Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, on Mumsnet for a webchat

(1128 Posts)
JustineMumsnet (MNHQ) Mon 03-May-10 13:53:29

Do post your advance questions here.

darkblue Sat 08-May-10 22:35:14

I voted Lib Dem, in one of the safest Labour seats in the country. Mostly because I'm frustrated at the complacency of the Labour Government. I was a Labour party member since I was 15 years old, but a Government who have caused national debt of around 55% GDP is unacceptable.

The last time public debt was this high was when Thatcher bent Britain over in 1972.

But if I have voted Lib Dem allowing the Tories in via the back door, I will never vote Lib Dem again. A coalition should be shared ideals, policies and principles - not climbing into bed with the enemy.

Give Britain Proportional Representation, form a coalition and keep us out of recession. Then get back to the grassroots - Working class people who depend on a Government working for them. And Trade Unions who expect backing, not a kicking.

expatinscotland Sat 08-May-10 08:48:44

Too right, edam.

Mrs Brown, if you're lurking, some of us will despair the day Cameron gets into No. 10.

edam Sat 08-May-10 08:45:41

Clearly the City fat cats do NOT deserve their vast pay packets and bonuses. Because they are crap at their jobs. Otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess.

Earthstar Thu 06-May-10 20:46:35

Caneverdecide it is hardly true that wealth is distributed according to who deserves it the most. Good fortune is largely that - fortune. Fortune to have good health and opportunities. Wealth is as likely to be about who you were prepared to leg over to get it as about how much harder you have worked than poorer people.

In the past it was expected of the rich that they would give back to society with big donations to schools, hospitals, museums and other public projects. Now this is not the norm at all so I think higher taxes are justified. If you take a big share of the benefits available in a society why shouldn't you be prepared to give a lot back?

Earthstar Thu 06-May-10 20:30:34

Good link, hatwoman

I think high degrees of relative poverty are no good for any of us in society.

sethstarkaddersmum Wed 05-May-10 14:52:10

MmeLindt - I bet she does post, she just has to say she doesn't or the press would be combing everyone's posts to work out which one is her.

hatwoman Wed 05-May-10 13:53:20

beachcomber - the poor are not better off.

measuring poverty is a lot more complicated than looking at income - relative measures have long been accepted as the most meaningful way to measure poverty and social exclusion - to the extent that saying the poor are not worse off it's just that the gap has widened doesn;t really make any sense. if it did it would be acceptable for kids to be living in victorian slums on the grounds that their sitation had not got worse.

joseph rowntree latest monitring report here

loveLuton Wed 05-May-10 13:45:13

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

StewieGriffinsMom Wed 05-May-10 12:51:08

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MmeLindt Wed 05-May-10 12:04:09

SB posted on her blog that she was "lurking but not posting as usual"

<waves to Sarah>

How CAN you lurk and not post. I would have to tie my hands behind my back.

wubblybubbly Wed 05-May-10 09:19:46

Well, if it is for families earing over £30k they tories should say so, shouldn't they GS?

I've read the tory manifesto and it reads "Stop tax credits to families with incomes over £50,000;"

Theresa May then comes out and says "Nobody with a combined household income of £40,000 or below will be affected, and the maximum loss for those earning more than £50,000 would be just £10 a week." Not quite the same thing.

This is why there is confusion GS. The £31k figure comes in when you try to make sense of the the savings the tories claim they'll make. "George Osborne announced at the 2009 Conservative Party Conference that he would stop paying tax credits to households with incomes over £50,000. The Tories said that this would save £400m per year.

These figures are disputed " Andrew Gwynne: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the annual additional revenue to the Exchequer that would arise from the removal of the payment of tax credits to households with incomes above £50,000. [303864]

Mr. Timms: The total annual tax credit entitlement for families earning more than £50,000 is estimated to be approximately £45 million.

