Open thread on PMQs

12.23pm: Julian Lewis MP asks for a commitment that the number of Royal Navy frigates would not fall below 25.  GB gave no such guarantee and taunted the Tories by saying that George Osborne was unwilling to make any commitments to increased defence spending.

12.16pm: Ann Widdecombe asks if the Prime Minister is aware that Britain - in 9 hours - is about to deport a Christian lady to Iran who is under a death threat.  GB promises to look at the issue urgently.

12.15pm: Ming asked about the Rowntree report and the growing gap between the rich and poor.

12.11pm: At the end of his questions - to loud Tory cheers - DC listed Labour's failures on prisons and said that the country was witnessing the same old broken promises, the same old incompetence and the same old Labour.  Expect those lines of attack - broken promises, incompetence and no real change - to be key themes from the Conservative leader.

12.06pm: DC says that violent offenders were released early.  He alleges that prison and probation staff had objected to certain releases of violent prisoners and they had been over-ruled.  When GB said that he would ask the Justice Minister to write to DC about the 'over-rulings', DC attacked the Prime Minister for not  knowing that these over-rulings had taken place.  He accused GB of not knowing what was going on in the prisons and asked for a guarantee that early releases would not happen again.  GB countered that releases were an exceptional measure and said that the Conservatives had twice undertaken early releases.  He said that the Tories were unwilling to invest in the extra prison places and neighbourhood policing.

12.04pm: David Cameron asks about early prisoner releases.  GB says that noone serving for a serious violent offence was released early and noone was released more than 18 days early.

12.02pm: In answer to a question from a Labour backbencher on drug policy, GB promised a review of policy and hinted that cannabis might be classified more tightly as a result.

11.23am: This is Cameron's third clash with Prime Minister Brown.

Comments

[Steve]

Why is that idiot Clarke on the politics show?? The subject under discussion EU. Why is he allowed to go on TV and contradict Tory party policy on the referendum? Will someone at CCHQ please answer this question??

[HF]

I sadly agree with Steve that Clarke can no longer be a spokesperson for the party.

[HF]

Liam Fox being exposed on Daily Politics show for failing to "hold the Govt to account" on Afghanistan.

I must admit he has been a bit M.I.A. from the issues.

[Andrew Woodman]

Always the same Steve. Pro Europe BBC causing trouble.

[Steve]

The least we can do is not help them. DC must put his foot down.

[Jessica Salter]

Brown is thinking on his back foot again!

[Jaz]

Brown made to look totally incompetent.

[Andrew Woodman]

Brown can't do humour. That ending looked so contrived!!

[Jones]

Brown's ending looked terrible, great final set of accusations by DC

[Adam Tugwell]

Nice Dave, shame about Brown having the last word on that one.

[simon]

By God- that was dull! Cameron won again, but it wasn't an impressive spectacle. Brown is not up to PMQ's. There's a feeling of un-reality when he gets up to answer at PMQ's. It just doesn't seem real...

[TomTom]

Brown has lost it - to have been Chancellor for a decade and then quote George Osborne as an authority shows how far adrift Brown is.

To try to distance himself from Blair then start digging into the past is so dumb since it reminds people of how long Brown has been running domestic policy

Cameron was punchy and effective because he took Law & Order and hammered away clearly and consistently on a theme and this makes him look very effective and Brown flounders

It is very hard to persuade the public that suspects need holding for 90 days if convicted criminals serve little longer....

There is no effective police presence unless something has happened - it is purely reactive - to decant criminals onto the street when the police have enough problems clearing them is stupid.

How do we get a Lord Chancellor in the Commons ? This gets increasingly bizarre - can we get a job description ?

[Jones]

shame about Brown having the last word on that one??

As DC is asking the questions Brown will always have the privilege.

[Steve]

Brown is simply awful. Good tactics to use the coordinated attacks on one subject.

[Adam Tugwell]

Jones, absolutely. Still a shame - as Tom Tom says DC was punchy and this stage managed affair doesn't really give DC the opportunity to really push home how clearly bad Brown is at debating on his feet in the Commons.

[David]

Brown undermined his own carefully set up soundbite, by going on about the past himself.

Even without that, it beggars belief that what the government has only just done is supposedly in the past and shouldn't be talked about. How he thought that was good I don't know.

[David]

"In answer to a question from a Labour backbencher on drug policy, GB promised a review of policy and hinted that cannabis might be classified more tightly as a result."

