Live blog of PMQs from noon

ToryRadio's audio of PMQs.

Editor's comment: "Unfortunate first question from David Cameron on the sleazebuster (asking why an appointment of the Chairman of the Standards in Public Life Cttee hadn't been made... and it's being made later today).  David Cameron's canoe line was good but Greg Hand's joke was better.  Sensible, I think, for David Cameron to be asking about issues other than political funding.  Labour will ultimately be judged for its failures on prisons and defence etc rather than political funding."

Highlights, not verbatim:

12.23pm: Great question from Greg Hands MP... With three police investigations under way, two of his Cabinet ministers in breach of rules and his General Secretary faces charges of law-breaking, is this what the Prime Minister meant when he said he was a "conviction politician"?!

12.14pm: Vince Cable asks about Northern Rock.  Borrowing is growing every day, he says.  What guarantee does the taxpayer have that all the money will be repaid?  He encourages temporary public ownership of the Northern Rock, noting that the FT and Economist also support this option.  Brown replies that Cable appears to be better at jokes than economics and says that the current process of seeking a private buyer for Northern Rock is the best route to protecting public funds.

12.12pm: David Cameron: 'Like the man in the canoe he wants us all to believe he hasn't been around for the last five years.'  But, the Tory leader continues, he was the man who underfunded the prison service.  Great line!

12.09pm: Cameron quotes Lord Boyce's claim that Des Browne's status is an insult to the armed forces.  He then asks about Labour's early prison release scheme and says that sentences should fit the crime and not the number of prison places.  To loud Labour jeers, he says 'they don't like to see their Government falling apart'.

12.08pm: David Cameron quotes a former Labour Defence Minister who believes that the part-time nature of the Defence Secretary is unacceptable.  Gordon Brown asks for evidence that Des Browne isn't performing his job and says that the Tory 2001 manifesto promised that the Secretary of State for Scotland job should be shared.  He implies that George Osborne is opposed to any further defence spending.

12.05pm: David Cameron asks if the Whitty report has been suspended.  The PM says it hasn't been put on hold.  David Cameron responds by producing Labour NEC minutes which suggest that parts of the Whitty investigation have been suspended.  Why isn't he being open?  The Leader of the Opposition then asks about the fact that the Defence Secretary is also Scottish Secretary. 

12.03pm: 'Why has it taken seven months to appoint a new Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life?' asks David Cameron.  Brown replies by saying the appointment will be announced today.  He challenges the Conservative leader to accept Labour proposals on party funding.

Noon: Radio Five Live announcer: We wondered if Gordon Brown might have chosen to disappear down the Thames in a canoe today!

11.57am: John Pienaar has just told me (and a few other Five Live listeners) that it's been hours since a new scandal rocked Labour! :-)

Comments

[Adam in London]

Is the PM really so stupid as to try and tell the former Chief Economist of Shell that he doesn't understand economics?

[Steve]

I cant comment on what was said today at PMQs today because every voice i heard was a Jock and couldnt understand the accent.

[Tony Makara]

Here we go again! More fantasy-island employment figures from Gordon Brown. The prime minister says three million more jobs have been created and than unemployment has fallen by a million! Is that why youth unemployment is up 20%? Gordon Brown again lavishes praise on his prize gimmick the NewDeal.

Of course there is a reason for this, anyone on the NewDeal gets their P45s back and officially leaves the unemployment figures for a few months. The NewDeal has cost the British taxpayer 3.6 Billion pounds. Quite a cost for Labour to fix the unemployment figures, and with all that there are still 5.4 million jobless in our country.

[Edison Smith]

An improved performance from Brown, whilst Cameron perhaps changed tack too much, diluting the attack.

Six questions simply isn't enough for an Opposition leader to ask the PM once a week. And I think two for the third party is too small too.

Perhaps DC should have bought up the education league tables, but, then, what's the point? All we ever get from Brown and Labour is 'putting money into this, putting money into that'.

Hazel Blears excuse on the Daily Politics? We're behind countries like Estonia and Slovenia in Mathematics and reading because those countries have invested a great deal in education after the fall of the Soviet Union! Hilarious, if it wasn't so feeble...

Will there ever be a time when some Labour backbencher doesn't revert to the pit closures and other issues that happened twenty years ago? It's pathetic really. Why not attack Brown for Harold Wilson's failures?!

[Tony Makara]

It is unfair that the prime minister knows the questions in advance and has time to prepare a crafted answer. At PMQs the questions should be a surprise and if the PM struggles to answer them then he really shouldn't be prime minister.

Edison Smith, yes, Hazel Blears was her usual comical self. Not content with carrying a facial expression like a circus clown she has to come up with comedic answers too. Why do Labour let this woman have such a high-profile on TV? She is terrible at PR and always comes across as patronizing. Hazel Blears always looks so naive and out of her depth, she was made to look a complete fool when Andrew Neil had her playing with cakes during the Labour conference.

[Edison Smith]

Every time Blears appears on television I swear the Labour poll number dips by a percentage point or two! She is ghastly.

Thank goodness for Andrew Neil. Without him, BBC politics shows would be similarily unbearable.

[Malcolm Dunn]

She's (Blears) may not be very good Tony but at least she's human.Which is more than can be said for the odious Geoff Hoon or Des Browne who's little more than a punch bag.

[Bryan]

I cant comment on what was said today at PMQs today because every voice i heard was a Jock and couldnt understand the accent.

The above comment from "Adam in London" is insulting and the type of stuff which puts Scots off from having anything to do with our party.

[Tony Makara]

Labour do seem to have a problem with the presentability of their MPs. So many seem to have character flaws. More importantly though none of them seem to have the slightest amount of gravitas which makes them appear unconvincing. This is quite a contrast to the days of Castle, Benn and Heffer who really knew how to stamp themselves on an interview. Perhaps it all goes back to conviction politics. Perhaps the new breed of Labour MP just doesn't believe in what it is saying?

[Deborah]

"Unfortunate first question from David Cameron on the sleazebuster (asking why an appointment of the Chairman of the Standards in Public Life Cttee hadn't been made... and it's being made later today)"

"Later today" is six months too late.

[Michael Rutherford]

"Why do Labour let this woman have such a high-profile on TV?"

Did you ever see Chris Morris' TV show 'Jam'? One of the sketches was a company employing stupid people to do jobs that involve a lot of arguing, on the basis that they win every argument as they are too stupid to realise when they're wrong.

I think this may apply to Blears.

[Tony Makara]

Michael Rutherford, you may well have a point. I find from personal experience that it is more difficult to argue with a stupid and opinionated person than with an intelligent person who will debate with an open mind. Hazel Blears is like one of those little dolls, just pull the string at the back and away she goes, the cliches and platitudes flood out. Except in the case of Blears it seems her battery never runs out.

[Chad Noble]

"I find from personal experience that it is more difficult to argue with a stupid and opinionated person"

Oh no it isn't.

[Oscar Miller]

"Later today" is six months too late.

Posted by: Deborah | December 05, 2007 at 13:25

And as I understand it this is only an interim, temporary appointment - not a permanent one.

[Patriot]

I thought Brown's whole persona and delivery was very different today compared to past performances - he was much slower, much less emotional, almost trance-like and robotic at times.

Yes he still stuttered, but he seemed to continue regardless, almost as if he were drugged. At times I wondered what question he was answering.

Interesting.

[Janice Small]

Unemployment amongst 16-17 year-olds in the 'affluent south east' is 52%, this drops to 20% when they are 18 because of the revolving door of benefits and useless courses. Real unemployment is higher than 1984. These are ONS figures but rarely used by us or the press.

I have lost count of the numbers of parents and grandparents who tell me that their 16-18 year-old sons/daughters/grandchildren cannot get work.

Gordon Brown: ‘Youth long-term unemployment has been virtually extinguished as a result of what we have achieved’ (Hansard, 10 May 2007. Every week at PMQs he has the bare faced cheek to stand there and lie.

Now we are facing an economic downturn I predict social unrest when those that genuinely want to work cannot find work and the jobs start going. However, "I'm all tight Jack, I vote Labour and am fed by Labour" in the public sector will be OK.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Tony Makara, your description of Hazel Blears at least provided a good laugh!! I agree with the comments about her. Actually you have reminded me - her last interview, that I saw on TV, was I think last Sunday and she sat with her fixed smile, emphasised because of the time lapse - 'struck a cord', and I have suddenly remembered what, do you remember the puppet, was it Archie that sat on someone's knee???

[Tony Makara]

Chad Noble, you must concede that its almost impossible to argue with someone like David Icke because he is so locked into his own worldview. I listened to David Icke being interviewed on Talk Sport the other week and I paid special attention to his train of thought to try an assess his state of mind and he was so egocentric in his evaluation of the world that it literally would be impossible to debate him. I also noticed that he mentioned the word 'Arse' and 'Bottom' seven or so times which I thought was interesting from a Freudian perspective. He claimed that Blair and Cameron were two cheeks on the same arse!

Some people are difficult to argue with because of their sheer power of personality. One debate I'd pay to see would be the two American radio hosts Rush Limbaugh and Randy Rhodes going head-to-head, that would be some battle. I think Rush would win though because he has a lot of caustic wit whereas his progressive opponent Ms Rhodes has none.

[Patsy Sergeant]

I am astounded that Gordon Brown asked for evidence that Defence Secretary Browne isn't 'doing his job', I don't think that is an appropriate statement for him to make. But to continue as he apparently did, to state that anyway the Tories had the same idea in their 2001 Manifesto, is an utterly pathetic argument and not fitting for a Prime Minister!

[Chad Noble]

Tony, it was a seasonal joke. ;-)

[Malcolm Dunn]

Oh no it wasn't

[David]

"It is unfair that the prime minister knows the questions in advance and has time to prepare a crafted answer"

Er, he doesn't. The traditional way of asking questions was one notified question and one supplementary, or six in the case of the leader of the Opposition.

The rules about a supplementary are that they have to relate in some way to the first, notified, question. MPs discovered that if they asked the PM what his engagements were, because of the wide ranging nature of the job (i.e. the enagements will cover each area of public policy) the supplementary could be pretty much anything.

If you look at old PMQs, such as under Thatcher and Major, you'll see almost every MP asks the same question about engagements first (save for the odd occassion where an MP has something quite specific, normally constituency related). One of the changes Blair made, and quite a useful one, was that the PM would simply give the standard response to the engagement question at the beginning of the session, and all subsequent questions would be treated as supplementaries.

Brown, like any PM, does not have notice of these supplementaries, but does have a team of civil servants dedicated to creating a folder with information to answer almost any possible question that might come up (facts only-the SPADS add any party political stuff afterwards).

If you look at PMQs with Major or Thatcher for example, you'll notice

[Tony Makara]

Patsy Sergeant, yes Hazel Blears does look like a circus clown. As you say she has an eerie fixed smile, rather like an antithesis of Clement Freud! I think I know the puppet you are referring to. There was that Lord Charles puppet but Blears is a bit more mischievous looking, rather like those menacing grimacing laughing clown halloween masks that seem to spook the Americans so much. Hazel Blears also has a little girl look about her too, rather like she thinks politics is all a bit of a giggle. She certainly enjoyed playing cakes with Andrew Neil. He made her look so infantile!

[William Norton]

Tony Makara: I find from personal experience that it is more difficult to argue with a stupid and opinionated person.

Try poking them in the eye. Never fails to start an argument.

[Tony Makara]

David, thanks for that. I stand corrected.

[Tony Makara]

William Norton, I won't even contemplate trying to make a comment about poking Hazel Blears!

[London Tory]

30 years ago Labour had a proper front bench of genuine heavyweights, guys who's values and views had been formed by delivering for their country in WW2. People like Sunny Jim, Roy Jenkins, Crosland, Healey, Mason, Foot and even Benn. Everyone of them was a proper parliamentarian who could speak unscripted in debate, and a diligent constituency MP in touch with their electorates wishes. Callaghan would cancel any function he had to attend as PM if it coincided with the Sprott Fair in his constituency, which he attended without fail for over 40 years. I can still recall from 1979 his brilliant response to Mrs T in the House when he learned that the Ulster Unionists had done a deal with us and would thus vote to bring down his Government; "she has found the courage of their convictions".