This estimate is based on finalised incomes and circumstances of families benefiting from tax credits in 2007-08 which is the most recent year available. These statistics are available at:

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal-tax-credits/ctcw-tax-credit-final-may09.pdf

Household income has been calculated based on income used to calculate tax credit entitlement and will therefore disregard in-year income rises of less than £25,000.

The total annual tax credits entitlement of these families will differ slightly from the additional revenue to the Exchequer of excluding them from tax credits, because of effects on over- and under-payments. Analysis of these effects is available only at disproportionate cost.

Andrew Gwynne: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the level of second income threshold for tax withdrawal required to reduce annual expenditure on tax credits by £400 million. [303878]

9 Dec 2009 : Column 407W

Mr. Timms: To reduce total annual tax credit expenditure by £400 million, it is estimated that the second income threshold would need to be reduced to around £31,000."

There is no consistency and little clarity in the claims made by the tories re tax credits.

The Labour party would be daft not to raise doubt over what the tory policy actually is.

CanNeverDecide Wed 05-May-10 09:15:15

FFS, people who are rich have generally worked bloody hard for their money and made sacrifices to get to where they've got to. I'm not talking about inherited money, obviously. But why begrudge those who've earned well as a result of their own efforts. It's not fair that because they've worked hard, taken more risks or made more sacrifices, they should have to give more away in taxes etc.

Beachcomber Wed 05-May-10 08:39:41

The poor are better off not poorer. The gap has apparently widened but not because the poor are poorer.

Earthstar Wed 05-May-10 06:56:05

The gap between rich and poor has widened further under labour. I think this is a disgrace

How can labour expect to get the vote of the people on lower incomes with this approach?

I think all the talk of 'taking children out of poverty' is meaningless. The fact is that the poor have been made poorer and the rich richer by Gordon Brown.

ICouldHaveWrittenThis Wed 05-May-10 00:40:45

Gordon You as chancellor/Prime Minister have ensured the building of many a school and hospital.

Please explain to me why, after the government contract is fulfilled, that loans are liable to be transferred to a much higer rate.

It's highly admirable and comendable to build many new hospitals (new JR childrens centre, Churchill cancer building)) but how are these being paid for??

The local NHS Trust's are being forced into enormous debt as a direct result of PFI

Question #2 - you puport to have reduced NHs waiting lists. You have done NO SUCH THING. The new system means you can choose your hospital (if you can get hold of them). Once a patient has seen a specialist, they are refered back to their GP. Waiting list restarted. It's an utter bollocking of the NHS system, and it's an excellent example of how Nu Labour have FUCKED the NHS!!

Waiting lists have indeed been reduced (the way they have been recorded is different) - If you are ever referred to a consultant, and they find nothing wrong with you, then you are referred right back to your GP. Waiting list done.

If there

bevmid Wed 05-May-10 00:24:55

To Gordon Brown,
hmm, angry.

To Prime Minister Brown and his opponents

What are you going to do about the Albany Midwives and their homebirth practice helping those women who are disadvantaged living around Kings College Hospital? The lack of safety for pregnant women and their future babies once they step over the yellow line in to the experimental laboratories a.k.a. maternity hospitals is universal. That is the high rate of intervention plus premature termination of birth with instrumental abdominal surgery A.K.A as Caesarian surgery.

During the Global Witch hunt the Medical Unions tried to "do us" in over here claiming in Oz using questionable results from low level research that home birth was unsafe in the hands of registered professional midwives. On the 30th April New York USA made it illegal for home birth midwives to practice

On International Midwives Day we midwives and mums want your answer.

bevmid Wed 05-May-10 00:21:55

www.mumsnet.com To Gordon Brown,
hmm, angry.

To Prime Minister Brown and his opponents

What are you going to do about the Albany Midwives and their home birth practice helping those women who are disadvantaged living around Kings College Hospital? The lack of safety for pregnant women and their future babies once they step over the yellow line in to the experimental laboratories a.k.a. maternity hospitals is universal. That is the high rate of intervention plus premature termination of birth with instrumental abdominal surgery A.K.A as Caesarean surgery.

