(of any age) without children? Why are we forgotten by the government??
I am not against supporting marriage and families as one day I would hope I could have either and of course people supported me when I was younger but does this mean that an unhappy marriage is better and deserves reward over a person who might not be single by choice(death of a partner etc.)?

So Ms Harman believes that the alleged rape victim should be allowed to be anonymous but the alleged rape accused should not be afforded the same right to protect them from spurious claims

So many peoples lives have been ruined because of false claims and their names should only be released when they are found guilty

In no way does allowing them then anonymity mean that you aren't believing the alleged victim but it will stop vicious people using this as a means of getting back at someone

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Listening to the question on terrorism, where they were talking about 'evil plots' makes me think that the politicians think that these people are sat around twirling their moustaches and laughing sinisterly rather than the stark realities of the affair. Desperate people, indoctrinated people do things with the best of intentions with the most tragic of consequences. We should be acting in a manner to help prevent this, rather than pretending that there is some cartoon villains trying to take over the world.

Am watching PMQs - and have done so for years when shift work allows. Thus far, am shocked and surprised at such good behavior today of all members from both sides?

One can only hope this is not just a 'new-term at school' - but more to do with setting a new precedent in The House? Needless to say, journalists and paid commentators will find something to whinge about? You can hear their keyboards now to justify their existence to report political bad news?

They started off rather sombrely because of the shootings in Cumbria, but soon got back into their stride.
Questions asked to try and wrong-foot the government and answers provided to score points over the opposition, new politics my hat.

It occurs to me that Cameron's hints at selling the government stake in banks to the people is rather a poke in the eye - We've already (and will continue to for many years) paid for the shares once, and he's suggesting that we pay for them again!

What do I hope to hear?

His early resignation speech of course.

Yes I look forward to reading PMQ on the BBc web site, unlike many of the posts here who look for the worst of everthing and anybody I am full of optimism for the new government. Perhaps we will have a government who will start putting British people first, staying out of other country's problems (12. At 2:45pm on 02 Jun 2010, andyou ---- take note its NOT OUR PROBLEM), cutting costs so we reduce our deficit and making it impossible to be better off on benefits (and if it means reducing them then all the better).
As a passing note I did read Ms Harman is against all parties in rape cases being anonimouse - only she could be against innocent until proven guilty.
Oh and Tory backbencher Philip Davies well done for asking for the scrapping of the human rights act.

Levy a substantial tax on religious institutions. They have been selling a product that they cannot deliver for thousands of years, cause more harm than good yet we afford it a status it does not deserve. Tax them now!

The prime minister stood up in the house of commons and declared his friendships with Israel. How many violations of humane right dose it take before they are condemned. Mr Cameron may want the riches Mr Blair gained being Israel's friend. It is high time our government stood up to them. Appeasement will only end in Islam having right on there side. The Israel's motto is lie, lie, and lie again if that dose not work them bomb them into submission. Israel is stealing the Palestinians land all on the say of Abraham 2,000 years ago we now know about schizophrenia.
Nightimer

I have no intention of watching a multi millionare dilettante perform at tax payers expense.

I watched PMQs and was generally impressed with Cameron's performance. His final answer to Harriet Harman was a gem. Yet he did appear to waver on some of his manifesto commitments. I refer to the Human Rights Act. If he expects any UK judge to accept the word of Pakistan on the safety of prisoners he is wrong. The British public couldn't care less about the deportee's safety. We just want them deporting.

No I was working, someone has to pay the tax

David Cameron is a Liar. He said he wants to help the poorest people in Britian, firstly though he will threaten to cut some of thier benfits. While of course those who caused the debt crisis etc are handed more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more.......

CAMERON IS JUST LIKE HIS HERO TONY BLAIR THE MAN OF GREED AND AVERICE WHO WAS LIKE HIS HERO MARGARET THATCHER WHO BEGAN THE PROCESS OF DEREGULATION OF MARKETS THAT HAS LED TO THIS CURRENT ECONOMIC CRISIS.

THATCHER, BLAIR, CAMERON...MOUTHPIECES FOR THE MEGA RICH AND FACELESS CAPITALISM.

NEXT RECCESSION...COMING SOON....ORDERED AND PLANNED FOR BY THE MEGA RICH IN THE CITY.


BRITAIN IS NOT A DEMOCRACY BUT A CAPITALIST DICTATORSHIP MAKING PMQ A FARCE.

I thought it was all a little too subdued for my liking. Harman is no match for Cameron in this role.I like to see the Punch and Judy politics of PMQ. Let's hope we can see a a Labour leader that keeps Camer-Clegg on their toes.

Listen/watch Cameron, or keep filling job applications? Now there is a choice, will it be with glove puppet Cleggweegy – that could swing it though! Listen to tripe, or try for jobs already promised “to a friend”, who’s own job is under threat from government cut backs. Since most of the economy was destroyed by his predecessors there are too few jobs! Allowing councils to destroy the voluntary sector to create jobs, control and power for themselves removed more jobs. So I shall give Camers (with or without Cleggyweggy) a miss and sent out another CV, fill in another application form. Think of another five reasons why I so want this lower grade job, on the other side of the country, than the one I was good at before B Liar+Brown!

His first PMQs and he proves he is dishonest.

He pledged not to return to 'punch and judy' PMQs and what does he do? Answers a question by slagging off a department for spending £140pp on plants (which he is 100% right to do, but really, really not the time to do it). Just answer the question!!!

And already we're back to the childish shouts and jeers from all sides. Nothing has changed. Call en election.

This was all very civil compared to the usual Punch and Judy of PMQs. No pugilists and rope-a-dopes here. Apart from a few minor wasp sting jabs at the deficit left to him by 'the other side' David Cameron was politeness personified, while, floating like a butterfly from pet flower issue to issue, a poised Harriet Harman fluttered briefly before the usual motley crew of MPs served up home made tastey morsels of questions for the PM to devour, with scarcely a glance at his brief...All the while, Nick Clegg sat there and I wondered-what is he thinking? "That should be me up there"?,"I wish that was me up there"?or, maybe,"what happened to my weekend break in Paris?". Who knows because, these days,reading Nick Clegg's face is about as easy as reading 'A la recherche du temps perdu'. It won't go on like this, surely?

It was a very civilised affair, even the opposition were sensible!

I liked some of the answers but there was definitely elements of caveats thrown in on every statement yet even after the criticism of the flotilla raid i cannot understand why the British government won't force ISrael to step down.

More importantly William Hague didn't address whether the talk last week of protecting Israeli politicians from any criminal charges in the UK while they visited.

Overall though i thought the first MPs questions were good.

It was ever so dull, wasn't it.

I mean everyone was so terribly polite. Both DC and HH saying "Tah, thank you very much. Do you mind if I ask another? Are you free for dinner afterwards?"

And the one really, really, really, ever so, ever so tricky question (on the Liberal's being caught in the same bed as the Tories in a very compromising position) was ignored because it wasn't the subject "on the card".

At this rate there won't be any PMQs because everyone will have fallen asleep.

wht wasnt laws name dragged thru the mud. this man will get canonised you watch.

No 26, Naznormarn, you seem to be rather confused unless of course you do actually own shares in a specific bank. The previous government used tax payer's money to bail out certain banks (which is being paid back) but this is not the same as being a share holder.
The value of shares fluctuates as can be seen on the FTSE index.
The PMs intention is for ordinary people to buy shares in what are private companies. Shareholders are then in a position to make decisions about a company's future, for example whether to purchase or sell to another company or merge with another company.

34 Norman Brooke. Your comments are not only offensive but wrapped up in left wing dogma.
The current economic crisis is the result of 13 years of Labour spending our money, wasting it and borrowing obscene amounts to fund the debt.
The finger of blame lies fairly and squarely at the feet of G. Brown.
I suggest you check the history of all Labour administrations and you will find they ALL end in the same way, debt, debt and more debt.

