« Tory 'northern problem' underlined by YouGov poll of Yorkshire voters | Main | Scottish Tories need clearer identity »


Shilpa Shetty is not really something the House of Commons should be discussing; nor is Channel 4 particularly glorious for its downmarket programming and promotion of PWT types on television.

I hope Ms Shetty enjoys her £367.000 Fee because I think the whole thing is shoddy and degrading

Cameron was really excellent on his first 5 questions. He should have been properly briefed on the answer to q. 6. Labour MPs, apart from Paul Flynn, were all terrible - as was Grandpa Ming. Liked the cheers when soon-to-be-out Martin Linton reminded us how Wandsworth has the lowest Council Tax in the country, has not been capped, has reserves and offers real value! Unlike the vast majority of Labour-run councils and your Labour government, Mr. Linton.

Re: the psychologically flawed comment.

The Guardian says:

"At the time, it was widely assumed that Alastair Campbell - Mr Blair's then all-powerful chief spin doctor - was responsible for the remark, despite his public denials.

But Mr Price, who worked as Mr Campbell's deputy during Labour's first term in office, suggested on political channel 18 Doughty Street TV that the real culprit was Mr Blair.

Tory MP Jeremy Wright raised the issue at today's prime minister's question, asking: "Will you confirm that you have not called the chancellor of the exchequer 'psychologically flawed'?"

Mr Blair replied simply: "I do confirm that, yes.""

The BBC summary omits it (it's not the first time I've noticed questions that are awkward for the government omitted from their "point-by-point summary", I hope it isn't a trend...).

Actually, the best quote came from Ed Balls in the Daily Politics show beforehand, responding to complaints by the police that they aren't getting enough money:

"The assumption that it’s got to be higher, and if it’s not higher we’re gonna cut policing I just don’t think that that’s really the way to address the issues of efficiency in public services.”

You cannot sack Joan Ryan - she's in Dresden helping Britain fall under the spell of Brigitte Zypries, the SPD Justice Minister

Whilst Dave is right to ask why more civil servants at the Home Office are not being sacked for the failures of their departments, it has to be borne in mind that these people are departmental heads under the leadership of their political masters and doing the bidding of these people.
It could be argued, that if you have no direction from the top, then the whole ship of state becomes a wallowing, drifting, hazard, very likely to go aground or sink. So why blame the crew, when the master and helmsman is in his stateroom carousing with the guests. Surely the blame, as in maritime law to continue the analogy, lies with the commander and master, in this case Reid or the previous incumbents who have escaped serious censure for their blatant failings.
Dave needs to carry on in this manner, chipping away at the extremities and finding fault with everything NuLab, he will eventually chip through the armour and draw blood and bodies and scalps.

A Minister CANNOT sack a Civil Servant - only the Head of the ivil Service can do that. Otherwise Civil Servants would have no ability to avoid being subservient to each political party.

Someone should be reading the Civil Service Code instead of making points for TV. the fact is that Ministers take responsibility in return for Civil Servants being banned from party political activity.

It is Blair who yanks them off immigration to deporting failed asylum-seekers, and keeps switching priorities

As regards ministerial competence generally, if you have a Government made of ministers chosen from the ranks of Trade Union Officials. social workers, ex-local Government functionaries and failed Polytechnic lecturers, you're never going to see responsible exercise of leadership, are you?

I look forward to Martin Linton's exit.

The theme of new labour incompetence is being nicely nurtured

George, I am in 100% agreement with your comments, but just to be clear: David didn't call for any civil servants to be sacked. Rather, he went out of his way to ask the government why they kept hiding behind civil servants, pointing out that a civil servant had been suspended for telling the truth while the minister was protected for not answering questions!

He was great today. My favourite line was when he was demanding to see the ACPO letters to and from the home office, saying that Blair "[he's] probably got it in that folder he refers to all the time".

I agree with our Tory Solicitor, without even getting high on ideological divides (see social responsibility though, great idea), the sheer bumbling incompetence of this administration is a great target. Particularly when it leads to public danger.

Personally I am appalled that the disgusting trash Big Brother has now been mentioned in parliament.

This is an extreme example of "dumbing down"

I have not the least concern for the scum who either watch or take part in this filth.

As Graeme Archer @ 16.39 so rightly points out:

"the sheer bumbling incompetence of this administration is a great target".

The daily routine of government, as I think Michael Howard used to point out, consists mainly of process and all of us have got to hammer home the message that Nulab is not capable of organising the proverbial party in a brewery.

Every day provides more examples.

But when our turn comes, will we prove to be markedly better?

If Britain were not a joke country, the Conservatives would have event after event on combined issues of ECHR / terrorism / immigration / crime.

Today, no surprise, turns out the 21/7 bombers were under surveillance. Meanwhile those who have to be on "control orders" because we are signed up to the ECHR abscond.

What do we hear from the Tories? Sweet FA.

Unfortunately they are unfit for office. They will not get out of the ECHR therefore they do not complain about it. The dredful Grieve even attacks Blair from pro-Muslim view! They will not do anything about terrorism because they are more interested in keeping the BBC on side than they are in taking the tough decisions to deal with terrorists.

I will vote UKIP not because i think they are any good but just to send a (tiny) signal. Hopefully many others will do the same and force the Tories to take defence/terror seriously.

Brown IS pychologically flawed, as TB is accused of saying. He is passive agressive by nature, and prefers to lead from behind the throne. This includes sulking, glowering, getting mad while smiling. He sure fits the bill, how clever of TB to spot it. Is this why the great spin meister is putting off his departure until the end of this parliamentary session?

"He was great today. My favourite line was when he was demanding to see the ACPO letters to and from the home office"
re this; ACPO is not covered by the FOI but the Home Office is-----can Ministers refuse disclosure on that count?

Where is the entry about Irwin Stelzer?

Control Orders

Mr Bliar says it is the Tory's fault that he couldn't get powers to jail these suspects without trial. He was defeated because a government like this cant be trusted. Which is just as well given the comment from the Minister for Policing and Security, Tony McNulty, about the escaped suspect;

“The individual is not believed to represent a direct threat to the public in the UK.” Telegraph.

So we were right,the PM wanted to jail non-threatening terrorists

How can it be possible not bring this shambles down?

re this; ACPO is not covered by the FOI but the Home Office is-----can Ministers refuse disclosure on that count?

Of course - it relates to policy currently being formulated

chosen from the ranks of Trade Union Officials.

That would not be quite so bad.....I don't see any however. Certainly it is no worse being a Trades Union Official - Ernest Bevin founded the TGWU - than being a City lawyer or accountant.

Brown IS pychologically flawed, as TB is accused of saying.

Anybody who eats their finger nails as Broon does has a problem with nerves, either they are highly strung.., or, have deeper problems within their psyche. Either way, would you trust such an individual in a position of power and responsibility?

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker