Back from last week's recess, this was presumably the third to last time that MPs will see Blair at the Despatch Box as he resigns three weeks today.
Cameron started with the Conservative pensions lifeboat proposals in the House of Lords, asking Blair about the completely unacceptable figures showing the government had only helped 1000 of the 125,000 people who had lost money, but at the high cost of £10million. Blair tried to balance saying it wasn't responsible to promise unfunded spending commitments with saying that a lot of people were actually being helped, although Cameron contested that a loan could be taken from the Treasury.
Menzies Campbell asked what the people of Darfur could expect from the G8, saying tougher sanctions an effective arms embargo and logistical support for AU were needed. Other notable questions included:
- Blair agreed with two good statements from Labour MPs, in support of Edinburgh university rescinding an honorary degree given to Robert Mugabe, and in opposition to the ban on Israeli lecturers at universities
- John Redwood asked why carbon emissions rose this year in UK and EU, but fell in America
- James Gray asked if Blair expected a similar accolade from Iraq as the one he got from Sierra Leone
- Sir Nicholas Winterton said considering the great style and flair Blair had brought to office would he leave with honour by not giving further powers and competences to the European Union without the promised referendum.
There was also plenty of jubilant taunting about grammar schools from the Labour benches.
Deputy Editor
And what was the answer to Winterton's question?
Can I request ConHome feature something on this imminent catastrophe? Perhaps Dan Hannan MEP or Chris Heaton-Harris MEP could be persuaded to write about it.
Posted by: Tory T | June 06, 2007 at 14:04
Good for Ming. Darfur shames the west.
Posted by: Umbrella man | June 06, 2007 at 14:09
"Good for Ming. Darfur shames the west."
Wasn't Cameron proposing to do something about it?
They don't call him Dafur Dave any more so he must have gotten bored with the subject.
Maybe a spin doctor told him there were no votes in it
Posted by: Downsize the NHS | June 06, 2007 at 14:15
Why does Darfur shame the West? It is being carried out by an African country and funded by an Asian one (China). It seems the West is the only one urging the Sudanese to stop, so I hardly see why it shames us.
Posted by: Charlie | June 06, 2007 at 14:19
I found Michael Crick's fawning over Gordon Brown afterwards rather distasteful.
Posted by: Andrew Woodman | June 06, 2007 at 14:29
I find Michael Crick rather distasteful - he's in the Jim Naughtie school of "I'm not even going to try and pretend I'm neutral"
Posted by: JimJam | June 06, 2007 at 15:22
The West's conduct in Dafur is a disgrace. Under the same conditions in Kosovo we acted early and decisively, but in Dafur we just leave them to die. The message the rest of the world hears: If you are being persecuted, but your skin's not pink and you don't have oil, don't come bleating to us. Shame on us.
Posted by: Andrew Lilico | June 06, 2007 at 15:22
"The West's conduct in Dafur is a disgrace. Under the same conditions in Kosovo we acted early and decisively, but in Dafur we just leave them to die."
Kosovo happened in Europe Dafur is happing in Africa. The question we should be asking is what are Africans doing to improve the situation?
Same goes for Zimbabwe
Posted by: 601 | June 06, 2007 at 15:33
Well , PMQ's was as dull as dishwater. Boring. I'm for splitting the entire proceeding back to Tuesday's and Thursday's for 20 minutes each session. Contrast a PMQ's to a First Minister's Question ( Scotland, that is- Wales sent me to sleep)session. The FMQ is much superior, and much more 'entertaining'( by that i mean the barely shielded contempt btwn Lab and the SNP). PMQ's is getting 'too cosy' by half, it needs more 'oomph'!
Posted by: simon | June 06, 2007 at 15:40
The West's conduct in Dafur is a disgrace. Under the same conditions in Kosovo we acted early and decisively,
Really ? What was the similarity ?
I thought NATO's role in Kosovo was rather like the aid supplied to the Sudeten Germans in 1938 after the Munich Agreement.....the current stage being akin to that in March 1939.
Why is it that a country that refuses to pay for military, and has a declining birthrate making recrutment possible, still thinks it is exporting Liberal Imperialism as in the 1860s ?
Will we ever be free of Neo-Imperialists with their humanist agenda of converting the heathen to liberal values....?
Posted by: TomTOm | June 06, 2007 at 15:42
The BBC is currently running a "Brown nose" award for the biggest crawlers to GB, well todays winner is the pro-labour (like most of the BBC) Michael Crick.
Dave was a bit slow in coming back with the remark that it was Blair and Brown who ruined the pensions, should have linked them to that other Socialist crook who stole peoples pensions, Robert Maxwell.