Well so much for the "new politics" and "ansering the questions"

He was asked about building a defence college somewhere and here's what he could have said

-Good Idea, I'll ask the defence secretary to look into it
-I don't think it's an appropriate location
-I'd love to but we are broke

Any of those would have anwsered the question and been honest. Instead we got "the last government had a chance an didn't" Well geee thanks DC, you know who that reminds me of? Gordon "Interest rates were higher under the Tories" Brown. Do you think we are stupid David? We know the previous goverment didn't build one becuase the thing isn't there and this guy wouldn't be asking the question if it was! You were asked if you would build one and you did a classic Dodge.

But then would would you expect from "Blair Light"?

This is all pandering to the Media, perhaps Silence is the better part of discretion.

Sounded reasonable to me, but we shall have to wait and see how it works out in future years.

Richard wrote:-
I wonder just how much could be saved by simply removing crass stupidity from government. I have a nice little card from the DSS that allows me to sign on. The "perfect" job came up through the Jobcentre a couple of days ago. Unfortunately it was through an agency, and guess what? I don't know where my birth certificate is, and my passport has expired (there's no way I can afford to renew it, even if I wanted) so I cannot register with an agency, never mind get an interview. The agencies are tied by government rules - yet it is the government that gave me the nice little DSS card that I could not have got if I was not entitled to work! Does anyone in government actually ever look outside their front door to see how the world, which they have largely created, really works?

Is this relevant to savings? Yes. I should have been able to get that job with my eyes closed, but the governments own rules prevented it. At the end of next month my car tax and MOT expire, and without that job there is no way I can find £150 odd (assuming it passes the MOT) so the car will go (I have no off road parking, so cannot keep it SORNed) - and being in a rural area no car means a 99.9% certainty of no job. So, far from encouraging me back to work and thereby saving expenditure, the governments own rules have ensured that I will continue to be a burden to the tax payer, probably until retirement. Well done!


...Why not put this question in writing before your MP, as I found from personal experience you'll find they do listen and as in my case can act to!, contray to the popular cry of 'there all bent' and are 'far to busy filling in expenses claims to worry with such every day issues', if of course your reeled in by what the media serve up as fact or maybe alternatively your just sucked in by the half hour kick about in the commons with PMQ's, but as I found out theres more to it than this pap!, realising in our democracy our representative servants can only be as good as WE make them!

Cameron very obviously did not answer a number of questions asked to him which is somewhat hypocritical considering he spent years complaining about Brown not answering questions.

Harman's question about the £550,000,000 being spent on marriage tax relief was one in which he refused to say why he was spending that money at a time of cutting public services to reduce the deficit. His attempt to justify it by comparing it to Europe and to unrelated Labour policies were nonsensical.

But by far the most obvious evasion was in response to the MP who asked him to guarantee "the best for our Armed Forces" and basically just asked him to promise to do what he said he would during the election. He didn't even try to answer. He just rambled on about how the Armed Forces were important.

Not exactly a brilliant start Mr Cameron.

Oh and try not to make your planted questions so obvious. You were extremely critical of those when Labour did them so at least put your money were your mouth is and stop it.

Not sure who reads this apart from BBC moderators! For me time will tell, B lier and Golden Brown had quite a "few" years to get it on the right track? to be honest I did not really see the vast improvements promiced in the manifesto we were given. This time round we will all see how Dave C. and Nick Peform? all us tax payer,s can hope for is were not hit to hard again to pay more failed bank directors even bigger bonuses blimey Ive got the wrong end of the stick yet again!!

I am afraid Harriet Hardperson is not up to the task of PMQs. Unless she can read the reply she is totally flummoxed. Cameron had a walkover.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

David Cameron gave his usual arrogant ,self centred views that we unfortunately have seen over the last few years.
What a poor excuse for a PM.
Rgds, Gordon Hutchison

If this is an example of the strength of Labour in opposition, then the Tories are in for a very easy ride indeed. I noticed that most of Cameron's comments seemed to be directed more to his own backbenchers than to the opposition seated in front of him. In that respect his body language spoke volumes.

