Party leaders' topics: David Cameron raised education and free trade for the developing world. Charles Kennedy raised extraordinary rendition.
Best joke: At the last election the LibDems pursued their "decapitation strategy" - an unsuccessful strategy to remove the party's leading figures - Oliver Letwin, Theresa May and David Davis. David Cameron noted that LibDem MPs had a new target for decapitation - Charles Kennedy.
Best line: "White Paper or White Flag?". David Cameron's question to Tony Blair about whether he'll dilute his education reforms in order to appease his backbenchers or whether he'll keep his reforms intact with the help of Tory votes.
Best behaved person of the day: Hilary Armstrong Labour's chief
whip. After being admonished last week by Mr Cameron for her childish
behaviour she was as good as gold.
Biggest cheer of the day: Tory and Labour benches for Charles Kennedy as the embattled LibDem leader rose to his feet. CK's performance was lacklustre.
Best putdown of the day: Tony Blair to Vincent Cable. The anti-American party's Treasury spokesman raised the issue of human rights abuses in the US. Tony Blair defended the USA - although he said that he opposed California's capital punishment regime - but asked why people liked Mr Cable never raised real abuses - like those in North Korea.
Missed topic of the day: Charles Kennedy and a Labour backbencher raised the issue of extraordinary rendition but it was only the PM who talked about Iraq's historic elections. The green benches are as lopsided in their choice of topics as the Today programme.
Welcome back Punch, welcome back Judy.
It didn't take long did it?
Posted by: Coxy | December 14, 2005 at 12:36
No it didnt. Cameron pulling out the punches here. His strategy of killing them with kindness was only going to go so far. Interesting to see Hague sitting next to Cameron, not Davis, like last week. Davis sitting 2 seats to the left today.
Posted by: James Maskell | December 14, 2005 at 12:38
James, Coxy: I don't think you can say that DC abandoned his opposition to Punch & Judy. Sure he's causing Labour difficulties but the language and tone isn't any where near as aggressive as that adopted every week by Michael Howard or IDS.
Posted by: Editor | December 14, 2005 at 12:44
He's much better at the whole PMQ thing than I had feared. Only now, we discover that there was a use for that OE arrogance after all!
It seems clear that the Government benches still don't quite know what to make of him. The whole business makes it harder for the PM to project as a real and present Leader than he might have liked.
Posted by: Michael Smith | December 14, 2005 at 12:47
Well, today's PMQs end David Cameron's honeymoon.
I thought it was a very weak effort.
Again, he didn't use all of his questions.
Again, he used education when there wasn't much to say about it (is it not conversant with any other issues?)
He seemed out of his depths when he couldn't get the House to quiet down on his first question. His jibe against the LibDems fell flat, and the PM swatted him away like a fly with the deadly remark "He must have practiced that one real hard".
His second-round, on international development, was even weaker. Why not make the obvious point about Blair's failure to achieve CAP reform? Linking it with global poverty would be the logical, compassionate-conservative thing to do.
Also, DC reads from a script. Often, he simply doesn't respond to what the PM actually said. It doesn't like very impressive. Can he not think on his feet?
So far, DC has not yet started to come up with a coherent Counter Narrative to the PM's Grand Narrative (i.e. before 1997 everything was bad, especially with regard to the public services; New Labour has sorted it out, delivering over a stable economy and dramatic "investments"=improvements in the public services). DC needs to systemtatically destroy that narrative. An obvious angle seems to be: "Investments without reform equal waste" and then give example after example after example, week after week, on all areas of public life.
Posted by: Goldie | December 14, 2005 at 13:10
Thought those remarks were a bit unfair Goldie. Thought DC was strong, he should ask questions and not answer them. It is for the Speaker to keep the House in order and not the Leader of the Opposition. The man can also quite clearly think on his feet as his answer to Nick Robinson at his "coronation" showed.
Posted by: Dominic Llewellyn | December 14, 2005 at 13:16
So far, so good. However, Cameron does need to work out how to handle Blair's attacks on selection if he wants to make the 'white paper or white flag' strategy work.
Blair is trying to portray Cameron as wanting to sneak the 11 plus back in. Cameron needs to be able to spell out that this is not the case, if his strategy is going to win.
Posted by: TC | December 14, 2005 at 13:17
I'm a bit concerned Cameron is also watering down conservative principles, by denying that increased freedom of selection will lead to, er, an increase in selection!
Willetts was on the Today programme this morning, claiming that schools don't want an 11+ style entrance exam system. When it's pretty obvious that some would. (What's the point in giving them that freedom otherwise?)
Far rather he said, "yes, some schools might use an entrance exam, and that's a good thing". Why should we accept the out-of-date socialist consensus?
Posted by: Coxy | December 14, 2005 at 13:27
I too thought Cameron was pretty dire today.
Posted by: John Hustings | December 14, 2005 at 13:38
Come on, let's give Cameron a break. It's his second week in the job and as William Hague proved, whipping Blair at PMQ means precisely zero when it comes to an election. I'd far rather he put his efforts into the rebuilding of the party at this precise moment in time than in a verbal joust with Blair that will be long-forgotten in 2009.
Posted by: Mike Christie | December 14, 2005 at 13:45
"It's his second week in the job and as William Hague proved, whipping Blair at PMQ means precisely zero when it comes to an election."
But as IDS found, being bad at PMQs can be help the leader lose support among his own MPs...
Posted by: James Hellyer | December 14, 2005 at 14:12
Fair comment, but the fact remains that rather than berating him for not undoing a dozen or so years of poor political PR in a fortnight we should be a little more supportive.
Posted by: Mike Christie | December 14, 2005 at 14:20
I think "pretty dire" is perhaps a bit harsh, John. Cameron was passably good today, but no more. (I'm trying to be supportive!)
Did he make use of all his questions today? If not, why not?
Posted by: Richard Weatherill | December 14, 2005 at 14:23
A solid performance..There was nothing bad with it...There was a nice soundbite.
I don't know what you guys think he should be doing at PMQ's...ITs quite clear he doesn't want to sound arrogant in PMQs and its working...
Posted by: Jaz | December 14, 2005 at 14:45
I think he does sound arrogant. He doesn't sound strident though, and that's the difference.
Posted by: James Hellyer | December 14, 2005 at 14:48
There is a hard core of half a dozen anti-Cameron ultras on this site. Whenever DC does anything they insist it's crap. Go back through the posting histories of those who lambast Cameron. Either they have form as long as your arm (Hellyer, Vince-Archer, Goldie, Coulson, Hustings, etc) or they have no history whatsoever - ie - the name is a flag of convenience for a Labour or Lib Dem supporter to stir.
Posted by: Tory T | December 14, 2005 at 14:56
Richard: no, like last week he only used 5 out of the 6 questions-3 on education and 2 on int. development.
I thought he did very well last week, but this week was below the norm. He should have hit Blair on something else -transport perhaps.
Posted by: Goldie | December 14, 2005 at 14:56
PS: Personally, I am a conservative and therefore in favor of allowing schools to select on ability. I do not accept the socialist dogma that selection, even at the age of 11, is "regressive".
But whatever DC's position may be, he shouldn't have allowed the Prime Minister to score points on this issue again. If DC is in favor of selection, say so and defend why. If not, explain why the quotes were wrong. But Blair used 'selection' as the big difference between them last week, and came back to it twice, with quotes, this week. DC was utterly silent on it. That's not good.
Posted by: Goldie | December 14, 2005 at 14:59
This was a good performance. He had the soundbite and it's making the papers.
It's obvious he's never going to satisfy those who want to see Blair torn to shreds and if he did he'd lose a lot of those C1 women who love him so much that they've put him 6 points clear of Brown so it's a sensible strategy.
IDS wasn't just performing poorly in the commons he was performing poorly in the country, so far DC is performing well in the country and alright in the commons the two are simply not comparable.
Posted by: hayek's grandad | December 14, 2005 at 15:03
"Whenever DC does anything they insist it's crap."
Oh look, it's Tory Thug and his pet straw man...
Given that some of Cameron's decisions have been supported by almost all the people you name, I'd say your point is as baseless as usual.
Posted by: James Hellyer | December 14, 2005 at 15:29
@ Tony T.
Although it may be true that there are some hard-core anti-Cameronites on this site, I think that most have accepted the election of Cameron rather better than, say, Simon Heffer.
In any case, I am most certainly *not* one of them. You can read back all my comments on this site and you will very clearly see that I am, and have been from the beginning, a fan and support of DC. Indeed, I was a June Cameroon!
But adulation shouldn't stand in the way of an honest assessment. I thought he was weak this morning. Not because I don't like it, but because I do.
Posted by: Goldie | December 14, 2005 at 15:33
"But Blair used 'selection' as the big difference between them last week, and came back to it twice, with quotes, this week. DC was utterly silent on it. That's not good."
And if he doesn't beleive in the 11 plus he has to say so. All he's doing is allow Labour to conflate "selection" with "a return to selection at 11". Allowing schools to set their admissions policy, for example on the basis of locality or faith, is not a return to the 11 plus.
But how will anyone know if he doesn't say?
"IDS wasn't just performing poorly in the commons he was performing poorly in the country, so far DC is performing well in the country and alright in the commons the two are simply not comparable."
You mean that they are comparable, but that the comparison currently favours Cameron.
Posted by: James Hellyer | December 14, 2005 at 15:33
Not having been 'named and shamed' like you by Tory T, James, I wondered whether I was perhaps included in those who:
"have no history whatsoever - ie - the name is a flag of convenience for a Labour or Lib Dem supporter to stir."
I'm not aware of having lambasted Cameron and my credentials as a paid-up member are surely demonstrated by my having provided the report on the Birmingham hustings. (Seems a long time ago now.)
