Brownies, Balls and the Barnett Formula in PMQs
Fraser Nelson 2:06pm
There are two PMQs: the one seen from galleries in the Commons chamber, and the one on television. The more I go to the former, the more convinced I am the best view is in the latter. Pretty much the whole press gallery jumped to its feet to see what Ed Balls was doing when Cameron teased him (he sat underneath us all). And I couldn’t see – but I imagined – Labour MPs squinting as they read out their planted questions, as if wondering at the brazenness of the text.
Anyway, from my perch, it seemed a clear win for Cameron. Not because any of his questions were knock-outs. It’s just that morale is so visibly higher amongst Tory MPs: they all cheer when Cameron makes a good point (and even a bad point), while Labour MPs are inanimate apart from a few Brownites who are so animated they almost get thrown out of the chamber.
Cameron’s high point was another put-down of Ed Balls. The Children’s Secretary is being quiet today, he said. “Good. Very good,” with mock teacher-like approval. Then, in a nod to the “so what”-gate last week, “either he had to shout more clearly or be quiet. He made the right choice.” Then there was a disturbance, which I presume was reaction to Balls’ face. He’d have hated that.
Cameron looked rather wrongfooted when he demanded if Brown would see the Dalai Lama (Miliband had been evasive on the issue), and found out that he would. So then paid Brown a compliment (of sorts): right decision, he said, and not one that would have been made any better by dithering. He then sat down: no question. There was a pause. Brown eventually replied that he always makes the right decision (I bet Blair would have had some fun in that situation). Everyone was left wondering what the point of the exchange was.
Nick Clegg must have been delighted he’d been left to champion the cause of the Ghurkhas campaigning outside. Brown has no good reason why those who served in British military uniform should not be allowed to join the 1,500 who immigrate here every day. He looked shifty and evasive. Clegg rather overdid his angry man act after, though.
Cameron then attempted an end-of-term style roundup of unanswered questions (despite there being another two PMQs to go before recess) which didn’t really go anywhere. And when Brown asked if he was in favour of identity cards for foreign nationals, it was Cameron’s turn to dodge the question. But he did so with his Blair-in-97 style “if he wants to ask me questions, let’s have an election”. The Tory benches loved that – because, for the first time since 1978, it’s probably true. Brown closed off listing questions he would have liked to have been asked: on NHS, local government, etc. “Because they have no answers for the problems of this country.” He’d be on stronger ground if he’d provided answers himself.
A planted question against Boris: in these times of global turbulence, it’s best not to abolish the target that half houses in London should be “affordable”. Andrew “Windy” Miller praised Brown that long-term youth unemployment was down 82% in his constituency. Amazing what a bit of statistical recategorisation can do.
And then on the Barnett Formula: Brown said funding is allocated according to need. This is a new, and outrageous Brownie. The Barnett Formula is emphatically not a needs-based formula: it is a botched 1978 attempt to eradicate Scotland’s spending advantage. Botched because this year, Scotland will receive 24% more per head than England – no needs-based formula could justify this outcome. Brown knows better than anyone that the UK that a needs-based funds allocation would mean swingeing cuts for his motherland.
Previous
Faceless Bureaucrat
March 19th, 2008 3:08pm Report this comment"Brown knows better than anyone [in] the UK that a needs-based funds allocation would mean swingeing cuts for his motherland." Oh, if only.... Apparently, the cost to English taxpayers of subsidising Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland during the last financial year was a staggering £46.7bn!! The public sector deficit currently stands at £42.6bn - calculator anyone?...
ChrisD
March 19th, 2008 3:55pm Report this commentForget the calculator and lets just make Scotland independent, at least we might get a genuine set of figures and statistics to back the wilder claims of those who think that Scotland is heavily subsidised!
ChrisD
March 19th, 2008 4:01pm Report this commentThat should have been *that won't back the wilder claims*
I suspect that if Scotland became independent the individual bills of those North and South of the border would simple increase further.
