'Scrutiny by screech'

"scrutiny by screech"

Surely no coincidence that this expression was used shortly after Ms Harman became temporary leader of the opposition...

Self condemnation of Bercows ability to manage the Hhouse.

As a long-time observer of the game of politics as played at Westminster I've often made unfavourable comparisons between behaviour at Prime Minister's Questions and in a primary school playground.

A chorus of vuvuzelas would be preferable to the boorish behaviour of those who have been elected to serve the country NOT themselves or their political party. They do not appear to be capable of civilised debate or reasoned argument, scoring points ranks far above constructive criticism or suggestion of ideas.

In this case Bercow is absoloutly right. It is time for PMQs to be meaningful and have some substance. I am tired of hearing friendly questions and MPs patting themselves or their party on the back. We as a country are in difficult times.....It is time that some MPs grew up. They tell us that certain sports stars and celebrities are poor role models well it is time they practice what they preach and conduct themselves in an honest and professional way

The World Cup analogy is apt in that the referees have been freely dispensing yellow and red cards at will. Does the Speaker have the gonads to do the same? I doubt it.

PS when I signed in the system rejected my e-mail name but only accepted my handle.

It is the Prime Minister who starts the ball rolling in question time and then follows a slanging match between the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition, joined in now and again by either an opposition MP asking a question or a coalition MP who seems to have a question praising what ever is government policy and of course the hullabaloo from all sides of the house by MPs when they disagree with any of the questions asked

Nick

Perhaps the Speaker should have a look at other behaviours within the Palace of Westminster. Over at Guido Fawkes website there is a report on the drinking habits of our great and wonderful MPs, complemented by tweets from EyeSpyMP. Drunk as skunks was the term. All while conscientously scrutinising legislation and voting on it: this is very poor indeed.

At last, questions may be answered with answers!

John Bercow also said that he would like to see PMQ's extended beyond its current 30min slot. Bravo.

As you said in an earlier blog Nick, its the oppositions job to oppose but its also the elected representitives job to represent the electorate. Perhaps now some real work can be done in Parliament and all voices can be heard.

It is way past time when these politicians should start to behave in a mature fashion.

You can even discuss politics in a pub now without people shouting at each other, so the politicians in the HoC need to grow up!

Damn Andy, you beat me to it. I was about to say I couldnt possibly imagine who Bercow could have been referring to....


***{lights Saga's blue touchpaper and retires rapidly to a safe distance}***

It will be interesting to see if PMQs can actually return to genuine questions receiving genuine answers.

Can't remember in which decade that old idea seemed to fade away.

I'd have been happier with a Speaker who carried more authority based on extensive parliamentary experience. But that's a post we'll never get to elect.

Come friendly German bombs to drop again on the HoC, as per 1940.

So that we would have another opportunity to reconstruct the chamber such that it was a more consensual setting rather than the outdated and ill-fitting adversial arrangement that we can certainly, in these straightened times, can no longer afford the luxury of.

Why is it just the Speaker's responsibility? These are grown men and women we're talking about. Men and women who think it appropriate to shout, jeer and laugh raucously over one another when important matters of state are being discussed.

They aren't children, if they can't take responsibility for themselves then they certainly shouldn't be responsible for running the country.

The leaders are, perhaps, the worst examples. Cameron calling his opposition names and comparing them to the Luftwaffe. Makes me Q his ability to be PM.

10 - As Ms H herself might say:

"scraaaaaw!, Screeeee, ShrEEEEEEEK, ScarAAAAAAAW!"

For reasoned debate -watch the House of Lords

Nick - that's Prime Minister, with a Capital P and a Capital M.
Hence 'PM'
It's a title, like Her Majesty, or 'Chief Political Correspondent'
We even use A Capital Letter for 'Toenails'!

Doh!
Education, education, education - whatever happened to yours?

Good grief, a new blog, nice to see some value for money from the BBC....!

Personally I disagree with the term "scrutiny by screech", how about "harping on by harpy" instead?!!

Clearly the ConDems have a realistic expectation of increasing condemnation as the country descends into chaos.

First they are fixing the electoral system so we can never vote them out.

Then they want to put pretty much everything under 'local' control so they can pass the blame for disintegration of services as a result of the cuts.

Now they want to ensure no one can even hold them accountable in parliament.

What next? Lord Snooty declaring himself president for life?

Valid points from Bercow as far as I can see. Everytime I've watched it I'm surprised that noones thrown a pie or started a fight.

Overhaul the whole system and that would be a start.

I like Bercow.
Quite a few MPs think he's too stroppy. Good.

Can't believe CameraOn started quoting from Campbell's book in PMQs. Does the man actually want the zero credibility he's fast achieving?

"lights Saga's blue touchpaper and retires rapidly to a safe distance" - 10

Mmm. Well I'm not keen, as you know, on sexist attacks against eminent and talented women - but it's not in my power to prevent you (and others of your ilk) posting them. If I was there in the same room with you I could maybe do something, but you're in Belgium and thus out of my range of physical influence. All I can do is ask you to maybe reflect a little on the message you're putting across.

Uh-oh. Here comes Sagamix and I bet he's not best pleased.....

I think that this is a bit of an over reaction. It's only 30 minutes and from the back benches there are often some sensible questions.

At the moment the opposition hasn't got much to say for itself as we still don't know in detail how they would have dealt with the budget deficit. Until they map out some policies there won't be much substance to the exchanges.

Yet another sign of the professional politian. These people have no intrests other than Westminster, and get very excited over minutiae. People who did something in the real world before entering politics aren't so easily excited - some even listen to the answer to their question!

Bercow is so far showing the others the way home at least he gets order when he shouts with some authority un like the Scott before him.
Prime ministers questions should be over one hour in cession as the country is in such a mess it needs longer time two debate properly,
And i mean debate with order order and getting it.

What use is the self regarding and preening Bercow except to serve as a reminder of what a grim, preening and self regarding newlabour administration we have just voted out?

Bercow does, after all, hold his post as a result of the foolishness of newlabour MPs. Not content with their ritual humiliation over expenses, they decide to play their joker and elect Bercow to the post.

So I suppose we can expect this self publicist to appear again and again as a perpetual reminder of the circus that was newlabour and now is the newlabour leadership campaign circus.

And I am expecting anytime soon that David Miliband will hold his hands up about the allegations of torture, agree to co-operate with the coming enquiry 'fully' and then dodge every single question he is asked. This too will serve as an unpleasant reminder of the lawlessness and hypocrisy of the prior newlabour administration.

It's a great time to be a tory...

22#

I'm merely following the example set in the House, the age old sport of robust banter. ;-)

calm and hope @ 19

"Valid points from Bercow as far as I can see. Everytime I've watched it I'm surprised that no-one's thrown a pie or started a fight."

Yes you have to say there's room for improvement with things like PMQs. It's rather like this blog in a sense - so often overrun by childish bickering in place of mature and reasoned discussion. And also as on here, it's debatable whether people really want it to change. We say we do - it's de rigeur to say that - but do we actually, deep down, rather like the monkey business. I don't - I'd love to see an upgrade of the general standard of political debate in this country (in the House, on BBC blogs, in the pubs, clubs and bus shelters of every town and village in the land) but I'm not convinced others feel the same. Maybe they do but no, not totally convinced I have to say.

The screech part sounds about right, not sure about the scrutiny.

Seriously, PMQs sums up the very worst of British democracy. It's a really sorry spectacle, seeing supposedly grown-up politicians bickering at each other as if they were members of some public school debating club held after someone spiked the school lemonade with 80% proof rum.

I really wish that politicians could see just how bad it makes them look, but as with so many other things, they just don't get it.

"Well I'm not keen, as you know, on sexist attacks against eminent and talented women"

It would seem to me to be more a case who she is, not what she is. In fact Harriet Harridan has a vicious tendency to go for the angle you are suggesting others are using.

22/23 - And Saga still hasn't learnt the difference between a personal comment and a sexist comment.

I'm beginning to think it's just willful ignorance on his part.

As for....

"If I was there in the same room with you I could maybe do something, but you're in Belgium and thus out of my range of physical influence."

Does that sound like a physical threat to you Fubar? I bet you're wondering what that might be like. Imagine being attacked by a hamster. In its exercise ball. Scary?!

Has the unions nipped into the mods canteen?

