Live PMQs blog from noon

EDITORIAL VERDICT: "Emphatic victory for David Cameron. He talked about the big issues of the week - Northern Rock and economic weakness. He made the Prime Minister look evasive because he failed to answer questions about taxpayer exposure. Nick Clegg even helped the Conservatives by implying that Brown hadn't nationalised the Rock because he was running scared of the Tories.  Who's the real opposition now then, Mr Clegg?"

Highlights, not verbatim:

12.17pm: In response to a question from Ken Clarke Gordon Brown states that he inherited "very difficult" economic circustances from him!  The Tory benches erupt into laughter.

12.13pm: Nick Clegg accuses Gordon Brown of fleecing the taxpayer by privatising the profits but nationalising the risks. He says that Brown is running scared of the Conservative Party by not pursuing the short-term nationalisation of Northern Rock - the only sensible option.  Brown says that nationalisation is an option but the Government is determined to do the best for all those involved, including the shareholders and depositors of Northern Rock - as well as the taxpayer.

12.10pm: David Cameron challenges Brown to admit he was wrong to fly to China on a jet plane with one of the principal bidders for Northern Rock, Richard Branson.  He says that Britain enters a difficult economic period with the biggest budget deficit in Europe.  The Prime Minister is a ditherer who hasn't prepared Britain for difficult times.

12.08pm: Gordon Brown accuses David Cameron of wanting a fire sale of Northern Rock's assets by supporting administration. David Cameron replied by saying that the Prime Minister doesn't know the difference between administration and liquidation.  Cameron compares  Labour to now being in administration. After the next election it will be in liquidation.

12.06pm: David Cameron compares the Prime Minister to Del Boy.  He's like a used car salesman who won't tell the purchaser about the car's price, mileage or warranty. This is a subprime deal from a sub-Prime Minister.

12.05pm: Gordon Brown says that the spending is secured on Northern Rock's good asset book and accuses the Conservatives of inconsistencies.

12.03pm: David Cameron asks about the taxpayers' total exposure to Northern Rock.  Is it £55bn, he asks?  Every taxpayer in the country has been landed with a second mortgage.

12.01pm: Good opening question from Stephen Crabb about the Home Secretary needing an armed escort to go and buy a kebab.

11.40am: David Cameron must surely focus on the economy and contrast the hyperactivity on the other side of the Atlantic with the inactivity here?  Although there's always the retreat on ID cards.

Comments

[Tony Makara]

Gordon Brown claiming youth unemployment is down? Incredible! What he means is that young people who are drafted onto the compulsory 'work experience' segment of the new deal get their P45s back, don't sign on anymore, disappear from the unemployment figures, but still receive their benefit plus an extra fifteen pounds. So they are on benefit but not seen to be on benefit.

[Ledger]

Another week, another failure to land a blow on Brown.

[Police pay?]

Andrew Pierce makes a good point on Radio 5. Why, with 18,000 policemen marching in London, was the issue of policer pay not raised?

[Praguetory]

A big win to Cameron, but I think he had made the point on NR by question 3. I think he should have changed tack for q4-6.

[Paul Pambakian]

"Emphatic victory for David Cameron."

You really think so? More of a score draw if you ask me.

[powellite]

Got to disagree with you there, editor. Cameron's rushing and getting flustered too much. The Branson line wasn't great either.

However, it's not as if Brown's running away with things. All pretty standard, boring stuff really. It's a good job PMQs doesn't change anything

[seasider]

Ledger is right, and emailers to 'Daily Politics' consider it a win for Brown.

[A Scot]

I thought attacking Richard Branson was shocking - the Del boy line was funny - but in the absence of a retort by Brown, it makes Cameron look less than prime ministerial.

Central want to put NR in administration? Are they mad?

[Rod Sellers]

"Ledger is right, and emailers to 'Daily Politics' consider it a win for Brown."

