PMQs: Liveliest House for some time

Regarding the way that "Sarah's law" issue had come out (exaggerated "chemical castration" headlines in the tabloids), David Cameron asked Tony Blair if he was at all surprised at the cynicism the media held for him. He used his next two questions to try to get Blair to admit that he hadn't yet kept his promise of bringing in a new information sharing system recommended by the Bichard report.

In his second set of questions Cameron tried to use some of the statements made by the deputy leadership contenders against Blair. He said that the contenders were lurching to the left, made Prescott "look like a cross between Ernie Bevan and Demosthenes", and that the contest was a cross between Big Brother and the Muppet Show. He asked if Blair agreed with them in their calls for higher taxes, more money and power for trade unions. Blair said he didn't, but he took the opportunity to taunt Cameron by first quoting him saying "consistency in politics is vital", and then pointing out some inconsistent statements on grammar schools and the Married Couples Allowance.

He was shameless in going off the subject but did get people laughing at Cameron, particularly when he joked that he showed "the imprint of the last person that sat on him". Cameron rolled with the punches saying "Only two times left. I'm gonna miss him, gonna miss him".

Gerald Kaufman - a former political journalist and Labour press officer - said the press was full of half-truths, exaggerations, fiction, propaganda and gossip, and sarcastically asked why Blair had pulled his punches in his speech about the media.

Sir Ming tried to find out details of Saudi middle-man payments and why Blair hadn't told investigators about them but as usual gave him too much wiggle room with the simplicity of his question. Blair robustly defended the arms deal citing the relationship with the Saudis as having "fundamental importance to the security of this country and the state of the Middle East". Ming followed up by asking "whatever happened to Robin Cook's ethical foreign policy?", to which Blair made a jibe about the LibDems being in cloud cuckoo land.

James Gray juxtaposed the contradictory statements on EU treaty discussion made by Sarkozy and Beckett (as Hague did last week). David Heathcoat-Amory asked if Blair would "repent the folly" of signing the EU constitution and reject its revival (a subject on which YourPlatform is currently focusing on), as it enshrined the primacy of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - elements of which he had openly criticised. Blair said he would never let the House be overidden by laws decided outside of it.

Cameron wasn't bad, but Blair was better. Brown is going to struggle with the contrast between his dour self and nothing-to-lose Blair.

6pm update: In response to Cameron's questions on child offenders, Blair wrongly claimed that David Cameron voted against the Sexual Offences Bill - a claim repeated by John Reid afterwards. David Davis' Office have sent this clarification:

"There was no division at the end of the Second Reading debate on the Bill - i.e. it had Conservative support (Hansard, 15 July 2003, Col.248).  During the Second Reading Debate, David Cameron welcomed the Bill.  He said:

"Like other hon. Members, I welcome the Bill. It is right to codify and bring together the law on sexual offences. It is right to update the law, as the Bill does in a range of ways. It is also right to introduce the new offences that many hon. Members have spoken about, not least to keep pace with technology" (Hansard, 15 July 2003, Col. 234).

There was no division at the end of the Third Reading debate - i.e. it had Conservative support (Hansard, 3 November 2003, Col. 637).  In his speech during the Third Reading debate, the Conservative spokesman, Dominic Grieve, said:

"I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his words and the spirit in which the legislation has been introduced. The subject is not easy - I certainly did not find it so, and I am sure that that is true of all those who served in Committee. There was a common determination that we should not approach the Bill in a partisan way, and I hope and believe that we have created legislation that will stand the test of time... The good note that I can end on is that I think that we have done-I hope that we have done-a good job. I thank all those who have participated in the Bill for making that possible" (Hansard, 3 November 2003, Col.628-9).

NB: David Cameron was not a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Sexual Offences Bill, so could not have voted against aspects of it at that stage."

Deputy Editor

Comments

[Simon Denis]

There you are, then. Had Mr Cameron not been fool enough to rail against grammars, Blair would have had no ammunition. Aren't they brilliant, the Tory leaders?

