Dennis Skinner's best Queen's Speech jokes

"Royal Mail for sale. Queen's head privatised," the Labour MP declared today. We collect his most memorable bon mots from previous years.

Dennis Skinner's republican quips during the State Opening of Parliament have become part of our unwritten constitution. Today, as Black Rod summoned MPs to hear the monarch in the House of Lords (by tradition, the Queen cannot enter the Commons), he declared: "Royal Mail for sale. Queen's head privatised."

So, in tribute to the Beast of Bolsover's verbal agility, here's a selection of some his most memorable bon mots from previous years. 

1990

Skinner quipped: "It tolls for thee, Maggie", a reference to Margaret Thatcher's imminent resignation as prime minister.

1992

As pressure grew on the Queen to pay tax on her personal income, Skinner ordered Black Rod: "Tell her to pay her taxes."

1997

Skinner cried: "New Labour, New Black Rod", an adaptation of the campaign slogan "New Labour, New Britain".

2000

Skinner shouted, "Tell her to read the Guardian" after the newspaper launched a new campaign calling for Britain to become a republic.

2003

Following a series of break-ins at Buckingham Palace, Skinner asked: "Did she lock the door behind her?"

2006

In reference to the new film The Queen, Skinner asked Black Rod: "Have you got Helen Mirren on standby?"

2007

After two protected hen harriers were shot dead on the royal family's Sandringham estate, Skinner remarked: "Who shot the harriers?" Prince Harry was questioned by the police but no charges were brought.

2008

Skinner quipped: "Any Tory moles at the palace?", a reference to the recent arrest of the Tory MP Damian Green in connection with Home Office leaks.

2009

As Black Rod arrived in the Commons, Skinner joked: "Royal expenses are on the way."

2012

"Jubilee year, double dip recession, what a start," shouted Skinner, prompting cries of "shame!" from Tory MPs. 

Labour MP Dennis Skinner in full flow.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Dan Kitwood/Getty
Show Hide image

How can London’s mothers escape the poverty trap?

Despite its booming jobs market, London’s poverty rate is high. What can be done about it?

Why are mothers in London less likely to work than their counterparts across the country, and how can we ensure that having more parents in jobs brings the capital’s high child poverty rates down?

The answers to these two questions, examined in a new CPAG report on parental employment in the capital, may become increasingly nationally significant as policymakers look to ensure jobs growth doesn’t stall and that a job becomes a more much reliable route out of poverty than it is currently – 64 per cent of poor children live in working families.

The choice any parent makes when balancing work and family life is deeply personal.  It’s a choice driven by a wide range of factors but principally by what parents, with their unique viewpoint, regard as best for their families. The man in Whitehall doesn’t know best.

But the personal is also political. Every one of these personal choices is shaped, limited or encouraged by an external context.   Are there suitable jobs out there? Is there childcare available that is affordable and will work for their child(ren)? And what will be the financial gains from working?

In London, 40 per cent of mothers in couples are not working. In the rest of the country, the figure is much lower – 27 per cent. While employment rates amongst lone parents in London have significantly increased in recent years, the proportion of mothers in couples out of work remains stuck at about 12 percentage points higher than the rest of the UK.

The benefits system has played a part in increasing London’s lone parent employment rate. More and more lone parents are expected to seek work. In 2008, there was no obligation on single parents to start looking for work until their youngest child turned 16. Now they need to start looking when their youngest is five (the Welfare Reform and Work Bill would reduce this down to three). But the more stringent “conditionality” regime, while significant, doesn’t wholly explain the higher employment rate. For example, we know more lone parents with much younger children have also moved into jobs.  It also raises the question of what sacrifices families have had to make to meet the new conditionality.  

Mothers in couples in London, who are not mandated to work, have not entered work to the same level as lone parents. So, what is it about the context in London that makes it less likely for mothers in couples to work? Here are four reasons highlighted in our report for policymakers to consider:

1. The higher cost of working in London is likely to play a significant role in this. London parents are much less likely to be able to call on informal (cheaper or free) childcare from family and friends than other parts in the country: only one in nine children in London receives informal childcare compared to an average of one in three for England. And London childcare costs for under 5s dwarf those in the rest of the country, so for many parents support available through tax credits is inadequate.

2. Add to this high housing and transport costs, and parents are left facing a toxic combination of high costs that can mean they see less financial rewards from their work than parents in other parts of the country.

3. Effective employment support can enable parents to enter work, particularly those who might have taken a break from employment while raising children. But whilst workless lone parents and workless couples are be able to access statutory employment support, if you have a working partner, but don’t work yourself, or if you are working on a low wage and want to progress, there is no statutory support available.

4. The nature of the jobs market in London may also be locking mums out. The number of part time jobs in the capital is increasing, but these jobs don’t attract the same London premium as full time work.  That may be partly why London mums who work are more likely to work full time than working mums in other parts of the country. But this leaves London families facing even higher childcare costs.

Parental employment is a thorny issue. Parenting is a 24-hour job in itself which must be balanced with any additional employment and parents’ individual choices should be at the forefront of this debate. Policy must focus on creating the context that enables parents to make positive choices about employment. That means being able to access the right support to help with looking for work, creating a jobs market that works for families, and childcare options that support child development and enable parents to see financial gains from working.

When it comes to helping parents move into jobs they can raise a family on, getting it right for London, may also go a long way to getting it right for the rest of the country.