Just noticed that-yet another planted question in reaction to the Social Justice report. It's not good for Brown that he's already having to react to what the Tories are doing.

[Scully]

In harping on himself about the past, he also would have confused those listening to PMQs on radio. His accusations all started with "This Party" rather than "That Party"

[Adam Tugwell]

interesting point Scully.

[Torygirl]

As Steve says, why is Clarke always wheeled out when the discussion is on the EU? Clarke has been pulling the Conservatives strings since the days of Major.

I seriously believe that Clarke is the real Leader of the Opposition, which is why Dave is so reluctant to talk about the referendum. Why won't he promise one, it would be the most popular move for the country as a whole. He would sail into No 10 and that 7% poll in favour of Brown would melt into the ether.

[ArthurWaik]

Brown made some comment about "you have to be able to ignore calls for extra spending (etc) to prove you are fit for government". I'm sure he was trying to imply the Tories weren't therefore fit for govt but it came across as very jumbled and it wasn't really clear whether he was talking about himself or the Conservatives. It would be a bit strange if he was saying he thought he needed to prove that he was fit for govt but it did come across that way.

I do get the impression that he's being fed lots of seemingly politically useful lines and he just fluffs the delivery every time!

[The Huntsman]

Given that they are all has beens, Lords Heseltine, Hurd and Patten and Clarke get an inordinate amount of air time on the BBC.

This should come as no surprise as they are about the only 'Tories' these days that the BBC can find to espouse (1) Europe and (2) Denying the British people the opportunity to give or withhold their whole-hearted consent to the Constitutional Treaty.

Ken Clarke seems to enjoy a charmed life with his local party: why do they tolerate his disloyalty to an important piece of party policy?

[David]

"Brown made some comment about "you have to be able to ignore calls for extra spending (etc) to prove you are fit for government"."

Well I hope someone on Cameron's team made a note of it. That should prove useful the next time he rolls out the mantra about the Tories not backing his spending commitments etc.

[Daniel VA]

I thought Sir Menzies Campbell did well again today.

[Londoner (for Boris but much else besides)]

"How do we get a Lord Chancellor in the Commons ?"

TomTom, I may have misunderstood you, and I recognise that it's very difficult to keep up, but Jack Straw MP is now Lord Chancellor I think you'll find. As it was either him not asking for the money, or Brown not providing it, to build more prison places ten years ago, Cameron's line of attack is a very astute one.

[michael mcgough]

"As Steve says, why is Clarke always wheeled out when the discussion is on the EU? "

Why not?His views are exactly those of the EPP party to which the Conservatives still belong.If Cameron was serious about a referendum he would promise one as soon as he became PM should Brown renege on Labour's 2005 manifesto promise.

[lc]

Five minutes of thorough research will tell you that since Liam Fox has become the Shadow Defence Secretary (December 2005) the Shadow Defence team have:

- Asked 226 written parliamentary questions on or related to Afghanistan;

- Asked 42 written parliamentary questions on or related to casualties;

- In the last two weeks released four press releases on Strategic airlift, Merlin helicopters, medical treatment, and operations in Afghanistan.

The BBC need to get their facts straight.

[RobD]

"I thought Sir Menzies Campbell did well again today."

Is any further proof of Brown's incompetence needed? If he is making Ming look good something is truly wrong!

[Frank McGarry]

A good performance David - even though you didn't get any answers.

But whilst you were working hard, Ken Clarke was busy undermining you on The Politics Show.

Once again he demonstrated his loyalty to "ever closer union" rather than to the Conservative Party. Show him who is Leader David and award him the Order of the Boot.

[Tapestry]

Why is Clarke speaking out pro-U.S.E.R on the BBC?

Because he's got the backing of Murdoch and the BBC. As Stephan Shakespeare suggests in his column, Murdoch is seeking Cameron's replacement with Bildeberger Hague who would be USER-compliant. (Union of Subservient European Regions).

The reason the media catapulted Cameron ahead of Liam Fox to win the Party leadership was not because he would put up such a contest against the USER Constitution. They thought he would be the next Blair - tradeable to sell Britain down the river.

The only people who can get rid of Ken Clarke are his Constituents in Rushcliffe. Cameron doesn't have Hague's support to ditch Clarke. If he tried, the media would move to assassinate him as they did IDS and Thatcher before him.

Cameron's demise is already being demanded by the USER. Murdoch is hoping to deliver it in favour of William Hague.

