.
I’ve said before that Prime Minister’s Question Time is a waste of time and effort, for it seems to me to be either a slanging match between the the leaders of the major parties or else a sycophantic pat on the back to the governing party by one of their own MPs.
What does surprise me is that there seems to be no Commons rule under which someone asking a question can insist on it being properly answered rather than drawing forth invective unrelated to the question asked.
Thus yesterday we heard David Cameron ask the Prime Minister three times whether the government would rule out a compulsory inheritance levy to pay for its plans to provide free personal care for the most vulnerable people in England. Cameron pointed out that one option in the government’s Green Paper was for a ‘£20,000 levy on every single elderly person in this country except the very poorest’ and repeatedly urged Mr Brown to rule out a levy.
It was a fair question since more than seventy councillors responsible for social care provision in England in a letter to The Times called the plan ill-conceived, suggested it had major weaknesses and would mean cuts to services. But he didn’t get an answer.
But, as in the case of the question posed by the Carpenter to the Oysters, answer came there none.
.
I’ve said before that Prime Minister’s Question Time is a waste of time and effort, for it seems to me to be either a slanging match between the the leaders of the major parties or else a sycophantic pat on the back to the governing party by one of their own MPs.
What does surprise me is that there seems to be no Commons rule under which someone asking a question can insist on it being properly answered rather than drawing forth invective unrelated to the question asked.
Thus yesterday we heard David Cameron ask the Prime Minister three times whether the government would rule out a compulsory inheritance levy to pay for its plans to provide free personal care for the most vulnerable people in England. Cameron pointed out that one option in the government’s Green Paper was for a ‘£20,000 levy on every single elderly person in this country except the very poorest’ and repeatedly urged Mr Brown to rule out a levy.
It was a fair question since more than seventy councillors responsible for social care provision in England in a letter to The Times called the plan ill-conceived, suggested it had major weaknesses and would mean cuts to services. But he didn’t get an answer.
Personal care for the vulnerable and elderly is a subject I’m interested in. I am, after all, now fully qualified as an ‘old geezer’ and would like to know if I am going to have to pay for the so-called free treatment.
But, as in the case of the question posed by the Carpenter to the Oysters, answer came there none.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment