Live blog of PMQs from noon

 

12.27pm Harman reassures a Labour backbencher that government spending on public services and benefits will not be impacted by the credit crunch. A few minutes later she states that the government's aim of abolishing child poverty by 2020 would also be unaffected.

12.24pm Conservative MP Philip Davies argues that the Prime Minister egged on the housing bubble by claiming to have ended boom and bust. Will he now accept some of the blame for the financial problems Davies' constituents face? Harman says the problems are global, and not to be blamed either on those who have bought homes in the last decade or on the Prime Minister.

12.20pm Conservative MP David Borrowes asks if, following the bail out of banks, the government will now compensate Equitable Life policy holders? Harman responds that the difference is the government's measures to protect banks were taken not to help individuals but to prevent an overall economic collapse. Crispin Blunt follows up on this question two minutes later, blaming the government's regulatory framework for the problems Equitable Life failed. Harman argues that prior to this government, there were seven separate regulatory agencies, since rightly merged into one, the Financial Services Authority.

12.16pm Vince Cable asks: how prepared is the government to deal with rising unemployment - given it is cutting jobs for benefit officers? Is the government now going to be as concerned for ordinary people as it has been for investment bankers? Harman defends the financial services industry as an important employer and says government programmes are well designed to deal with unemployment. Cable argues Harman "does not realise there is a very real emergency". He attacks Labour and the Conservatives for refusing to talk about interest rates: both parties are observing a "monastic silence" on the subject when the country is crying out for a cut in interest rates. Harman says the government is well prepared and has been taking measures to deal with the problems of small businesses. Interest rates were cut just last week, she notes.

12.13pm Hague concludes his sixth and final question: 104 other countries have been judged better prepared than Britain for the economic downturn, debt has risen remorselessly, unemployment is rising at its fastest rate for seventeen years and inflation has trebled since 1997. "The claim to have abolished 'boom and bust' was one of the most foolish, one of the most hubristic, one of the most irresponsible claims ever to have been made by a British Prime Minister".

12.09pm The government has been unclear about the amount of credit the government plans to be made available. Will it be kept at 2007 rates - the level at height of the credit bubble?, Hague asks. Harman responds that making credit available to small businesses is essential.

12.05pm Hague notes new forecasts of unemployment exceeding 3 million by the end of 2010. He again pushes Conservative reforms on insolvency. Harman responds that the 2003 Enterprise Act introduced what reforms to these laws were necessary. Hague notes the complacency of Harman writing on her blog in February that while people know that there is financial turbulence they are not worried about their own prospects in 2008. Harman notes how Labour's measures on winter fuel have helped pensioners through this crisis. "Swiftness in decision-making is at a premium", Hague argues, and demands immediate action to reassure pensioners.

12.04pm Hague begins: with unemployment seeing "the largest rise in seventeen years" it is "a grim day for the British economy". He asks if Labour will now accept Conservative proposals on reform of the insolvency laws. Insolvency laws have been reformed already, Harman argues, and there are still 600,00 vacancies in the economy. The key is matching vacancies to those looking for jobs.

12.02pm Labour backbencher refers to the absent Brown as "superman".

11.30am With the Prime Minister in Brussels, Harriet Harman is standing in for PMQs today. William Hague is facing her for the Opposition. Rosa Prince of the Telegraph expects Harman to "make the kind of pops about Hague's little Lake Como jolly that the PM would prefer to rise above" and Labour MPs to be hoping for a repeat of last week's rare PMQs success for Brown. Tory MPs, she writes "always scent blood when the gaffe-prone Deputy Labour leader takes to the ice, and are expecting the shadow foreign sec to match her gag for gag". Labour blogger Hopi Sen predicts the Conservatives will go on the attack over the economy.

