Education: David Cameron invited Tony Blair to agree that any MP who believed in greater parental choice and more freedom from LEAs for schools should vote for today's Education Bill. Tony Blair replied that the Bill would also restrict selection and give more power for LEAs to intervene in failing schools. These measures, the PM suggested, explained why David Cameron was only imposing a two line whip on his own rebellious Conservative MPs. The Tory leader suggested that the PM should concentrate on whipping Labour MPs and leave him to worry about Tory whipping arrangements. The PM read three quotes in which Mr Cameron had previously encouraged speedy passage of the Education Bill. Why was the Tory leader now intending to vote against the programme motion (which shortens debate)? Because, DC replied, the Tories believe in parliamentary scrutiny - two words which the PM probably couldn't even spell. Very Punch & Judy.
Jericho: Mr Cameron's first three questions had focused on the Jericho jail break and Britain's relationship with Hamas. Tony Blair said that the British government respected the democratic legitimacy of Hamas but that it would have to behave peacefully and recognise Israel if it wanted substantial help from the UK or the EU.
Ming's moment: The LibDem leader asked about the Parliamentary Ombudsman's finding that DWP guidance on company pension schemes had been "inaccurate, incomplete, unclear and inconsistent". The PM said that no responsible government could underwrite the massive financial risks that private citizens undertake with regard to their pensions. Towards the end of PMQs another LibDem MP asked about pensions. The grey leader's party will clearly be courting the grey vote. Something for all of us to watch...
Backbencher of the day: Tory MP Quentin Davies. Mr Davies invited the PM to act against the outrage that any donor could buy a peerage by giving substantial sums to a political party. The PM didn't answer the question and said something irrelevant about everything being more transparent since 1997.
Iain Dale reports that Ming was heckled when he asked about pensions by a Labour MP shouting "declare an interest"! Sounds like Punch and Judy are alive and well (which is more than can be said for Richard and Judy).
Posted by: Donal Blaney | March 15, 2006 at 12:53
"The PM didn't answer and said something irrelevant".... No change there then.
Posted by: Jonathan Sheppard | March 15, 2006 at 12:55
Menzies came across as lightweight, he stood in silence whilst he was heckled about declaring an interest in pensions for a good ten seconds or so. Still checks his notes three times a sentence too.
Posted by: Sam Coates | March 15, 2006 at 13:14
Ming was dreadful - who on earth is advising him? A pensioner 'leader' asking a question about pensions was an obvious open goal. The MP who heckled was Eric Forth I think.
Ming then forgot to ask the actual question, half sat down, remembered, half stood up and proceeded to ask it even though Blair had started to answer it! What a mess up!!
The Lib Dems really are a hopeless joke.
Posted by: Charles Kennedy | March 15, 2006 at 13:32
Interesting choice for DC to lead on Palestine... maybe he wanted to remind the pro-PLO/PFLP/Hamas Labour backbenches that TB is a pro-Israel/Bush neocon - oh, and by the way, he wants you to vote for a neocon education measure this avo.
Posted by: Victoria Street | March 15, 2006 at 13:37
I know you obiously aren't Charles Kennedy, 'Charles Kennedy' but this site's policy is to ban anyone impersonating someone. Next time - even an obvious impersonation - may cause your comment to be deleted and your IP address banned.
Posted by: Editor | March 15, 2006 at 13:38
Vic Street had the same Machiavellian thought I did - Dave is reminding the Old Labour backbenchers that Blair is a Neo-Con on the Middle East. Subtle touch.
Posted by: Guido Fawkes | March 15, 2006 at 13:47
Editor: Is your arch-enemy and main competitor Guido Fawkes in danger from that policy? ;)
Posted by: Andrew | March 15, 2006 at 13:50
Vic Street and Guido are away with the fairies. Labour is traditionally the zionist party in Britain. Cameron is grandstanding on this issue because he thinks will make him look tough on terrorism as opposed to the realpolitik of a PM trying to drag Hamas towards the peace table.