Posted by: John F | June 06, 2007 at 15:48
I couldn't understand on the pensions question, when Blair tried to make out his government was the guardian of pensioners by setting up the lifeboat fund, why didn't Cameron come back with 'The man next to you caused the problems by robbing the funds of the tax credits'. Seemed an open goal.
It looks like Labour are going to defend it by saying we caused the problems by allowing the pension holidays. Only taken them a decade to come up with that one.
Posted by: Andrew Woodman | June 06, 2007 at 16:01
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmdebate/02.htm#hddr_2
QUOTE
Q15. [140263] Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con): The Prime Minister has brought great style and flair to the high office that he has held for 10 years. Will he leave office with honour by giving an assurance in the House today that he will hand over no further powers or competences to the European Union without the referendum that I believe that he promised the people of the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. As he knows, my belief is that we do not need a constitutional treaty and that we should have a simplified and amending treaty. I can assure him that all the red lines that we have set out will be protected for this country, but it is also in the interests of this country that we find a way for Europe to operate more effectively with 27 members than it can under rules designed for 15 or fewer members.
UNQUOTE
1. "my belief is that we do not need a constitutional treaty" - has he mentioned that to Merkel, Prodi, et al?
2. "we should have a simplified and amending treaty" - we've already got ourselves into a lot of problems through amending treaties.
3. "all the red lines that we have set out will be protected for this country" - in that case there can be no new treaty.
4. "it is also in the interests of this country that we find a way for Europe" - ie the EU
5. "to operate more effectively with 27 members than it can under rules designed for 15 or fewer members." - except that the rules were last amended at Nice, and Declaration 23 attached to that Treaty stated:
http://www.eurotreaties.com/nicefinalact.pdf
"2. It agrees that the conclusion of the Conference of Representatives of the
Governments of the Member States opens the way for enlargement of the European Union and underlines that, with ratification of the Treaty of Nice, the European Union will have completed the institutional changes necessary for the accession of new Member States."
Posted by: Denis Cooper | June 06, 2007 at 16:59
[email protected]:33 Indeed. That's just the attitude I'm criticizing - "If an African suffers, it's not my problem." Disgraceful. I don't believe you can really think that.
Posted by: Andrew Lilico | June 06, 2007 at 17:16
Dave missed every opportunity at PMQs. When will the party ditch him and get a proper leader? i.e. Clarke.
Posted by: richard | June 06, 2007 at 17:59
Tory T, Blair said that we needed a simplification of existing treaties rather than a new constitutional treaty.
Re: Crick, I heard him mocking Cameron to his film crew after yesterday's speech.
Posted by: Deputy Editor | June 06, 2007 at 18:07
PMQs was very serious, nobody can say pensions, Darfur and HIV are trivial issues, however I suppose all lacked the killer punch and none had Tony Blair on the ropes.
Mind you sometimes PMQ needs to be more than knockabout theatre and does need to show that our MPs are raising the most important issues.
I thought question of the day honours belonged to John Redwood who asked about how carbon levels in Britain and other European countries were rising whilst they had fallen in the United States. Blair didn't really have a definitive or convincing answer.
Posted by: Graham D'Amiral | June 06, 2007 at 18:31
Deputy Editor @ 18:07 - the reverse of that, as I posted @ 16:59 -
"As he knows, my belief is that we do not need a constitutional treaty and that we should have a simplified and amending treaty."
Posted by: Denis Cooper | June 06, 2007 at 18:57
I would like to see Ken Clarke replace DC,he would have taken Blair to pieces at most every PMQ session and we would be at least another 5% in front.
Get him in there now,before Bliar goes,this will deflate the whole of Labour because deep down they know he can do the business.
Mr Brown would be shaking in his boots if up against Ken.
Get him in there,now.
Posted by: R.Baker. | June 07, 2007 at 09:57
R. Baker;
I would like to see Ken Clarke replace DC,he would have taken Blair to pieces at most every PMQ session and we would be at least another 5% in front.
Can I remind you, Hague ran circles around Blair at PMQ's can you remind the rest of us the outcome of the GE when Hague and Blair went head-to-head?
PMQ's is a pantomime, always has been, always will be, I have been watching it since it was first televised
Posted by: Joseph | June 07, 2007 at 16:04
May I also remind you that Clarke's loyalty is to the EU, not to this country?
Posted by: Denis Cooper | June 07, 2007 at 20:43
Bcking David Cameron is the same as throwing the towel in as far as I'm concerned.
He is costing us Members and votes by the thousand,and most of you know it too.
It is true that Clarke is pro EU,but there again,so is Cameron regardless of what he has been saying.
If those of you on here want this Eton toffboy,fair enough,me,I want a full blown,100% Conservative who is in touch with the people of this country and especialy with the Membership of our Party.
Also,planned alliances with Lab/Lib-Dems is going to reduce us even further.
Posted by: R.Baker. | June 08, 2007 at 09:33