The contrast for Labour 30 years on is truly stark. A different calibre, and frankly class, of person altogether.

[Steven Bainbridge]

What annoys me most about Labour and Brown in particular is that if they fail miserably at something, they come up with some remedy and then attack the Conservatives. For example - party funding. Labour has obviously made a massive cock-up in this area. Because of this, they come up with ideas of public funding and whatever else and then attack the Conservatives for not being 100% behind it. Another example is the education leaving age being raised to 18. That is in response to youth unemployment rising grossly under Labour. They then attack the Conservatives for not wanting to 'solve' the issue.

If Labour weren't so disastrous in the first place then these remedies wouldn't be needed and they wouldn't have to then attempt to pile the blame onto us!

[Tony Makara]

Janice Small, your figures on youth unemployment portray the true figure of the young that are out of work. As you say we never get the true figures. The revolving door of the NewDeal is an absolute scandal. It particularly annoys me that our armed forces are having to go into battle under equipped while the Labour government spends 3.6 Billion pounds on the NewDeal just to fix the unemployment figures. Same goes for our health service, I read recently that a new unit in Manchester cost 20 million, how many more units could have been build out of the billions wasted on the NewDeal gimmick. Remember a billion is a million million. The money wasted on the NewDeal is of astronomic levels and for no end product whatsoever. Perhaps someone could work out how many hospitals, schools etc could have been built with that 3.6 Billion.

[Paul D]

Tony M, these days economists use the American billion (a thousand million) rather than the UK million million

[John Ionides]

Tony,

I am afraid we mostly talk American billions (10^9, or a thousand million) now rather than the old British billion (10^12) that you describe. Still a lot of wasted cash, though.

[Patriot]

I wondered if Cameron should have concentrated more on sleaze, the Des Browne question was perfectly valid but with so many to choose from was it the best? Then I came across this:

""A senior adviser to London Mayor, Ken Livingstone, is under investigation after at least £2.5 million in public money was channelled to organisations controlled by himself, his friends and his business associates.""

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=499864&in_page_id=1770

[Tony Makara]

Paul D and John Ionides, thanks for that correction. Nontheless that 3.6 Billion would have been better spent in 1001 other ways. There just isn't enough being done by the Conservative front line team to tackle Labour's bogus unemployment figures. I accept that the way the economy is currently structured it is impossible to find work for everyone. However Labour are continually claiming that we have full employment in interviews etc and many members of the public accept this as fact because these comments are going out unchallenged by the Conservative and Liberal parties.

[Chad Noble]

When was the last time Cameron mentioned a referendum on the EU treaty?

I'm sure I remember him pledging during PMQ's to bring it up week after week, but then seemed to never bring it up again.

[Patriot]

What has to happen to the government for the Queen to have the power to dissolve it and call an election?

If the PM were to be charged with a criminal offence?

How bad does it have to be?

Does anyone on this thread have a definitive answer for me?

Thanks.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Both are important Patriot, but I think Cameron was right to strip away what little credibility Labour have left on defence.
I suspect the whole country is now aware what a corrupt bunch of crooks/ incompetents inhabit Brown's cabinet.
I was more suprised he didn't mention British school children descending down the table in Reading, Maths and Science and Jim Knight's absurd reaction to the news.

[John Ionides]

On a more serious note, I am getting rather fed up of Broon et al falling back on some rather opaque stats.

* How much did Black Wednesday actually costs in comparison to the unsecured exposure in Northern Rock (the secured bit is fine, it is the rest that worries me), and selling gold at the bottom of the market

* He criticises Tories for not have an alternative strategy on Northern Rock although I seem to recall he was advocacting precisely the same polices as Lamont until 24 hours before ejection from the ERM.

I have noticed a certain bullishness in the Labour defense over the last few days (well, probably more like the aggression of a wolf caught in the back of its lair). I think it is about time somebody went on the attack over Black Wednesday and put the current Northern Rock situation in terms of Black Wednesdays (and there are quite a few 3.4bns in 30bn). I realise that some will say the less mentioned about this the better, but it is something that Labour are going to bring up again and again ... it would be better to lance the boil.

