VERDICT: "Cameron edged it but only just. Brown is more confident when the subject matter is the economy. David Cameron needs to refine his economic critique. It is plausible for Brown to say that voters won't believe that Labour caused Britain's economic problems. Most will see the recession as a global phenomenon. The Conservatives must focus their attack on Labour's failure to leave much room for Britain to take recession-averting actions. Not a good day for The Speaker either. Dennis Skinner has a record of attacking Osborne. In calling him Michael Martin was inviting the attack on George Osborne that the 'Beast of Bolsover' did indeed make. The Speaker also called more MPs from the non-Tory opposition backbenches than from the Tory backbenches."
Highlights, not verbatim:
12.30pm: Dennis Skinner raises the Osborne issue: Can the PM promise that he won't approach Russian billionaires to rescue the Labour finances? The PM replies by saying that this is a serious manner and should be investigated.
12.27pm: Graham Stringer invites the PM to cancel plans for a congestion charge for Greater Manchester and simply bring forward investment in the tram system. The PM doesn't answer the question.
12.21pm: John Whittingdale invites the Prime Minister to reinstate Empty Property Relief.
12.19pm: Nick Clegg says the Government is all at sea on economic policy - even if it isn't on a luxury yacht (boom! boom!). Brown says the Government will look at all ideas that will help the economy. He attacks the LibDems for promising £20bn of cuts in public services.
12.17pm: Nick Clegg asks what the Government will do to help the real economy. Will it wait until things are as bad as they got for the banks? What, in particular, will the Government do about fuel poverty? Brown makes a joke about Nick Clegg not knowing the real level of the pension. Vince Cable smiles naughtily at this joke!
12.15pm: Brown says the issue is the judgment of David Cameron and the Shadow Chancellor. Neither he says are offering any real solutions to Britain's economic problems.
12.11pm: The Prime Minister asks me to name the causes of recession, we're looking at them says David Cameron - pointing at the Labour benches. He invites the PM to again admit that he hasn't abolished 'boom and bust'. Brown again doesn't answer the question and says that noone other than the Opposition believes that this is a UK-made recession.
12.09pm: David Cameron: For years the Chancellor talking about prudence with a purpose, now it's borrowing without limit. Will the Prime Minister finally admit that he didn't abolish 'boom and bust'. Brown replies by accusing Cameron of talking down the economy.
12.06pm: Cameron says the problem with Labour's borrowing was that it was undertaken in good times. He says too much of Britain's debts are off balance sheet, notably PFI. "Britain is being governed by a master of dodgy accounting". Half of OECD nations have surpluses that they can use to beat recession. Does he not regret that Britain does not?
12.04pm: Cameron rises with Osborne sat next to him. Cameron asks if it was a mistake to have such high borrowing. Brown replies by saying that Britain can afford to borrow because it has such low overall debt levels.
Noon: Brown announces something on repossessions. Missed the detail.
Brown isn't even trying to make his answer seem relevant to the questions.
Posted by: Norm Brainer | October 22, 2008 at 12:12
Good performance by David Cameron. Good tactics to focus on Brown's hubris.
Labour heckling has gone up several notches since Nick Brown became Chief Whip.
Posted by: London Tory | October 22, 2008 at 12:19
An assured performance by DC. I just have a horrible feeling that GO is about to pull the rug from under him.
Posted by: Mark Hudson | October 22, 2008 at 12:27
I have a suggestion.
Could all our Conservative MPS take future holidays in caravans or under canvas (like the rest of us).
Please avoid luxury yaghts and Russians bearing gifts.
That way we could avoid deeply embarrassing heckling from the Labour party at PMQs
Even Cleggover had a go at us.
Poor show boys!
Posted by: Eileen Murdoch | October 22, 2008 at 12:28
oops I did mean yacht!!
Posted by: Eileen Murdoch | October 22, 2008 at 12:31
You can't stop going on holiday and living your life just to avoid labour's unwarranted heckles, you just have to deal with that.
I think Cameron should have maybe used his last question to either go on another subject or perhaps less of an atack angle. Brown was never going to admit he'd abolished boom & bust and was waiting for the last question to make an attack as Cameron couldn't reply.