During the Global Witch hunt the Medical Unions tried to "do us" in over here claiming with distorted interpretation of research of low value that hospital birth was safer than home birth in Oz. On the 30th April New York USA made it illegal for home birth midwives to practice - this attempt to malign midwives is orchestrated by values of fiduciary corruption/greed.

On International Midwives Day we want your answer.

gaelicsheep Tue 04-May-10 23:09:58

And my goodness, if that's the main thing that people think they have to worry about in the coming years they're in for a big shock!

lowrib Tue 04-May-10 23:08:45

somewhere earlier, slur wrote

"Thank you for answering my point on asylum seekers Gordon.

I read your answer out to my five year old and she said,

"hmm but how are you going to make the BNPs (sic) change their mind if you won't say new people coming is a good thing?

love elly xxxxxxxxxxxxxx."
"

elly for PM!! grin

gaelicsheep Tue 04-May-10 23:08:33

I wonder if they're taking into account the savings on administering the damned things. Even if it's over £30k, I still don't get why GB cares so much - that's hardly poor is it?

happikidz Tue 04-May-10 22:57:54

fraid not that simple gaelicsheep. The Tories have said CTC for combined income over £50,000 but according to the Treasury that won't raise the £400m that they have claimed. That would require cuts above £30,000 household income.

So who is lying?

gaelicsheep Tue 04-May-10 22:32:57

Hopefully the CTC issue is now clear, but just to be sure:

Tory policy is no CTC for families with combined income of more than £50k

Lib Dem policy is no CTC for top 20% earning families who are currently entitled - apparently that means above £32k which I thought sounded quite a low figure

Tory policy is offset by proposed reversal of NI rise to the tune of around £300 per taxpayer - potentially £600 per couple

Lib Dem policy is offset by proposed increase in PA to £10k to the tune of around £700 per taxpayer - potentially £1400 per couple

I think all this sounds perfectly fair, and would still think it perfectly fair for higher earning families to miss out on a measly £545 a year with no other compensation.

Gordon Brown has repeatedly claimed that the Tories (note only the Tories) will cut tax credits for the poorest families! This has had me spitting feathers at the TV/radio on more than one occasion. I am also very cross with the Tories for allowing him to get away with the lies for days and days before giving it straight. I can't fathom why that is - I can only it's them being afraid of being too combative and scaring off the floating voters.

GB, or any of your "advisors" checking in on this thread. You should be ashamed of yourselves and you should know that I for one will never vote for a party that attempts to gather support with outright lies.

Message withdrawn

Beaaware Tue 04-May-10 21:53:06

NonnoMum, democracy may be wonderful on a website such as this but it ain't quite the same in the real world. I had the pleasure to be at the Safe Blood rally in London today, I met several families who have lost loved ones to the human form of mad cows disease (vCJD) this is not a disease, it is not an infection, it is caused by vaccines, infected blood, infected beef, infected surgical instruments and sadly it is fatal. I also met a haemophiliac man who has been given infected blood and now is at risk of developing vCJD, he has been told that some of his blood donors have actually died from VCJD. What we met today was hostile police presence, loads of police in vehicles swarming around what was small non-threatning protest to ask the political parties to quite simply screen all UK blood donors for vCJD. We are not able to freely express our concerns in public, we have to get permission from the police to protest, and then we are treated like criminals, I did not feel that I was in a democratic society today. When you want to speak out about a real issue that concerns the health of the British people you are met with police dominance to the point where it is laughable.
Democratic society it is not, but thanks to mumsnet for the opportunity to express the truth and I would like to praise Christine Lord for her fight for justice for her beloved son who died from vCJD in December 2007 www.justiceforandy.com.

NonnoMum Tue 04-May-10 20:56:42

Just want to add to this thread, that isn't democracy wonderful, aren't we fortunate to live in a country with free speech, and thank you to Mumsnet for letting me put a direct question to GorBro. And he answered me!! Now feel so involved in politics that am considering chaining myself to railings... if it would stop raining.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now