Further to 29 (and in the same spirit of raising the standard of debate), a quick Quality Control update. When posting to the blog, the following words and phrases should if at all possible be avoided. No big deal if some people can't manage it, but please let's at least try. Don't worry, there's just a few:

Clearing up the mess.
The Money Tree.
The Harpy.
Where’s Macavity?
Milipede(s).
Scorched earth policy.
The IMF.
If my income falls I don’t go on holiday.

22. At 12:54pm on 07 Jul 2010, sagamix wrote:
"lights Saga's blue touchpaper and retires rapidly to a safe distance" - 10

Mmm. Well I'm not keen, as you know, on sexist attacks against eminent and talented women -

You seemed quite happy to commend the NUM's attack on Margaret Thatcher?

Not double standards again...really....too much

We won't be able to believe a single thing you say soon

Maybe before tea time

PMQs are an important way of holding the government to account. If anything the sessions should be extended. But under the cosy coalition arrangements, with its uneasy (and unconvincing) truce between Lib Dems and Tories, are we getting proper scrutiny?

Obviously we cannot rely on Labour to provide a robust opposition. Their failed policies have nothing to offer.

Far too much legislation passes through the House of Commons on the nod without proper scrutiny, and without debating bills clause by clause. Some parts of legislation are passed without having been debated at all.

We need less legislation and more scrutiny.

"26. At 1:40pm on 07 Jul 2010, scorpio33 wrote:
Bercow is so far showing the others the way home at least he gets order when he shouts with some authority un like the Scott before him."

Yes, how we miss Bercow's predessesor...

"uh-uh-uh-uh-or-or-der-r-r-r, uh-uh-uh-uh-or-or-der-r-r-r, would the right honourable gentleman hurry up as I have to go back to my quarters to oversee my state-funded army of umpa-lumpas as they put up my gold leaf and angle wing wallpaper...."

Word on the streets is that my comments about homelessness, and the need for non-state organisations has got saga thinking

He admires John Bird, and has decided, in the spirit of helping the disadvantaged, not too far from Hampstead, a couple of buses, and a half hour walk.....he is going to launch his own magazine

Initially, he got all competitive, and was going to call it the Bigger Issue...Lawyers told him a bit too close to the original

After many bacon sandwiches, and lashings of ginger beer, a winning name was decided upon

The Smug Issue

Brown deflected Qs, Cameron deflects Qs... the only difference is Cameron can do it without notes.

At least we have more challenging questions coming from the government's own ranks now, esp on Afghanistan.

On the previous blog's 'police state' thread, I see no change from Teresa May on detention without trial and no new announcements on the cases of Tomlinson, Rigg, Rodney, etc. Best wait before announcing a new libertarian regime.

34 - I see you left off 'clowns' and 'toffs' from your list of banned words. Presumably you feel such childish terms raise the level of your debate?

The Harpy would be pleased to see such hypocrisy. She'd swoop down off her perch on the money tree and screeeeeeeech with delight.

She might even not cut them off you and eat them. But she couldn't promise not to.

Stunning that so many contributors would make this an an issue about the Dear Leader. PMQ serves only one purpose, that of allowing the protagonists to prance and preen for the benefit of their respective acolytes seated behind them.

The whole spectacle is an ancient carryover from the hormone filled debating chambers of our all-male public schools, past and present. In common parlance (ie - for those who didn't go to public school) this is where the baying mob call out such startling observations as "my dad's bigger than your dad (may be Mum in this instance), or my dad's got a bigger car than yours.

The whole process is not designed for public consumption, let alone approval. It merely serves to ensure that the leader of each gang (be it David or Harriet) ensures loyaltly and obedience in fellow gang members. Weakness, as perceived by Tories in IDS, ensures an early demise.

The whole process serves no purpose as far as the electorate are concerned. And, whilst it's touching of the Speaker to think that a more civilised air would be of benefit, the truth be told that no politician worth their salt would ever answer a direct question with a direct answer - watching the pre-election debates helped to confirm that point.

If government ministers are to be held to account, then effective FOI, with select committees that can take their time to carry out effective interrogations, are the way forward. Further, all those faceless Whitehall mandarins and other senior Civil Service members should be available to any and all MP's for questioning.

I, for one, want to see the end of the weekly charade that is PMQ's. It is an embarrassment, and should be consigned to the dustbin of history.

37 - for "gold leaf and angle wing wallpaper"

Read "gold leaf and angel wing wallpaper"

38 - I can imagine the front cover

In this month's edition:

"mmm...am I right about everything? Or just virtually everything?"