Cameron must stand firm, and somehow Conservative Constituents must wake up and kick out the USERphiles. Cameron's not being a traitor has shocked Murdoch and the USER. they thought he would roll over and agree to anything in return for good media, like Blair.

[EML]

Tapestry: where do you get this idea that Murdoch is so rampantly pro-EU?

[Andrew Lilico]

But EML, had you never noticed how pro-EU the "Murdoch press" are? How rarely they call fur us to leave the EU? How scant their mention of how Nazi gold founded the EU or the crucial role of the Bilderbergers? The limited occasions on which they expose the roles of blood-drinking lizard men amongst the illuminati (actually, upon reflection I think they did mention that one...Oh well...)?

[Andrew Lilico]

One of my favourite pieces of TV of all (a wonderful programme called, I think "The Conspiracy Theorists") followed David Icke on a tour around Canada, and placed a mole in amongst a group of anti-Nazi activists who (honestly) formed a complex conspiracy against him. It featured an interview with a crazed Texan who claimed that David Icke was either himself a member of the Illuminati, or was hired by the Illuminati so as to make conspiracy theories seem absurd. Magic.

[Andrew Lilico]

Not "The Conspiracy Theorists". Actually "The Secret Rulers of the World".

[Tapestry]

It appears from Stephan Shakespeare column that Murdoch's manoevring to replace Cameron with Hague. That must be because Cameron's surprised Murdoch by backing the referendum on the Constitution so strongly. Blair said in the Commons that the Tories would not really put up real resistance - only token resistance, and then yield, but Cameron is showing real determination here. Maybe that's why Cameron has not been attending USER hospitality or Murdoch hospitality bashes.

EML - The first bit of definite evidence that demonstrated that Murdoch had more than a sideline role as regards the USER (EU), came in The Spin Doctor's Diary by Lance Price , who said that Labour had agreed not to alter any policy connected to the USER without clearing it with Murdoch first. Murdoch as near as ran Labour's USER policies under Blair, and probably still does under Brown (or should I say 'over' Brown).

In the Observer during Blair's last week at the USER Constitutional summit, ex-Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan was complaining that Blair was putting in more effort to protect Rupert Murdoch's position than he was to protect Britain's position.

Murdoch is in breach of EU Competition Laws having a controlling interest in all non-BBC television in the UK, and with his monopolistic sports TV privileges. They are now going through the process of reviewing Murdoch's privileges again - to keep him frightened of losing his biggest money spinners. (Branson tried to get a share of the cake but got nowhere as Murdoch's got the whole thing sown up)

Murdoch acts USERsceptic OK, like many politicians but he always backs the one who will sell out Britain the most to please the EU, and ensures their survival in power.

Cameron is doing his best to confuse the system by acting as the next 'Blair' when in fact cameron is putting up genuine resistance to the Constitution, which is why the USER now want him shifted in favour of William Hague who is a USER-compliant member of the Bildeberg Group, and will back down over the Referendum.

[Tapestry]

Andrew Lilico's getting a bit screwed up with his conspiracy spoofs here. Just look at the actual evidence. Do you think lance Price is David Eycke?

[TimC]

None of it matters; Brown was useless and Cameron won. BUT all the press will report is the placed announcement on Cannabis that he made during PMQs. Looks like Brown is the ultimate spin doctor.

[Londoner]

Showing my age, I remember when Ted Heath was PM (or it could not been Wilson, but I think Heath) there was a huge row when it was discovered that questions were being planted at PMQs. This was partly because it was done in a crude way with many draft questions being circulated to backbenchers so naturally it leaked.

But I wonder: have the rules and conventions changed or, if it were proved that GB's office is contacting the first Labour questioner in advance asking (or telling) them what to ask, would that have traction? One thing would be to research whether the MP who asked about casinos last week, and the one who asked about drugs this week, had any previously known interest in the subjects. And, if not, get the press to cajole or badger them into admitting that the question was planted. Then lots of points of order immediately before PMQs next week, followed by a first Tory question (we must come up first one week) asking GB what the planted question is going to be on this week.

When I worked for an MP when Mrs T was Leader of the Opposition (there you are, showing my age again), I do recall the Leader's office ringing to ask what subject the MP was going to raise when he had an early question down. But alternatives were not suggested and it is also perhaps relevant that she was not aswering the questions. Tell me I am naive and it's all totally stage-managed these days.