We don't know that - we were only told that by the BBC female presenter and we know where the BBc are coming from. I thought a score draw is a fair summary.The most telling image on Daily politics was the huge turnout for the Police protest march - unprecedented comment on the damaged relations between legislators and law enforcers. Alan Duncan is too full of himself but managed to get in a lengthy reference to William Hagues speech on the EU Treaty and broken Manifesto promise.

[David Belchamber]

I agree with Praguetory that DC should not use up all his questions on one topic; Brown gets away with just refusing to answer. It was good to hear Ken Clarke make a very fluent attack on Brown's stewardship of the economy.
DC should not let Brown get away with his spurious stats about crime or inflation. As I have suggested before, I think we have to appeal to the the voters' opinions about crime and the cost of living, rather than resort to stats.

[Dave]

I've heard both Balls and now Brown come out with the outrageous lie that they inherited "difficult economic circumstances" fronm Ken Clarke in 1997.

This pathetic attempt to rewrite history just shows these two clowns in an even worse light than usual, particularly now that the chickens of their profligacy and incompetence are coming home to roost.

[Iain]

" the Del boy line was funny "

No, it was a mistake, it was wrong for it was Arthur Daley who was the second hand car salesman, and it was a bit of plagiarism to go with that line. The brilliant line was Cameron making the differentiation between administration and liquidation and comparing it to the Labour party, that appeared to be spontaneous and devastating to Labour.

But as to running with more than one subject, it depends, in this instance it might have been a good strategy to just ask the same question Paxman like six times, 'How much tax payers money have you sunk into NR?' until a straight answer was wrung out of Gordon Brown.

[Henry Rogers]

I watched the whole thing on Daily Politics and I was quite surprised by the balance of email responses they reported. I suspect that if they had had their Perception Panel running they would have got a rather different answer. I wonder if some coordinated emailing was going on? I think the nature of the Perception Panel would have made it more robust.

On the whole I thought the PM cut a sorry figure. I presume Cameron is asking him direct, factual, questions specifically to provoke obvious evasions followed by blustering rants. While some may think that's succesfully blocking tactics by Brown, I doubt that it convinces viewers outside politics. Looking at the PM's face I didn't feel he really believed it was working either - he looked most uncomfortable. Cameron may not be landing knockout blows but he's making Brown rush round the ring in all directions.

So on the whole I think the Editor sums up the exchange a bit more realistically than Ledger and Seasider. It will be fascinating to see how the tactics develop.

[Andrew Woodman]

I think I'd score it as a draw. Brown has reined in his asking Cameron questions which was better from him. i think going on the 2 sets of 3 questions might be a better tactic when there are so many difficulties for the Govt.

[Tony Makara]

Dave, yes, very true. Its unfair for Labour to claim they inherited an economic bad hand in 1997. It wasn't the economy that lost John Major that election. In my lifetime I cannot recall any government that refers to the past as much as this one, they are literally going back three or more parliamentary terms to score points. Quite bizarre.

[Mervyn Shine]

I thought Brown looked haggard, worn, and quite green around the gills. I suspect he lacks the stamina and the temperament required for the job and I wouldn't mind betting on him going on health grounds before the next election.

It's clear he is being intensively coached by various body-language experts, relaxation counsellors etc but it's not working very well. His conscious rubbing of his palm by the thumb of his other hand towards the end of PMQs is a standard technique to try to stem an oncoming panic attack and indicates the high level of distress he was experiencing.

[David Boothroyd]

The floating voter watching PMQs would have been struck by the fact that the Government has put in place a plan to save Northern Rock and make the banking sector stable, while the Conservative frontbench could only criticise, talk in soundbites and not offer an alternative. It was not a win for David Cameron.

[David]

Because, of course, David, you are the very definition of a floating voter, aren't you?

[Iain]

"The floating voter watching PMQs would have been struck by the fact that the Government has put in place a plan to save Northern Rock and make the banking sector stable"

Sorry I must have missed the Governments plans, so please do elaborate, was it the nationalisation in light of them hiring someone to run the State owned bank, was it flogging it off to Richard Branson as he believed in India, or was it packaging up the debt, sub-prime like and flogging it to the market as their advisors Goldman sachs wants?

As to stability of the banking sector I must also ask if I missed the Government putting through legislation to sort out the hole found in Brown's tripartite arrangement and have they renewed Dr Kings contract at the BofE?

But then its only been four months and £50 billion sunk into NR, so it might be a bit too much to ask for any decisions from ditherer Brown?

[Jack]

The Bean's constitutional inability to answer a question degrades Parliament. The House should be examining the mis-use of taxation by the Labour Toffs. Well done, David. A sub-prime minister again, inflation and unemployment down? What planet is he on?

[Jack]

The Bean's constitutional inability to answer a question degrades Parliament. The House should be examining the mis-use of taxation by the Labour Toffs. Well done, David. A sub-prime minister again, inflation and unemployment down? What planet is he on?

[Tony Makara]

"I wouldn't mind betting on him going on health grounds before the next election"

Mervyn Shine, it would be a way for him to exit stage left before he gets booed off by the audience. It does raise an interesting question though, who would follow? The Labour party has no great thinkers anymore, nobody who can produce an actual strategy and long-term vision. They actually need a period of opposition to have something to react against, then the ideas should start to flow again. While in power they are cruising along in the comfort zone and have become intellectually lazy and complacent.

[Comstock]

Cameron is starting to sound like a broken record on Northern Rock

Change the tune, Mr C!!

[James Burdett]

Comstock - It isn't David Cameron that sounds like a broken record it is Gordon Brown that has a broken record. Northern Rock will be trading with an unfair advantage because it has a massive government subsidy stuck behind it to ensure it can't fail. Every other bank will be trading in difficult commercial circumstances and NR which is at least a contributory factor to those circumstances will be the recipient of the equivalent of a video game 'unlimited lives' cheat.

[Dave]

Comstock, perhaps Brown should try answering some of his questions. Isn't that what PMQs is for?

[D]

Brown's tactics at PMQs are quite clear: (i) refuse to answer a direct question and (ii) spend as much time as he can indulging in a party political.

The government is always saying, after each succeeding act of incompetence: "there are lessons to be learned". Well, Brown has certainly learned what to do at PMQs from Blair.

That being so, DC must change tack in future. What about accusing Brown of acting "like an old man, always stuck in the past. He cannot or will not answer questions about today's problems, always reverting to 1997".

DC could then make a very short statement correcting the view of the economy that Brown took over from Ken Clarke: "a huge balance of payments surplus, 5 years of relative stability and growth. Brown then adhered to tory spending plans for a couple of years ("his Prudence phase") before going back to socialist nature and becoming a tax and spend Chancellor.

He put taxes up more than 100 times, sold off half our gold reserves at $300 an ounce (having warned the markets beforehand), wasted billions on failed IT schemes, badly administered tax credits etc.

It needs a rapid staccato recital of adverse facts and I think that such an approach would unsettle Brown.

[Buckinghamshire Tory]

I am pleased with David Cameron's performance. This PMQs was no exception.
He held the Prime Minister to account on the right issues for this week; Northern Rock, the deteriorating economy, etc.

In most cases, Gordon Brown were unable to give a straight answer. He just repeated his old line about "low inflation, high economic growth and long term stability".

Tony Makara is quite right, this sad government are literally going back three or more parliamentary terms to score points against the Tories.
As someone else on the site mentioned a while back, how long is it before Gordon Brown starts to blame the Macmillan-government for our current problems?

[Oscar Miller]

I missed PMQs but heard some edited highlights on WATO. What came across loud and clear was the authority, liveliness and ease with which Cameron spoke and how robotic and tired Brown sounded. In fact Brown sounded resigned to a regular pounding at PMQs that he makes no real attempt to turnaround. I also agree that Nick Clegg helped out by saying Brown was running scared of the Conservatives. In fact Brown sounds like a PM who is simply running scared.

