Live PMQs blog from noon

12.42pm: Thanks to PoliticsHome.com here is a YouTube of the main Brown V Cameron exchanges:

Highlights, not verbatim:

12.29pm: Richard Bacon asks the PM to name and shame the nations blocking progress on Burma at the UN.  Brown declines to do so but says that the Government is doing all it can to overcome the blockage.

12.27pm: Greg Hands MP notes that Boris Johnson has got off to a flying start; banning alcohol on the tube, planting 10,000 more trees and reviewing City Hall finances.  Why hasn't Gordon Brown rung him to congratulate the new Mayor?  Brown says he congratulated Boris in the House last week.  Not quite true.  He merely welcomed him to the Commons.

12.25pm: In reply to a planted question from Nigel Griffiths MP, Brown says that voters will never forget that the Conservatives are the party of three million unemployed, 15% interest rates and record home repossessions.  Labour is the party that will intervene to defend the poor, he continues.   

12.22pm: Nicholas Winterton attacks Brown's taxation of motorists, noting that UK drivers are the most taxed in Europe.  The PM quotes Steve Norris back at him and his argument that taxation of cars needs to rise.

12.17pm: Brown recycles his 'you're just a salesman' line to Cameron. Nothing of substance, he says.  The Tories still haven't said, he continues, whether they support what was done yesterday, or not.

12.16pm: In his next question, he asks about the Scottish referendum issue.  Again and again - on 10p, on last autumn's cancelled election, on Wendy Alexander's attempt to save her skin by announcing her referendum u-turn - he's always putting political considerations first and is never straight with people.

12.15pm: Gordon Brown lists the promised Tory tax cuts - on inheritance tax and stamp duty - nothing for the poor, he says.

12.13pm: Yesterday, says DC, we all paid £2.7bn to help him save his job.  At least he can start to answer questions.  Did, he continues, make yesterday's 10p tax announcement because of the proximity of the by-election.

12.13pm: The PM replies by saying that he is about to announce measures to boost the housing market.

12.12pm: David Cameron gets up again to ask his third question and focuses on the leaked papers on the housing market.

12.09pm: Nick Clegg says that 1.1 million people are still worse off because of the abolition of the 10p tax band.  Why do the worst off have to pay for the Government's incompetence, he says? Brown, in reply lists Labour's achievements on poverty - which, he says, trebled under the Conservatives.

12.08pm: Gordon Brown quotes aid agencies saying the issue of air drops is currently a "distraction".

12.07pm: Should there be a deadline, Mr Cameron presses, after which we consider air drops even if the percentage of aid that gets through is small?  At least, the Tory leader says, it'll be better than 0%.

12.05pm: Gordon Brown says he doesn't rule out anything but the aid agencies are not enthuisiastic about such an approach.  He notes that the UN has not been able to discuss the issue because certain Security Council members have objected.

12.04pm: David Cameron raises Burma and asks the PM if he'll consider air drops of aid, if necessary.

Comments

[Daniel Furr]

Cabinet ministers are not cheering for a second week running. No confidence in Brown?

[Tony Makara]

'Split-skirt' Flint cuts a ridiculous figure, how on earth did she ever get selected and elected?

[Man in a Shed]

DC intresting line of painting Brown as being incapable of answering a straight question.

[Daniel Furr]

Ah, the silence for Labour when Brown repeats the same old lines (again)

[Tony Makara]

So the New Deal has created half a million jobs in the last year according to Brown, why are more people on benefit then?

[Cleethorpes Rock]

Grain Harvest and Tractor mudguard production both up.

[passing leftie]

Tony Makara:
'Split-skirt' Flint cuts a ridiculous figure, how on earth did she ever get selected and elected?

Channeling the Daily Mail, are we? Funny how the right judge female politicians primarily by their appearance.

So the New Deal has created half a million jobs in the last year according to Brown, why are more people on benefit then?

Posted by: Tony Makara | May 14, 2008 at 12:19

You are wrong. The claimant count has declined over the last year, and massively since Labour got in. Check the ONS claimant and economic inactivty figures.

[Daniel Furr]

Regarding planted questions, I cannot help but notice the boredom and frustration of ministers and backbenchers when Brown goes on his "evil Tory" rant.

[NigelC]

Passing leftie- BBC announced rising unemployment this morning- up 14,000

[The Silent Majority]

Cameron missed an open goal.

Why bother with Burma. Most people in this country don't know where Myanmar is!

Nick Clegg looked stronger than ever.

Davids follow up questions were easily batted away as the PM reminded us of mass unemployment, 2 recessions, massive increase in crime,disastrous public services etc

And I am a Conservative voter!

[Tony Makara]

Passing Leftie, everyone knows that Flint is a vain and egostistical politician who works hard to project her image, like wearing split-skirts in the commons and consciously leaving documents exposed to attract yet more publicity. Flint is an intellectual pigmy and completely unfit to be an MPs. Her comments about denying housing to the unemployed show she lacks the political maturity for office.

As regards the New Deal, lets just say that I have my contacts in the DWP and I know exactly how this racket works. People disappear from the unemployment register when they are drafted onto 26 week work-experience programmes, although they are of course still just as much on benefit as ever. The New Deal has cost 3.4 Billion and has seen youth unemployment increase by 20%. Anyone who believes Gordon Brown's claim that the New Deal has created half a million jobs is an idiot.

[Editor]

I'm very glad DC raised Burma, Silent Majority, although I'm not convinced by the air drops policy.

It is an enormous tragedy that once again exposes the uselessness of the UN.

If anyone missed it please see Ben Rogers' article on Burma that we published on Monday afternoon.

[Daniel Furr]

Cameron did not miss an open goal.

Labour MPs were silence once again and are sick of hearing of the 1980s and early 90s. Young voters, like me, are too young to remember Thatcher and Major so the government attack line does not work.

[Cleethorpes Rock]

I've no idea why Cameron went with Burma. He should have focused on topics which will play in C&N, namely the tax Bribe, the increase in borrowing and maybe throw in a few points about whether the PM had been invited to campaign in Crewe or not.

Cameron should have used this to get media hits in Crewe ahead of the election, but instead he put the now discredited argument about bombing Burma with aid.

[Tony Makara]

Why doesn't the speaker intervene when the prime minister starts to spout a 1992 election broadcast? This is pure propaganda and cannot be considered as answering a question.

[Jon]

Ha, Caroline Flint takes to the airwaves, speak of the devil...

[Daniel Furr]

Well, this pre-Queen speech statement has borrowed numerous Tory plans already.

- elected police chiefs
- NHS constitution
- Control of medical budgets
- More power to local citizens
- Immigrants to learn English
- Parental control of schools

Brown has just shown Cameron has substance, which David just made a reference too.

[passing leftie]

Passing leftie- BBC announced rising unemployment this morning- up 14,000

Posted by: NigelC | May 14, 2008 at 12:32

An increase in unemployment in a time of global recession is hardly unexpected. The UK economy is pretty resilient compared with our continental neighbours, though.

Young voters, like me, are too young to remember Thatcher and Major so the government attack line does not work.

Posted by: Daniel Furr | May 14, 2008 at 12:40

If only that wasn't the case. The words of George Santayana come to mind.

Passing Leftie, everyone knows that Flint is a vain and egostistical politician who works hard to project her image, like wearing split-skirts in the commons and consciously leaving documents exposed to attract yet more publicity.

This is pathetic. What the hell is wrong with wearing a split skirt? Is wearing a Saville Row suit and Pinks shirt vain? You'd be at her like an attack sheep if she was looking dowdy or having a bad hair day. Still, at least you are attempting to back up your mysogynistic comments with some substance this time round.

[passing leftie]

Close italics

[Norm Brainer]

"Ha, Caroline Flint takes to the airwaves, speak of the devil..."

Speaking of which... she does look evil to me; like she should be pretty, but looks like a succubus in disguise.

[Tony Makara]

Jon, the devil wears Prada!

[Cleethorpes Rock]

Because the speaker supports the PM and IS NOT impartial. Speaker Martin is the worst speaker ever and has even contrived to cover up his own corruption and that of his greedy, money-grabbing, snout-in-trough wife.

[Deborah]

Passing leftie,
There's nothing sexist about criticising a Minister for dressing inappropriately. A split skirt is inappropriate for the chamber - just as cargo pants or leather trousers would be if the Minister was a man.
She does look ridiculous but more importantly she is way out of her depth.

[Deborah]

"The UK economy is pretty resilient compared with our continental neighbours, though"
What planet are you on?

[Susan]

Daniel Furr has a point - the Front Bench & Labour MPs are very quiet, with good reason, so perhaps they are as bored with planted questions as the rest of us. If the bluster of Clegg is a positive then, yes, he did well but DC, without bluster, did better.

