David Cameron asked Tony Blair if Trident would be voted on in Parliament saying that Gordon Brown had supported a vote. TB blatantly didn't answer the question, instead posing two of his own to DC about his human rights law proposals (quoting Ken Clarke for ammunition).
DC then said TB was becoming like David Brent - "utterly redundant, he is just hanging around the office".
Jeremy Corbyn later asked TB - a former CND supporter - to scrap the Trident scheme, and James Duddridge demanded a straight answer to whether there would be a parliamentary vote.
Labour MP Ann Keen condemned Conservative councillors in Hounslow for apparently co-operating with a former National Front PPC. Another Labour MP raised a similar point about alleged Tory co-operation with the far right but his question was disallowed by the Speaker. It looked like Labour whips were coordinating 'smear-the-Tories' lines of questioning.
Menzies Campbell asked about Hamas and the Gaza hostage crisis. TB said Hamas had to be "committed to the existence of Israel and the renunciation of violence."
Using his last two questions to portray himself as an able international statesman, DC asked how confident TB was about the forthcoming Doha round of the G8, and questioned if cuts in agricultural protection would be adequate.
Deputy Editor
Haven't had a chance to watch it yet, but the David Brent similie sounds great, did the house receive it well?
Posted by: Chris | June 28, 2006 at 12:59
What a stupid performance by Cameron on a serious subject. Parliament NEVER votes on nuclear defence - the Ministry of Defence has Virement and is the only Department with Virement.
When Attlee authorised the building of the atomic bomb it was a secret Cabinet Committee which approved it, and only a planted question from a Labour Backbencher revealed the existance of the A-Bomb. Penney and his team got authorisation from Conservative Governments again secretly.
The Blue Streak affair and even the agreement with the US on leasing missiles was secret.
Blair was so much more credible than Cameron on nuclear defence. Frankly I feel safer with Blair and Brown on Trident and whatever new nuclear strike force we build than I do with Cameron who sounded like a 17-year old today.
They may think they can stir Labour pacifists but they never managed to with Attlee and perhaps Cameron should read Aneurin Bevan and Hugh Gaitskell on the IND before making the Tory Party sound left-wing on nuclear defence.
Posted by: TomTom | June 28, 2006 at 15:49
TomTom, just because nuclear development has been done in secret in the past does not mean that it should always be done in secret. The replacement of trident will cost a significant sum of money, which should only be allocated if parliament deems it necessary after a full debate.
Posted by: Chris | June 28, 2006 at 16:31
The replacement of trident will cost a significant sum of money, which should only be allocated if parliament deems it necessary after a full debate.
That's why Blair and Brown are more credible than the Cameron Tories. You do not debate Defence Programmes they are Govt responsibility.
It is ridiculous to think MPs should get into the detail of British defence policy. Without nuclear weapons there will have to be a huge increase in conventional defence spending which will mean big cuts in Health and Education.
Labour is more credible on Nuclear Defence than the Conservatives at present.
Posted by: TomTom | June 28, 2006 at 16:52
That's why Blair and Brown are more credible than the Cameron Tories. You do not debate Defence Programmes they are Govt responsibility.
It is ridiculous to think MPs should get into the detail of British defence policy. Without nuclear weapons there will have to be a huge increase in conventional defence spending which will mean big cuts in Health and Education.
Labour is more credible on Nuclear Defence than the Conservatives at present.
The abandonment of trident would indeed mean an increase in conventional weapons spending, but that doesn't mean the choice shouldn't be made by our elected representatives. We don't have a directly accountable person in the office of defence so any major policy decisions must be approved by parliament as a whole. Following your logic internment and ID cards are just details of home office policy, surely we don't need votes on them either?
Posted by: Chris | June 28, 2006 at 16:59
Cameron is playing populist, there should be a vote, because the public would want a vote. Obviously there should be deterrent, but look at it this way.
Labour backbenchers will think it is a bad idea to keep a deterrent, they will rebel in a vote.
Posted by: Jaz | June 28, 2006 at 17:01
If Cameron were PM would he have a parliamentary vote on Trident? I doubt it. This is simply about the mood-music of having swarms of lefties trapsing into the newsrooms to denounce nuclear weapons. It's good tactics, and just keeps driving home the core message of a divided, discredited, dysfunctional ruling party in Labour!
Posted by: James Burdett | June 28, 2006 at 18:02
What is the truth behind this NF/BNP smear?
Posted by: EdR | June 28, 2006 at 19:12
It came up in the papers earlier today EdR. The Mirror if Im not mistaken.
The Trident tactic is only to cause internal division in the Labour Party. Its a known fact from the 80s and early 90s that nuclear deterrents were one of the key dividing lines in the Labour Party. Hes trying to force it open. I hope Cameron knows how the Conservatives feel. Id hate to think that Cameron is trying to cause anguish in the Labour Party without ensuring hes not going to annoy some members in this Party with the Party line.
Posted by: James Maskell | June 28, 2006 at 19:59