First blood to Cameron in Commons blast at Brown

Gordon Brown has told the Commons that he wants to deliver a new "constitutional settlement" for the British people:

• He promised twelve transfer of powers from the Prime Minister and the Executive to Parliament - including the Executive's powers to declare war, request the dissolution of Parliament and key public appointments (including the Governor of the Bank of England and Church of England bishops).
• He promised the creation of a National Security Council - an idea already proposed by Pauline Neville-Jones some months ago (he went on to nick at least two other Tory ideas).
• He promised a new ministerial code overseen by an independent adjudicator.
• He also called for a cross-party debate on a new written Constitution and floated ideas such as weekend voting and a lower voting age.
• In his only clear nod to the LibDems on PR he promised a full report on the success of the new voting methods used since Labour came to power.
• Some civil libertarians would be pleased with his announcement that the restrictions on protests in Parliament Square could be lifted.

David Cameron then had an opportunity to respond - in his first parliamentary clash with Gordon Brown as the new Prime Minister - and his response was very impressive.  In a key passage he said:

"Constitutional change is not the solution because the constitution is not the cause: the cause is broken promises. People will ask how the person who broke this trust can be the person to mend it."

British life is too centralised, the Leader of the Opposition said, and Gordon Brown had been the great centraliser of the last ten years.

The new Prime Minister wants more openness and honesty but as Chancellor, Gordon Brown had levied taxation stealthily and failed to answer questions on the tax credit chaos.

He challenged Gordon Brown to reverse the transfer of power from democratically elected local councils to unelected regional assemblies.

What was the new Prime Minister going to do about the fact that there were two classes of MP in Britain?  MPs for English seats who had no influence on Scottish matters and Scottish MPs like Gordon Brown who could decide how English hospitals and schools were run.

He ended with an attack on Gordon Brown's failure to grant a referendum on the draft European Treaty.  It was, David Cameron said, yet another broken Labour promise.

The Prime Minister responded by joking that he thought David Cameron had wanted to end Punch and Judy politics.  He quoted Ken Clarke two or three times to back up his positions and embarrass David Cameron but this was definitely an exchange won by the Conservative leader.  He will have raised morale on the Tory benches.  It's the first Brown-Cameron PMQs tomorrow.  ConservativeHome will be live blogging it.

Comments

[James Hill]

Good thing the statement was today. Without the experience of Oliver Heald to cover the reform proposals Cameron may he have be truly stuck. Bit idiotic of Cameron to fire the person who has covered the constitution for over 3 years with great competence and replace him with a non-lawyer child. I expect that Heald will have quite a few begging phone calls from Cameron and Herbert's offices over the coming months!

[ACT]

This was in no sense 'won' by Cameron - Brown brushed him off with the greatest of ease, and the opposition leader landed not one serious blow on him. But there is a *far* more important issue at stake here. Most of these proposed changes are profoundly bad ones. They are profoundly UnTory, and the Tory Party ought to be resisting them. Cameron escaped real damage being verbally done to him by Brown by the simple expedient of welcoming 'most' of what Brown proposed. This isn't opposition, let alone Conservatism, it's surrender.

[GS]

A excellent performance from Cameron - a much-needed boost for Tory morale.

[Raj]

ACT, are you a Labour mole? Because you seem to do everything to put Cameron down, even when he does a reasonable job.

[michael]

I agree with GS

Cameron must hammer hard the message " Engligh votes for English issues"

It is an outrage and insult to every one living in England that we are effectively at the mercy of 3 other countries. I am not anti Scot/Irish or Welsh but the West Lothian question is something that offends any question of us being " one Nation"

[Tory T]

Cameron absolutely demolished Brown.

I am stunned that Brown would so blatantly say "no English votes for English laws" and "no referendum".

Brown brought up gimmicks like citizen juries and Cameron said "we need a jury of the citizens" instead on the referendum.

Even Ming supported Cameron on the West Lothian Question.

Brown looked completely out of his depth if you ask me, quoting Ken Clarke over and over again looks a bit desperate, Cameron didn't quote Frank Field

[Bruce Bould]

I know this is a partisan website, but even so I nearly choked on my coffee when I read your headline "First blood to Cameron in Commons blast at Brown".