[Patsy Sergeant]

I think the number of people watching PMQ's, floating voters or other, who are not politically aware is most likely very small. So you have to think of the impression PMQ's makes on the policially aware OR the effect of the odd snippets that DO manage to get on TV (always remembering the left bias!).

As someone from the styx, I am inclined to agree with D above at 16.09, when he says that DC should 'change tack', only I would go further and say that for a couple of PMQ's at least he should change tack really radically, and if you like shockingly, because Brown has proved he is a lumbering sherman tank, and even though obviously - VERY obviously he is 'advised', he gets flustered by things he is not familiar with. He knows (more or less) what to expect from DC now, and so has formulated a type of response - completely inadequate, but that doesn't matter if he makes DC look Jack Russellish, and as if he is haranguing just for the sake of it.

I think DC has to catch Brown off guard, I am sure he can do with help, and not just from one person.

The fact that he is now saying that he 'inherited an economic muddle' or words to that effect, must mean that he is beginning to get worried about the present economic situation. I think it suggests that he is seeking to 'cover' himself - as if to say 'Well I could have done so much better if I hadn't inherited so many economic difficulties'!!! Obviously, that sort of claim should be skewered, because it is so patently a lie - which is very easy to prove even to political novices!!!

[David Belchamber]

Patsy, I must apologise for apparently posting anonomously at 16.09 but I was overtaken by the technology.

I agree entirely with your idea of Cameron changing tack radically at PMQs. He should fight like Ali, rather than John Prescott, but I do think that he (and other tories) must put paid to Brown's repeated claim about the economic legacy he inherited.

It is he who has transformed our economy into one floating on a foundation of consumer debt.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Yes I quite agree David.

[David Sergeant]

"must put paid to Brown's repeated claim about the economic legacy he inherited.

It is he who has transformed our economy into one floating on a foundation of consumer debt."

Sorry to keep on about it but Cameron and co. still don't get it. A big part of Browns popularity is not geared to his "success" but that he is able to pretend that he is better than the Tory record - usually be telling porkies as often as possible. At PMQs the Tories laughed when he claimed he had taken over a bad economy, they know it's rubbish, but ordinary people watching might tend to believe it. The Tories really must realise that just because something is obvious to them in Westminster it is not necessarilly obvious outside. In fact I don't think Tory MPs really know what voters assume as facts.

[Dave Reader]

D at 16.09

Spot on! Let's hope Cameron takes note and acts accordingly.

[Patsy Sergeant]

David Sergeant @ 19.07 - 'The Tories must realise the just because something is obvious to them in Westminster it is not necessarily obvious outside.'

I really think that you have nailed at least one problem on the head with that sentence!

Members of the public catching a clip on TV which shows MP's laughing would be much more inclined to think either that someone has said something funny, or that they are being patronising. Most people would NOT realise that the 'other side' is laughing because they are showing in a cynical way that THEY KNOW that lies are being told.

I think if MP's, ALL MP's want the public to appreciate their occupation?, and what they do - or are supposed to do, then they have to make much more effort to engage with the public - what I mean is they need to give at least some impression that they have a clue as to how the other half live.

I would go so far as to say - PLEASE NOTE ALL YOU LABOUR ACTIVISTS!!! - the I think that the Queen probably has a better idea of how the other half live, than 90% of Labour MP's!!!! And, just to aggravate those activists even more, I think that David Cameron's team are making an effort to find out more about how the other half live. Of course those same oppinionated labour activists would say - 'well they would, wouldn't they' - to which I would reply that, 'it is more than you lot have done in more than ten years, AND IT IS GOING TO COST YOU!!!'