42. At 6:09pm on 02 Jun 2010, Lynn from Sussex wrote:

No 26, Naznormarn, you seem to be rather confused unless of course you do actually own shares in a specific bank. The previous government used tax payer's money to bail out certain banks (which is being paid back) but this is not the same as being a share holder.
The value of shares fluctuates as can be seen on the FTSE index.
The PMs intention is for ordinary people to buy shares in what are private companies. Shareholders are then in a position to make decisions about a company's future, for example whether to purchase or sell to another company or merge with another company
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you think that bank shares represent an excellent addition to the ordinary person's portfolio? Nice, stable investment for normal folk then?

It's another lightweight tory gimmick first put forward by the boy blunder.

Is there anything the Tory Party could do that wouldn't receive 100% backing from you? Do you ever think for yourself?

Never saw it. Did Dave turn up? Question Time usually has this government running for the Andrex.

I watched it all live and was very impressed by David Cameron's delivery and (unlike Gordon) his relative lack of notes. He gave good honest answers to all the questions and it was noticeable in Harriet Harman's follow-up question on rape anonymity that she wasn't listening to the answer Cameron gave.

The BBC really needs to change it's pro labour bias if it is to survive. The idea of political neutrality needs to be re-introduced before it's damaged reputation becomes terminal.

For the most part David Cameron gave answers to questions that were actually asked, and the whole thing seemed extremely civilised. Very British and very public school; I liked it.

Like most people I was at work so did not see PMQs. Clearly there are a lot of teachers here.

I think that David Cameron's first PMQ's performance was really good and I am not his biggest fan. Of course a lot of what he is saying right now will set the scene for future PMQ's where "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". This coalition know that they have promised to deliver fairness and that will not be easy especially now we know what some senior civil servants are actually being paid. I wonder how David Cameron's proposal that the pay ratio from top to bottom should be no greater than 20:1 whereas now in some cases it is more like 80:1? The trade unions will be quick to latch onto this as a bargaining tool.

I was impressed at the way he demolished Harriet Harman.

Cameron came across as if he'd been in situ for a while.

42. Lynn from Sussex wrote:
"The PMs intention is for ordinary people to buy shares in what are private companies. Shareholders are then in a position to make decisions about a company's future, for example whether to purchase or sell to another company or merge with another company."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tory governments have a dubious record of selling shares to "ordinary people."
Vital utilities which were owned by the British taxpayer, electricity, gas, and even water, were sold to "ordinary people". Ordinary people quickly sold them to overseas investors, to make a fast buck. The result is we have to rely on foreign companies to provide us with our basic means of survival.
We used to have successful, customer friendly, Building Societies (Abbey National, Alliance & Leicester, Bradford & Bingley, Halifax, and Northern Rock). They were owned by the members, but the Tory government, driven by dogma, legislated to have them sold to "ordinary people". Ordinary people sold three of the British institutions above to a Spanish bank. Greedy shareholders encouraged the other two to take reckless gambles with savers money. It was these actions that caused the banking crisis.

43. At 6:38pm on 02 Jun 2010, Lynn from Sussex wrote:
34 Norman Brooke. Your comments are not only offensive but wrapped up in left wing dogma.
The current economic crisis is the result of 13 years of Labour spending our money, wasting it and borrowing obscene amounts to fund the debt. The finger of blame lies fairly and squarely at the feet of G. Brown. I suggest you check the history of all Labour administrations and you will find they ALL end in the same way, debt, debt and more debt.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
but apparently our hospitals are rated 14th, in the world compared with 82nd when the Tories where last in charge, but right wing dogma would prevent you saying this. Can't say I can see the left wing dogma, comments are possibly inaccurate, likly rubbish time will tell, as my Political leanings mean I should support this Government I realy can't agree with his.

