i can understand your frustration with holding the government to account, but you and more importantly we, should not have to rely on parliamentary questions.

if back benchers showed more independence, if the payroll vote in the government and the opposition parties was limited to less than 25% of members of the house, if select committees had some teeth, if the power to decide business in the commons was handed from the government to a committe of all the house elected by secret ballot at the start of each parliament, if the speaker represented the interests of parliament rather than … then we, and more importantly you, might get somewhere.

holding a government to account by PQs is like that game where you have to find out someone’s chosen identity by asking questions to which they only reply yes or no. it’s a very poor substitute for real accountability.

However, the advantage of a PMQ is that it obliges the Prime Minister to put HIS opinion on record. What are his options?

(1) He can say that he has not read the two documents and therefore can not comment.
(2) He can refuse to answer the question, either by answering a different one or by abusing the Conservative Party.
(3) He can invent some spurious differences and appear ridiculous.

None of these options will show him in a good light.

Furthermore, if a different Conservative backbencher were to ask a similar question, with slightly different wording, every week between now and the General Election, that would keep the matter in the public eye. Boring for you, I will admit, but perhaps effective.

MPs are now receiving the same standard of service from the bureaucracy that the rest of us do, which is to say open contempt, and half-concealed bullying.

I suppose what it did show was that he doesn’t have a clue and probably no intention of reducing it.

“In what substantial ways does the Lisbon Treaty differ from the draft European Constitution rejected by the French and Dutch electorates? The German Chancellor has said that there are no such differences.”

Reply: We did that many times during the Lisbon debates. Labour always say the preamble shows they dropped the idea of a “constitution” and it became just a Treaty. We say nothing of substance changed, and it represented an unreasonable transfer of power.

I have noticed Mark Harper’s hard work in picking away at Labours state, using his time well, in asking for the data we really should not have to ask for. I cannot comment on his success in the area. I certainly hope Labour has provided the key data on which our welfare reforms must be based.

“The Freedom of Information legislation effectively removed the privileged access for PQs. Anyone can now ask a good question of the government, and have an equal ticket in the lottery for an answer. All will encounter delay and reluctance to part with information, especially MPs with a reputation for asking good or embarrassing questions. A member of the public may draw a better lottery ticket than an MP when trying to get to the bottom of an issue.”

This is quite true and I do note that when a point is very good, even under Labour the minister has answered the good point directly. Despite a little irritation, which is unhelpful , such points are a civic duty, and that much should always be kept firmly in mind by the Government.

“some time ago I highlighted here the large sum of money we gave via the Financial Compensation scheme to Santander to take the retail deposits of Bradford and Bignley. No-one would run this story in the media, as the spin had told them something different.”

I suppose we should insist on both sides of a spin being aired to the public. I understand though that often, getting a counter spin going is rather hard work.
You John have often been blocked because your truthfulness is seen as a threat to the official line, I believe. Such is the mountain the truthful are often presented with.

“The banks in which the government is a shareholder are managed on an arms length commercial basis by the UKFI…..(followed by guff about eventual publication of details)”

I certainly hope the taxpayer is allowed to make his promised profit on the deal, the Taxpayer has been soundly abused under Labour. “eventual publication of” 60 or more years being the bottom line, and even longer should the need to be great indeed.

“As a shareholder, the government has the option to take up part of the newly issued equity. (of course – it is a rights issue). If we did not do so, the value of the existing taxpayer shareholding would be diminished (if they did not do so their rights would be sold in nil paid form to someone else, and the taxpayer would receive a payment). To protect the value of our shares, we have therefore decided to take up our share of this new capital investing £5.7billion net of underwriting fee” (In other words hasn’t a clue why they are buying more shares)”

So is Government a separate shareholder from “tax payer” , in which case the Government is acting in a manner one would expect from Socialist Dogma.
If Government is acting for “tax payer” it is also what one would expect from Socialist dogma. In other words they are trying to buy up as much of the banks as they can get away with whilst they still can. Of course we will have no choice but to sell the lot off as soon as possible, but I believe we still have to act for the benefit of “tax payer” this being consistent with Conservative dogma.

When we get unemployment figures there should be two figures given: those receiving Jobseekers Allowance and those receiving Incapacity Benefit (or those of working age but receiving another benefit, just lump all the other benefits together). No doubt the Incapacity Benefit figures are available but they are never headlined like Jobseekers Allowance figures are. Ask anyone on the street how many people are unemployed in UK today and most will say around 2.75 million.

Gordon Brown’s PFI off-book trickery may seem like a smart idea to him and a way (in the past) to avoid breaking his ‘Golden Rules’ (we never seem to hear about them now, strangely – why on earth call them ‘Golden’ if they are simply expedients?) but government spending should be transparent to the public.

These are two examples, I’m sure there are plenty more.

Unfortunately will probably never happen as in the eyes of the media / political advisors it would give the opposition too much ammunition.

It’s one thing to spin a line to the media or in an interview trying to obfuscate but it’s depressing when the practise is being carried over into the House.

One rule for you, another for us.

Any Government which refuses to answer sensible questions, has something to hide.

Can only suggest you keep on digging John.

Another reason why we want to see a full publication of UK PLC Accounts as soon as you get in (if you get in)

Also a full list of ALL Tax rises in the past 12 years.

Look they have raised this much extra in increased tax, they have now spent it all, and some more, and we now have increased debt and are in effect broke.

This shower would have difficulty running a bath.

Would you be able to ask a follow-up written question which asked, ‘Is the amount of Treasury financial support to Santander £xyz?’ Presumably they would have to say that it was, and that would get the admission into Hansard.

I didn’t understand the point about the freedom of information legislation. As I’m not an MP, that is the only way I can get information, so it’s valuable to me. Presumably if you ask a question, and I make an FoI request, about the same subject the government is obliged to answer both.

As a non-MP, the thing I find annoying in an answer is a reference to the House of Commons library!

Reply: The government tells the Clerks in the Commons not to accept questions which Ministers do not answer. I expect they will rule I cannot ask for the figures given the answer about UKFI. Ministers are quite determined not to answer this! We know the answer anyway.