I watched the whole thing on BBC Parliament, and my overwhelming feeling was that not only did Brown look very impressive, Cameron did himself no good by jumping in with pretty quickly with partisan jibes. He made himself look petty while Brown was clearly seeking consensus.

I'm not saying Cameron gave a poor performance, it was perfectly confident and decently delivered. But he wasn't the winner here.

On the contrary, I think this bodes very ill for your leader - I don't pretend to be a Tory member (or Labour or LibDem come to that) - but from where I'm sitting Brown is coming over very well indeed. That whole statement, and his answers in the debate which followed, was one of the most impressive Commons performances I've seen or heard from any Prime Minister in modern times.

[ACT]

Raj, I'm such a stupid Tory that, unlike Dave's (very expensive) mate Steve Hilton, I've actually always voted Tory. Cameron did not 'win' this debate, and I will be very surprised if anyone in the paid for press agrees with that very strange assertion. Brown certainly didn't 'demolish' Cameron, but as I say, that's only because Cameron ran away from the fight by agreeing with 'most' of what Brown proposed to do.

[Tory T]

Bruce, LibDem Mike Smithson's verdict from political betting

"The occasion was Brown’s announcement on the constitutional changes and they gave the Tory leader the opening to raise the “English Votes for English Laws” issue as well as an EU referendum.

After being out of the limelight for so long the exchanges gave him a platform for two seemingly populist policies which might provide the means for him to impede the Brown bandwagon.

Gordon seemed hesitant and nervous and stammered a bit. But being fair to him he has very little experience of this sort of thing and it shows....

I don’t think the Prime Minister foresaw the openings that statement itself would give to the Tory leader. Cameron will be relieved to have done pretty well after the poor poll performances. There are enough sound-bites there for him to get good bulletin coverage. Cameron looks a lot better against Brown than Blair.

It was all a good taster for tomorrow’s PMQs."

[malcolm]

I'm as partisan as hell I admit but I haven't seen the TV today.Was Brown impressive when he refused a referendum on the EU or was it when he said no English only votes on English matters Bruce? Or was it both?

[Michael Davidson]

How anyone could have possibly thought today was a Cameron victory is beyond me.

Cameron made petty jibes all the way throughout which didn't help his case, and he very little substance against Brown - he simply dragged up the past rather than talking about today's proposals.

To say it was a Cameron victory is simply pure spin I'm afraid.

[Ed]

I have been convinced of the need for constitutional reform, localism and even possibly a written constitution, but we can't allow it to be written by one man. Cameron must be constructively critical of each and every proposal - otherwise Labour will just ram it through parliament with no proper debate.

From what I've read DC made a good start today.

[Editor]

It is a partisan website Bruce but I am not uncritical of David Cameron when I think things need to be said (much to the annoyance of many more loyal commenters!). I think Cameron won because he pinpointed the hypocrisy of Brown. He also talked about issues like the EU Treaty, like stealthy taxation, regional assemblies and English votes for English laws. Bread and butter stuff that will connect with voters.

[Andrew Woodman]

'He made himself look petty while Brown was clearly seeking consensus.'

If he's seeking consensus on Scottish MP's voting on English matters, and no vote on the EU referendum, then we can't give it. I don't see how the man can talk about democracy and accountabilty when firstly he's unelected, and secondly he's broken a promise on the EU vote. It's OK Brown quoting Ken Clarke on that issue, but Cameron could quote several of Brown's MP's on it. We are there to oppose, and seeing as Brown is an anti democrat, oppse we must. Well Done Cameron.

[Bruce Bould]

I have to say I think this whole talk about winning and losing exchanges is unattractive to most un-committed voters.

I'm not saying Brown smashed Cameron with a big clunking fist, or that he deployed devastating oratory to outwit him. Indeed, his delivery was quiet and undemonstrative. My point is that the meat of Brown's statement was revolutionary. If he achieves even half of what he's proposing he could go down as the greatest reforming Prime Minister since Asquith.