Re Comment No. 34 - Norman Brook.

My but you are an angry man aren't you? Just what have you got against the rich? Just think about it - if there were no rich who would you have to get worked up about. Cool it man - think of your blood pressure.

So much 'cleaner' than when Labour 'ruled the roost' - almost intelligent again.

But then - here comes Harriet - same old PC spiel...
Totally correct to give responsible and dedicated couples a tax break - a start towards re-creating a decent society from the 'broken-society' we've had for 13 years. An extra £3 per week may seem nothing to the rich, but it will help the low-paid.
Countries that we give Aid to must at least be expected to allow us to safely deport their abusive citizens back to them. This is being planned at last - excellent.

At least Cameron gives answers to questions rather than following Brown's constant tactic of set-piece 'name-calling' when he has no answers...A sensible, decent House of Commons for a change - except for Harman...

Sorry I never saw this weeks episode of Punch & Judy.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The usual PR, the usual Cameron blether, total lack of substance but delivered with all the bluster of the school bully. I gather Cameron studied politics at university- clearly the subject has been dumbed down considerably!

"32. At 4:28pm on 02 Jun 2010, PETERJMARTIN wrote:

The British public couldn't care less about the deportee's safety. We just want them deporting."

Please don't include me in your generalizations. As it happens, I do care what happens to people who the government chooses to classify as "enemies of the state", especially if this country - a country that is supposed to be civilized - starts handing people over to murderers and torturers.

A situation only made worse by the fact that a fair number of people the government want to deport have not been convicted of any crimes - they are people who the government tells us are "dangerous" or "undesirable" or "a threat".

Without publishing proof, without putting them on trial, without convicting them of a crime, the government - and now you PETERJMARTIN - wants to hand them over to be tortured or murdered.

You may well think that is fine and acceptable, but I don't, and do not appreciate being told that "The British Public" thinks it is fine.

"21. At 3:25pm on 02 Jun 2010, Andy wrote:

So many peoples lives have been ruined because of false claims and their names should only be released when they are found guilty"

Why only rapists? Why not murderers? Why not child abusers?

If someone is accused of being a child molester, their life would be ruined as well, and yet nothing in the policy seems to suggest that they should be granted anonymity.

And if someone is accused of murder, it follows them for the rest of their lives. Even if it turns out to be false, and they are acquitted, their futures will be dominated by that one single event. So shouldn't they get anonymity as well?

If you are going to grant one class of criminal anonymity, you have to do it for all crimes, at at the very least, for all "serious" crimes that can screw people's futures up if it's a false allegation.

It would be good if the Westminster Club actually cared about whether we, their employers took notice of their pantomime. As it is, they are set up to observe the following; if NO people are watching, then they approve of the "proceedings". If most people are watching, then they approve of the "proceedings". If only a handful of people are watching, then they are, under FPTP truly representative of the population of the UK, and therefore approve of the "proceedings".
Does that just about sum it up, Cameron, Clegg and other Westminster Club members?
Is there enough of a con to allow you to continue to run this country for yourselves?

Come on, it's only one PMQ, let's see how things develop. The boy done good for his first outing, Ms Harman was as predictable as ever, but i thought given time would have been a better Labour leader that the current contenders. Here's a thought though - immigration is around the corner as an issue, and I guess Labour can clobber the ConLibs here. The current proposals of capping non-EU immigrants will be open to widescale doubt thanks to the Yuman Rites lobby in the LibDem camp, and the 1922 Tory lot will be bashing Cameron from the right of the party. Fertile ground here for the opposition really splitting the Coalition as the Tory right might just be closer to Labour on this than the LibDems. Watch this space.

"65. At 11:05pm on 02 Jun 2010, Tez wrote:

Totally correct to give responsible and dedicated couples a tax break - a start towards re-creating a decent society from the 'broken-society' we've had for 13 years. An extra £3 per week may seem nothing to the rich, but it will help the low-paid."