[Yogi]

If only Cameron and Osborne just pause to listen to the grassroots without being so arrogant and self righteous (Cameron's attitude is that you elected me and now shut up and let me push the self destruct) we would be a clear 10 points ahead of labour and neither Blair nor Brown could throw things back at Cameron and Osborne.
Unfortunately the shadow cabinet is not listening to the party - but obsessed with the so called middle ground and focus group led by the small coterie of spin meisters and image makers.
For once, why cannot the leadership engage with the grassroots?

[Denis Cooper]

Did Blair really say that "... he would never let the House be overidden by laws decided outside of it"? If so would that be "never" as in "only 84% of the time"?

[Victoria Street]

Come on then, Yogi. Did you attend a Built to Last meeting, or send in any suggestions? Are you a member of your local ward committee? Do you speak to your local Conservative councillors/MPs/MEPs ever about your views? What makes you think you are a grass root?

[Andrew Woodman]

Yogi, where does this evidence that we would be 10% ahead come from. I may not agree with everything Cameron does, but we are leading where we haven't led for years. That's not just through Labour failure.

[powellite]

The Speaker showed once again how completely inept he is. Blair's attacks on Cameron in the second set of questions were totally out of Parliamentary order, yet he didn't lift a finger to stop him. Let's hope he leaves the stage soon after Rev Blair...

[George Hinton]

St Tone of B-Liar is increasingly looking to be a man who has lost the plot.
One wonders if B-Liar has suffered some sort of fit or mental breakdown, as he is a man in denial, and seems unable to accept the situation that he is in.
Has he perhaps, seen to much of the Popes representatives, and regards himself as some sort of saintly figure, standing up to the slings and arrows of adversity and opposition to his legacy, and expects to be crucified and then annointed as a saintly saviour of mankind.?

[malcolm]

I absolutely agree with you Powellite. Blair would never have been able to circumvent Parliament if he hadn't had the benefit of an utterly useless in every sense of the word Speaker. Let's all pray that Martin calls it a day soon.

[Victoria Street]

Does anybody know where Shailesh Vara's question about Sudanese military being trained in Britain comes from?

[Ash Faulkner]

Yeah, Blair won this one, but he has had thirteen years experience at it to be fair. It'll be interesting to see how Brown comes across.

I can't wait for the PMQs the week after next - Blair's last! It should be dramatic.

[Alex Swanson]

Did you attend a Built to Last meeting, or send in any suggestions? Are you a member of your local ward committee? Do you speak to your local Conservative councillors/MPs/MEPs ever about your views?

Dunno about Yogi, but I've spent a lifetime doing such things. I gave up last year. It doesn't work. You get politely listened to and then ignored.

The only difference with Cameron is that he isn't even polite any more.

[David Belchamber]

PMQs must cost a lot of taxpayers' money and yet, week after week, it is a farce. It is meant surely to bring the PM to the HoC and to call him to account.
As powellite points out @ 14.33, the Speaker does nothing to force the PM to answer the questions. Ming Campbell tries to ask proper questions, DC often does but just as often tries to make fun of the PM and his team (not always very successfully), while the PM happily goes into a well rehearsed party political broadcast on behalf of the Tony Bliar party, sometimes as a consequence of what DC has said or in response to some nauseatingly sychophantic question from the government backbenches.
Did Ken Clarke address this problem?

[David Belchamber]

PMQs must cost a lot of taxpayers' money and yet, week after week, it is a farce. It is meant surely to bring the PM to the HoC and to call him to account.
As powellite points out @ 14.33, the Speaker does nothing to force the PM to answer the questions. Ming Campbell tries to ask proper questions, DC often does but just as often tries to make fun of the PM and his team (not always very successfully), while the PM happily goes into a well rehearsed party political broadcast on behalf of the Tony Bliar party, sometimes as a consequence of what DC has said or in response to some nauseatingly sychophantic question from the government backbenches.
Did Ken Clarke address this problem?