As I said, Cameron's performance was OK, but he did appear to have prepared a ready made response which broke the mood of consensus, while not really addressing the details of the proposals. That just doesn't look good to an outsider.

Cameron looks a lot better against Brown than Blair says Tory T - I disagree. Blair and Cameron were well matched, both looked like actors playing political leaders in a Hollywood film, but Brown seems a throwback to a more heavyweight age. I think that's a good thing generally, but Cameron probably isn't the right leader to face him for the opposition.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

I never saw the programme, but if Cameron raised the English only votes for matters affecting only England and a referendum on the EU then he has made a small start for his resurrection. He has a mountain to climb. It will depend on his passion and conviction in pursuing those policies and other core vote concerns (right wing = common ground = centre = winning). Members of the jury have just taken their seats - it will be a long trial. Will justice for the British be achieved or will Judge and jury doze off.

[Tory T]

Bruce, I was quoting a leading LibDem blogger who said that.

[tapestry]

Brown's created a trap for himself. Even his own side wants a referendum. How he thinks he can ignore the House of Commons, 85% of the British electorate and his own promises, is almost incredible - the supreme arrogance it betrays. He's digging a very big hole. With the media backing him, he thinks he's invulnerable as he prepares to rig the electoral system.

His vulnerablility will be his own MPs.

He is taking them totally for granted. If they rebel, he'll be out of a job quicker than he can say 'what happened?'

[Ken Stevens]

Quite right for Mr C to agree with some of the concepts proposed. Shouldn't oppose for opposing's sake.

If the Tories become consistent in standing firmly both for an equitable resolution of the West Lothian Question and a general referendum on EU, then you're starting to get my vote back.

All other issues are secondary, as long as it is a national parliament that resolves them one way or the other and not an extra-territorial unelected body.

If you think I'm just a minority swivel-eyed nutter, go and look at all the others on the Daily Telegraph threads!

[malcolm]

Do you think we don't deserve a referundum on the EU constitution or that the West Lothian doesn't need answering. If he doesn't get those right he's far from being a reformer in the Asquith mould or indeed any other PM.

[601]

"He also called for a cross-party debate on a new written Constitution"

No way! Situations change all the time,just look at the terrorism we face today compared to the different threats we faced in the past.

His government should try a lot harder to stick to our unwritten constitution.

[Bruce Bould]

Bruce, I was quoting a leading LibDem blogger who said that
My apologies for misquoting you, it was unintentional - though would I be right in thinking you agree with the sentiments?

Yes, I've just been taking a look at the blog site you mentioned. Quite a few comments now which back up my original point. But it's all opinion, I don't say mine is any more correct than anyone else's.

I've admired a lot of what Cameron has said and done, and a few months ago I was contemplating the idea of voting Conservative next time for the first time in many a long year. But Blair going seems to have got him on the wrong foot - he was impressive against Blair because they were fighting on the same level, but now he seems to be a bit "last season", while the change of style at the top with Brown - dour, yes, but solid, heavyweight, grown-up - is both refreshing and, for me, most welcome.

[powellite]

Just watched the statement - Brown simply rolls right on. Is it me, or is he one of the most boring speakers in Parliament? I can barely remember anything which he said - whatever you think of Cameron, at least he puts some effort in and cracks some gags. I'd sooner gouge my eyes out with a blunt spoon than be forced to listen to the dour one...

[Old Hack]

Cameron won on points but did he draw much blood? Sorry but I don't think so.

What was interesting is the way this exchange framed the battleground for the future. Cameron citing Brown's record and Brown retorting by quoting the likes of Clarke. Shades of things to come?

What I did find encouraging was the more statesmanlike tone that Cameron was able to strike compared with Brown. It was credible, authorative and had presence. That needs to be used to best effect and not squandered with tactical blunders.

For instance, the big danger of harking back to the past is that Brown is turning over new leaves. This constitutional statement says it all, Brown is attempting to play a new tune which voters will listen to. His record as Chancellor cannot be relied upon to score points.

Brown is still a formidable adversary for Cameron and will need to be confronted for what is happening in the here and now as much as the past.

Let's see what happens tomorrow.

[Traditional Tory]

I haven't seen this yet but although what Cameron said looks well enough in print I would be surprised if he 'demolished' Brown. Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

Anyway, what if he did? Hague used to run rings round Blair and the better he did the less the public liked him. There is nothing the man in the street likes less than the feeling that he is being asked to subsidise smartarse point-scoring in a glorified sixth-form debating society.

I thought Cameron told us he was going to end 'Punch and Judy Politics'. That promise was broken quicker than his pledge to leave the EPP.

[Graham D'Amiral]

The problem for Brown is he wanted to be seen as the great democrat restoring the power of parliament by surrendering executive power, but it is hard to square that message with saying English votes for English MP's was an issue not up for discussion. As the Prime Minister is so keen to quote Ken Clarke he might like to use a bit of the radio interview Mr Clarke just gave where he said he was surprised Gordon Brown managed to keep a straight face when he said English votes for English MPs would create two classes of MP. Mr Clarke went on to say the Prime Minister would find it difficult to stick to such an absurd position.

I didn't hear all of the debate so couldn't say who won or lost,but clearly David Cameron did make the right arguments and ask the right questions. Let's be honest none of these issues are going to excite the public much.

[Raj]

Anyway, what if he did? Hague used to run rings round Blair and the better he did the less the public liked him.

That's nonsense. First of all, Blair held his own well enough against Hague when necessary. Generally WH did do better, but he didn't make the PM look weak and confused. Brown did far worse today than Blair.

Second, Hague was not disliked because he was a good orator. He was unpopular because:

1. His leadership campaign was launched terribly and the one image always in the public mind was that of him wearing the "Hague caps".

2. His general image was never quite refined enough. He tried to change it, but he wasn't a good enough foil to Blair.

3. More generally he was the wrong man at the wrong time. What the Tories needed was someone like Howard or Clarke, an old hand with lots of experience. Hague would have done better if he'd followed the first Opposition Tory leader.

4. Hague failed to reform the Tory Party to make it look like a credible alternative to Labour. When it came to the election, he panicked when the only thing that stimulated voters was the Europe/£££ issue and focused too much on that.

One reason Blair got a landslide in 1997 was that he made Major look weak in the Commons, even if JM did try his best. Being good at debating isn't enough, but when combined with other factors it can prove a very useful weapon. Cameron does well on the "touchy-feely" perceptions - if he can improve his standing as being "strong" it will help him come across as a good potential PM.

[Raj]

It's worth remembering that Blair had years of experience as Labour leader before coming PM - Brown has had none, so he's more vulnerable to being challenged in Parliament.

[Adam]

Now do we see the danger? 10 years of calling to the core vote, rather than taking back the centre/common ground of politics has led to this. Gordon Brown is PM and about to impose a written Constitution, subject CofE Bishops to a Commons vote, hand over declaration of war to Parliament, etc. etc.. Hopefully now, Conservatives everywhere will fall into step behind Cameron to drive this Labour government from power before it's all too late.

[Bruce Bould]

It's worth remembering that Blair had years of experience as Labour leader before coming PM - Brown has had none, so he's more vulnerable to being challenged in Parliament.

Well, apart from delivering 11 budgets, leading the budget debates, and leading Treasury Questions for 10 years, and apart from 10 years in the shadow cabinet before that - yes, apart from all that, Brown is pretty inexperienced.

I really don't think that playing the experience card would work for Cameron, Osborne and team.

Cameron has strengths and weaknesses. Deluding yourselves about the latter isn't going to help you get back into power.

[601]

Editor where can we see a video of Camerons response, I went to the BBC but they only showed Brown.

[ToMTom]

Why doesn't Brown simply announce the date of the next General Election and then we can fix the date of every future GE at 5 year intervals unless a Confidence Motion is lost in the interval ?

It is time The Royal Prerogative on dissolving The House of Commons was abolished.........if Brown really believed in such matters he would have allowed the MPC Members to be approved by the Treasury Select Committee

[ToMTom]

Editor where can we see a video of Camerons response, I went to the BBC but they only showed Brown.

Anything here ?

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/

[Jane]

Brown should abide by existing laws rather than waste time on a new Constitution. There are many ancient laws to protect us such as the following:

The Act of Supremacy 1559 declares;

That no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, within this realm.

So any powers handed over to Brussels is illegal.

The Magna Carta, 1215 declares;

For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood1.... None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood2.

1 So fishing boats being impounded is illegal.

2 Every fine issued without the person being tried by jury is illegal.

We need to fight for the laws we have and hold them to book.

[Raj]

Bruce

I said as Labour leader - Brown will not be giving those budget speeches, etc. It's also a lot easier to focus on just the Treasury than the whole range of issues a PM does, especially when the economy was not exactly crumbling.

Yes, of course Cameron has his weaknesses. But certain commentators on the blog will say he has no real strengths.

[Alex Swanson]

'Brown was clearly seeking consensus'

When a socialist seeks "consensus" what he means is that he wants everyone else to meekly accept his ideas.

What frightens me is that even though the shadow foreign secretary is a history buff, the current Tory leadership have appeared in the past to have very little understanding of the mentality of the people they're facing. If they're going on the attack that's great.

[Bullingdon Bertie]

"First blood to Cameron in Commons blast at Brown""

Ho ho. I just watched it all back from the link on the BBC Parliament site, and it was so uncomfortable for Cameron, I couldn't resist watching it twice.

Still, I can understand why you are clutching at straws and need to find some good news even where it doesn't exist!

[Louise]

Why is Cameron demolishing Brown? why can't he behave himself and save the demolition job for PMQs? Brown has shown himself a real asset to the Labour Party and a skilled politician in knowing when to criticise his opponents and when not to mention them at all. Wrong day, Dave. Let's see how you do tomorrow at PMQs - that will be the big test.

[John]

Brown's speech is no different to his budgets previously. I doubt if he will cede any real power.

Lets take his statement to give up

* the power of the executive to declare war;

When was the last time a British Prime Minister declared war? To my knowledge it was 1939?

Will he also be stopped from sending the troops into any action without parliament's approval when there is no declaration of war ?

I may be wrong but it sounds like the same old weasel words from Lurch........

[Traditional Tory]

Response to ‘Raj’

TT - Hague used to run rings round Blair and the better he did the less the public liked him. Raj - that's nonsense

It is the general perception and that’s arguably what counts.

Generally WH did do better, but he didn't make the PM look weak and confused. Brown did far worse today than Blair.

Since a number of people who are not noted for their hostility to Cameron say that Cameron did not make Brown look weak, I am inclined to believe them.

More generally he was the wrong man at the wrong time. What the Tories needed was someone like Howard or Clarke.

The Eurofanatic Clarke would have split the party down the middle. If you don’t appreciate that you can’t have been on the scene very long.

Hague failed to reform the Tory Party to make it look like a credible alternative to Labour.

Hague carried out a number of major reforms to the party, not all of which were in my opinion well-advised. What has Cameron done? The disgraceful ‘A List’ was not a permanent reform, indeed has it not now been dropped?

When it came to the election, he panicked

Hague didn’t panic. What utter drivel.

One reason Blair got a landslide in 1997 was that he made Major look weak in the Commons

Major looked weak because Major was weak, period, right across the board. He was probably the most wretched apology for a Prime Minister this country has suffered for at least two centuries and probably longer.

Being good at debating isn't enough, but when combined with other factors it can prove a very useful weapon.

Cameron is capable of being both adequate and downright pathetic. Remember the great ‘flip-flop’ debate? (engineered by Brown!) It’s at times like those that we are reminded just how utterly inexperienced the man is under the PR flim-flam veneer.

Cameron does well on the "touchy-feely" perceptions

That was last year’s gimmick and it made him look like a wuss.. He’ll have to come up with something better than pushbikes and windmills against the Clunking Fist.

[Traditional Tory]

Response to ‘Raj’

TT - Hague used to run rings round Blair and the better he did the less the public liked him. Raj - that's nonsense

It is the general perception and that’s arguably what counts.