[Adam in London]

Patriot - the Queen technically can dissolve Parliament any time she likes. Normally this is done on the advice of the Prime Minister. If Brown were charged it would not necessarily trigger an election, rather it would in all likelihood force his resignation, and the Queen would have to send for soemone else to form a caretaker Labour government (as Harman would likely also be caught up in any scandal a 'magic circle' of Labour grandees would doubtless advise for Miliband or Johnson to get the job).

Bryan - I did not make the comment about 'Jock accents', I made the comment about attempting to lecture Vince Cable on economics. I suggest Steve (who did make the comment) go to see the doctor, as there is clearly something wrong with his hearing if he cannot understand a Scottish accent.

[Chad Noble]

As I recall John, the BoE spent around 30 billion of reserves propping up Sterling in 1992, so allowing for inflation, I guess it's not something you would choose to bring up as a comparison...

[Vernon]

What has to happen to the government for the Queen to have the power to dissolve it and call an election? If the PM were to be charged with a criminal offence? How bad does it have to be?

I can answer that. The Queen will dissolve Parliament (not the government) if the government is deemed to have lost the confidence of the House - i.e. if it were to lose a vote of confidence, or if it lost a serious vote which they had made known was being treated as a confidence issue (as for example John Major did with Maastricht).

With a majority of 60+ the chances of enough Labour MPs voting against the government in a vote of confidence are extremely slim.

[Vernon]

Six questions simply isn't enough for an Opposition leader to ask the PM once a week.

I disagree. PMQs is supposed to be an opportunity for ALL members to ask questions of the Prime Minister. I often feel, especially when Cameron gets on a roll with his prepared jibes and Brown starts waffling on with long answers, that the head-to-head of the two leaders goes on far too long - it must take up almost half the session.

I think it would be more useful if Cameron were to spread his six questions throughout the session (or at least 3 early on then 3 later as Hague used to do).

The most talented Parliamentary debater to serve as Leader of the Opposition in recent years, the late John Smith, made the point that PMQs is just not a good forum for debate. Short, sharp, piercing questions are the most successful. And, frustratingly for the Leader of the Opposition, the PM always gets the last word.

[Edison Smith]

King Albert II is currently running Belgium. It's gone six months without a government.

Just goes to show how little politicians are actually needed!

Maybe we should just give all decision making authority to Lizzy II, and all become subjects - rather than citizens - once more...

[John Ionides]

Chad,

At the then rates we spent 3.4bn (well, some say 3.1 but I'll be generous). What is it worth now? Well if we take a mean inflation rate of 3% (and that is being pessimistic again) then we would be talking approx 5bn in todays money. I don't know who does your accounts but I would get them checked out if I were you.

And that is precisely why I WOULD bring it up as a comparison. Browen lost AT LEAST 2bn selling gold at the bottom of the market (I say at least because gold is looking quite a good bet at the moment and I see no sign of Gordon buying into the stuff now).

And while the exact levels of exposure to Northern Rock are uncertain (i.e. the government won't say what the position on the unsecured lending is other than theyll try to get back - well who wouldn't) the sums involved are compariable, if not larger, than the ERM situation.

Add into the mix the fact that Gordon Brown was supporting the government position until the last minute (and definitely supported ERM) and you get something that would be much better attacked on than defended against.

And of course these numbers pale into insignificance when compared to the amounts that have been pumped into Health and Education with very little gain (and in the case of Education, levels actually appear to have dropped).

At least Balck Wednesday set the market conditions for a long period of growth. There is no evidence that the cash that has gone into Health and Education has made much difference to the long term viablility of these systems.

[Chad Noble]

John,

:-)

Sorry, you're comparing apples with oranges.

The 1992 *loss* was estimated at 4-10 billion, but the amount of reserves used (ie the figure to compare to the amount that has been lent to NR) to 'achieve' that loss was around £30 billion or around 50 billion in today's money.