[Nick L]

Cameron made some simple tactical errors today.
First, by mixing an attack on spin with a serious question about paedophile legislation, he allowed Blair to take the moral high ground and avoid answering the substantive question on the Bichard recommendations.
Second, by identifying the quotation as by a deputy leadership contender in his question, he allowed Blair to avoid the issue and turn the attack back onto Cameron's own words. If he had not identified the author of the quotation, Blair could not have spun it around, using 'leadership' as a fig leaf, even with a spineless Speaker like Martin.
Third, keep the language and references simple and straightforward, not a mixture of the tabloid and the too-clever-by-half. Demosthenes is not too well known by the usual Six O'clock News audience that he needs to reach.

[FedUpWithCameron]

It's not the speaker's job to make Blair answer the questions, it's Cameron's. And, actually, Blair was no more out of order than Cameron - how is it the responsibility of the prime minister, qua Prime Minister, to answer questions about the election of a deputy leader (whatever that is) of the Labour Party?

Cameron got stuffed today, no two ways about it.

[Simon Denis]

I'd love to hear Prescott trying to cope with a word like Demosthenes.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Cameron was fairly bad. Blair, by contrast, was very good (not that I agreed with him!) Cameron was jumping from one subject to another, which was difficult to follow, failed to understand how Blair would answer his questions and sounded shrill.

I wonder how Cameron will fair against Brown - this will be a major test.

Victoria Street (what are you still doing THERE?), I am happy to offer my services to DC before PMQs - seriously! Couldn't do any worse than his current 'advisors'.

Why are most of our backbecnch MPs such Euro-bores? Think the honourable gentleman for Wells...

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Opps - apologies for the double posting. On the subject of the Speaker, he, as always, was pretty useless today. If failed to demand Order when MPs on all sides were shouting and heckling one another AND he failed to rule out questions on the OPPOSITION. The PM is responsible for Governmnet policies, not opposition ones...

[Nick L]

FedupwithCameron. Sorry, but it is a specific part of the Speaker's job to ensure that answers relate to the question asked. In this case, Blair was able to spin it around by using the word 'leadership' as an excuse.
Also, Cameron did not ask about 'the election of a deputy leader of the Labour Party', which would not have been legitimate. He asked about statements made by Cabinet ministers, something that is legitimate to head of the Cabinet.
[P.S. Good to see Labour spinners are still reading this blog]

[Victoria Street]

Justin, if you're implying that I work at CCHQ, you're wrong I'm afraid. Moniker comes from my own office in V Street, down the road from the old CCHQ.

[Traditional Tory]

Cameron was absolutely wrong to attempt to make political capital out of the government's plans to deal with paedophiles. This should be a matter for consensus - not Punch and Judy politics.

As it happens the lady who is campaigning for 'Sarah's Law' - the mother of the murdered child whose name it bears - came on to R4 news to say that she was broadly pleased with the government's efforts.

Her moving words made Cameron's cynical opportunism look very, very small.

[powellite]

FedupwithCameron

Nick L is right - the Prime Minister is not allowed to discuss Opposition policies as part of an answer - only his Government's. In his slightly more robust days, the Speaker stepped in when Blair did this, but he seems to have given up altogether...

[Yogi]

I am a member of the local ward committee, have collared my local MP on many occasions and even tried to suggest to Michael Gove that we should not ape Blair or New Labour. The lectorate is fed up with Blair but it is also tired of paying extra taxes without much to show for. The public (and the man on the proverbial Clapham Omnibus) wants to see whether we have any NEW ideas not recycled touchy feely Blairism.
As to the 10% number, well anyone can see that the widening poll lead suddenly shrank following the Grammar School fiasco and Osborne's utterances that we are the Heirs to Tony Blair. Two things are clear. The electorate does not want any more of Blair and more importantly does not like any party which is at war with itself and furthermore any conversion on the scale of the road to Damscus is viewed with scepticism.

Built to last is a wish list with a lot of motherhood and apple-pie statements. Where is the beef? when it comes out it is about Grammar Schools and an arrogant leadership.

[Deputy Editor]

Please see the update to the post. Blair wasn't right when he said Cameron had voted against the Sexual Offences Bill.

[Adam]

Where did this insane idea that some things are too important to be debated and challenged come from?

Why should adversarial politics concern itself only with (apparently) minor issues like the Transatlantic relationship, tax, education and the NHS?