Following PMQs there was a good comeback from DC on Brown's draft legislative statement too, ie that they're stealing Conservative clothes. There's only one problem with that which is, if you don't like Labour and their policies but know they're stealing Conservative policies, who do you vote for? The Labour Party, with its assortment of Trots and Fabianists, is, of course, finished. Still, a good showing by DC.

[Tony Makara]

Deborah, Flint shows her immaturity by the way she tries to cultivate an image for herself. As you correctly say there is a time and a place for dress codes. Flint might think she looks glamorous but her dress sense in the house just makes her look tacky.

[StevenAdams]

Cameron is persistently wrong-footing Brown and Labour... and seemingly some posters on here (SilentMajority).

The public already know what we think of the 10p tax debacle. Brown is already lamented as a ditherer. The immediate opinion polls in Crewe have already shown the public to view this solution as 'too little too late' - or a 'bribe'.

What's best: raise the 10p issue and let Brown boast of the govt 'listening' and 'giving' (as asked for by the Cons, and would therefore make us look merely opportunistic).... or to go on a human suffering topic that is in the media, has moral values independent of politics, and an issue that shows the govt dithering with inaction again.

Not only this, but whilst Cameron shows himself to have relevant opinion and policy on a human disaster, whilst all Brown can do is talk about 1989. That won't slip by viewers.

[Umbrella man]

People like Cleethorpes Rock are an embarrassment to the Tories.

WHY SHOULD CAMERON ONLY RAISE ISSUES OF INTEREST TO VOTERS IN C&N??

ARE WE AS BAD AS LABOUR??

[dirty european socialist]

I thought the PM did ok and so did the tory leader. A draw today. Although Sky TV will probably play the best tory question over and over again to make it look like a win for the tory.

[Umbrella man]

I should have said: I'M PROUD TOO THAT CAMERON RAISED BURMA.

[Bexie]

Passing leftie, have you taken into account the people on other benefits taken out of the work force?

Also blaming the world economy is not really an excuse. Brroooon and Co are in charge, I expect them to do something about it. You care to recall the savaging they used to give the conservatives last time there was a global downturn?

[Nigel Rathbone]

Tony Makara, I don't know if you know Caroline Flint personally or whether you are pontificating from a position of ignorance. I suspect the latter.

Either way, however, your personal snipe at her seems to me both unnecessary and mean spirited. What on earth has her dress sense to do with anything? Do you criticize your own Theresa May for wearing leather skirts and low cut tops in the House of Commons?

You also argue that she is a "vain and egotistical politician". In my experience, very few politicians lack those qualities (Cameron has both in spades), and those who do - such as Frank Field - very rarely make it to the top.

By the way, you would be wise to check your own spelling and grammar before calling anyone an "intellectual pigmy" (sic). Were you educated under a Conservative government by any chance?

[NigelC]

I don't recall Brown crediting the global economy for his good fortune on the way up so he can't really blame it on the way down.
Surely a prudent chancellor would have foreseen all the global turmoil and prepared the UK economy.
I think Brown's economic reputation is in tatters

[Tony Makara]

Bexie, good points. Gordon Brown's economic problems are cause by the easy-credit culture and the fact that the MPC did the governments bidding by keeping Sterling overvalued for so long. Now that Sterling is undergoing a correction the cost of imports have jumped 10.2% in just one year and will go much higher as the Pound is set for a big fall. This is the main reason why the MPC is now afraid to cut rates. They know the cost of EU food would rocket. Gordon Brown used credit to promote a fake feelgood factor and with much of that consumer spending going on imports the Pound was kept artifically high to mask inflation. Although of course Brown couldn't mask the inflation that easy-credit brought to the housing market. It is all Gordon Brown's fault, this isn't a recession 'made in the USA' as Brown claims.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Good for you Daniel Furr @ 12.40 - Perhaps when/if it eventually sinks in he/Gordon Brown and they/Labour MP's will mercifully give up their mind-numbing historical litanies, because if the council elections just past are anything to go by, they are not having an effect on older people either!

Its also a shame that Mr. Brown cannot be persuaded to realise that the same applies to his endless litanies of 'achievements', some of which were aired, AS USUAL, on PMQ's. I suppose when he is wound up (as in a clock), he cannot help himself now!

[Deborah]

Only Man in a Shed seems to have picked up on what I thought was the most interesting line - the Government are not being straight with the public
-Flint telling the public that the housing market is strong, whilst telling cabinet the opposite.
-Brown saying Wendy Alexander is not calling for an election when she has stated that she is.
-Brown claiming the 10p backdown had nothing to do with th election (although no proof here, the public sees through brown's excuses)
This goes further than not answering the question or simply being economical with the truth. This is about the government being caught deliberately saying things which are not true.
This is about Brown's integrity.

[Tony Makara]

Nigel Rathbone, as a person who speaks eight languages and has undertaken top-level work projects as a translator, I really don't need to be lectured on the issue of spelling, grammar or other aspects of semantics from you. I find it curious that you want to stifle opinion, and my opinion is that Caroline Flint is vain, dresses inappropriately, and lacks political judgement, as her threat to kick the jobless and their children out of social housing proves. Flint should spend less time on 'bend and snap' and more time on trying to understand the social problems of housing and poverty.

[Tony Makara]

Dedicated to Caroline Flint:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stzVHsQBRd4

[Nigel Rathbone]

I don't wish to stifle anyone's opinion. You are welcome to yours, obviously, and your points about Caroline Flint's failings on policy may be perfectly valid. What I find objectionable is your original attack on her dress sense, not a political argument but a cheap, shallow and personal jibe. I also find it bizarre that don't have the same problem with your Shadow Leader of the House (a point you conspicuously ignored - presumably you don't mind what Mrs May wears because she's a Conservative).

As to your point that she is vain - so what? As I said earlier, most politicians are vain. If you don't like politicians who choose what they wear with care, and who spend time agonizing over such important issues as "what side should I part my hair today?", what on earth are you doing cheerleading for David Cameron?

[johnC]

Well, I've just looked at Caroline Flint's website. Lots of nice pictures in the photo galleries, with no split skirt in sight, but nearly all of them have the caption 'caption'. Very helpful.

[Tony Makara]

Nigel Rathbone, I don't think you can even begin to compare the way Caroline Flint dresses and behaves with that of Teresa May. The two women are on a completely different level when it comes to intellect and decorum. As for my 'cheerleading' for David Cameron well I'm happy to shout loud in support of Mr Cameron. He is a very astute leader and a fine character too, he will make an excellent prime minister. However the question of how anyone could 'cheerlead' for the fatuous Flint baffles me? Even praising her 'qualities' of vanity?

[Cleethorpes Rock]

My point about Burma was that it didn't need raising, not that it wasn't an important issue. Cameron's point about aid drops is nothing new; it was put forward by Nick Clegg last week and rejected as impractical. I suppose I AM guilty of getting caught up in the by-election hysteria and do recognise that in adressing issues like Burma, Sudan, Rwanda etc, Cameron has repositioned us to a point where we are listened to on a range of other issues. My point was that using questions on it today added nothing new to the discussion on Burma, serious though that situation is.

I also think that the state of the economy is the number one issue for most people. I hope that Umbrella Man might perhaps alter his view to state that he found my opinion embarrassing, not me personally!

[Nigel Rathbone]

I don't think you can even begin to compare the way Caroline Flint dresses and behaves with that of Teresa May.

Leather skirt and low cut leopard skin top? How is that more "decorous" than a split skirt?

I don't care what anyone wears personally, but it's the hypocritical double standards that bug me.

"The quality of vanity is not strained..."

Tony Makara I'd appreciate it if you don't misquote me as blatently as I have just misquoted Shakespeare. I did not cheer Caroline Flint's "qualities of vanity", I merely observed that most politicians are vain, up to and including your beloved Cameron. (It's often been said, politics is showbiz for ugly people.) That is not a reason to attack her. Political criticism is fine, personal is unnecessary and spiteful.

The Nasty Party really comes out to play when the Tories are back on top.

[AlanofEngland]

Under Harold Wilson, prices rose fastest EVER, on record at NSO, in 1975, peaking at 26.9 per cent in August 1975, and increasing by 24.2 per cent over
the year as a whole. All groups except clothing and footwear and housing experienced their highest recorded annual
increase during this year, with inflation for each exceeding 20 per cent. The Budget that year raised indirect taxes
substantially, and extended the then 25 per cent rate of VAT to cover a wide range of luxury goods. That led to what was, at
the time, the highest month-on-month increase ever recorded in the RPI of 4.2 per cent in May. The monthly rates for
alcohol, tobacco and durable household goods in that month are the highest on record. Now let's hear it for Harold, the WORST PM ever.....after Gordonm

[Tony Makara]

"The Nasty Party really comes out to play when the Tories are back on top."