"Why imposing your moral code on everyone is the proper thing to do because you know you are right about everything. Or virtually everything"

"Pompous? YES! If you're right about everything you have a right to be pompous"

"Fashion: We take a look at the street scene in Swindon. What the homeless are wearing as they stare up longingly at underused bedsits"

I like a bit of passionate belief in Parliament and I think PMQs is interesting because of all the noise and support. I've actually sat in the officials box in the HoC (as a visitor). The chamber is a big place and not as loud as it appears on TV and some of the comments are amusing. I think politics would be boring if it became too polite.
It's all fluff anyway because no PM ever answers a question. It hasn't taken Cameron long to go the way of Brown, Blair, Major and Thatcher and that's the way of the world -it's not going to change even if it becomes quiet. It does give us an indication of the controversial issues of the day though.
I also think its healthy for a PM of any party to be brought to the dispatch box and laughed at from time to time -it's good for their soul and keeps them on their toes.
Watching today -why was Cameron going to quote from the book -do you think he keeps forgetting he's in Government (like Gove did on the news the other night calling the opposition the Government).

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

39. At 3:08pm on 07 Jul 2010, TheBlameGame wrote:
Brown deflected Qs, Cameron deflects Qs... the only difference is Cameron can do it without notes.

At least we have more challenging questions coming from the government's own ranks now, esp on Afghanistan.

On the previous blog's 'police state' thread, I see no change from Teresa May on detention without trial and no new announcements on the cases of Tomlinson, Rigg, Rodney, etc. Best wait before announcing a new libertarian regime.

Detention without trial is being reviewed every 6 months, instead of every 12 months

So there is some change

Not much though, and this is an area I will be watching with interest, as it needs to damn well change

The ''bellowing of the herd'' has been ConDemned plenty of times in the past. God knows how many yellow cards(and some reds) have been issued.

Now is time for action.

[(joke).
Speaker waves a noise meter with flashing red light during PM Questions.
Nobody notices.
Cue parlimentary request for more visible and expensive device.]

funny thing is,with all the new MP's you'd think The House in these early days, would be quieter.

[Candidate,These Days,
Joy Division]

"Saga still hasn't learnt the difference between a personal comment and a sexist comment." - 32

Happy to enlighten, Andy.

A "personal comment" is something like your "hamster in an exercise ball" gag - which I rather liked by the way (at least the first time).

A "sexist comment" is where a person is attacked in a way which relates specifically to their gender. Men who make a habit of insulting women they dislike in this way are letting themselves down and should reflect.

(hey, you never got back to me on your PE1s and PE2s - was I right to think you sailed through first time? - you've got me interested now).

PMQ's is cringeworthy. Indignified rambling, a de-tuned radio sounds less irritating.

sagamix @29

"I don't - I'd love to see an upgrade of the general standard of political debate in this country "

Ok I'll Bite.

Unfortunately you are one of those who doesn't generally debate, just claims facts from opinions and blasts anyone who looks to challenge.

But you know this. A game for you and a game for us.

So let's debate. To save time I'll pick a subject. When is a fact not a fact but an opinion? Can we agree here I wonder? I am sceptical to say the least.

32#

I'm almost minded to recall Dennis Healeys "being savaged by a dead sheep" comment about Geoffrey Howe, but I think that would be unfair on Saga, genuinely, even though he's a Champagnie, he's not threatening.

Now, if it were lefty10 and his 1-pack (as against a six pack), it might be different. Mind you, the perfume of pickled eggs and the aroma of stale, hackneyed political discourse would probably present a far more immediate and dangerous airborne chemical threat to life than any threats of violence. Death from the skies as against boots on the ground, so to speak.

"You seemed quite happy to commend the NUM's attack on Margaret Thatcher?" - 35

There's a valid and interesting point to be made here, Kevin, but it's not this one (my position on the miners' strike is at 1015 prior thread and subscribes to the traditional view that it wasn't principally about the battle of the sexes).

No, the point I'd be looking for is that Margaret Thatcher herself was the victim of a fair degree of sexist insult. As reprehensible there as it is anywhere else. Do you want (?) to make that point so I can write back and say "that's fair comment, Kevin". Because I promise I will.

Speaker Bercow is doing a very good job. He is not to blame for the rude behaviour of MPs. More power to his elbow.
A lot of the blame for the fairly recent poor conduct lies at the door of David Cameron. He did declaim the 'Punch and Judy' style and then take it to the extreme. No doubt he thought it a useful tactic to use on behalf of the Conservative party.
Is this what his privileged background taught him to do ?
The tag 'Lord Snooty' fits him well. I look forward to when he no longer has the ignorant disdainful air he thinks is proper.
He cannot blame that on his Bullingdon experiences can he ?

Kevin, your 38. I enjoy a bit of creative writing - everyone knows that - and so when I see some I always prefer to be encouraging if I can. Andy, for example, his early efforts were ... well they just were, let's say ... but under my tutelage he improved and he now turns in the occasional piece that he has no need to be too ashamed of. Not sure you and I can work together in that way (although I'd love to) but if you don't mind I will give you A's number; see if we can work something out that way.

Screech? No, it is only the sound of 646 people toeing the party line.

I understand Gove's got his first detention...7.00pm tonight.He's got to give a talk on how to get his figures right and not release them to the media before he tells the House.

Naughty boy...should really try harder.

PMQs is essential, and a must to be kept

Blair changed it to once a week, and I would keep it that way now

Sometimes it's brilliant, sometimes not so good, yet overall and important part of our Parliament

I can't decide whether I like Bercow as Speaker or not...

He is an irritating visual image, and that doesn't help much

Isn't the entire process to make political points. The public is lead to believe that these members actually stand for something. The theater of the obsurd. Some of my friends are for it and some against it and I am for my friends......and it is your fault.
Banking crisis....what banking crisis????? Unemployment...what unemployment????? Did you not cut the funds for the public garden at a local village near my district??? My sister-in-law tends that garden....

10. At 10:55am on 07 Jul 2010, Fubar_Saunders wrote:
Damn Andy, you beat me to it. I was about to say I couldnt possibly imagine who Bercow could have been referring to....


***{lights Saga's blue touchpaper and retires rapidly to a safe distance}***
--------------------
Me three.

47 - "A "sexist comment" is where a person is attacked in a way which relates specifically to their gender. Men who make a habit of insulting women they dislike in this way are letting themselves down and should reflect."

You would only be correct if I were saying that ALL women have shrieky, shrill, 'fingernails on a chalk-board' type voices. But I'm not saying that. Also, for you to be right I'd also have to be saying that NO men have shreiky, shrill voices and I'm not saying that either.

No, it's a personal attack on the Harpy.

So, you're wrong. Reflect on that.

As for exams, I'm ex-HMRC so it was all internal. I had a certificate saying I was one of Queen Liz's Inspectors of Tax. Recognised in the industry as better than CTA. They said we couldn't put the certificate up in the office in case it intimidated taxpayers. Very odd.

My first post broke the house rules..???

Was it the bit about Cameron being made to look foolish by the Speaker ?

Or the bit about Alan Budd getting out while the goings still (just about) good ?

Or the bit about Gove making a mess of things from the off ?

The conservatives are not a sexist party. They also have great dislike of Xenophobia...mainly because its a Greek word.

52. At 4:22pm on 07 Jul 2010, Bobm5 wrote:
Speaker Bercow is doing a very good job. He is not to blame for the rude behaviour of MPs. More power to his elbow.
A lot of the blame for the fairly recent poor conduct lies at the door of David Cameron. He did declaim the 'Punch and Judy' style and then take it to the extreme. No doubt he thought it a useful tactic to use on behalf of the Conservative party.
Is this what his privileged background taught him to do ?
The tag 'Lord Snooty' fits him well. I look forward to when he no longer has the ignorant disdainful air he thinks is proper.
He cannot blame that on his Bullingdon experiences can he ?


By the way, on a previous blog you wrote that the BBC pension scheme, at 1/60th was considerably better than a lot of public sector schemes at 1/80th

Actually you are mistaken with that

The 1/80ths Public sector schemes are IN ADDITION TO 3/80th tax free lump sum for each completed year of service

The 1/60th scheme has to 'commute' or give up some of it's value to obtain the 3/80ths tax free lump sum

After it has, the remaining pension is .......1/80th

So they are exactly the same

sighs @ 49

When is a fact a fact rather than an opinion? How about I answer by illustration:

A ... we have an annual public sector deficit in this country that is extremely high by both historical standards and by the standards of most other countries in the developed world.

B ... the cause of our deficit lies exclusively with overspending by the Labour governement.

C ... the cause of our deficit lies exclusively with the near collapse of the western financial system.

D ... we must halve our deficit within 4 years at the most, and the large cuts in public spending required to do this are a risk worth taking.

So:

A is a fact.
B is a fib.
C is a fib.
D is an opinion.

On here we get far more fibs and opinions than we do facts, but that's because facts are a little dry - I mean, a fact is a fact, right? (so what's to talk about?). Key to debate is D - opinions - and the big distinction there is whether they are reasoned and logical or not. Mine almost always are (unless I'm messing around) and if you doubt that, please track from now on and pull me up where you think I've fallen short of my own high standards. Bet you have very little cause to.

53

This is your editorial for next week's The Smug Issue no doubt

Frankly, I would try and get out a bit more

Your view of the world is reducing as quickly as Monet's did in his twilight years

Saga @ 63.

I have to take issue with you...

D is not an opinion...its economic madness, and thats a fact not a fib

(blimey I'm confused now.)

63

When we pick you up, is there a prize?

Also, are you heavy, because this is going to where me out, having to pick you up 10 times every day...

In your example D is a fact as well, you just can't see it

555 @ 59

"You would only be correct if I were saying that ALL women have shrieky, shrill, 'fingernails on a chalk-board' type voices. But I'm not saying that. Also, for you to be right I'd also have to be saying that NO men have shreiky, shrill voices and I'm not saying that either."

Was there a verbal reasoning paper as part of those tax exams, Andy?

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

kevin @ 66

"In your example D is a fact as well, you just can't see it"

Ah now see it's interesting you say this because you expose yourself as a dogma merchant.

There's valid economic opinion on both sides - quick deficit reduction and more gradual.

You say the course you favour (the quick one) is better, and that's fine - you wouldn't say it (would you?) if you didn't think that.

But to claim this opinion of yours as a FACT? ... nope sorry, it's clearly not.

craig @ 65

:-)

Leave you with it. Football calls.

Robin,

Just wondering and forgive me if you've been asked before but why exactly is it " a great time to be a Tory"

What is it that they're doing that you relish so greatly?

"Me three." - 58

Wouldn't associate yourself too closely with those two, Mick, if I were you - unless you want to make reprehensible comments and let yourself down, that is.

Three years of having to endure Brown never answering a question at PMQ's and now they decide on a bit of reform, a pity they did not decide 3 years ago.

sagamix @ 63

A good illustration, I agree with all four! But after that I feal there is work to do.

Definitely opinions are what we need to debate, but the aim of the debate must be to review opinions and see which hold and which don't, otherwise we are left with noise and no chance of progress (a bit like the work I do at the council come to think about it). For this I belive we need to turn to facts, to prove, or disprove oppinions. But if we have no definition of fact then we can assert anything and indeed this is what happens here on this blog. So we need a means test, when is an asserted fact (in support of an opinion) at a level that we can all agree the assertion and then debate on whether it proves or disproves the opinion?

To be honest I'm not sure of the answer, but I do know that if we can solve that we might actually undertake some real discussion. Hence why I was wondering if you, or anyone else, can help me out.

Well, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats are always screeching on about something, and today was no exception. And this won't take long or cost the BBC a lot of money, certainly no where near as much as David Cameron is payed by us for him to fire us. You see, it is all about fairness i.e putting people out of work. It is all about accountability which is why once a week, we have a right to see an overpayed government patronise us, and it is all about a new politics, which is why David Laws has been fired for fiddling expenses.

12. At 11:06am on 07 Jul 2010, JohnConstable wrote:
Come friendly German bombs to drop again on the HoC, as per 1940.

So that we would have another opportunity to reconstruct the chamber such that it was a more consensual setting rather than the outdated and ill-fitting adversial arrangement that we can certainly, in these straightened times, can no longer afford the luxury of.

---------------------------------------------------------
Interesting thought. Wonder if the insurance premiums are up to date? Perhaps we could claim on Jerry?

Could see it going wrong, though, and the poor old taxpayers getting clobbered for something like the Scottish electorate, only ten times worse.