[Goldie]

Brown has had a good start as PM, but he is quite weak at PMQs. Cameron isn't actually that brilliant at it himself, because he usuaully sticks to a prepared script and isn't very good at improvising, but DC certainly got the better of Brown today. Quite an effective performance.

Brown seems very uncomfortable and he loves rattling off statistics and taking about money, like he is still Chancellor. This would be a very effective line of attack against Brown: "He looks and talks like he wants to be Chancellor again. Why won't he govern?", etc.

[TomTom]

TomTom, I may have misunderstood you, and I recognise that it's very difficult to keep up, but Jack Straw MP is now Lord Chancellor I think you'll find

You did misunderstand Londoner - LORD Chancellor should be in The House of Lords.

The Lord Chancellor as an office is older than Parliament itself. It was an Ecclesiastical Post until Thomas More became the first lawyer to hold the office.

It was The Monarch's representative in Parliament as Speaker of the Superior House (which The Lords was until the 1860s) and Head of The Judiciary - remember The King's Bench was just that - a panel of surrogates for the King himself to hear please from his subjects.

So we have gone in the space of the Great Blair Era from having the Lord Chancellor stripped of his role shielding the Judiciary (replaced by the buffoon Lord Phillips); no longer a Lord of Appeal; and stripped of the role as Speaker of the Lords; and even ejected from The House of Lords.

That is quite a constitutional disaster - how you disentangle it I don't know. If onl;y they started to unpick the Act of Settlement 1701 we could start to re-run the civil war

[David]

"Murdoch is in breach of EU Competition Laws"

Er, no.

There are currently two main areas involving some form of competition law under which Murdoch has problems.

The first is in relation to the broadcast rights to football, (although much of that has to do with the Premier League itself) and the relevant authorities seem to have had no problems in demanding and getting wider access to a certain proportion of rights.

The second is over the shareholding in ITV, which tripped the UK Merger regulations regarding de facto control. That's currently being considered by the UK Competition Commission.

Otherwise, Murdoch's holdings have not infringed competition law.

The idea that he is pro-EU is a bit much though; his papers-particularly the Times and the Sun, are notably anti-EU, and are strongly in favour of a referendum.

[Paul Kennedy]

Strong performance by David Cameron.

Agree with 12:20 post

Warrington South's current Labour MP even asked a question, almost fell of my chair in surprise....think she's worried and trying to raise her profile.....bit late I would suggest!

[Tapestry]

Murdoch's trick is to keep writing eurosceptic in his papers, but to ensure that first Blair and then now Brown stay in power. That way, he ensures the EU programme rolls on while being considered to be a eurosceptic.

The EU Competition Commissioner decides whether Murdoch keeps his media privileges. That gives the EU enormous leverage over him.

When Lance Price tells us that Murdoch effectively controls Labour's policy on the EU, why should we not believe him? - presumably trading support of Blair in return for media support when needed at critical moments.

If people suspected the real game, then Murdoch's power broking role would be over. He has to act eurosceptic most of the time to maintain credibility, and to cover up what he's actually up to.

He couples support for europhile Prime Ministers with an assassination service carried out against eurosceptic Conservative leaders.

Stephan Shakespeare tells us that a key Murdoch employee believes that Cameron will be replaced by Hague. Again why are we not to believe what we are told?

Hague runs a similar routine to Murdoch expressing eurosceptic policies when he has to do so to maintain position in the Conservative Party, but he clearly has more sympathy with international organisations such as the EU, and will not fight too hard for the referendum on the Constitution.

Cameron is messing up the system by genuinely fighting for the referendum. Hence the change in Murdoch's loyalties. This explanation of events makes sense to me, and stacks up with what evidence we have, which is not a lot, but there is enough for me.

[David]

"The EU Competition Commissioner decides whether Murdoch keeps his media privileges."

Of course if that were true (and it isn't), the logical position would be to be pro-EU in public and privately agitate for withdrawal, not the other way around.......

[Traditional Tory]

Tapestry - Because he's got the backing of Murdoch and the BBC. As Stephan Shakespeare suggests in his column, Murdoch is seeking Cameron's replacement with Bildeberger Hague who would be USER-compliant. (Union of Subservient European Regions).

Utter tripe. It's largely thanks to Murdoch that the UK media is as Eurosceptic as it is, and I'd sooner trust Hague than Cameron any day to deal with the EU.

It's impossible to argue with people who believe in the 'Bilderberg Conspiracy' and other paranoid nonsense.