There is a potential (big if) that the government could actually make a profit on the loan to NR if it is repaid as agreed, so this is no comparable *loss* figure for now unless you mark the loan to zero, which no-one is doing right now.

Check out this story from the Times, from 2005 with confirms the amount the Boe spent on Black Wednesday was aroud 30 billion.

[John Ionides]

Chad,

OK, so we can at least agree that the loss from selling the gold was just under half a Black Wednesday.

And maybe you can also agree that the additional money spent on Education for minimal extra effect is in the same order as one Black Wednesday.

As I said at the start, it is very hard to know what the exposure to Northen Rock is. If, as you say, all the loads are repaid at the penal rate of interested then it is a good deal for the government but the odds on this happening are not that good. As I said above, it is the (considerable) lending to Northern Rock that is not secured that we should really be looking at, because this is what really define what it it is possible to loose. And if the government is not plannng to write off any of this debt then they should say so ... the fact that they are reufsing to do so rather supports the hypothesis that they expect to loose.

[Chad Noble]

Hi John,

Well I'd like to see caps on government spending, with a max constitutional Tax Freedom Day, to cast in stone a relationship between us and the State that clearly states that the Government does not have the God-given right to take from us as much as they like, but have an upper limit.

Unfortunately none of the big parties are even quoting a lower tax freedom day as an aspiration!

[John Ionides]

That's very well and good, and I am sure you will argue your case ad nauseam.

But the point here is that Black Wedesnday was not a distaster of a completely different magnitude to some of those that Brown has presided over. And when you say that the BOE "spent" 30bn that is misleading because what people are interested in is the LOSS, which as you admit was nowhere near that figure.

Sure we don't know what the NR losses will be but I am not as optimistic as you are about the government's ability to strike a good deal for taxpayers (NHS Consultants Contracts anyone?) and I would be very surprised if the total losses to the goverment were not comparable to the ERM situation.
As long as we sit on the defensive on this issue then it Labour will use it as a stick to beat us with (well, I say us ... I realise you are not one of "us", Chad, but you get my point I'm sure).

And there are other figures the governement frequently use in the same way. Precisely how long were interest rates at 15% for? Hours, IIRC.

And what about unemployment? How does the level of NEETs compare with 10 years ago?

[David Sergeant]

Bit disappointed Cameron didn't mention the Nimrod accident. This clearly leads to Brown (and Browne). Inevitably Labour's incompetence has lead to people being killed. This really should be hung round Brown's neck.

[Yogi]

We ought to remember that on the Golden Wednesday (some call it black) in 1992, the treasury tried to buy up to £30bn by selling the old DMs and US$. When we left the ERM, the US$ had increased from $1.90 to a Pound to $1.60 to a Pound and the DM had risen from DM2.85 to the Pound to DM2.40 to the Pound. The loss suffered therefore was less than 20% of £30bn. But it was paper loss and none of us as tax payers had to foot the bill and better, the interest rates started coming down and the economy picked up.

The other point is that at the end of every PMQ Brown without fail parrot the lines of record level of employment, continuous growth, lowest interest rate/inflation record investment in schools and hospitals and unfortunately the BBC always broadcasts those lines unedited. Cameron should try another trick to counter this -
something along the lines, record borrowings, highest national debt, growing trade deficit and also the current account has fallen into deficit under this government, record spending in government propaganda and quangos, and record number of illegal immigrants. May be cameron should also try something a bit more topical, in that at this rate of spin, this Prime Minister will soon overtake Murali let alone Warne as the greatest spinner of all time!

[Where's Boris?]

Nothing from COn Home or Lazy Boris on the millions that have gone missing from City Hall - http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23425661-details/Ken's+aide+and+lost+millions/article.do

No wonder Boris is behind Livingstone in the polls!

[anyone but brown]

How anyone can say Brown is improving or "got a draw" is beyond me. His bluff, lies, and bluster is turning PMQs into a farce and his latest tactic of constantly trying to ask Cameron questions is pathetic. Brown is clearly a charlatan and a faud and is becoming a severe liability to this country.