Nigel Rathbone, glad to see that you can see the country wants change. As for nasty, you can't even begin to imagine how nasty I can be when circumstance requires it. When a nonentity like Flint starts demanding that the jobless should be kicked out of their council homes it stirs animosity, such talk shows the swaggering arrogance of Labour MPs and their true condescending attitude towards the poor. For eighteen years the Labour party tried to portray itself as the champion of the poor and the moment it came to power it began to attack the poorest sections of our society. Poverty has widened under Labour and the poor don't even have access to free dental treatment. How vile these two-faced vipers are!

[Ken Stevens]

Nigel Rathbone | May 14, 13:12 ".. check your own spelling and grammar ...Were you educated under a Conservative government by any chance?

Nigel Rathbone | May 14, 14:26
"...blatently..."
Were you educated under a Labour government by any chance?

[johnC]

'When a nonentity like Flint starts demanding that the jobless should be kicked out of their council homes'

And yet in the Cabinet briefing notes whose confidentiality she was so careless with yesterday she deliberately underlined the message that the government should show people 'we're on their side'. How this squares with threatening people already suffering the anxiety of unemployment that they may be made homeless as well is beyond me. On reflection, this sums up everything wrong with this Government: the whole concern is with presentation and image - how they are perceived by the voting public - and nothing with substance and reality.

[passing leftie]

Passing leftie, have you taken into account the people on other benefits taken out of the work force?

Posted by: Bexie | May 14, 2008 at 13:02

Yes, I have. It's called economic inactivity, as I mentioned.

"The UK economy is pretty resilient compared with our continental neighbours, though"
What planet are you on?

Posted by: Deborah | May 14, 2008 at 12:55

Inflation is significantly below the EU average, as is economic inactivity and unemployment. The choice to open the doors to EU immigrants has had a large benefit, which many other EU countries haven't. GDP has been steady and high, and the annual gross income is high. I was also interested to note that the UK has the lowest rate of tax for the lowest earning decile in the entire EU with the exception of Malta and Cyprus.

Look this stuff up yourself, if that's not enough.

[passing leftie]

Passing leftie,
There's nothing sexist about criticising a Minister for dressing inappropriately. A split skirt is inappropriate for the chamber - just as cargo pants or leather trousers would be if the Minister was a man.
She does look ridiculous but more importantly she is way out of her depth.

Posted by: Deborah | May 14, 2008 at 12:53

I surprised at this, coming from a women. But then right-wing women don't have much time for gender equality.

She looks appropriately dress - it's nothing like cargo pants or jeans. I was equally scathing of people who critcised Anne Widdecombe in the press, based on her looks and gender.

Before you criticise a female politician, think, would I say that about a man?

[johnC]

'Inflation is significantly below the EU average'

As a matter of fact at 3% it is significantly above the EU average of 2.2% and if we are trading statistics, the UK has the highest budget deficit of the whole EU with the sole exception of Hungary - which will not have been helped by yesterday's unfunded £ 2.7bn tax cut.

[London Tory]

A question.

Did Steve Richards, Polly Toynbee, Jackie Ashley or Kevin Maguire rush into print to condemn Brown's budget in 2007 ?

Labour were so concerned about the poor
that a dumb and compliant PLP nodded through Brown's bribe budget in 2007, no doubt each dreaming of the ministerial job that would follow. Lets be clear about this-Brown knowingly played fast and loose with the finances of the poorest people in Britain. He did so hoping that Middle England would notice their tax cuts in time to cross his box in a planned Spring 08 election. Having been rumbled, Brown then broke one of his own golden rules to borrow £2.7bn in order to alleviate the pain on the poor for one year only. And he would not have done this had Gwyneth Dunwoody MP not died, because he knows that if Labour lose Crewe over the 10p tax rate, he will really be in the Brown stuff. This episode shows what sort of person Brown is- a political manipulator who was willing to use the most vulnerable in society to win an election he lacked the bottle to call.

Conservatives will take no lectures from Labour and its remaining cheerleaders in the Guardian and Independent about concern for the poor.

[London Tory]

As someone who managed the New Deal at a senior level within the DWP, I can assure you that any Labour minister who trumpets its 'success' automatically forfeits the right ever to be taken seriously again.