Comments

[Freddie Fencepost]

What happened to William Hague's humour?...Perhaps he left it in Lake Como.. (nice tan tho)

Harriet Harman looked quite attractive today... full marks for her outfit

[London Tory]

Once again we are wasting our time talking in emollient tones about the 'economic downturn'. Why no mention by Hague of the 'Labour recession' ?

[Robert Simpson]

Harriet just said that Labour has reduced Government debt from 43% of GDP to 37% of GDP.

May I point out that this is absolute nonsense. Even the ONS says that *without* including Northern Rock, government debt is less than 1% under 40% of GDP, and including Northern Rock, is nearer 45%.

[Nigel Rathbone]

This is a long-standing bugbear of mine, but could somebody please explain to me, where this so-called "tradition" come from, where the deputies of the opposition leaders take PMQs when the PM is away?

As far as I can tell, this is a "tradition" invented by Tony Blair when he was Leader of the Opposition. I certainly recall Neil Kinnock taking on Geoffrey Howe (and other Leaders of the House before him) when Mrs Thatcher was absent.

It should not be beneath the dignity of an opposition leader to ask questions of the PM's deputy.

We know where Brown is, but where are Cameron and Clegg this morning? In his room watching it on TV I suspect. We are paying their salaries, they should do their jobs.

[David (One of many)]

Glad to see the "end of boom and bust" quote finally hit Brown in the face. Hague was on form today; Harman just told us all about the tractors.

[JC]

Once again we are wasting our time talking in emollient tones about the 'economic downturn'. Why no mention by Hague of the 'Labour recession'?

Possibly because he doesn't want to be accused of talking the country down or otherwise pre-empting official statistics for political gain. As far as I understand it, we need to see two quarters of negative growth for the UK to be in "recession".

I am sure that you will see that as hair-splitting, but I would say with plenty of ammunition being fired off re jobs and inflation there is no need to go down that route yet. If/when we see official statistics (not necessarily from the government) that we have hit recession, then it's fair game.

[GB£.com]

"Why no mention by Hague of the 'Labour recession' ?"

Do you not think that would backfire as party political pointscoring considering that many countries are on the brink of recession?

If the downturn was isolated to the UK, it would make sense, but I can't help but think all the attacks(although with much merit) in this vein will bounce right back at the moment.

[Gezmond007]

Ossie Osbourn does not look very happy , Vince Cable should have been the Lib Dem leader he,s much better than Mr Clegg.

William Hague was a bit boring and ineffective, he should have used his questions for other issues , not just one.

[London Tory]

Guys- time to get serious, please.

Half the countries in Europe crashed as a result of the ERM in the 90s- that did not stop Blair, Campbell and Mandelson from p*ssing all over us. Result- 179 majority at the election.

Being 'nice' does not butter any parsnips against this lot.

[David (One of many)]

London Tory, I do not think it is about being nice. You simply cannot start shouting about a recession when there actually isn't one. I have no doubt that we'll come to that point soon, but in the current climate to make things appear to be worse than they actually are will do the Tories no favours at all. Hague mentioned rising unemployment, screwed-up pensions, closing businesses and Brown's arrogance today. Quite enough I would have thought.

[Tony Makara]

Harmann makes great issue of the 600,000 vacancies that exist, she doesn't say how many are full or part-time, and given that this particular number of vacancies always seems to remain unfilled, isn't it fair to assume that these vacancies are so skill-specific that they are out of the reach of most of the unemployed and should not therefore be classed as being available to everyone.

Further, on the matter of money that Harman says will go into training, can we get assurances that this money will go into real qualification based training and that the jobless will not be drafted onto work-experience programmes and then made to 'disappear' from the unemployment count, as happens under the New Deal?

[London Tory]

David

There is still no linkage, no theme, no resonating anger about our whole approach to getting rid of Labour.

Hague sporting his new Lake Como tan today summed that up, Osborne braying at his side.

[GB£.com]

Well done Philip Davies!

A Tory referring to the obvious housing 'bubble'. Rare but welcome.

[Ranting Guttersnipe]

"A few minutes later she states that the government's aim of abolishing child poverty by 2020 would also be unaffected."

No doubt this is because it was never going to be achieved when it was announced and it still will not be achieved.

[JC]

There is still no linkage, no theme, no resonating anger about our whole approach to getting rid of Labour.

LT, you are moving the goalposts. First you complain that the word "recession" is not being used, now you're saying it's about linkage and themes.

Will you admit that using the word "recession" in a big forum like PMQs before the economy is officially in one could have negative results for the Tories?

[David Belchamber]

I thought that Harman was terrible today; she looked uncomfortable and failed to answer question after question.

I agree with other posters that we should not rock the boat at the moment but I do think that the House could have been reminded (in a postive way) that Brown's masterplan was based on the Swedish model in the 1990s (which was successful, as we all hope this one will be).

Secondly, as Brown has demanded from the banks (i) transparency, (ii) integrity and (iii) resposibility that it would then be in order to demand the same from him and his government.

Would he please start using realistic figures for (i) unemployment (including NEETS), (ii) inflation, (iii) the proportion of government debt and (iv) violent crimes?

[M Dowding]

Nice, measured soft but effective attack. The armies are moving onto the battlefield making ready for an election that is within sight. To let on what weapons and strategies you will employ for the fight about to erupt would be madness. Labour have exposed their incompetence and lack of understanding of the electorates lust for them to lose this coming war of the ballot box. Just watch when they lose Glenrothes thanks to Brown's idiotic drug induced gurning.

[JC]

David B, I like your suggestion in demanding Brown practising what he preaches - it could be followed up with examples of how he is trying to trick the public.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Good post David Belchamber, agree entirely.I hope this post is read by those with the power to influence the leadership.

[NigelC]

I thought Harman was awful- repeating the same answer over and over again hoping that we would believe that Gordon Brown had nothing to do with this bust following his debt driven boom.

Andrew Neil on Daily Politics picked up McNulty on the % debt question. McNulty admited debt was as high as it was in 1997 and said Ms Harman was only using 37% as a way of defining how low NuLab had driven debt at one point in the last 11 years.

[Iain]

"Andrew Neil on Daily Politics picked up McNulty on the % debt question. "

He does the job Conservative MP's should be doing, more often you see Conservative MP's accepting Labour Government figures without a murmur when they are a pack of lies.

[Patsy Sergeant]

A very good idea DavidB, I somehow think it is far too straightforward an approach for Mr. Brown to appreciate its usefulness!

Perhaps Malcolm, DC might see it as appropriate!

[Northern Tory]

Hagues time as party leader came to soon.

He would be more effective against Brown than Cameron as he has much more gravitas.

Sadly though I think he has had his chance (albeit to soon). Why isn't Cameron bold get shot of chum Osborne and put Hague in as Shadow Chancellor..

Decisive move that could put us back on the front foot and would make the top team look a bit less Southern (Toff - apologies but it is true)

[rugfish]

The point about Brown calling for lenders to return to 2007 lending levels wasn't made clearly. That allowed Harman to give the equally unclear and fudged reply which was full of shallow condescension and national fervour, with a "you shouldn't talk down the British economy and compare it with others when it's a global problem"

I'm sick to death of hearing this "global excuse".

I'd like to ask Brown what he meant when he said he wanted lenders to return to 2007 levels which led to runs on the first bank in 140 years and an ensuing financial crisis, or was he mistaken !!

I'd like to ask Brown why he could not have had a meeting in Brussels over the weekend and now instead been here to account to the country for his mismanagement, the national debt, what he's doing about bankruptcies and repossessions, or was yet another unproductive global natter shop in Europe more important than his duties to the British people !!

I'd also like to know what on earth Vince Cable was up to with his last question demanding interest rates be cut when they've just this second been cut, and I'd want to ask HIM, whether instead of spending all his time answering questions on TV News channels whether he'd not be better sat the other side watching it !!

[London Tory]

@ JC, Malcolm et al

Frankly, I am just interested in us winning. Like Blair and his cohorts in the 90s, I am not that fussy about how we do it. As a Party, we were on the back foot for 13 years. The last two weeks have started to remind me of the dark days of IDS, when we struggled to be heard, and even when we were it was drowned out by gales of laughter [cue, George Osborne].

In the 90s, Labour won with a simple if untrue message. Tories = Sleaze. We have yet to find something similar. Forget the dry statistical analysis, which Worcester Woman does not give a stuff about, how about "Labour recession" ? Repeated by every one of our spokesman, every single day.

"Labour recession"

Oliver Letwin bumbling on about fixing roofs and the sun shining contributes absolutely nothing towards the chances of a Conservative Government in 18 months time.

[rugfish]

In a global economy is noone to blame or is the man who led the world in unconstrained debt, unfettered buying and selling of imaginary transactions which caused a run on a British bank, serveral mergers and a bail out never before witnessed of the entire western hemisphere to blame ?

Please tell me what this man's name is, it's on the tip of my tongue but I just can't spit it out !!

Oh aye ! It's the invisible man Gordon Brown - The Man of Mystery who never sets a fott wrong in Britain because he's never here !

First we had Slippery Sid Blair and now we have the Invisible Prime Minister Brown.

Someone needs to go collect his milk in case it's as sour as the nation with it having stood so long.

[London Tory]

One other point, several weeks ago Labour said that in response to their recession, they would attempt to mitigate its effects by;

"creating more jobs in the public sector"

No ! 100% no. This is the last thing we should be doing. More worthless bureaucracy funded by the taxes of the private sector.

We should be jumping all over this sort of stuff.

[Iain]

"Labour recession"

Or a 'debt fuelled Labour recession'?

[The Bishop Swine]

Robert

"May I point out that this is absolute nonsense. Even the ONS says that *without* including Northern Rock, government debt is less than 1% under 40% of GDP, and including Northern Rock, is nearer 45%."

This is excatly the reason that the banks got into a hole. How can we belive any set of figures that is given to us when so much is being ignored from the accounts. I assume that not only is Northern Rock not being taken into account but that none of the recent monies spent to keep the banking sector afloat is included in these figures. Of course we are printing money to fill a black hole in the accounts but it still exsists and it still has to be found eventually. Are they counting in the money recovered from Northern Rock so far ?
If I started running my accounts like this I would end up in deep trouble with the Taxman, my banker and even my wife. As it is your estimate of 45% seems Conservative if you don’t mind me saying. I suspect the real figuer is closer to 50% and will rise far higher over the near term. This lack of transparacy seems to have become a way of life in the UK.

[ross.warren]

London Tory

You are absolutely right. However the public sector is currently in the midst of a recruiting boom. Take a look at last weeks Guardian for example. I wonder what the level of unemployment would really be if these additional Jobs had not been found over the last few months. I seem to recall a promise to reduce these Jobs not a pledge to increase them.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Judging by the ITN News at 1.30pm, William Hague's choice of 'unemployment' was exactly right. The subject was taken up and give some prominence, including suggesting that this was what was going to be of great importance to the general public in the coming months!! I am sure that the BBC wouldn't have given it - unemployment - the same prominence in their newscasts!

[GB£.com]

Or a 'debt fuelled snot-gobbling housing bubble of a Labour recession'? ;-)

Seriously though, before you start using 'labour recession' as a line of attack, I'd suggest a YouGov poll to see who or what the general public blames.

There is no point in a line of attack if it only resonates with the politicos and I can't help but think that, however unfairly, 'bankers' and the US may actualy come top of the list with public.

[Tony Makara]

We all know the true number of unemployed, including NEETS, as David Belchaber points out is far, far greater than most people dare imagine. The problem is politicians and union leaders have become lazy and bought into the idea that half a million or so vacancies equals full employment, when in fact they should be counting the number of people not working. Now its time for truth on figures, we can only begin to tackle the problem if we know how big the problem is.

No doubt Labour will set up 'training schemes' which will be little more than work-experience and will use that to reduce the numbers appearing on the unemployment register as people 'disappear' from the official count because they are classed as being 'in training' as they have done for years with the New Deal. However Conservatives must take a stand and say that training should be real training, not work-experience, and those involved should be counted in the offical unemployment count. We musn't let the government use public money to set up a fake training regime to massage the figures.

Looking at the picture long term, the way out of recession, a global recession, has to be through the development of an internal market with manufacturing and agricultual sectors leading the way. We cannot alter the global economy but we can supply our own market and that should be our aim, the means by which we create the jobs to get us out of recession.

[Iain]

"How can we belive any set of figures that is given to us when so much is being ignored from the accounts "

The Conservatives could help themselves by setting up a reference page that gives a clear sets of economic figures ( on debt, on inflation, on unemployment etc) as they were in 1997 and now. At least then Conservative MP's wouldn't have the excuse for challenging Government claims.

I would also add into this information about privatised industry which is going to come in for a lot of flack, especially energy companies. If the Conservatives could show the price reduction that happened under privatisation it would give people a better argument to defend the policy.

Essentially Conservative MP's are very poor at defending their record, they have become so institutionalised about being the nasty party they forget past Conservative Government did some good, perhaps this is in part due to the Uber modernisers agenda who want to propagate this myth in order to rubbish traditional Conservative values in an attempt to create a Poll Pot year zero when Cameron got the leadership.

One current instance is the claim by the Libdems that the Conservatives never bothered to point out the growing debt problems in this country, but that's not true for the Conservatives went into the last election pointing out the black hole in Government accounts, and wanting to 'fix the roof' while the Libdems were wanting to load on the taxes and spend fortunes. Pointing that out would very quickly puncture the Libdems inflated opinion of themselves. But no the Conservatives just don't seem to want to bother to defend their record. In fact if you read the Conservative 2005 manifesto it was a bloody good program for the problems we currently now face.

It just seems the ‘ New Conservatives’ are so desperate to have their clause four moment and break with the past that they end up cutting off their nose to spite their face.

[Tony Makara]

Patsy, what you say is very true. Labour are terrified of unemployment becoming an issue because it gives opposition parties a big stick to beat them with constantly as joblessness spirals out of control. Labour's big plan, as out lined by Harman at PMQs, will be to introduce training to massage the figures. Unemployment is an issue that Labour used to great effect will in opposition, now its time to return the serve. Great that Mr Haugue started the ball rolling today.

[Iain]

"will be to introduce training to massage the figures."

And the Conservative party has to ensure their MP's have the true unemployment figures, and they make sure the public knows the true level of unemeployment, and not let Labour manipulate them.

[London Tory]

Why is there 1.73m people claiming JSA, and yet my train to work each morning is full of Polish people ?

[I have nothing against hard working Poles, I have plenty against Labour's lazy core vote].

[JC]

LondonTory

Frankly, I am just interested in us winning.

If you refuse to acknowledge that there is significant risk in one of your suggestions for "winning" then there is a problem. If that is code for "let's ignore the fact I made a bad suggestion" then you could do as well to admit it before we do move on.

Sleaze is not the same as economic trouble, because the former does not affect the general public like the latter does. Thus one cannot be seen to be enjoying the fact the economy is going down, whereas one can be far more eager in exposing deceit and corruption in government. That is why the Tory frontbench should not be using the word recession until we are officially in one.

As has been said repeatedly, there is plenty of trouble to criticise the government for.

++++

Iain

In fact if you read the Conservative 2005 manifesto it was a bloody good program for the problems we currently now face.

I certainly remember the bit where the focus groups liked the policies and then did an about-face when told they were Conservative. Clearly something needed to be done about that and I think it has. You can't argue that the "old Conservatives" were the reason for the change in the party's perception, nor did the public suddenly decide that they were being unreasonable in disliking something because it was Tory. The "new Conservatives" made the change, and I think you have to accept that.

[Tony Makara]

On the matter of the 600,000 vacancies that Labour always boast about, yet never seem to get filled, is there any way we can get a breakdown as to how many of these vacancies are proper full-time jobs and how many are just very temporary openings in the job market? We know the Labour government likes to play with statistics, so we should challenge their claims to have 600,000 vacancies. How many real and readily accessible vacancies are there? How do Labour arrive at this constant figure of 600,000 vacancies, when there are so many unemployed?

[Iain]

"I have nothing against hard working Poles, I have plenty against Labour's lazy core vote"

If you paid UK workers ten times the rate they would normally get then I am sure they would be just as hard working as your 'hard working Poles', but when UK workers have to pay for the high cost of UK living just to ensure his family has a roof over their heads, as well as taxed up to the eye balls with local and Government taxes, taxes your 'hard working Poles' have probably exempted themselves from, then its not surprising that UK workers don't leap at the 'opportunity' of earning the minimum wage!

[London Tory]

@ JC

Pure semantics make bad politics.

David Mellor did not wear a Chelsea kit when he made love to his mistress, but that did not stop Labour cashing in, did it ?

[Saltmaker]

Harman reassures a Labour backbencher that government spending on public services and benefits will not be impacted by the credit crunch.

Pure coincidence then that the PM’s favourite, Balls, unexpectedly pulled a cash-saving out of the bag yesterday.

[David Belchamber]

Iain at 15.27:

"The Conservatives could help themselves by setting up a reference page that gives a clear set of economic figures ( on debt, on inflation, on unemployment etc) as they were in 1997 and now. At least then Conservative MP's wouldn't have the excuse for not challenging Government claims".

An excellent idea, not only to help win the coming election but also to guard against Brown et al in opposition from blaming us for an apparent deterioration in all the stats when we start using the correct ones.

I also think that we should "get our retaliation in first" before the Pre Budget statement by warning Brown and Darling that there will be an almighty outcry if they try to get away again with all their normal off-balance sheet items, as these are likely to be astronomical this time.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Tony, I posted a comment on the main thread about half an hour ago - on the 6.30pm News, ITN devoted quite a bit of time to the unemployment figures AND showing pictures of newly redundant workers walking out of factory gates, and interviewing them, THEN Mr. MacNulty was interviewed saying that the numbers of unemployed, were nothing like the hordes (he used that word!) that were unemployed before 1997!!!!!! As I said on the other thread, I somehow think he will come to regreat that crowing remark!!!!

AND added to that, just after I posted the comment, Mr. Brown was shown, whereever he is in Europe saying something like that he will see that there are jobs for people, insulating houses!!!, as the newscaster said 'it didn't go down very well'!!

[Tony Makara]

Patsy, I am shocked that senior Labour politicians can have such a blase approach to the personal misery caused by unemployment. Still, its good that the issue is in the news and now its down to the Conservative team to make sure it stays in the news. We can't let these poor people down. A Labour government, that has swaggered and bragged about a fictitious full employment for so long, must now take the flak as unemployment soars. At the same time we must develop a job-creation strategy, and as I said before, we should look at ways to develop our internal market, its no good us hoping we can solve this through global means. Lets get British workers making British goods for sale to British consumers, that is the way out of this recession.

[Raj]

Pure semantics make bad politics.

Words are very important when they come out of politicians' mouths.

David Mellor did not wear a Chelsea kit when he made love to his mistress, but that did not stop Labour cashing in, did it ?

What does that have to do with the fact that making political capital out of corruption/sleaze is different from doing so out of people's misery?

[Raj]

Pure semantics make bad politics.

