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
36 Responses to “Cameron ignores evidence literally in front of his face”
Anonymous
So why the French system?
12.8% of gross earnings levied on the employer and 6.8% Lets call it 20%.
The Swiss however charge 241 a month at today’s extreme FX rates. [Another sign of the debt issues]
Not free at the point of use. That will achieve what you want of people not going to the doctor and driving down the costs.
*
Around 65% of hospital beds in France are provided by public hospitals, around 15% by private non-profit organizations, and 20% by for-profit companies
*
Ah yes, we can’t have private or not for profit competing with the NHS, they might take all the easy cases and do them cheaper. The NHS needs the money.
Lets look at Holland.
*he amount of money for health care that would be paid by an employer in payroll taxes is in those cases not used for redistribution by the government, but instead, after request to the tax authorities, credited to a private health care savings account. The individual can draw from this account for paying medical bills, however if the account is depleted, one has to find the money elsewhere. If the person dies and the account still contains a sum, that sum is included in the inheritance.*
Quite interesting. Cut out the government.
*For all regular (short-term) medical treatment, there is a system of obligatory health insurance, with private health insurance companies*
No need for the NHS then.
So in the examples you prefer, its the NHS that’s for the chop.
That means the supplier (doctor) can be hived off from the regulator (the government) and the insurer.
What it also means is that we aren’t going to be paying 100K a year plus inflation for the next 30-40 years for doctors pensions and getting no services in return. If that system was in place, people would just switch to a new insurer who would corner the market because they didn’t have those costs.
ie. The reason people are poor in the UK is primarily that the government is taking their money preventing them from buying the necessities.
ie. Why should someone on minimum wage 12K end up paying 2.5K in employment taxes?
Newsbot9
Excuse me? YOU are the one who wants to prevent people going to the doctor, not me.
And I know, you want to create an underclass which can be punished at-will (starting with tax credit withdrawal, as this government has indicated) which will get no sympathy because they “pay no tax”.
Also, people will pay less. That’s for sure, because they’ll simply point out pain “needs to be shared”. Lots MORE minimum wage jobs, congratulations!
Moreover, the .nl system for people who object to insurance is NOT generally applicable, and is a good way of ensuring that poor people with serious diseases just die.
And right, can’t have pensions, those are EVIL. I get it, inherited wealth is the only way to live when you’re old.
Newsbot9
Again, you WANT a crash. You WANT the misery. So you’re working to create one. It’s not inevitable in any other sense.
And right, I get it, you want people to have to pay for their health care out the £65/week unemployment. Right. Best of all situations for large companies, even more disposable workers!
(PS, your idol, America, has 35% corporate tax rates)
And how so the Swiss and the Nordic countries do it? They have a PROPER social net, which helps people back into a job, rather than your preferred system of slashing the government to benefit companies.
And right, I get it. You oppose ALL pensions. The old can just die.
And you need a tax audit, evidently, given your views on it. I wish one onto you, frankly.
Anonymous
No I want better care. Hence the Swiss system. The French has other problems. Why do you think the French is better? And what about the Dutch.
I want people to be healthy. There is a strong correlation between income and health. There is a bad effect of unemployment of income, and on health. Getting people back to work matters.
That’s why low skilled migration is bad for the underclass.
Migration has resulted in lots of low paid jobs because of competition for them, and a group, migrants who will work for less.
As for all the rest, you still haven’t read what I’ve written.
1. Compulsorary savings. That way the poor become richer. 21K for a median worker in retirement rather than a poorer 5K.
2. Inheritance of funds if you die early. Helps the children of the poor, because the poor die young.
What we have at the moment is that all the state pensions have been stolen and spent by governments. People’s wealth has been truly taken from them. I presume you think that’s a great idea.
So come on, are you sucking on the teat of government? Just interested
Anonymous
And right, I get it, you want people to have to pay for their health care out the £65/week unemployment. Right. Best of all situations for large companies, even more disposable workers!
============
You can’t even quote can you. The poor get given the money to pay their insurance.
As for disposable workers, they have been done in by low skilled migration. That was Labour’s plan. Look at the scale of migration in their 14 years in power.