[Serf]

I would go further and say that for a couple of PMQ's at least he should change tack really radically, and if you like shockingly

That is a great idea. Even if it didn't work too well on the day, Gordon Brown's level of stress for the next few weeks would be stratospheric.

Recently someone suggested that DC pretend to be the PM when GB asks a question, by answering it and sitting down. That would be one alternative to push our Sub Prime Minister towards a nervous breakdown.

[Gezmond 007]

More of the Usual , Cameron going on one question , making sniping remarks , trying to score points , whilst Osbourne and his front Bench bleating sheep who live in their Westminster bubble think that ordinary people will be convinced by their boring childish antics !

Keep doing the same and the Tories will stay in opposition for the forseeable future.

It was undoubtably a win for Mr Brown.

[Yet Another Anon]

No, it was a mistake, it was wrong for it was Arthur Daley who was the second hand car salesman
In Only Fools and Horses it was Boycie who was the Second Hand Car Dealer and Del Boys main involvement with Boycie seemed to be to rip him off and shag his wife on the side if I recall correctly.

Arthur Daley was in Minder.

A small mistake by David in terms of plot, but considering how well known Only Fools and Horses is by the general public and the potential for the tabloids to pickup on it, a potentially serious shot in the foot.

[Northernhousewife]

David
They do not get the chance to argue it at PMQs, Brown always gets the last word [ie.lie]. A spontaneous guffaw of laughter was probably the most effective [and genuine] reply. See Simon Carr in the Inde.

I expect Brown doesn't like being laughed at whilst he has always got his Soviet manipulated figures to churn out. It turns people off, so there is no point in us joining in. An exchange of tractor figures is not going to help.
The best way of tackling the misconceptions is a slow drip drip backed up by economists.
Brown has been an arrogant vainglorious liar telling the country that he brought to an end economic cycles; all previous ones were the fault of the Tories. In the belief that he was indeed the ecomonic messiah, Brown has spent as if downturns were a thing of past and his attitude has fed into the population at large who now do not save for a rainy day or retirement but actually expect real term increases year on year. Whilst there were good times, a wagging Tory finger was at best ignored and at worst ridiculed.
Now reality has hit. If he blames it on world conditions, he has aready damaged his USP and in so doing partially realligns our own history to something nearer the truth. Our current strategy of accepting there are downturns and that he should have prepared for it rather than trying to write them down in the history books as a folly of previous Tory govts. is the right one. It needs to be backed up with the message that things are worse now than when they came in. That is also happening.
Every economist on Newsnight a few night ago mocked Brown's previous attitude to a cycle free economy and acknowlegded his high spending. The world does not watch Newsnight, but such ideas filter down and have to be repeatedly reinforced. That is happening. One of his economic cheerleaders wrote a killer article for the Times. Sky news' blog page ran a piece afew days ago.

Drip drip drip.

[David Belchamber]

Whilst I totally agree with your "drip, drip, drip" policy, Northernhousewife at 17:58, I would like all the shadow Treasury team to have some figures at their fingertips to contradict Brown's absurd assertions about "his" economic miracle. You and I know it is nothing of the sort and I am left gasping in disbelief that he can claim things like: "inflation is running at 2%". Mind you a bit later he talked about "bearing down on ever rising inflation" which seemed a bit contradictory to me.

I suggested the other day a campaign under the strapline: "How has Labour failed YOU?" and then suggested a number of questions to appeal to people's opinions about issues, such as: "do you feel safe walking in the streets at night?", "what do you think about the latest council tax rises?" etc.

Mind you, we could simply adapt that very successful Saatchi and Saatchi (I think) advertisement: "Labour isn't working" by adding: "- again" and list: the Home Office, Defra, MoD, security of personal records, etc.

[deborah]

Cameron's recap on questions not answered made Brown's evasion very clear.
Please, please, please don't get into responding with another lists of statistics as some have suggested above. It won't unsettle Brown - he'll just hurl more statistics back and it will switch the public off completely.