Words are very important when they come out of politicians' mouths.

David Mellor did not wear a Chelsea kit when he made love to his mistress, but that did not stop Labour cashing in, did it ?

What does that have to do with the fact that making political capital out of corruption/sleaze is different from doing so out of people's misery and is received much differently? With the former you have a lot more scope to operate than with the latter.

[Resident Leftie]

Iain at 15.27:

"The Conservatives could help themselves by setting up a reference page that gives a clear set of economic figures ( on debt, on inflation, on unemployment etc) as they were in 1997 and now. At least then Conservative MP's wouldn't have the excuse for not challenging Government claims".

These figures are widely available. Two sources are Eurostat and the ONS. Mainly they give the lie to Tory claims of Labour debt and economic inactivity, so please do look them up.

[smegchui]

Resident Leftie:
Take your ONS which is widely seen as a spin-doctor function and was replaced in April this year by the UK statistics Authority, admittedly by the Labour Govt.
The abuses of the ONS are a national disgrace as they are a function of Govt and its direction. The UKSA is more independent and had to fight for it once (ideologically) corrupt Labour realised it might not be on side.
Shame on you for being so disingenuous in claiming ONS is impartial. Shame. .

[snegchui]

Citing the ONS as impartial is disingenuous. The UKSA took ovre the function of impartial UK stas in April after the admission that the ONS was Govt and Dept driven in th etiming and slant of its figures.
Shame on you Resident Leftie for hanging on to the ONS as impartial source.

[Iain]

"These figures are widely available. Two sources are Eurostat and the ONS."

But its difficult to get the figures to compare them with what they were 1997. As some Conservative MP's seem to be lazy and bone idle , I thought that it might be a good move to have these figures laid out for them, so removing any excuse to not hold this Government to account.

I should also point out this Government hasn't thought anything of meddling with the ONS as we saw in a leaked Government document about immigration and asylum figures published in the Times which said...‘The paper warns of the risk that the Governments message is consistently undermined by a series of publications and revisions from the Office for National Statistics and propose rationalising these publications’

[The Bishop Swine]

Iain

"The Conservatives could help themselves by setting up a reference page that gives a clear sets of economic figures ( on debt, on inflation, on unemployment etc) as they were in 1997 and now. At least then Conservative MP's wouldn't have the excuse for challenging Government claims."

Perhaps an independent organization could be charged with doing a comprehensive audit of all government figures. This would have to be legally protected from interference and fudging. I believe that the public is sick of not being able to trust the figures they are fed by central government. These figures should be as up to date as possible and updated on a quarterly basis. I notice that Mark Harper MP is asking a lot of question at the moment, trying to get a more accurate picture of Disability issues. It seems to me that he should not have to do this if the figures were available and reliable. I suppose that this is what the office of national statistics is suppose to provide. Here is one government body that would really benefit from being taken into private hands and divorced from its current insider status. I know with such a large organization as the UK that such reporting would be a difficult Job but if it was done properly it would result in much more transparent government. We need accurate figures warts and all and we need them as soon as possible.

[The Bishop Swine]

To put it simply the ONS is not fit for purpose and should be replaced by an independent and privately owned organization. In this age of computers running at light speed we should be able to have up to date, real time information on the most critical of the figures that the ONS currently provides. It hardly rocket science just proper accounting.

[Patrick Harris]

You lot can blame UK politicians untill the cows come home, you are aiming arrows at the wrong targets, face it, the UK Parliament is now an irrelevance brought about by our ever nodding, rubber stamping elected representatives. More legislation, including financial regulation, has emanated from the REAL UK government in Brussels than at any other time since the ill-fated day when the liar Heath tricked the country into joining the European Economic Community. Hardly one MP actually knows what the directives entail, certainly, none of them are aware of the implications. Why did not Cameron clamour for the recall of Parliament? because he knows, as do the majority of posters on this site, that I am right.