How long does it take for all those nice shiny new MPs, paint still not dry, to turn into grizzled old combatants yelling their 'Yah! Boohs! ?

Perhaps we should check with Saga and Kevin? They should know.

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

75

David Laws wasn't fired, he resigned

It wasn't for fiddling expenses, it was for claiming them in the wrong way, and breaking the rules as to HOW you claim them

Nobody at any time has suggested he made any profit from this

By all means criticise him, yet it is only fair to be accurate when making such comments

It's true that they do seem to be point scoring a lot, but they do have to remain competent as well and sometimes in order to do that you have to compare your own party's policies to the opposition's and prove they are better and more progressive.

At the same time, he should also actually answer the questions as well, which sometimes he doesn't. Though today even though he didn't answer the questions the answers were quite obvious, like the fact that David Cameron is probably going to reduce police numbers.

But yes I just hope that they know that when they choose not to answer the questions they only lose the confidence of the public that are watching them.

69. At 7:04pm on 07 Jul 2010, sagamix wrote:
kevin @ 66

"In your example D is a fact as well, you just can't see it"

Ah now see it's interesting you say this because you expose yourself as a dogma merchant.

There's valid economic opinion on both sides - quick deficit reduction and more gradual.

You say the course you favour (the quick one) is better, and that's fine - you wouldn't say it (would you?) if you didn't think that.

But to claim this opinion of yours as a FACT? ... nope sorry, it's clearly not.


No it is not

Yet you managed to wander into my parlour Mr Fly

On time, on script....

Great stuff

To be fair on the police numbers question(can you guarantee police numbers willnoy fall,) Harman knew the answer that Cameron refused to give...no.

Alan Johnson was asked on Politics Today sometime ago and indeed did reply with one word, no...which is completely honest and accurate.

The Home Secretary is responsible for the funding of the police forces. He/she cannot,however, make the individual forces increase or decrease their numbers...that is a policy decision for each force. Thats not to say budgets can't be cut to such an extent that it becomes inevitable.

60 craigmarlpool

"...Or the bit about Alan Budd getting out while the goings still (just about) good ?"

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Didn't Alan Budd come out of retirement to help set up the OBR and was not expected to hang around for long?

kevin @ 80

"No it* is not a fact"

* that the Coalition's approach to reducing the deficit is better than the more gradual alternative advocated by certain others.

Okay, good you can now see this. Thought you might go into all sorts of contortions to avoid retracting. Very nice surprise!

"67. At 6:55pm on 07 Jul 2010, sagamix wrote:
555 @ 59

"You would only be correct if I were saying that ALL women have shrieky, shrill, 'fingernails on a chalk-board' type voices. But I'm not saying that. Also, for you to be right I'd also have to be saying that NO men have shreiky, shrill voices and I'm not saying that either."

Was there a verbal reasoning paper as part of those tax exams, Andy?"

I'll take that as the closest you'll come to accepting that you were wrong.

All part of an education rooted in the classics. I'm a fan of Socratic dialectic but I've always seen you as more of a fan of rhetoric. I'm sure you appreciate the difference.

22 saga

Could you support your opinion that Ms Harman is talented with some facts?

My observations are:

1. She is a poor parliamentary performer
2. She seems a bit dim

AS71 @82.
My understanding was he initially took a three month contract, but it was generally assumed he would continue.

82

he was on an initial 3 month contract, yes

Once upon a time the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition (Cameron as he was) proposed that he'd not use PMQs as a 'punch & judy show' - his description.
But it didn't work. Media were denied their stories of aggressive confrontations and Tory Poll Ratings sagged.
So he switched to the normal boisterous approaches and was rewarded with a rising approval rating both in media commentary and in opinion polling. Which is probably why he keeps up the same routine. As does the opposition benches. The Lib-Dems are shielded from this mess. Which may help to explain a small part of their loss of electoral support.
Other democracies manage very well without these weekly set-piece confrontations. Why can't we?

sighs @ 74

The best way is to do a test case. Let's you and I try to work out what proportion of our current debt and deficit is due to the financial crash (and consequences of). You do some research and the calculation and I'll do the same. Then we'll swap conclusions and supporting evidence - see where we end up. This will flush out the "fact v opinion" issues you want to explore and plus we'll get a tangible end product. Are you up for that? (not by tonight, don't worry! ... we take our time and do it properly).