Surely, the more important something is, the more willing we should be to debate it openly rather than stitch up a consensus behind closed doors. If something's a really good idea it can stand the heat of a good argument.

[Yorkshire Exile]

I am surprised that DD is helping to dig Cameron = who was useless today - out of his hole. Hansard is pretty clear - Blair was talking about the Criminal Justice Bill. So Blair is continuing to score against Cameron even after the final whistle.

Oh, and both of Cameron's supplementaries make explicity reference to the deputy leadership, so he fell straight into Blair's trap.

Brown made his reputation by punching holes in Nigel Lawson's reputation in 1988. Don't expect him to be a pushover if team Cameron continues at present.

[richard]

Has Dave ever been more dreadful at PMQs - his 'jokes' were pathetic - and would be inexplicable to the chavs out there he is sucking up to. They wouldn't have a clue who either Bevin or Demosthenes were. Brown's clunking fist will make mince meat of him. It is all so sad.
Roll on Ken Clarke's remedial leadership after the General Election defeat.

[Andrew Woodman]

I didn't see it today (like the vast majority of the population), but the headline glancing (which is as far as most people will go), shows a picture of the muppets and refers to the Labour Leadership. That's a good result in my book.

[John Irvine]

I didnt see it but Im not surprised to read about Camerons miserable failure. Blair's been making it easy for him but I did see the "flip flop" session when Blair wiped the floor with him over a year ago.

Brown will do the same every day. Cameron must go. I was personally impressed on TV by Patrick Mercer who Cameron targetted months ago over some so-called racialist nonsense. Patrick would make an excellent leader for us.

[Michael Huntsman]

PMQs are not especially informative, though they do sometimes squeeze out a line that provides ammunition for the future. But they do give us a good chance to see a potential PM under fire. This was amply demonstrated by watching the excruciating IDS doing PMQs.

"Dave" used to be reasonably impressive at PMQs and was regularly besting Blair. This year has seen a general decline in the quality of his attack and very poor shot selection.

Given that the Socialists have created so many open goalmouths in 2007 from which to pick, "Dave" has oddly chosen to wander off and play billiards instead, picking subjects more worthy of the SAGA party leader than an attacking and confident Tory party.

Often the better and more pertinent questions are coming from senior backbenchers who manage to leave Blair groping for even an untrue answer.

One has more than just a suspicion that the Grammar Schools fiasco (for which has but himself to blame) has taken a bit of a toll on him which raises not only the judgement and character issues over his leadership but also the stamina one as well.

That is a serious matter. If, as dear Cpl. Jones would say, he "doesn't like it up him", then we need to worry now about his ability to stay the course in the setting of, say, late-night negotiations with fellow EU Heads of Government when he is being pressed to do some deal, any deal, in order to bring the thing to a close.

This period of interregnum is an ideal chance to make mischief for the Labour party and its incoming leader. What better time to keep Brown on the back foot and to smother the Brown project's message. Instead it has the Tory message that has been muted.

I wonder if others feel that a great opportunity has been squandered here.

[Ken Stevens]

richard June 13, 22:19
"Roll on Ken Clarke's remedial leadership after the General Election defeat."

In all respects but one, the eminent, personable Mr Clarke should have become leader long ago, thus saving the Party a succession of Leaders-du-jour since then. The '.. but one.." is of course his firm Europhilia, which would have led to a smaller Party. Unless he has undergone a Damascene conversion [.. or is it Demosthene? I get so confused by all this grammar school stuff!] his fatal flaw rules him out even more these days.

A pity. The Tories might otherwise have been back in office by now, rather than still evolving towards its New Look.

[David Belchamber]

If DC cannot improve his performance at PMQs, he should let others on the shadow front bench (and Ken Clarke) have a go.

He should though write to the Speaker to ask him to curb the PM's habit of ignoring the rules and then ask some rather more statesmanlike questions, to which he should expect sensible answers.

If we wanted comedy, we can always watch old editions of Yes, Minister.

[James Maskell]

The Ernie Bevan/Demosthenes jibe went completely over my head having heard of neither and I recall that the benches were reasonably quiet as well, perhaps because they were wondering what Cameron was talking about as well...