Make the last question something Brown would have to agree with or to that disarms that.
Posted by: Norm Brainer | October 22, 2008 at 12:38
12.11pm: The Prime Minister asks me to name the causes of recession, we're looking at them says David Cameron - pointing at the Labour benches.
Good shot !!
Also, it's obvious Brown is going to argue he was good with the economy before and that's why he can borrow now, but the real issue is not how he's able, it's surely why and where he's using the money.
1 - What is Brown doing to help the real economy - NOW, this instant, with money which will have an effect to stem recession rather than letting it happen when the livelihood of every man woman and child in this country is on the line?
Is bringing forward projects already planned enough?
How can they be if these were already in planning? What is he doing to train the British people to meet the skills requirement for a real economy or is he planning to use Polish bricklayers?
Has he taken any account of the weather and that presenting difficulties at bringing forward building projects? i.e. Is the PM stupid or dreaming and will this country have to wait to find out?
How about calling for an election NOW so people can decide his competence on the economy and then he can ask the Tories what they plan to do about mending it?
Posted by: rugfish | October 22, 2008 at 12:39
The PM replies by saying that this is a serious manner and should be investigated.
Really? What bit of not receiving a donation would he investigate?
Posted by: Mark Fulford | October 22, 2008 at 12:49
In case you haven't noticed there are more non-Tory MPs than Tories - about two hundred more.
Posted by: Fact checker | October 22, 2008 at 12:52
Boom and Bust , Boom and Bust , Boom and Bust, Cameron sounded like a broken record !
Osborne must go , he's becoming an embarasment , Dennis Skinner hit him with a knockout punch !
Come on Cameron show some leadership, he wont because he puts his mates before the party. What a poor performance.
Posted by: Gezmond007 | October 22, 2008 at 12:53
Boom and Bust , Boom and Bust , Boom and Bust, Cameron sounded like a broken record !
...Brown's broken record.
Osborne must go , he's becoming an embarasment , Dennis Skinner hit him with a knockout punch !
Come on Cameron show some leadership, he wont because he puts his mates before the party. What a poor performance.
Gezmond007, as usual, replies exactly what everyone else isn't thinking.
Posted by: Norm Brainer | October 22, 2008 at 13:00
You can't begrudge the speaker for allowing skinner the chance of some harmless mischief making - its what skinner is in the commons for.
Posted by: Adam | October 22, 2008 at 13:00
"Really? What bit of not receiving a donation would he investigate?"
Mark, I guess that Osborne has been hammering home the word 'solicit' for a reason as despite what Cameron says that there was no donation, so no problem, the law also forbids actions that may lead to an illegal donation.
Section 61:
..any arrangement which facilitates or is likely to facilitate, whether by means of any concealment or disguise or otherwise, the making of donations to a registered party by any person or body other than a permissible donor.
So the Tories need to produce some solid written evidence that they rejected this donation approach (ie it was not still a 'live' potential before the story broke).
Posted by: GB£.com | October 22, 2008 at 13:05
"Cameron edged it but only just."
I think he did more than that, for Cameron started with Labour MP's baying against him but finished with Brown struggling to get himself heard.
But Cameron could have done better if he had moved off Boom and Bust and challenged Brown on specific items like the amount of personal debt etc..
Posted by: Iain | October 22, 2008 at 13:09
Dennis Skinner has every right to ask any question he wishes. If the Osborne scandal is such a non-issue (as everyone seems to be saying) then there should be no grounds for concern if questions are asked in parliament.
Posted by: ~Ross | October 22, 2008 at 13:12
The Speaker also called more MPs from the non-Tory opposition backbenches than from the Tory backbenches
Unless the rules have changed and this fact has passed me by, my understanding has always been that the people who get to ask questions at PMQs are selected in a ballot.
The Speaker then calls them in order of their position in the ballot, but alternately from the government and opposition benches. Clearly this means that if SNP, Lib Dem or other MPs come higher in he ballot than Tories, they will get priority.
So how is this evidence of Speaker bias?