Two of my friends have lived together for 18 years. They have never separated, and have raised two children together. They are a perfect example of a happy family.

So why don't they deserve an extra £3 a week?

Because Cameron doesn't approve of couples who live in sin? Because he thinks marriage is the be all and end all of relationships? Because he thinks a couple that has been married one year is somehow "better" than a couple that's lived together for eighteen times as long?

Far from giving us new politics, Cameron seems to want to take us back in time to the 19th century.

And - on a related note - where does he stand on widows and widowers? If you are married, but your wife is killed, do you forfeit the £3 a week because you're not married any more? Cause that seems kind of mean and a little bit petty.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Didnt watch it as I was at work, being lucky enough to still have a job at the moment(a situation I fully expect to change once this incompetent coalition surely leads us into a deeper
recession)

from what I heard on radio Ms Harman more than holding her own. I hope the opposition hold the Lib Dems in particular to account for all of their broken manifesto promises. I hope they are made to feel very uncomfortable at each PMQ.

I sincerely hope someone takes Danny Alexander to task for what I consider to be his excessive expenses claims. As a taxpayer I don't see why I should be funding his wife's trips to London to the tune of thousands of pounds. I also think it is disgraceful that MPs can claim up to £400 per month for food without producing any receipts. What Dort of control over taxpayers' money is that?

32. At 4:28pm on 02 Jun 2010, PETERJMARTIN wrote:

............ The British public couldn't care less about the deportee's safety. We just want them deporting.

I care

Moving of one person from one bench to another, the same old ugly and despisable faces, expense scandals back with vengence, friends are being given jobs left and right, we have more of lords to rule over us and we would given out more statistics to bamboozle and mesmarize us. PMQ is a complete waste of time. Get rid of it and spare us from !!!!!!!

Oh yes a bit of savings too.

I don't watch it. If here is any sort of NEW!! IMPROVED!!!! DEMOCRACY!!!!!! it surely won't need a pr. prog. to become apparant.

79. At 02:33am on 03 Jun 2010, spotthelemon wrote:

32. At 4:28pm on 02 Jun 2010, PETERJMARTIN wrote:

............ The British public couldn't care less about the deportee's safety. We just want them deporting.

I care



I care too.

I didn't watch it. But assummed that it was the mirror image of the same event over the years except he has changed seats.
Do we really expect the PM to issue a sound bit on every event which get reported.
I don't expect a pubic statement because I tripped on an uneven paving stone which had been around for a long while because his predecessors decided that the Local council can't spend money on the upkeep of the public highways in the pursuit of "value for money and efficiency".
But I do expect the Pm to spend time dealing with the national problems we face and that MP's questions are about those problems rather than the usual prep school rubbish with which we are so familiar.

78. At 02:08am on 03 Jun 2010, Fedupvoter wrote:

I also think it is disgraceful that MP's can claim up to £400 per month for food without producing any receipts. What sort of control over taxpayers' money is that?

I agree we all have to eat it is a normal expense of living. So on what basis do MP's justify this expense.
Why can't I claim it too instead of having to take it out of my own income.
This is one that should be cut out tomorrow.

Isn't enough that they get subsidized food and drink in the house of commons already. The should privatize the catering and let Mcdonalds and the other firms have a franchise like a motorway service station; NHS hospitals; and most public control organisations do.

39. At 5:01pm on 02 Jun 2010, druid2002 wrote:
... i cannot understand why the British government won't force ISrael to step down.

'cos its none of our business and we have enough problems of our own to deal with. I applaud us keeping our noses out (for a change)

I thought that DC gave a very reasonable answer to HH when she was asking about the married couples allowance,
as DC pointed out, at the time of Labours Budgets on Inheritance Tax Allowance they increased the sum and husbands passed the Allowance onto their wives, so wives DO mean something!!

BillytheFirst. I most certainly do think for myself.
I believe all of your comments start with quotes from others which you then pick holes in.
Are you not capable of writing something original or thinking for YOURself?