David Lindsay
March 19th, 2008 4:40pm Report this commentLabour MPs in Scotland should realise (perhaps they already do) that the replacement of Barnett with something needs-based on a UK-wide basis would be of benefit to their own constituencies, and leave the SNP trying to explain why its well-heeled supporters deserved the money instead.
John
March 19th, 2008 4:53pm Report this commentThought it was funny seeing the new boy, David Muir getting skewered by Cameron today. "The power of leaderless organisations" - priceless
Philip Martin
March 19th, 2008 4:59pm Report this commentThe combined population of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is much less than even just the south of England. So surely that means we Celts will be of much less concern to national politicians than English voters. Anabel (sic no doubt) Goldie said in the Scottish parliament that Scotland was third behind London and Northern Ireland when it comes to state expenditure. Now what is the population of London and where does it lie? Hmmmmm.... I should add that 10% of the population of Scotland is English so where's your concern for your English brothers and sisters who often live in heavily subsidised areas like the Northern and Western Isles and the Highlands? Honestly anyone would think you English had some kind of chip on your shoulder...
Chris
March 19th, 2008 6:12pm Report this commentThe Dali Lami? Don't you mean Pope Joan Miro?
Pete Hoskin
March 19th, 2008 6:16pm Report this commentChris: thanks for pointing that out - don't kwow how it slipped through the net. 'Tis corrected now.
HJ
March 19th, 2008 8:34pm Report this commentThe point that should be made is that a larger public sector in Scotland - on national pay scales - is actually harming the Scottish economy.
The natural economic advantage of areas outside London and the South East should be lower wage costs in the private sector. But who wants to work in the private sector in Scotland when the public sector pays so well relatively.
Name Supplied
March 19th, 2008 11:14pm Report this commentIt was a poor showing from Cameron. Given the poll lead, he and his party should be acting like a government in waiting. Brown, for all his general inaptitude was right when he called Cameron out for dodging substantive issues.
A whole raft of questions could have been asked which would have highlighted the thorough incompetence of the government, yet trendy Dave just pulled out some punch and judy politics. While that certainly went down with his backbenchers, anyone watching at home with the expectation of Cameron offering something substantive will be disappointed.
As for Clegg, I think you're being a bit harsh on him, Fraser. The Gurkha question is an utter disgrace and for Brown to completely and utterly dodge the issue; all whilst his backbenchers jeer and howl down a fairly salient point. It is irritating to note that neither opposition leader mentioned the economy however; looks like we'll have to wait out the recess first.
Not many hard hits against the government, but the childish antics should make for some good sketches tomorrow.
Terry
March 20th, 2008 7:49am Report this comment“Anabel (sic no doubt) Goldie said in the Scottish parliament that Scotland was third behind London and Northern Ireland when it comes to state expenditure.” Anabel uses a slight of hand in this statement. Scotland receives more money than every single English region and Wales. This is reflected in the generous welfare provisions (cancer drugs, elderly care, etc). Such largesse is NOT based upon need and I for one can’t work out why anyone thinks they’re so deserving. Maybe we should take a leaf out of their book and be a bit more chippy! Anabel is referring to “invisible” expenditure such as civil servants' wages, army, navy and air force top brass, the Olympics, the Dome etc etc. None of this goes to people in the form of services though (as in Scotland). It just means more well paid people, higher house prices, more Michelin starred restaurants and a lower standard of living for ordinary people.
Terry
March 20th, 2008 7:53am Report this comment"Brown said funding is allocated according to need. This is a new, and outrageous Brownie" A Brownie? Is this a new Labour "white" lie. Isn't lying in the House against the rules anymore?
M Anderson
March 21st, 2008 6:21pm Report this commentthis year...Scotland will receive 24% more per head than England It must be takin' over time then ah? Brown knows a needs-based fund allocation would mean swingeing cuts for his motherland. And Brown bottle job would sink into oblivion. ChrisD Forget the calculator and lets just make Scotland independent, at least we might get a genuine set of figures and statistics to back the wilder claims of those who think that Scotland is heavily subsidised! Scotland IS heavily subsidised! Oh it isn't? Show us statistics proving that it isn't! Of course it is.
Back to top