Brown U-turns on 10p just minutes before PMQs

3.15pm: Watch Sky's highlights video and PoliticsHome's new insiders' verdict on PMQs has just been published

2pm: Once a regular feature on BBC Online; Nick Assinder's weekly PMQs sketch has returned... on PoliticsHome

EDITORIAL VERDICT: Clear win for David Cameron.  With more than 40 Labour MPs backing Frank Field's amendment - which he has now withdrawn - the PM was facing certain defeat next week.  And, as David Cameron suggested, he retreated from a confrontation with his MPs - as, last autumn, he retreated from having to face the voters.

Highlights, not verbatim (read from bottom up to):

12.15pm: Nick Clegg says that he thought penalising the poor to reward the rich was the Tories' job.  Why is the Prime Minister doing their job for them?  If the PM can't deliver on poverty what is the point of this increasingly pointless Prime Minister?  Brown responds with stats on child poverty and jobs created etc.

12.13pm: The Prime Minister says Labour is for opportunity for everyone.  The Tories are for opportunism all of the time.

12.09pm: David Cameron says that Brown's reputation will never recover.  With this Government it's all politics and never the national interest.  Under Labour there are 600,000 more people in extreme poverty.  The Prime Minister has lost authority.  The PM had to leave a meeting in the White House to beg a PPS not to resign from his Government.  [He then lists things that Labour politicians are saying about Brown.]  One Labour MP compares him to Porridge.  Another week and it will be Cheerios.  They are beginning to realise that they don't have a leader but a loser. 

12.07pm: Gordon Brown does not answer the question but says that the choice is between a Labour Government that will cut poverty and a Conservative Party that doesn't care about issues like tax credits and the minimum wage.

12.05pm: We were told, says Cameron that there would be no backdown, no rewriting of the Budget, no concessions and now we've had a backdown, rewriting and concessions.  Did he go to "panic stations" because he knew he'd lose next week's vote, just as he cancelled the autumn General Election because he knew he'd lose that, too?

12.04pm: David Cameron rises to his feet and says this session should be called Prime Minister's U-turns, not Prime Minister's Question Time.  He then pays tribute to Gwyneth Dunwoody.  She'll be sorely missed.

12.01pm: Labour MP Louise Ellman invites Gordon Brown to compensate 10p tax victims. The PM promises to find ways of helping 60 to 64 year-olds and young and part-time workers who may have been hurt by the band's abolition. 

11.45am: Facing almost certain defeat the Government has undertaken a partial u-turn on the 10p tax band - promising backdated compensation for young and old people.  This will undoubtedly introduce even more complexity into an already complex system.

Comments

[Vicky Ford]

On top of the cost of the admin I project failures and time delays in getting the compensation back to the people who claim it - has the government not learnt from all the other tax credit hiccups? Young people in this income bracket regularly switch jobs - which will add to the admin nightmare. Furthermore it is exactly these people who can't afford time delays or mistakes in getting their well earned cash.

[Man in a Shed]

Can I have compensation for my taxes wasted funding this muddling and now administering this incompetence?

[James Burdett]

I know we have had plenty of them but I get the sense that this whole thing could genuinely be the tipping point.

[Rob]

What a disgustingly dishonest question from Labour MP, Dawn Butler. She's an absolute disgrace.

DC was great today - the lines were excellent and delivered with justified anger and conviction.

[Mark Fulford]

Tractor production is up.

[Richard Lowe]

"Trying to rig an erection result"?? Childish humour perhaps, but an unfortunate slip of the tongue!

[powellite]

PMQs at its worst. If our politicians can't exhibit behaviour above the level of an 8-year old, then it's a sorry state of affairs.

Cameron needs to stop shouting and be more reasonable - no-one's going to be won over by a slanging match.

[Christian May]

"No-one's going to be won over by a slanging match."

But they will be won over by Stalinist repetition of misleading economic 'facts' will they?

"Stability, stability... tractor production is up... high employment... stability... tractor production is up..."

[Tony Makara]

"Under Labour there are 600,000 more people in extreme poverty"

Six million would be a more accurate description if we include all those trapped on benefit. Interesting that Nick Clegg has now donned the cloak of the class-war warrior.

[MikeA]

The rebels have now tasted Brown's blood and realise that with enough pressure he buckles to their demands. They will be back for more....

[Mark Wadsworth]

"a Conservative Party that doesn't care about issues like tax credits and the minimum wage".

I'm not sure that the Conservative Party has any particular views on this, but I do. Scrap 'em both and double (or treble) the tax-free personal allowance.

[Henry Rogers]

Looked to see what"Powellite" had on his blog. Silly me, FA! I doubt very much he has anything in much common with Powell. More likely he is a mere labour or ukip troll just getting in a dig at Cameron.

Actually I thought PMQ was pretty boring, as it has been for a month or so. Brown really isn't up to the job of defending his position by reasoned debate. Even Clegg looked prety good today even though I'm most certainly not a member of his supporters club. Cameron just did what he has to do in a methodical and business-like way.

I'm rather hoping that Labour will exercise tribal loyalty and keep Brown in post till the next general election. Poor fellow, he had to put up with 10 years of subservience so he deserves his spell in the limelight, until we sacrifice him!

[Iain]

I notice the Speaker yet again picks a Labour MP to put the first question.

[Ray Gillespie]

Too right we don't care about tax credits! The Government is a joke - taking too much money off people and then giving some back via costly administration paid for by public money! If people are paying too much tax then take less off them in the first place! As hideously thick as Gordon Brown is, surely even he can see that paying a bunch of people to adminster tax credits is more costly than just taking less tax? Then again...

[powellite]

Henry Rogers - Lol! Nice try...Where did you get the idea I had a blog?

What's wrong with criticising someone, anyway? If one doesn't think someone is doing very well, why can't one say so?

[EML]

Gordon Brown is right one on thing: I bet most Conservatives don't care much for his fuggin Tax Credits. They should be scrapped - they represent everything that is so bad about this pseudo-socialist Government, taxing everyone too much to pay for bloated public services, eye-catching "initiatives" and a clientele of middle-class busy-bodies and then oh-so-lovingly telling certain groups of people that they can claim some of their hard-earned money back if they manage to fill in a long form full of pointless information and personal questions.

We need to slowly demolish the idea behind Tax Credits over the next couple of years.

[Iain]

"Too right we don't care about tax credits!"

Yes I thought Cameron missed an opportunity to begin to pick apart Brown's U turn solution, for he should have asked Brown why people should be pleased to have their salary confiscated in Taxes, then expected to feel grateful that they get the opportunity to claim some of it back by filling out a complex Tex credit form, which if they eventually do get a payment, will most likely be wrong, and likely put them into debt having to pay the money back.

[James Burdett]

Iain - In fairness Cameron and his team probably hadn't had much of an opportunity to read the letter.

[Tom FD]

So am I right in thinking that in light of these amendments by Brown, a sizeable amount of people are going to get a small "backdated" windfall just prior to a May 2010 general election?

[Jennifer Wells]

Congrats to our MPs wearing those red roses. Glad to see us reclaiming the rose of England from Labour.

[Al South]

Conservatives introduced Tax Credit.

Back then you provided your last 3 months wage details to claim the next 6 months tax credits.

It was a social security benefit - nice and simple - easy to administer and understand.

Gordon Brown gets his hands on them - hides the expenditure in general taxation - rebrands them a Labour idea - introduces 3 or 4 new tax credits and then scraps them.

Creates a great big 'client' industry of pen pushers administering this whole nightmare!

[Afleitch]

So it's going to cost him what he would have gained through the 10p abolition AND it will cost extra due to the administration costs involved in the whole refund scheme! It would have been cheaper just to u-turn.

[gezmond007]

How pathetic Mr Cameron , dont you know that you are making yourself into a yob with your shouting and yelling ! People want a statesman like person to be our Prime Minister not a rowdy yob with no tact.

Bring back William Hague !!

[Afleitch]

You never saw much of Hague at PMQ's then did you gezmond!

[Graeme Pirie]

I've got to say Cameron is doing a very poor job of real opposition.

Other than scoring a few points from Brown, what's he doing to help the taxpayer - not a lot!

We've got a massive 10p cock-up from Brown that he's intending spending MORE millions sorting out and administering, when he could just have increased tax thresholds.

So instead of tax simplification (and lets face it the 10p band was hardly complex) we now no doubt have a hugely expensive administrative exercise for "compensation". Lets not forget of course that they haven't actually done anything yet - just appeased their own stupid MPs who didn't notice for the past year till they got worried about votes.

The current government are absolute morons, but I cannot understand why the "opposition" has not ripped them to shreds. I'm afraid the tories are not ahead in the polls, it's labour that are behind.

[David Belchamber]

Quite right, Mark at 13.00:

"a Conservative Party that doesn't care about issues like tax credits and the minimum wage".

I'm not sure that the Conservative Party has any particular views on this, but I do. Scrap 'em both and double (or treble) the tax-free personal allowance".

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

[Iain]

It was a particularly bizarre line Brown took on explaining why he is removing the 10P tax rate, saying that there were better ways to alleviate poverty, OK so far, but then why did Gordon Brown put the 10p tax rate on in the first place if he as he now claims there were better ways of doing it.

Also its a bit rich of Brown to claim the Conservative position is confused on the 10p tax rate when he was the one to introduce it, and now he's canceling it!

[James Burdett]

So the government are going to compensate using the Winter Fuel allowance. They are also going to backdate this to the start of the tax year in April. One just has to ask are they going to rebrand the Winter Fuel Allowance or redefine Winter?

[Iain]

Is there a convention in the Commons which requires the Speaker to call the first MP from the Government benches ?

For as I poster earlier and on several previous occasions the first MP Speaker Martin calls is a Labour MP, this gives Labour whips the opportunity to ask a predetermined question, and allowing Brown to make a statement to the house, and attempting to spike the opposition attack.