Judging by Nick Clegg's vacant expression he wasn't even watching it!

Someone wrote: "when it comes to safe bases there is no base safer than an aircraft carrier". I did not actually see the report that the MoD had asked the Royal Navy to deploy an aircraft carrier to Afghanistan.

#10
"I wonder just how much could be saved by simply removing crass stupidity from government. I have a nice little card from the DSS that allows me to sign on. The "perfect" job came up through the Jobcentre a couple of days ago. Unfortunately it was through an agency, and guess what? I don't know where my birth certificate is, and my passport has expired (there's no way I can afford to renew it, even if I wanted) so I cannot register with an agency, never mind get an interview. The agencies are tied by government rules - yet it is the government that gave me the nice little DSS card that I could not have got if I was not entitled to work! Does anyone in government actually ever look outside their front door to see how the world, which they have largely created, really works?

Is this relevant to savings? Yes. I should have been able to get that job with my eyes closed, but the governments own rules prevented it. At the end of next month my car tax and MOT expire, and without that job there is no way I can find £150 odd (assuming it passes the MOT) so the car will go (I have no off road parking, so cannot keep it SORNed) - and being in a rural area no car means a 99.9% certainty of no job. So, far from encouraging me back to work and thereby saving expenditure, the governments own rules have ensured that I will continue to be a burden to the tax payer, probably until retirement. Well done!"

I'd move anywhere in the UK to be near a job (I had to for my current one). I'd borrow money, perhaps get a DSS loan or ask friends and family to get the ID or public transport, if you have a council house you can request a transfer. I would walk or cycle 10 miles if I had to, no problem at all. I'll never, ever, ever claim unemployment benefits and leech off hardworking folk unless I absolutely have to, it's not right or fair. This is one of the attitudes that has to be broken, people expect everything to be easy for them, they expect it all to be done for them. The people with jobs out there know that you have to go that extra mile sometimes, especially in the current climate, and that relying on little excuses all the time is just a cop-out. Yes the last goverment has a lot to answer for, but if you think that justifies your excuses you are lying to yourself.

82. At 07:26am on 03 Jun 2010, Jordan wrote:
79. At 02:33am on 03 Jun 2010, spotthelemon wrote:

32. At 4:28pm on 02 Jun 2010, PETERJMARTIN wrote:

............ The British public couldn't care less about the deportee's safety. We just want them deporting.

I care



I care too.



I care three

I thought PMQs was a huge step up from the normal 'yah-boo' exchanges that characterised the previous government.

Cameron was funny when he could be, correctly sombre but not stuffy when needed, and forthright when that was appropriate. I really welcome the new informal tone, and the simplicity and lack of pomposity that the new government displays.

I think the coalition is a wonderful example of the British spirit of compromise in action, and long may it last.

Not that the BBC - supposedly neutral - wants it to last. I am appalled at the biased reporting, pejorative language, and downright sulking that the BBC has shown since the coalition was formed. Obviously Labour to a woman, the BBC has apparently forgotten its remit and taken its bat home. Shame on it - the coalition was what the nation voted for, after all.

"
I'd move anywhere in the UK to be near a job (I had to for my current one). I'd borrow money, perhaps get a DSS loan or ask friends and family to get the ID or public transport, if you have a council house you can request a transfer. I would walk or cycle 10 miles if I had to, no problem at all. I'll never, ever, ever claim unemployment benefits and leech off hardworking folk unless I absolutely have to, it's not right or fair. This is one of the attitudes that has to be broken, people expect everything to be easy for them, they expect it all to be done for them. The people with jobs out there know that you have to go that extra mile sometimes, especially in the current climate, and that relying on little excuses all the time is just a cop-out. Yes the last goverment has a lot to answer for, but if you think that justifies your excuses you are lying to yourself.