Posted by: Nigel Rathbone | October 22, 2008 at 13:15
Norm Brainer , no one on this website might be saying this but
people in the country are saying just that .
Come on Norm wake up !
Posted by: Gezmond007 | October 22, 2008 at 13:21
It's quite simple, the Tories just need to publish the correspondence that confirmed the rejection of the donation.
Matter closed.
Posted by: GB£.com | October 22, 2008 at 13:21
..people in the country are saying just that
Sure, probably the same strange people who support labour.
...the people who get to ask questions at PMQs are selected in a ballot.
The Speaker then calls them in order of their position in the ballot,
If it is like this, can we get to see the list? - seems a strange co-incidence that skinner just got in at the end.
It's quite simple, the Tories just need to publish the correspondence that confirmed the rejection of the donation.
Wasn't it a phone call?
On September 18 Mr Feldman and Mr Rothschild had a phone conversation about the possibility of Mr Rothschild hosting a fundraising dinner for the Conservative Party – something the Rothschild family have done before.
At the end of that conversation Mr Rothschild mentioned that Leyland Daf, a UK trading company owned by Mr Deripaska, was interested in making a donation to the party. Leyland Daf is well known to be a company recently purchased and owned by Mr Deripaska.
Mr Feldman said that he was not sure if such a donation was appropriate. He told Mr Rothschild that he would have to seek advice on the matter. Later that day it was decided after consultation with senior party officials that it would not be appropriate to accept such a donation
Posted by: Norm Brainer | October 22, 2008 at 13:28
Later that day it was decided after consultation with senior party officials that it would not be appropriate to accept such a donation
I think that is key Norm. What did they do when it was decided not to accept the donation?
A written rejection would be perfect (and note to self to always do this in the future if not done so as it would close down any future traps) but confirmation of the time, date and person who made the call would surely be enough.
But it should be done now! This 'he said this', 'he said that' will drag on causing enormous damage which only court action could begin to end.
Posted by: GB£.com | October 22, 2008 at 13:45
Whatever our reservations, we now need to rally around Osborne and close this story out.
The fact that BBC News 24 have been running it all day- and interviewing neutral figures like err...John Mann MP, Michael White, and the odious little McShane [still no Govt job, Dennis], convinces me of this !
And I thought Cameron did very well today.
Posted by: London Tory | October 22, 2008 at 13:51
"Many Tories will wonder if Mr. Osborne has the right stuff to occupy Number 11." From the Telegraph editorial today.
By accepting the invitation from the Russian oligarch and hobnobbing with Peter Mandelson Mr.Osborne displayed a shocking lack of judgment and if Mr. Cameron does not sack him he will be guilty of the same offence.
This sorry affair may end up in court. If it does, even if Mr.Osborne is cleared of any actual crime the mud will stick. A lot of votes will be lost - permanently.
He should go.
Posted by: Edward Huxley | October 22, 2008 at 13:53
If it is like this, can we get to see the list?
Yes Norm, as far as I'm aware it's published along with the daily order of events for both Houses.
Posted by: Nigel Rathbone | October 22, 2008 at 14:15
Unlike Mandelson's involvement with the Russian billionaire who got billions in tax concessions or with Eccelston who got an exemption from toabacoo advertising nothing was recived say it again nothing was recived. This is the defence and this should be the end of the matter.
Concentrate on the questions above got on the attack unles there is anything else out there there is nothing to defend anyway!
Posted by: Onemarcus | October 22, 2008 at 14:31
"TORIES UNDER PRESSURE" say the BBC at the moment.
This 'pressure' is then explained......
A toothless 77 year old pensioner from Bolsover, he of the Elvis hairstyle, Oxfam clothes, and Arthur Scargill affinity, has read out a question from the Labour Whips office in Parliament today.
Makes you proud to pay the licence fee.
Posted by: London Tory | October 22, 2008 at 14:33
The full wording of the relevant part of section 61 PPERA is as follows: -
"(1) A person commits an offence if he—
(a) knowingly enters into, or
(b) knowingly does any act in furtherance of,
any arrangement which facilitates or is likely to facilitate, whether by means of any concealment or disguise or otherwise, the making of donations to a registered party by any person or body other than a permissible donor."