His profligate and reckless economic policies are coming back to haunt him, however (and us) A traditional, old fashioned Labour-inspired sterling crisis will see Brown's ratings plummet further in the polls and probably lead to mutiny within his party:

Brown's Future as Prime Minister Hangs on Pound: Matthew Lynn

Dec. 5 (Bloomberg) -- It may become the most calamitous premiership for at least 100 years. Less than six months after taking over from Tony Blair as U.K. prime minister, Gordon Brown has already stumbled through a series of disasters. He is, to use a popular word in the financial markets, a subprime minister and he leads a subprime economy........

....... Sterling looks like a sitting duck.

It might well be the fragility of Brown's government that provides the trigger for an attack on sterling. Brown's problems are only just starting. It will be the foreign-exchange markets that finish him off.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aoyU9AlR.YKI&refer=home

[John Ionides]

I am not sure I would word it quite so strongly, but yes it looks as though the seven lean cows could be about to tuck into the seven fat cows, and Pharaoh Brown has precious little in reserve.

The things is that there are still a few nice secure little islands that Brown can (and does) return to week after week. Unemployment. Black Wednesday. Strngth of the economy over the last ten years. Money spent on public services. However, all the figures he quotes have major flaws. It would make Labour attacks a lot less easy if some of these common retorts could be wiped out.

[Patsy Sergeant]

I wonder whether Mr. Brown, when tucked away in his office, early in the morning, with just his laptop and mobile for company, ever thinks about his predecessor (Blair), and what his reaction has been to all the adverse reaction concerning his (Brown's) capabilities as a Prime Minister, as well as his government's performance!!!

[Richard Carey]

and his latest tactic of constantly trying to ask Cameron questions is pathetic.

Blair did this from time to time as well - and they were in some sense notable moments when he was pulled up by Michael Martin. It has, I think (someone will correct me, I'm sure!), historically been relatively rare for the PM to be rebuked by the Speaker.

If PMQs continues as per today against the rules of the House, it would be embarassing for Browm (at least in solely Parliamentary terms) if that became more common.

[John Ionides]

Indeed, Patsy. And I wonder whether Blair send Brown the odd postcard ("Hi Gordon, Sunny in Jerusalem this morning. Hope you are enjoying yourself. Love, Tony") just to remind him?

[Simon.]

So reading between the lines, it was dissapointing from Cameron?

I didn't see it, but if he did the anger again, it has to stop. It only works if the person doing it can be justified in showing surprise and outrage (like when the Government has just lost 25 million bank details), and it also only works when the opponent is on the ropes, and cannot muster a robust defence. Unless these things are right, the questioner just looks like they are huffing and puffing and failing to blow the house down.

Also:
'Cable appears to be better at jokes than economics'
There is only one word for a man who has destroyed our economy and still has the nerve to utter this. It begins with a 'c', and I will not say it here. Make no mistake, this man deserves to be politically CRUSHED.

[Richard Carey]

this man deserves to be politically CRUSHED

We're working on it, Simon, we're working on it (on a small scale in my case at the moment, but every little helps...)

[Richard Holloway]

Whereabouts in the 2001 manifesto does it mention combining defence and something else?
I can't find it?

Anyone know?

[Vernon]

Whereabouts in the 2001 manifesto does it mention combining defence and something else?

I don't think that's what Brown said - my understanding of his remarks (and I don't have a copy of the 2001 manifesto on hand to check this) was that the Conservative proposal was for Scotland (and presumably Wales) to be shared with other cabinet posts, as has subsequently become practice.

However, as Brown and Browne have discovered, it becomes politically tricky when deciding which how the sharing works. The last two Secretaries for Scotland were simulaneously Sec of State for Transport, but as Ruth Kelly is not Scottish clearly that couldn't be continued.

Potentially, Douglas Alexander could have taken Scottish responsiblities with him to his new position, but having the Secretary of State for International Development also responsible for Scotland would send unfortunate signals politically...

Bizarrely enough in view of the popular perception, the problem is there aren't enough Scots in the current cabinet to twin the job with a less sensitive portfolio - clearly Chancellor and PM are not suitable candidates for the job share either. Who else is there?

In fact, there are fewer Scots in Brown's cabinet than there were in John Major's.