It is a crooked fiddle, who's sole aim is to employ more public servants, and then keep them in non jobs.

[Tony Makara]

When Gordon Brown drones on each week at PMQs about "More people in work" we need to understand what he means. More in work can mean anything from 10 hours a week pin-money to employers scooping up the state-subsidy and hiring people off the New Deal only to send them back through the revolving benefits door after the state-subsidy has run out. The only way to understand the employment situation is to do it the way David Cameron is doing and that is by looking at the numbers on out-of-work benefits. This constantly hovers around five and a half million. That is the true picture of employment/unemployment in our country. For Gordon Brown to stand up and brag of 667,000 vacancies when stacked against a out-of-work benefit count of five a half million is an act of bad taste. Just say every one of those 667,000 vacancies are filled, that still leaves a lot of people who can never work. People who are under threat of losing their social housing if Caroline Flint gets her way. When it comes to employment figures Labour makes 2+2=5 in the classic Orwellian sense.

[James M]

South Africa should be named and shamed for blocking UNSC briefings on Burma. Mbeki is on the side of Mugabe and Than Shwe rather than Zimbabweans and Burmese. Why is Gordon Brown afraid to say it like it is?

Air-dropping aid on Burma has not been discredited. This is a no-brainer. Children and elderly are dying...therefore drop aid. The fact that it might not be efficient is NOT an argument against doing it, but is an argument for putting bodies on the ground too. Land helicopters. So far so easy. The tough question is formulating rules of engagement if armed escorts are sent too.

The legal questions are also a no-brainer. If you have the opportunity to save lives (1,000s of lives) then you take that opportunity and worry about the law later. It will likely clear you (who will prosecute?)--because the responsibility to protect will prevail over the SPDC's partial sovereignty in this case.

But even if the legal argument does not carry--what the hell does that matter! Save 1,000s of lives and get sanctioned under international law! It is another no-brainer. If we cannot see this it is because we are losing sight of what it means to be human (as some comments above prove). Being authentically human must lead the law, not vice versa.

[Deborah]

"Before you criticise a female politician, think, would I say that about a man?" - passing leftie

Er, yes. That was my point.
I wasn't suggesting that women could get away with leather trousers or cargo pants in the Chamber, just pointing out that men have to dress appropriately too.
Your assumption that Tory women don't do equality is rather misplaced.

[Londoner]

"Nigel Rathbone | May 14, 13:12 ".. check your own spelling and grammar ...Were you educated under a Conservative government by any chance?

Nigel Rathbone | May 14, 14:26
"...blatently..."
Were you educated under a Labour government by any chance?"

Are you both suffering from having been educated by the State by any chance?

My votes on 2 of the burning issues above:

1. I don't care about Caroline Flint's dress sense, only her (and many male Ministers' for that matter) competence. But if what is said is true, I suppose exposing her housing brief is just going from needlessly exposing one figure to another.

2. Burma - right topic for a first question even if not necessarily the right question. Yesterday Osborne was criticised for being too stridently party political - and now Cameron is attacked for not being party political enough. The contrast between his raising of a huge issue like Burma and Clegg then following on the 10p rate (comparatively a trivial matter) will have been noted by some in Cameron's favour.

[Susan]

Tony, we don't need to understand what he means. Brown is wrong; his hapless policies are misconceived and the Labour Party is a dead duck.

[David Sergeant]

I find myself rolling out my usual point again. If a serious publication, from the Conservative party viewpoint at the time, of the 18 years was produced not only would Brown be unable to get back at Cameron it could do wonders for the party generally which has sat back and let Labour mostly write the history of the 18 years.

Also, of course there will be the need to describe the Labour mess the 18 year had to sort out with various indications of the need to sort out another looming Labour mess!

[passing leftie]

As a matter of fact at 3% it is significantly above the EU average of 2.2% and if we are trading statistics, the UK has the highest budget deficit of the whole EU with the sole exception of Hungary - which will not have been helped by yesterday's unfunded £ 2.7bn tax cut.

Posted by: johnC | May 14, 2008 at 16:22

As a matter of fact you are wrong. European average inflation was 2.2% in March last year. It's now 3.6%. For future reference, please check the stats here http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu

Also "The lowest 12-month averages up to April 2008 were registered in the Netherlands (1.7%), Malta (1.9%), Denmark, Sweden and the United Kingdom (2.2% each)"