Posted by: Richard Weatherill | December 14, 2005 at 15:35
"There is a hard core of half a dozen anti-Cameron ultras on this site"
There is also a hard core of pro-Cameron ultras on this site. Is that a surprise? This is a Tory blog... People have opinions...
Posted by: Coxy | December 14, 2005 at 15:45
Sorry, I must have imagined all the comments stuffed wlth carping negativity. These guy all want Dave to succeed, really. They're just candid friends...
Posted by: Tory T | December 14, 2005 at 15:46
"Sorry, I must have imagined all the comments stuffed wlth carping negativity. These guy all want Dave to succeed, really. They're just candid friends..."
It's strange, because you're the one who's carping.
Posted by: James Hellyer | December 14, 2005 at 15:50
"the name is a flag of convenience for a Labour or Lib Dem supporter to stir."
'torythug', eh? Now, I wonder ...
Posted by: Richard Weatherill | December 14, 2005 at 15:50
Richard - I know you're (a) genuine and (b) independent. That's why I didn't include you on the listx
Goldie - I apologise.
Posted by: Tory T | December 14, 2005 at 15:54
"Sorry, I must have imagined all the comments stuffed wlth carping negativity. These guy all want Dave to succeed, really. They're just candid friends... "
I want Conservativism to succeed. With or without Dave.
Posted by: John Hustings | December 14, 2005 at 15:56
However this may be, DC was lucky because (a) all attention was and will continue to be on Kennedy today and tomorrow, (b) my negative assessment was apparently not broadly shared and (c) this was the last PMQ this year, so he can take a few weeks of vacation and come up with a good strategy for the next time.
May 2006 be a great year for him!
Posted by: Goldie | December 14, 2005 at 15:56
Thanks for the clarification, Tory T. Now let's get on with fighting the other side. (Sorry if that sounds a bit Punch & Judy!)
Posted by: Richard Weatherill | December 14, 2005 at 15:57
"There is a hard core of half a dozen anti-Cameron ultras on this site. Whenever DC does anything they insist it's crap. Go back through the posting histories of those who lambast Cameron. Either they have form as long as your arm (Hellyer, Vince-Archer, Goldie, Coulson, Hustings, etc)..."
Now hang on just a second. As James Hellyer quite rightly pointed out, hardly any of us have insisted that whenever Cameron does anything it's crap. I even renounced my previous deliberately antagonistic approach towards Cameron and his supporters on this blog on another thread, although given this continued silliness from the likes of you, I'm having second thoughts. Get your facts right in future before you start bandying accusations about.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | December 14, 2005 at 16:52
Indeed, Mr. Vince-Archer's behavior has been exemplary--a committed DD supporter or at least skeptic of Cameron from the right of the Party-- he accepts that, now that DC has been overwhelmingly elected and has Hague, Fox and Davis by his side, now is the time to unite and fight our common enemy, the Labour party.
Posted by: Goldie | December 14, 2005 at 17:15
It might not have been as good as last week but it was still a solid performance by Cameron. He is not the dispatch-box lightweight I feared.
Cameron's tactic is an interesting one and I think it might pay off. He obviously needs some new material (it can't all be education policy) but the Christmas break should give him some new ammo. It wasn't wise to pick a too-contentious subject only a week after pointing out the "problems" with the Commons exchanges - otherwise he would look like an indecisive lightweight who says one thing and does another.
Posted by: Elena | December 14, 2005 at 18:35
Why did David Cameron say (lie?) that he wasn't in favour of selection by ability?
Posted by: Peter Smiles | December 14, 2005 at 19:36
Why did David Cameron say (lie?) that he wasn't in favour of selection by ability?
Posted by: Peter Smiles | December 14, 2005 at 19:38
Because that's just Blair's spin-ball. Being for school autonomy is not the same thing as calling for a selection policy: it just means that if schools want selection, you don't deny that option.
Posted by: Ed R | December 14, 2005 at 22:19
"Indeed, Mr. Vince-Archer's behavior has been exemplary--a committed DD supporter or at least skeptic of Cameron from the right of the Party..."
Not really a committed Davis supporter - I would have preferred to see him become leader (instead of Cameron) but he wasn't my first choice, ended up supporting him by default really. Sceptic of Cameron - yes, but I don't believe I'm from the right of the party, except perhaps on home affairs and Europe. Thanks for your kind words at the beginning though ;-)
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | December 14, 2005 at 23:54
Not the best performance from Cameron, but he did the job, and got his two sound bytes on the evening news programmes, which is what matters these days: 1) decapiation and the Lib Dems, and 2) white paper or white flag. Job done, but could have been better.
Posted by: Gary Barford | December 15, 2005 at 00:12
"so he can take a few weeks of vacation "
The word is holiday ... not vacation
Posted by: TC | December 15, 2005 at 09:45