Posted by: Cato | March 15, 2006 at 13:53
Whatever you think Labour was traditionally, it is crammed full of anti-Israel MPs - people like Louise Ellman are very lonely indeed.
Posted by: Sam Coates | March 15, 2006 at 14:16
More important than all this,is the question as to whether Rob Largan managed to wake up in time for PMQs this week?
Posted by: malcolm | March 15, 2006 at 14:36
"More important than all this,is the question as to whether Rob Largan managed to wake up in time for PMQs this week?"
By all accounts, it seems that Emperor Ming didn't.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | March 15, 2006 at 15:04
I did think Blair's response to Jeremy Corbyn on Iraq, was Tony Blair at his best. A rare moment of conviction politics.
Posted by: michael | March 15, 2006 at 15:08
As Rob hasn't replied I assume he's still in the land of nod.Sleep well Rob!
Iain Dale scored PMQs as a convincing for Cameron,Nick Assinder from the BBC thought Blair won (what a suprise!).
Posted by: malcolm | March 15, 2006 at 15:18
Good. I want to see them work hard for my taxes. If it wasnt for punch and Judy politics, it would be even more like watching paint dry. A bit of confrontation surely attracts public attention. Anyway, politicians are too polite and afraid nowadays. Id like to see more throwing of water, books, and shoes, a bit like in the Italian, Indian and Russian Parliaments. Theres no greater negative indictment of democracy than when you see parliament half full with those who could be bothered to turn up fast asleep. A bit of punch and judy is no bad thing.
Posted by: PassingThru | March 15, 2006 at 16:21
The punch and Judy "thing" from Cameron was just a ployl, I think. In the "modern" world you can't really get away from the attacking sense of politics which all MP's now use.
Sorry for the infrequency of my posting, I'm in South Africa watching the Cricket (Australia vs South Africa.)
Posted by: Chris Palmer | March 15, 2006 at 16:23
Chris
Hope you were at the Wanderers for the 800+ run extravaganza ( and my team scraping home with a win!)
Posted by: Ted | March 15, 2006 at 16:34
Unfortunatley no Ted! I am going to watch the Test Match starting tomorrow in Newlands (watch out for me on Sky Sports!) I wish I had really, the 900+ match would have been amazing really, but you can't have everything. It's 20oC+ out here at the moment, so I can't complain. Hope it's not raining too much back home!
Posted by: Chris Palmer | March 15, 2006 at 16:41
Another way to look at the "Puch and Judy" issue is that we're not automatically voting against a bill just because it's not a Conservative bill (although it is really). By voting with this education bill we are the ones looking like we're doing right for the country whereas the PLP are in sulks because they're walking into the lobbies with Tories.
Posted by: Paul Bavill | March 15, 2006 at 17:02
"More important than all this,is the question as to whether Rob Largan managed to wake up in time for PMQs this week?"
Happy to report that this week, for the first time in a long time, I was awake in tinme for PMQs. I had an essay to finish so I had to get up early. Well when I say early...
Posted by: Rob Largan | March 15, 2006 at 17:22
Well done Rob!
Posted by: malcolm | March 15, 2006 at 17:33
Watching the Education Bill debate. John Bercow has done a great speech about social inclusion and funding in relation to this Bill. Basically there are 61,000 children in care and only 6% of them get 5 A*-C GCSEs and only 1% go to university (all this I already knew as I have an interest in this). He was saying (rather passionately it must be said) that education must be tailored for them and that funding has to be provided for this. Very nicely done.
Posted by: James Maskell | March 15, 2006 at 18:03
I saw that too, he was praising the diplomas although said the targets were a bit ambitious.
Posted by: Samuel Coates | March 15, 2006 at 19:35
Jim Paice was the backbencher of the week as he exposed the staggering incompetence and scandal of the failing rural payments agency. Farmers have received no money from the Govt's system for 18 months. You may not agree with the way farmers are paid but that is not the issue.
Posted by: Richard Bailey | March 15, 2006 at 19:35
Well, the Government won both votes... Ive posted the numbers and comment about rebels in first vote on frontpage links page.
Posted by: James Maskell | March 15, 2006 at 19:38