Let's focus on the real conspiracy - the EU plan to destroy our freedom - and identify the true culprits.

[Tapestry]

why theorise? Do you think Lance Price would fabricate such a story? What advantage would it give him?

However improbable, however covertly carried out, why ignore the evidence?

[Mike's Miffed]

It's impossible to argue with people who believe in the 'Bilderberg Conspiracy' and other paranoid nonsense.

Quite right. There is absolutely no point in attempting to have a rational discussion with former UKIP candidates who insist on playing the same stuck record over and over again.

[David]

So this Lance Price wrote an article about how Murdoch is secretly pro-EU because he fears his UK media properties will be confiscated by Neelie Kroes?

[Traditional Tory]

People exaggerate. I'm sure Murdoch has had a beneficially moderating effect on Labour EU policy, but of course demob-happy Blair had a totally free hand to commit his final atrocity.

As for the guy who reckons Murdoch has the power to snap his fingers and replace Cameron with Hague I hope he's right. I'd love to join the conspiracy.

Should I send my subscription to R Murdoch, Bilderberg House, Bilderberg City, Australia?

Do you think he will take Hungarian Florins? I've recently come back with a wad of notes the bank won't change.

[Tapestry]

Lord Avebury said - Rupert Murdoch has exerted his influence behind the scenes on a range of policies on which he is known to have strong views....

I wonder what issues these were. 'exert influence' is stronger then 'express opinion'. Could Lord Avebury be more specific?

There is a major factor in British politics which the above posters seem to be unaware of, and which those that know like Lord Avebury, Lance Price, Sir Leon Brittan, are trying to tell us.

Mike's Miffed cannot take it from from me. Take it from the people who are making comments like Lord Avebury and keep asking them and yourself what they really mean.

I make no apology for raising the topic of Murdoch's 'influence exerted' continuously - I feel it is those that close their ears to it that are in the wrong part of the ballpark. No one will understand the Blair era without Murdoch's role explained. He was far more powerful than Parliament. Brown too is no doubt beholden.

[TomTom]

When Lance Price tells us that Murdoch effectively controls Labour's policy on the EU, why should we not believe him?

Because I find it very hard to believe Lance at all....he was Campbell's sidekick and before that he was doing what Michael Crick now does at the BBC...in fact he is a contemporary of Crick - Crick was at New College when Price was at Exeter College.

I see Lance Price as a completely corroded individual who is 100% media and as such untrustworthy

[Tapestry]

Incidentally the fact that so many Conservatives don't understand the role of Murdoch in British politics is why they don't understand Cameron.

Cameron is vulnerable to a media assault from Murdoch, and as a possible assault is being trailed (Stephan Shakespeare) our leader is going to need a lot of support in the months ahead from his own party. Murdoch nailed IDS in October 2003. Will our MPs allow him to nail Cameron in 2007/8?

It's wake up time for British Conservatives about who holds real power in this country, which also explains why there is a need to remove europhiles from the Parliamentary Party. The Bercows of this world would undoubtedly be part of the execution party if Murdoch ramps up his attacks on Cameron, and would be to the fore in promoting William Hague as leader, another alleged eurosceptic.

Also in a close Parliamentary vote on the EU, they would certainly rebel and pass through Treaties which terminate Britain's existence. Europhile Conservative MPs should be deselected by their Constituents before they do their damage. Patrick Cormack for example Must Go.

Conservatives are lucky to have Cameron. He got elected by pretending to be the next Blair. He is slowly changing into the next Churchill. Those that have this country in the palm of their hand don't like it.

[foustionsGoff]

A balance transfer is the act of transferring debt from one credit card to another assuming the newer card has better terms and rates. The balance transfer offer consists of 3 elements, offer rate, offer duration, and transaction fee.
There are usually 3 types of offers by rate and duration: Purchase rate, teaser rate, and fixed life of loan rate.

[TearydayVed]

As much as people yearn for the mobility of the iPad, young people today agree that it has a lot of missing things. Don't get us wrong, the iPad is a tablet, and with the Apple marketing machine backing it, it will go down in history as one of the most fad tech devices of our time. But when the dust settles and the honeymoon period of your purchase is finished, some querries start arising... questions like, Isn't there a webcam?, Worry no more ó Witstech tablet to the rescue!

Did you know that recently news all post ipad is a great tool and that ipad is number one!. Does any one understand this? Frankly i don't like thepoor user functions. All of this fad should dissapear soon!

apad