In fact other than the Opposition leaders which Martin has to call when they want, it seems the first few MP’s called are always Labour, usually half the seesion has gone before Martin calls an opposition MP.

[Richard Brett]

Is there a convention in the Commons which requires the Speaker to call the first MP from the Government benches ?...this gives Labour whips the opportunity to ask a predetermined question, and allowing Brown to make a statement to the house, and attempting to spike the opposition attack

Iain, think about it - this is a rather petty point, and it makes no real difference.

The convention is to call from opposite benches, alternately.

So if the Speaker were to call an opposition MP first, he would have to call a government backbencher second - i.e. still before David Cameron has his turn.

Or are you suggesting the Leader of the Opposition should always go first? Why should he? This is not about him, it's not the Gordon and Dave show, it's the weekly opportunity for ALL members from ALL parties to get to question the PM.

[Richard Brett]

Is there a convention in the Commons which requires the Speaker to call the first MP from the Government benches ?...this gives Labour whips the opportunity to ask a predetermined question, and allowing Brown to make a statement to the house, and attempting to spike the opposition attack

Iain, think about it - this is a rather petty point, and it makes no real difference.

The convention is to call from opposite benches, alternately.

So if the Speaker were to call an opposition MP first, he would have to call a government backbencher second - i.e. still before David Cameron has his turn.

Or are you suggesting the Leader of the Opposition should always go first? Why should he? This is not about him, it's not the Gordon and Dave show, it's the weekly opportunity for ALL members from ALL parties to get to question the PM.

[Iain]

"Iain, think about it - this is a rather petty point, and it makes no real difference."

Let me first say that the Speaker doesn't know when Cameron indicates to the speaker when he wants to be called to put his questions, thus the Speaker is being very presumptuous in calling a Labour MP first in order to call Cameron second.

But its also not a petty point, for as we have seen today, and all the many other occasions when Brown is in deep trouble that the first question he gets is a set up question from the Labour whips via a Labour MP so that he is able to make a prepared speech to try and limit the damage.

[Richard Brett]

the Speaker doesn't know when Cameron indicates to the speaker when he wants to be called to put his questions, thus the Speaker is being very presumptuous in calling a Labour MP first in order to call Cameron second

I'm not sure I see your point here. As the Speaker tends to call Cameron at the earliest possible opportunity, presumably that's when Cameron indicates he wants to speak. It's up to DC whether he wants to speak early in the session or later, or use all six questions at once or (as he sometimes does) use three and come back later with another three.

The point remains that given the alternate sides rule, choosing an opposition MP first (and remember this doesn't necessarily mean choosing a Tory, it could be Lib Dem, Scot Nat etc.) will only serve to delay Cameron's questions. What does that achieve?

when Brown is in deep trouble that the first question he gets is a set up question from the Labour whips via a Labour MP so that he is able to make a prepared speech to try and limit the damage

I don't know how long you've been watching PMQs - I've been following it since long before it was on TV - but guess what? That's what Prime Ministers do! ALL of them. Not just Brown and Blair, but Major, Thatcher, Callaghan and Wilson frequently used the same tactic. Whether the tame question comes first or last is irrelevant.

[David Cooper]

Agree entirely with all of the others on this thread who advocate scrapping the tax credit regime altogether in favour of taking less from the low paid in the first place. Of course it suits the Clunking Fist to ensure there is a cut for the administrators on his client state payroll, and to force claimants to fill in forms giving every last detail of their circumstances to the state before they qualify for a penny, but this is an obvious opportunity for clear blue water. Without wishing to rock the boat too much on a day when DC slaughtered the PM once again, it's a fair bet that a Treasury team of Redwood/Fallon/Leigh/Randall would be able to put up a convincing case for the whole regime to be binned.

On a lighter aside, any readers of Tom Clancy might recall a passage from Executive Orders (Chapter 27: Results) where the newly appointed Secretary of the Treasury George Winston demonstrated a point about the US Tax Code having grown to absurd levels by piling up the volumes of tax legislation on a committee conference table until they broke its legs and spilled to the floor. He then proceeded to make his case for a simpler regime by letting his graphic illustration speak for itself. No doubt TC had Warren Buffett in mind when creating his character, but just think of the credibility that another politician by the name of George might obtain from a similar stunt.....

Just to add a passage from the book: "The purpose of taxes is to provide revenue for the country's government so that the government can serve the people. But along the way we've created an entire industry that takes billions of dollars from the public. Why?....."

[James Maskell]

How pathetic Mr Cameron , dont you know that you are making yourself into a yob with your shouting and yelling !

Posted by: gezmond007

If I was in Cameron's position yesterday, shouting and yelling would have been the least of his worries... What he did by abolishing the 10p rate was bad enough but to use smoke and mirrors with the compensation is even worse. He should be ashamed of himself in trying to justify this.

[Bexie]

I note that Broon was slated by Newsnight...

[Chad Noble]

Got to say that I thought Cameron's 'cheerios' jibe was very funny.

[James Maskell]

The Cheerios joke completely passed me by... Im sure its a brill joke, but I dont see the 10p rate screwjob as something to joke about.