Generally WH did do better, but he didn't make the PM look weak and confused. Brown did far worse today than Blair.

Since a number of people who are not noted for their hostility to Cameron say that Cameron did not make Brown look weak, I am inclined to believe them.

More generally he was the wrong man at the wrong time. What the Tories needed was someone like Howard or Clarke.

The Eurofanatic Clarke would have split the party down the middle. If you don’t appreciate that you can’t have been on the scene very long.

Hague failed to reform the Tory Party to make it look like a credible alternative to Labour.

Hague carried out a number of major reforms to the party, not all of which were in my opinion well-advised. What has Cameron done? The disgraceful ‘A List’ was not a permanent reform, indeed has it not now been dropped?

When it came to the election, he panicked

Hague didn’t panic. What utter drivel.

One reason Blair got a landslide in 1997 was that he made Major look weak in the Commons

Major looked weak because Major was weak, period, right across the board. He was probably the most wretched apology for a Prime Minister this country has suffered for at least two centuries and probably longer.

Being good at debating isn't enough, but when combined with other factors it can prove a very useful weapon.

Cameron is capable of being both adequate and downright pathetic. Remember the great ‘flip-flop’ debate? (engineered by Brown!) It’s at times like those that we are reminded just how utterly inexperienced the man is under the PR flim-flam veneer.

Cameron does well on the "touchy-feely" perceptions

That was last year’s gimmick and it made him look like a wuss.. He’ll have to come up with something better than pushbikes and windmills against the Clunking Fist.

[Bullingdon Bertie]

Cameron today: "It's broken promises that are the cause of broken trust."

[Everyone who voted for Cameron because of his unequivocal (according to Helmer, Hannan etc) pledge to be out of the EPP before Christmas 2005 nods at this comment whilst scowling at Cameron]

[Tory T]

"Why is Cameron demolishing Brown? why can't he behave himself and save the demolition job for PMQs?"

I think you'll find he can do both.

[olivepeel]

Very classy performance by DC. The difference with GB was very clear.

[fr]

Cameron was excellent. Very encouraging. Gordon did not take advantage of his response privilege which Blair aleays used so effectively. Brown cannot think as quickly as the past master. Radio 5 Live is using only one sound bite - Cameron's, not Brown's. When did that happen in Blair's reign ?

[Ash Faulkner]

I am severely worried about these ripples on the ocean for a written constitution. Not good at all.

The rest of it really is gimmickry. If a government thinks war is necessary I find it incredibly unlikely that a parliament would say no. Appointments might be a good thing, but it's hardly ground breaking.

Cameron is absolutely right when he says changing the constitution: excellent quote by him there.

I look forward to PMQs tomorrow!

[William MacDougall]

It would be interesting if he did make some moves towards PR. I have always thought that conservatives were too frightened of that. While it is true that conservatism under Thatcher benefited greatly from first-past-the-post, that had a lot to do with good luck.

It is less easy to point to other periods were conservatism was a clear beneficiary, and is certainly not the case at the moment with the three largest parties all being centre-left.

Many of the arguments traditionally produced against PR do not really hold up. For example, for much of the last two hundred years Britain has had coalition governments (eg national governments, or with Irish parties); it is simply not true that the current system always produces clear winners and strong government.

Contrary to claims about list systems, in fact the current system gives the most power to Whips and central leadership, as it is very difficult to be elected except with the approval of the leadership of one of the two largest parties.

Conservatives have also benefited in Scotland and Wales from PR. We should be more open to PR.

[ToMTom]

subject CofE Bishops to a Commons vote

Not so.

The selection of Bishops to remain with Synod and not be passed to the Prime Minister to refer to The Queen....however it is the Prime Minister who should exit the loop not The Queen.

I also think The Head of The Civil Service should be answerable to Parliament and not merely the Prime Minister and that Civil Servants should be subpoenaed by Select Committees under penalty of being removed from their posts by Order of The House

[CCHQ says...]

oh dear Tim what's happened? why all of this pro-cameron rubbish lately?

there is no way he won today's exchange...more of the same nonsense from Dave *sigh*

[Barry]

Cameron victory ! LOL !