Even if it were true that a donation was sought from an impermissible donor, unless it is acted upon, I doubt that an offence is committed. The words that are important are 'in furtherance of' ...
Posted by: Another Tory from London | October 22, 2008 at 15:17
Osborne can only be guilty if all of the above is true. From the statement, there was uncertainty about the permissibility of the donation even if it was asked for. He had to know that such an action was illegal but continue anyway. From the statement there were doubts and after further discussion with officials Osborne and Feldman realised that such a donation would not be allowed. Therefore they avoided a breach of the law.
Legally Osborne is perfectly fine and hasnt broken any laws. The doubts about his judgement were more that he should have said as soon as any donation was discussed that it would have to be conducted through the normal Party channels and not to be discussed there. Looking at the statement he hasnt actually done anything wrong since he seeked and acted upon legal guidance.
Posted by: James Maskell | October 22, 2008 at 17:19
The 'neutral' BBC and many other old friends of New Labour have been putting a lot of focus on this non event.
So George Osborne discussed a something that never happened with someone else. And this is supposedly of more importance than the PM and the Govenor of the Bank of England admitting that we are heading into a recession. I smell the foul stench of Mandelson and Campbell practicing the Dark Arts again.
I doubt real people actually care about this utter non event, I'm more worried about paying my bills! Labour's spin doctors are clutching at straws but pretty soon it will be back to having just the Labour Rose - sorry the Daily Mirror - supporting them!
Posted by: George Kaplan | October 22, 2008 at 19:35
I think the 'neutral' BBC was somewhat taken aback this mooring on Victoria Derbyshire’s program on 5 live, well the bit I listened to. Having tee'd up the program for an hour of Tory hating they found most callers were pretty angry that this non issue was being discussed instead of the recession or even Mandelsons conflict of interests, with the result the Victoria Derbyshire had to justify their indulgence by suggesting they had discussed the recession on other programs.
If this is a true reflection of the publics opinion then the BBC has tried the patience of the public who have had their fill of the story, with the result that the BBC, if they do take notice of their listeners opinions, is going to find it difficult to carry on pushing the story.
Posted by: Iain | October 22, 2008 at 19:58
I hope you're right Iain
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | October 22, 2008 at 20:53
I have to say I don't always buy the BBC is against us line. but this evening on the BBC 10pm News it was all fluff and innuendo not a shred of new evidence (much more balanced reporting by Bradby on ITV), really shoddy reporting from the BBC. Nat has had his hissy fit - hopefully we will now see this blow over
Got to say I was cheered today by Cameron trying to spear the tail on that wily old Ass at PMQs - just about got him. Some real venom and passion from DC - here, here - that's what we need. Lets demolish the clunking fist and send him back to retirement in Fife with his tail between his legs...!
Posted by: Northern Tory | October 22, 2008 at 22:21
Lets ask about the numerous vists of Mandy to see this Russian chap including one to Moscow and then the fact that he was given tax concessions.
Why should we worry so much over a donations that wasn't sought(and if it was can't be proved) and a donation that wasn't paid aginst the facts about what Mandy has been up to, Eccelstone, the aledged sale of hounours, Dr Kelly and all the other scandals of this government.
Stop the panic, there is nothing to panic about go back on the attack and lets get rid of this corrupt government.
Posted by: Onemarcus | October 22, 2008 at 23:10
If the Conservative Party do win the next election they need to break the BBC down to being a balanced organisation. It is so obvious on every political programme the targeting of the Conservative party, many times you would think they still are in power. A newly elected Conservative Government should dismantle in its entirety the political and news outlets as they are today. Lord Pearson some time ago monitored this left wing outfit and found them to be extremely biased with regards to politics.
It was refreshing to witness on Newsnight last night how Lord Heseltine so easily dealt with the Osborne saga and Paxman just gave up as he was dealing with somebody far to clever to make his points stick.
Do the clever thing appoint Ken Clarke as Shadow Chancellor as some body of his experience in the next few years would be vital for the party and the Country?
Posted by: Dominic | October 23, 2008 at 08:33