Your are just saying that to make yourself feel superior. No one will lend money to people on the dole. Moving house, even a council house swap (you are aware that there are very few council houses left?), would cost of the order of £1,500 to £2,000 even if hiring own van (which, of course, you cannot do without money) with all the fees and deposits (security bond and one to three months rent in advance). I know this because I did it about 4 years ago - for work! The DSS will NOT lend money for that (I've asked, rather than just assuming as you have done). In a rural area, or with shifts, employers will not give you a job without a car. That's a fact - I've been there too.

So, you were saying?

Early days yet as someone has already noted, however Cameron's problem will come not from the opposition on the other side of the despatch box(for a time anyway) but from behind him on the government benches.
His party is the same party that was booted out in 1997, he may represent himself as NuCon but his party's obessions will casue him problems, they don't like the coalition, they don't like the Lib-Dems.
Just wait until an EU issue comes up ,which requires the UK to act together with Brussels ,which it will, then see the fun and games.

63. At 10:56pm on 02 Jun 2010, Neil wrote:
43. At 6:38pm on 02 Jun 2010, Lynn from Sussex wrote:
34 Norman Brooke. Your comments are not only offensive but wrapped up in left wing dogma.
The current economic crisis is the result of 13 years of Labour spending our money, wasting it and borrowing obscene amounts to fund the debt. The finger of blame lies fairly and squarely at the feet of G. Brown. I suggest you check the history of all Labour administrations and you will find they ALL end in the same way, debt, debt and more debt.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
but apparently our hospitals are rated 14th, in the world compared with 82nd when the Tories where last in charge, but right wing dogma would prevent you saying this. Can't say I can see the left wing dogma, comments are possibly inaccurate, likly rubbish time will tell, as my Political leanings mean I should support this Government I realy can't agree with his.
I would like to know where you got this information from, the UK has only one hospital in the top 100 worldwide (and that is 40th), Great Ormond St is 122nd. Please if you are going to make statements like this back them up with facts and a website link.
Health is still a post code lottery, I had better treatment in the 80s and 90s than I have had recently, but it could be because of where I live now!

91. At 10:46am on 03 Jun 2010, RedandYellowandGreennotBlue wrote:
82. At 07:26am on 03 Jun 2010, Jordan wrote:
79. At 02:33am on 03 Jun 2010, spotthelemon wrote:

32. At 4:28pm on 02 Jun 2010, PETERJMARTIN wrote:

............ The British public couldn't care less about the deportee's safety. We just want them deporting.

I care



I care too.



I care three


And me!

"54. At 9:14pm on 02 Jun 2010, Billythefirst wrote:
So you think that bank shares represent an excellent addition to the ordinary person's portfolio? Nice, stable investment for normal folk then?

It's another lightweight tory gimmick first put forward by the boy blunder.

Is there anything the Tory Party could do that wouldn't receive 100% backing from you? Do you ever think for yourself?"
--------------------
Over the years, bank shares would certainly represent an excellent addition to an ordinary person's portpolio. They have performed consistently and generate good dividends.
Obviously shareholders in Northern Rock will not have the same feeling as shareholders in Barclays, but there is no reason for a re-privatised bank to not do perfectly well in future.

Is there anything the Tory Party could do that wouldn't receive 0% backing from you? Do you ever think for yourself?"

I just wonder how Nick Clegg who took part in the tv debates before the election can sit there unable to voice his views. Surely he cannot be in agreement with everything Cameron says! He can only sit in silence and any disagreements he has are heard behind closed doors.

So much for a more open politics! Did he give up his mind as well as beliefs in this coalition!

Same Old! just different faces, differnt time of day, but same crass behaviour.

I saw it all.

All but one of the questions were well planned and well delivered.

Mr. Cameron's responses were exemplary. He has raised the bar considerably and I think that the Labour Party (of which I am a member) should listen and learn.

Also I must note that Ms. Harman's performance was also of a very high standard. Shame that she will not be standing for the leadership election.

Politics is interesting at present, but the labour party seems to be bland and ineffective. I guess it will take 2 terms in opposition, at least, before they revive themselves.