Alex Hern reports on Ed Balls’s active background role in today’s Prime Minister’s Questions, and his canny prepared graph.
David Cameron again refused to acknowledge any facts which make him look bad today at Prime Minister’s Questions, but this time it was harder than ever to accurately feign ignorance.
Ed Miliband claimed that the autumn statement will mean:
“The poorest third will lose three times as much as the richest third.”
Cameron’s normal attitude would be to claim that the facts were wrong, safe in the knowledge that the fact-checkers aren’t in the commons with him. This time, however, Ed Balls had clearly planned ahead, by printing off a very large copy of the following graph (slide 10, pdf) and waving it at him (2:30 in the vid below):
It appears, however, that the prime minister is incapable of accepting the evidence which is literally in front of his face.
You can watch a video of the exchange below:
Look at the graph deniers squirm, just look at them.
See also:
• “We’re all in this together” – when ‘we’ means the bottom 80% – Will Straw, November 29th 2011
• Kellner: The public don’t like the Tories, but they’ve signed up to their economic argument – Daniel Elton, November 28th 2011
• On the Financial Transaction Tax, why is Osborne on the side of the one per cent? – Shamik Das, November 2nd 2011
• There’s nothing exceptional about 50% tax rates – Declan Gaffney, September 9th 2011
• Cruddas: Big Society failing the “all in this together” test as safety nets go – Daisy Blacklock, April 26th 2011
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
36 Responses to “Cameron ignores evidence literally in front of his face”
Anonymous
It’s not one of the richest. Only in your fantasies. You’ve excluded all the debts.
SO lets see. Money for the Olympics. That’s Labour. Idiots signed up for it. It’s going to cost 2.4 billion. What’s it up to now? And its going to rise. It’s a con. A straightforward fraud. Say its going to cost 2.4. Then add on all the extras afterwards, inflate the prices, and rely on the idiots in Westminster not to say – we’re pulling the plug. A good example of rent seeking. Result – as you say – people will die.
HS2. Again a good example of something government should never do. 36 billion. 9 million a day in debt payments. Add on running costs. Now will people spend that on ticket? Nope. So some poor buggers are going to freeze as a result.
NHS. Well that itself is responsible for contributing to the deaths of 20,000-80,000 a year. I’m not surprised. I’ve seen people killed in the NHS by its mistakes. Result – people will die – not directly from cold in this case, but by other means.
This is a direct result of money going on paying debts and not going on services. It’s a direct result of the government taking money from poor people, so they can’t pay for it, primarily to pay for the debts.
Labour left it in a mess after 14 years, a far bigger mess than they were left.
What is needed is less government. It’s the problem.
Olympics – government is involved.
HS2 – government involved
Debts – government.
NHS – government
Notice the common theme?
Newsbot9
Of course, you believe we’re a third-world country. It’s part and parcel of your HATRED of Britain.
And stop lumping me in with Labour, it’s outright slander.
You want to abolish the NHS, killing even more when like America, half the population have no non-emergency medical access.
And yes, I notice a common theme – your whining about everything as if it had the same cause. One-track mind which can’t cope with the complexity of modern society, and hence simply engages in denial.
Anonymous
Completely the opposite. Why don’t you try and present ideas rather than resort to personal attacks. That’s just a sign that you can’t argue a case. Now for Labour, you’re defending their every move and excusing their legacy. Pretty good evidence you have a very strong left leaning.
As for me, I don’t like any of the political groups. They are all thieving scum, causing the deaths you go on about.
The NHS kills 20-80,000 a year. It’s own numbers. Not mine. Think it though and ask is the lower, 20,000 a reasonable figure?
1. The unofficial figure for Shipman was 615. Not detected by the NHS.
2. We have single hospitals killing hundreds from one cause – not keeping the place clean.
3. My local hospital starved a patient to death. He left notes, and that is why we now know.
The NHS isn’t fit for purpose.
The main reason is that it is insurer, regulator and supplier linked. The conflicts of interest are so large, it can’t reform.
The three need to be separated. Now I agree with you about the US. It’s a crap system. It lacks universal coverage with a standard price.
If you want a better system, look at the Swiss.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland
It has universal coverage. No one can be refused cover. All three legs are separate. Standard of care far exceeds the UK. If you want the direct comparisons, here you are.
My brother ripped his hand open. Between 2dn and ring figure down to his wrist. After 10 hours in casualty told to go home and come back tomorrow. They didn’t even offer to clean it. GF in Switzerland was bitten by a dog. Skin ripped from the back of her hand. Friday evening. Hand surgeon was called in to check it. Huge difference.
Now what about that hospital that killed over one hundred? Prosecution? Nope.
So what changes would happen if people paid hard cash for health care? They would realize how much money is spent. They might balk at the cost. The would take more care. Then you just top up the poor’s income so they can get the health care. As it is now.
However, its going to go that way. It is game over and that makes me angry. All the things you are rightly worried about are going to happen. It’s politicians that are to blame.
Just wait until people start cutting the government off. Starve the beast to quote the phrase. Then it is game over.
So do you want a crash now, or an even bigger crash later?
Newsbot9
You WANT a crash, exactly. You want the poor to die, for the economy to collapse. You claim it’s inevitable when it’s an artefact of the policies you support, no more.
Your avocation of tax avoidance is telling, too.
The NHS also has a safety record which is far better than the American system which the Tories would replace it with. There is NO chance of replacing the system with something like the Swiss model (I favour the one from France or the Netherlands, personally), as you well know – it’s UK or US.
In reality, the Swiss charge 8% income plus additional charges rather than the 12% for most income in this country, for universal cover. And of course the poor don’t struggle NEARLY as much as they do here… lose your job there and you get 70% of your income rather than £65/week!
So in reality, the poor here would be locked out the second they lost their jobs, or were put on part-time working…indeed, earning too little becomes CRIMINAL in these systems, since you can’t pay your medical premium. I’m sure you LOVE that, of course.
And of course the NHS is now struggling, it’s had critical funding slashed. Labour’s changes to make the wait reasonable have been undone.
Anonymous
I don’t want a crash. However, its inevitable. It is going to happen. The question is not about having a crash or not, its about minimising its damage.
It’s not an artifact. It’s a direct consequence of debt and fraud by politicians.
Tax avoidance is legal. I presume you meant tax evasion. Well that is going to happen too. It’s inevitable. When the state takes more and more and give less and less, people will opt out.
The US is a crap system. Nice of you NOT to acknowledge that.
I’ve posted the link to the costs. Do the maths. How much does the average tax payer pay for the NHS in the UK. Non taxpayer’s don’t pay anything. Do you think that is reasonable? Answer, its 4K a year.
So how do the Swiss manage to pay 70% of income (it’s capped by the way, at around 60K pa). What are the Swiss doing right that enables them to pay that level, but the UK can’t?
since you can’t pay your medical premium. I’m sure you LOVE that, of course.
You really are being an idiot. Didn’t you read what I wrote or did you just jump to conclusions. I said the poor had to be paid for their health care. That way they realize just what the deal is. After all in the UK they just don’t get 65 a week. They get their health care for free on top. Why did you omit that?
And of course the NHS is now struggling – Really? It’s still killing lots of people. The problem was that the increased money didn’t go on health care, it went on wages. Productivity and the level of care didn’t increase by the same amount.
So come on lets start doing the maths.
Gilts, 1,050 billion owed. Do you agree with that?
Then we can proceed to the debts that are hidden off the books.
Which do you want to look at next? PFI (that little scam), or the Ponzi Pensions.