I'm not "grizzled", Snuff (76), thank you very much. I look like Paul Newman circa 1965. That's what people tell me anyway, when I tie them down and ask them. "I look like Paul Newman circa 1965, don't I?" I say, nodding my head and grinning.

83

As you well know, I didn't retract, just completely caught you out

The only problem with PMQs is the obtrusively sententious John Bercow. What purpose will it serve to have even more backbench MPs hopping up to deliver their hopelessly parochial questions? The format doesn't serve any great democratic purpose other than to give MPs a bit of TV time; and the public to have a bit of a laugh at the ding-dong and heckling. Remove those elements from PMQs and I, for one, will stop watching and I expect many others would, too. Most people can surmise that John Bercow is a distinctly effete character, and that his oft-made claim to be maintaining order on behalf of the public is both nauseating and delusional.

It has become a travesty where by and large M.P.s of each of the respective parties seem to be 'provided' with questions to put to the leader of their party in to create an opportunity for him / her to use their response as an 'advertisement' break. The falseness of this smarmy, stage managed, 'dishonest', process has totally devalued presumably the original intent behind P.M's question time ie to provide a democratic forum for legitimate and 'honest' questions to be put forward and hopefully receive a direct and honest answer. This travesty was seen at its worst when Gordo was in office when generally inarticulate party faithfuls routinely read from the prepared scripts ( or should I say put forward questions ?)in order to provide Gordo with the carefully chosen 'platform' that he required to trot out some endless list of boasting stats. This was a 'win win' arrangement as the M.P. from greater snoring was able to feel important for a moment and bathe in the light of his leader whilst also confirming to his / her constituents that he / she was still alive and drawing his / her expenses. The public image of politicians and the political system in general has been badly damaged over the last few months and the recovery from this situation is not being helped by this crude, unprofessional, unconstructive, and demeaning spectacle.

"I'll take that as the closest you'll come to accepting that you were wrong." - 184

It would appear so, Andy, yes. I saw someone attempting some noddy level semantics to justify sexist jibes at a female politician and decided (wrongly it would now appear) that the very fact he was doing this showed a certain awareness of the problem.

That "Socratic" enough for you?

I have to say i much enjoyed PMQ's on the 7th July much more restrained than normal and it was nice to see out rulers acting like grown men and women not like they where still at school,long may it continue

AS71 @ 85

"Could you support your opinion that Ms Harman is talented with some facts?"

Certainly she has some achievements to her name in a long and (IMO) distinguished career - take a look at her wiki page if you're interested - but essentially we're in the realms of opinion here. I think she's an excellent politician (maybe some of this is because I'm big on the equality agenda and she's been such a dedicated proponent of that for so many years) but you're free to disagree of course ... although preferably based on something sensible; not, say, because her voice in the House of Commons doesn't always sound like top of his game Pavarotti.

"8 As you said in an earlier blog Nick, its the oppositions job to oppose......."
Ah yes I did say something about that comment but it was "moderated"

Bercow no doubt wants DC to actually answer some questions from the Opposition. He now has the opportunity to do something about that. Shame he didn't do something about it well before the election but I support his endeavours, as well as increasing the time for PMQs and reducing the number of fixed questions.
The object of PMQs is to let the backbenchers ask questions, something GB was uncomfortable with and stopped, but then he was in charge of a large majority so could (and did) do what he liked.

My own view is that Bercow is right to try to address this problem. The general public are rightly irritated by politicians acting like overgrown schoolchildren.

It doesn't do anyone any favours to detract from the issue by making crass comments about his demeanour or his stature.

Why is it almost impossible to get rational debate without recourse to insults on the basis of prejudice, whether personal or political.
I don't mean the occasional leg-pull but some people on these blogs abuse the privilege.

If you disagree with a point of view then argue your case with some degree of civility. I know it is hard sometimes when some people are so blindly prejudiced they cannot see the wood for the trees, but it only diminishes the proponents and fails to address the issue.

Time to redesign the HoC. Adversarial, two sword-lengths apart, opposing benches must be replaced with a hemispherical camera.

"I didn't retract, just completely caught you out" - 91

Ah yes of course - fiendishly cunning. Saying your opinion was fact and now accepting that it's mere opinion - really thrown me, Kevin, that has. Whatever next.