« Grayling acts on potential for petition abuse | Main | The stay-at-homes are a bigger worry than UKIP »

Comments

Interesting how Labour seem to be trying to class Wilberforce as their own.

Surprised Cameron didn't make reference to the fact that Brown wrecked pensions. Perhaps he doesn't want to knock him too much in case Labour members think twice about making him leader.

I think he may have mentioned Brown's role in pensions in passing Andrew, will have to check though.

Is anyone watching the PM's Middle East statement now? The body language of Prescott and Brown is hilarious.

Edward Leigh provided the ammo to attack Cameron.

What a prize plonker Leigh is.

Watching PMEQ's I was struck how much Bliar reminds me of one of the 'best' PM's ever- Jim Hacker. But without the warmth, humour and relative honesty!

Cameron asked if David Milibands assertion that voters would want Blair back once Brown comes to power was an accurate forecast or a bad career move.
There's always a bit of that with a retiring\retired leader - when John Smith died in 1994, Neil Kinnock was actually suggested to return as leader by a number of Labour people, when Margaret Thatcher went it wasn't long before there were waves of nostalgia, certainly with Michael Foot probably half the Labour Party or more wished that Jim Callaghan had continued as leader, in Israel Shimon Peres keeps returning and at one point Yitzak Rabin and Shimon Peres were back in the 1990's at the same time, who knows? Tony Blair's name might come up at some time in the future for a possible return as Labour leader, I don't think he would attempt a comeback when Gordon Brown was retiring as Labour leader, but it's always possible, in 2017 he would only be 63 so he might easily take 4 or 5 years out and return to parliament in 2014 although I suspect some of the arch Fabians and Trots will go on blaming him for anything that goes wrong in Iraq or the broader area whether related to the 2003 war or not, into the indefinite future.

I must have missed it Sam. Still wonder if the attacks on Brown may be played down a bit until he actually gets the leadership. He's one of our best assets.

"Edward Leigh provided the ammo to attack Cameron."
I wonder how popular he was on the tory backbenches at PMQ's today. When will he curb his arrogance and learn that you don't provide the opposition with this kind of ammunition.

Had it been Hague against Cameron, he would have slaughtered him, I think cameron needs to up his game in PMQS. Quote illegal immigration figures, for which there can be nop defense and the fact that hes a lame duck. Quote to blair what he qouted to major - "weak, weak, weak"

Had it been Hague against Cameron,

Is Cameron crossing the floor to Labour? :)

What is Cameron saying, is he giving a firm promise, that the next Conservative Government will 'cover' every single private or occupational pension scheme. British Airways were given financial advice, that the best thing they could do, would be to declare themselves bankrupt, leaving the taxpayer to pick up the bill for their £2.0 billion defecit on their pension scheme. The moment any government guarantees, private or occupational pensions, how many companies might be tempted to offload their expensive pension schemes onto the taxpayer?

I thought Cameron was excellent.This government as created the pension crisis therefore there is a lot of damage that can be done attacking them on this.
There is no easy answer to how the people who have already had there pensions ruined can be helped as there is a limit to the amount of public money that can be spent helping them but at least we can show that its Labour`s incompetance that as created this problem.

No I agree, Edward Leigh is a prize Turkey.

He and his Tombstone rabble, need to think (sic!) long and hard before making armour peircing bullets for Labour to use against us.

I don't see why the government should be involved in apparently bailing out failed pension schemes, the scheme that provides financial assistance is taking money out of successful schemes and redistributing it to people who have been in schemes that have failed, certainly the state can help by minimising taxation of private pensions, but why should successful schemes be propping up failed ones and why should the state be involved in personal pensions any more than people investing in a failed business, or people who buy a product that immediately becomes obsolete, other than the same support that anyone would get falling onto hard times - why should there be anything else? I don't think that there should be redundancy payments either or Industrial Injuries compensation or victims compensation paid out by the state, certainly there should be minimal support to provide people with a minimum income but the state should not be paying out what are other people's responsibilities - in the case of pensions that of pension managers, in regard to redundancy perhaps company owners, industrial injuries - again the businesses involved and in the case of victims support the criminals - either the perpetrators should pay or the victim should have to accept the loss.

The comments to this entry are closed.

#####here####

Categories

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:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker