PMQs dominated by questions of debt and borrowing

VERDICT: Another poor PMQs that taught us little about what the Government or Opposition will do to tackle the recession. Brown was at its worst in not answering questions but Cameron did not deliver any big blows.

Highlights, not verbatim:

12.17pm: Philip Hollobone asks the PM to condemn the Black Police Association for discouraging ethnic minorities from joining the Met. Brown replies by promising to look into the matter.  (David Davies MP delivered the message to the Black Police Association yesterday that it was behaving irresponsibly).

12.15pm: Sir George Young asks why the House of Commons sits so infrequently. Brown says he has given Parliament more powers - including approval of the nation going to war.

12.13pm: Nick Clegg calls for the PM to distinguish between good public spending and any public spending.  The LibDem leader calls for big tax reliefs for people on ordinary incomes - paid for by closing tax loopholes.  The PM says that the LibDem policy of cutting £20bn from public spending is the wrong policy for this time.

12.10pm: The Prime Minister has been caught red-handed, spinning that he would be spending to get out of recession but having no plan to do so.  The Prime Minister's irresponsible boom has become a bust.  Brown counters that the Tories have no policy to take Britain out of recession.  They are not ready for Government, he concludes.

12.08pm: Cameron asks if the PM believes that you can spend your way out of recession?  Brown doesn't answer.  Cameron then reminds him of words from 1997 when he said that you "can't spend your way out of recession". 

12.06pm: David Cameron says that Brown's fiscal rules have been broken.  Brown responds by saying that the Tory position on borrowing is unclear.  The Tories don't know if they favour more borrowing or less.

12.04pm: David Cameron says it's impossible to believe that we're not in a bust when 120 homes are being repossessed every day and the Bank is forecasting that 1.2 million will be in negative equity. If he can't admit his errors noone will listen to him about the future. Brown attacks Cameron for partisanship and for failing to end Punch and Judy politics.

12.02pm: David Cameron asks (again) if the PM still thinks he has abolished boom and bust. The PM responds by recording key Labour 'achievements'.

Comments

[David (One of many)]

Cameron just owned Brown with the Fiscal Rules question.

[Paul D]

From the bbc site...

"1204 David Cameron goes in on the downturn, asking Mr Brown to admit that he did not abolish boom and bust. Mr Brown lists his achievements and attacks the Tories' response to the credit crunch."

So he attacks Cameron and then, according to this site, criticises him for not ending Pumch and Judy politics? The word hypocrite seems somewhat mild

[anon]

If I hear that man say "difficult times" one more time ....... !!!

[gezmond007]

Cameron is like a broken record , repeating himself time and time again . It didn't work last week and he has wasted his questions again when he could have offered up his ideas on how to deal with the economy .

He really is sounding weak , Osborne looks clueless and lost ! What a pair.

[David (One of many)]

Brown comfortably lost that today. He used the 'tax cuts = spending cuts' line when answering Clegg and had to fall back on his 'right decisions' nonsense with Cameron. Both old staples; both are things he uses when he has run out of ideas.

[anon]

Tribal, tribal, tribal. At every opportunity Gordon Brown refers to the Tories, he's obsessed. Has he no solooshuns of his own?

[David (One of many)]

... and by reverse, Cameron comfortably won that today. Asked the questions that were relevant to today - particularly the stuff about the rules. And he got Brown into classic non-answering territory.

[Norm Brainer]

gezmond007, why every week do you look at what brown is doing and then comment here to say that it's Cameron.

Brown is like a broken record , repeating himself time and time again...

He really is sounding weak , labour looks clueless and lost

[Mark Fulford]

Who were those idiots laughing at "the science of climate change"? Were they Conservative?

[anon]

Maybe Cameron has to keep repeating himself because Brown never gives an answer.

[gezmond007]

Thats right Norm , keep your head in the sand ! There is loyalty and loyalty .

Cameron and Osborne are so out of touch. Nothing that Cameron said will be reported on the news .

Total waste of time !

[Matt Wright]

Norm brainer, Gez does that because it is classic Labour spin. They take an issue they are at fault with and turn it around with bare faced arrogance. Blair, Brown, Campbell, Mandelson - they have all deployed this.

[Saltmaker]

Nothing that Cameron said will be reported on the news .

Thank you for something bankable, Gezzie. When Cameron is reported on the news you will be shown to be wrong and an idiot.

[Norm Brainer]

Ah, I see, Matt, so it's Gezmond's head-in-the-sand loyalty that he tried to pin on me that is his own failing.

I guess that works as then if you try and place the fault where it belongs it sounds a bit like tit for tat.

I would also say Cameron will on the news more than brown - we'll see @1.

[Annabelle Young]

Lacklustre performance by Cameron I'm afraid. Brown appears to have been completely vindicated, this is no time for a novice. David Davis for Leader!

[David (One of many)]

"Brown appears to have been completely vindicated, this is no time for a novice."

Nobody but a Labour troll would parrot that line in such a matter of fact fashion.

[gezmond007]

We will Norm !

[Harriet Harman for President LOL]

gezmond007

The 007 refering to the number of MPs Labour will have left after the next election I presume?

[Another councillor]

Norm and Gezmond,
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brown-has-no-plan-for-economic-crisis-says-cameron-977611.html

Cameron gets the headline in the online Independent.

[Peter Buss]

Cameron is much better when he does not do "Mr Angry" but instead mocks Brown as per today. It really winds Brown up. I thought Cameron won today and by the time he had finsihed with Brown the latter was back to his stumbling, stuttering, shambolic persona pe-dating his "2nd Coming epiphony.

[Malcolm Dunn]

I would agree with that Peter. I would also agree that Brown was truly,truly awful today. It makes me cringe that we have a man who is so not up to it doing this job. Blair might be a liar and a crook but at least he could give the appearance of being in control. Brown can't even do that.

[Norm Brainer]

So are you going to change your statement now Gezmond to redefine 'nothing', 'Cameron' or 'the news' given that many places are running stories about the questions he asked?

[Steve Green (Daily Referendum Blog).]

If PMQs were to be any longer Cameron would destroy Brown. You can only parrot the same old crap to avoid answering questions for so long. I honestly think Brown would go wibble if he had to face an hour of questions about his financial competence.

[Northern Tory]

Good performance by DC and the party looked more balanced with Hague on one side of Cameron and May on the other...Osborne well out of shot! (wonder if that was deliberate?)

[Richard North]

A plague on all of them … both sides of the House. This sort of sterile and infantile behaviour is not acceptable.

It is time all the MPs in the House - nicely cushioned by salaries and pensions - grew up. They should realise that there are a lot of people hurting out there, who are not in the least impressed with their games.

[gezmond007]

Well Norm , checked out the BBC and ITN websites hardly any mention at all . What stunning headlines .

Thats not important my point is it,s just another wasted opportunity by Cameron to have a go at Brown.

[B.Garvie]

Brown, as usual, never answered and never will answer a question at PMQs.Stop wasting time and tackle his evasiveness positively. D.C shouldn't keep repeating the same phrases but use the basic arguments of the ordinary working folk who are worried about their savings, jobs, housing, pensions, education and health. Hammering Brown flexibly on these issues will corner his quarry and show him to be the unreliable leader of a disfunctional Government. Brown is not quick enough for a verbal joust and gets flustered quickly because he is mostly in denial. He has let the working class down, he knows it...tell him.

[Iain Lindley]

"Fiscal rules are dead - Cameron"

Second story on BBC website, sadly but unsurprisingly relegated below two juvenile comedians. Stop talking out of your backside Gez.

[Louise]

Gez is half right - Cameron gets the headline but Darling gets the picture.

Didn't watch it - know the rigmarole by now - but I reckon a Brown win on points from what the BBC are saying. Annabelle may be a troll but I somewhat agree with her - the party needs a leader who can do more than just punch his weight at PMQs - they don't decide the election, if they did William Hague would have been Prime Minister since 2001.

We need substance in things.

[gezmond007]

Iain your right it is now , but it wasn't when I made the post . No need to be rude.

I agree with your comments Louise but be careful if you do not worship at the altar of Cameron and Osborne you will be named as a troll forever !

Very sad some people.

[Anonymong]

"but I reckon a Brown win on points from what the BBC are saying."

When he doesnt actually answer the question, but parrots a load of "achievements", its no wonder is it?

[Richard North]

"...a Brown win on points ..."

Is this a game? Is this a boxing match, a sporting joust? Should we have side bets, seconds and trainers, and then parade the victor round the paddock? Should we have electronic scoreboards to give us a real-time result, and commentary as it happens?

Do we then have post-match interviews with the breathless victor, describing his final moments as he saw victory in his grasp?

Or are we going to grow up?

[H Taylor]

Cameron just sounds and looks increasingly desperate as he struggles to find a narrative. Brown sounds better because he is on the ground he knows and has a narrative.

[Edward Huxley]

I`m afraid Richard North is right.PMQ time is about scoring cheap debating points and meanwhile over in Brussels they are busy creating yet more laws for our government to rubber stamp.

The House of Commons has been reduced to a mere talking shop.

[Chris Smart]

Sorry chaps your leader, 'Call me Dave' is being relegated to 'rest of the news' while Great Gordo strides about the world stage winning plaudits from world leaders to an economics Nobel prize Winner. What a difference a few weeks make...

[Saltmaker]

Or are we going to grow up?

By calling down a plague on them, Richard?

[Saltmaker]

Brown sounds better because he is on the ground he knows and has a narrative.

Yes, standing in his own shit.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Really Chris Smart? Look at the BBC website or listen to the news on the radio. It seems Cameron got the better of Browen today.Still don't let the facts get in the way of a good troll huh?

[pp]

Cameron first question next time should be whether the PM would mind the exchange being renamed 'prime ministers answer time' -- then brown might realist what he is actually there for - the oaf.

[David (One of many)]

"... if you do not worship at the altar of Cameron and Osborne you will be named as a troll forever !"

Gezmond, but you are a troll. You came here pretending to be a concerned Conservative, which is fine. Disagreement is welcome. But you have shown your true colours plenty of times. That's why we call you a troll - because you are.

Chris - Cameron is currently the lead on the BBC news website.

[Chris Smart]

Malcolm, Dave would deserve credit if he could formulate a credible policy. Sadly 'Ditherer Dave' will never get my vote.

[ChrisD]

"I agree with your comments Louise but be careful if you do not worship at the altar of Cameron and Osborne you will be named as a troll forever !"

Gezmond007.
Grow up! Worship at the alter of Cameron and Osborne? Sorry, but if I am going to go out leafleting for this party in all weathers in the next wee while, I should hope that I do happen to like them, and on the whole feel comfortable with the direction they have taken this party.

While this site is for people with Conservative views rather than for people who are members of the Conservative party, don't be surprised if some people get fed up with the same faces whinging negatively about the same issues daily without respite.

But most importantly, there should not be a problem if those with differing views can offer up solid arguments to back up their points.
But frankly, not being a member of the Conservative party and displaying an intense dislike of Osborne and Cameron is not a valid one.
I genuinely do not think that Gordon Brown is a suitable PM, anymore than he was a good Chancellor. I think that we are going to be paying for his appalling stewardship of the economy for many years to come.

Do I think that Osborne has been a better Shadow Chancellor than Brown was, yes I do.
His enthusiasm for the Conservative party and his astute political strategy over the last 3 years is partly why we are finally in a position to win.

[ChrisD]

"'Ditherer Dave' will never get my vote."

I thought that with Mandy and Campbell back, the negative attacks might vary a bit. There is definitely a sense that Brown is resorting to his old ways again this week, and is struggling to cope with the demands of a more Blair like attempt at engaging with the public.
Chris, its useful to remember why the tag ditherer was given to Gordon Brown rather than David Cameron. There is plenty of good reading out there on the subject of Gordon Brown, suggest you go and do just that.

Honestly, coming on here and just insulting Cameron in that way doesn't add to the debate or this thread.

[David (One of many)]

Sadly 'Ditherer Dave' will never get my vote.

But 'Ditherer Gordy' is just awesome, right? Pathetic.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Who are these people. If you want to troll Gezmond,Chris Smart, try and saw something original or perceptive. If you can't manage that try and be amusing.But if you can't manage that best say nothing. It's better to be thought a fool.....

[ChrisD]

Richard North, got a separate query for you about Brown's annoncement of £700 million pounds for new military vehicles.
My other half is convinced that this is simple a re announcement of money already earmarked for this purpose. In fact, he thinks that all that's happened is that they have decided on a particular vehicle.

I am convinced that Brown&Co are going to now revert to their old ways by continually re announcing spending plans in a hope of giving the illusion of investing the mouthwatering debt they are incurring right now. This is dishonest, and gives the illusion that they actually have an economic plan for dealing with the recession, rather than a desperate spin as they try and keep their heads above water until a GE.

That is why I think that Cameron and Osborne's decision to concentrate on Brown's previous record and the debt levels is the correct one.
Its also why I disagree with Fraser Nelson's view that Clegg was on the right lines today at PMQ's.
I like the line that Brown is a man with an overdraft rather than a plan.

[ChrisD]

Oops, should also mention that Cameron and Osborne have got to nail Brown on the myth that we have historically low debt levels at the moment, and therefore are in a good position to carry on borrowing during this recession.

I know that borrowing will have to go up, but we are starting at a shockingly high rate of public debt going into this recession already. We need to get across the message that Brown wasted the good years, and left us with nothing in the kitty to fight this recession.

[Richard North]

Posted by: ChrisD | October 29, 2008 at 18:47

Richard North, got a separate query for you about Brown's annoncement of £700 million pounds for new military vehicles.
My other half is convinced that this is simple a re announcement of money already earmarked for this purpose. In fact, he thinks that all that's happened is that they have decided on a particular vehicle.

Some of it is genuinely new money - some of it comes from the existing Defence budget, which it is it should be. Some of the vehicles will have a long life, and have multi-theatre roles, which means they should come out of the budget.

Generally, it is a good package, with some imaginative and intelligent choices. Some bits are not so good, but you can't have everything. And there are some real scandals buried in it!

The biggest beef, though, is that much of it should have been in place earlier - some of it years earlier. But, I am afraid to say, this is as much due to a failure of opposition as it is down to the government.

In the real world, some of the biggest enemies of progress lie within Departments as without. For some years - unrealised by many of the external commentators - there has been a vicious, unrelenting battle fought within the MoD over the type of equipment to be purchased for the Army.

This current package represents a victory for the "counterinsurgency" school, over the "big Army" rapid reaction force faction. Inspired and intelligent intervention by the opposition (Conservatives) could have brought it about earlier - and they could have taken some of the kudos.

Thus, if the Conservatives got down to real opposition, instead of pratting about, we would all be a lot better off. "Dave" would also have a much better chance of becoming prime minister.

I will not have been the first to have said that, until the party in opposition learns how to be an effective opposition, it is not fit for government. It was that in 1997 which brought Blair to government yet, for all their years in the wilderness, the Conservatives still have not learned how to "do" opposition.

They still have time to learn - but not long.

[ChrisD]

Richard, thanks for your reply to my query.

On the rest of your post, we will have to disagree. I think that we need to stop pratting around and blaming the opposition for the bad military decisions made by this government, as if that some how justifies their woeful track record.
How about starting with the Minister's in charge of the MOD and the man who set us on these foreign adventures, one Tony Blair?
On this issue, I will continue to place the blame at the door of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, one of them stretched our military commitments to breaking point, while the other ran around cutting costs in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Sorry, but there are plenty of instances whereby the Tories have criticised this government on their behaviour towards the military covenant in particular, David Cameron devoted a large section of his Conference speech to our military.
So I think your criticism is very unfair in this instance.
Gordon Brown on the other hand simple uses the military as props when they are political expedient.

[ChrisD]

"Some of it is genuinely new money - some of it comes from the existing Defence budget, which it is it should be. Some of the vehicles will have a long life, and have multi-theatre roles, which means they should come out of the budget."

So in fact the bulk of the money mentioned in this announcement has already been in place, so its not a new announcement?
Also the with regards the extra money, how much of this was required simple to soak up the costs incurred now with a dramatically different exchange rates?

"The biggest beef, though, is that much of it should have been in place earlier - some of it years earlier. But, I am afraid to say, this is as much due to a failure of opposition as it is down to the government."

Again, I am at a loss as to how you can then lay this at the door of the opposition?

I do agree with your point about "This current package represents a victory for the "counterinsurgency" school, over the "big Army" rapid reaction force faction."

"Inspired and intelligent intervention by the opposition (Conservatives) could have brought it about earlier - and they could have taken some of the kudos."

To be honest Richard, the level of casualties incurred in this war over the last few years should have been enough to move this government and the whole parliament into action sooner.

[Richard North]

RN (old): Some of it is genuinely new money - some of it comes from the existing Defence budget, which it is it should be. Some of the vehicles will have a long life, and have multi-theatre roles, which means they should come out of the budget.

CD: So in fact the bulk of the money mentioned in this announcement has already been in place, so its not a new announcement?
Also the with regards the extra money, how much of this was required simple to soak up the costs incurred now with a dramatically different exchange rates?

RN (new): You miss the point completely. The UOR allocations are largely but not entirely new money (some will be recouped). Other amounts represent a welcome reallocation of funding from planned programmes to operations.

For instance, some of the money will have been top-sliced from "pencilled" allocations that would have gone to FRES. And, if that means we are spending £1 million (plus) each on Buffaloes, instead of £8 million plus each on wheeled MICVs - the concept of which has already proven inadequate in theatre - then that has to be a good thing.

RN (old): The biggest beef, though, is that much of it should have been in place earlier - some of it years earlier. But, I am afraid to say, this is as much due to a failure of opposition as it is down to the government.

CD: Again, I am at a loss as to how you can then lay this at the door of the opposition?

I do agree with your point about "This current package represents a victory for the "counterinsurgency" school, over the "big Army" rapid reaction force faction.

RN (new): To be somewhat blunt, if you had read some of my posts on DOTR, you would not be putting your first point. The "Snatch" Land Rover campaign was a classic example of how a combination of the media, active lobbying and co-ordinated action by the opposition in both Houses forced the SoS to take action earlier than he might otherwise have done.

Planned, intelligent and well-timed opposition can achieve considerable success - especially against an (intellectually) weak government.

In this case, with the MoD split internally, with different factions fighting each other, there was an open goal waiting for the ball to be tapped in. But the Tory defence team was out to lunch.

RN (old): Inspired and intelligent intervention by the opposition (Conservatives) could have brought it about earlier - and they could have taken some of the kudos.

CD: To be honest Richard, the level of casualties incurred in this war over the last few years should have been enough to move this government and the whole parliament into action sooner.

It certainly should. And "parliament" includes opposition MPs. There have been a number of (recent) unwise procurement decisions, to the point of being criminally negligent - which have cost lives.

There have also been entirely unacceptable delays in getting new kit into place - viz the current announcement on the Buffalo. That vehicle should have been in theatre two or three years ago - at the very least.

It should also have been deployed in Iraq where - in the US sector - it has saved innumerable lives and, crucially, restored tactical mobility. It was instrumental in neutralising the roadside IED threat which was giving the insurgents the upper hand (and massively hampered British operations), and laid the foundations for the successful "surge".

Yet, as I have remarked in my linked piece, never once was this raised by the Conservative front bench defence team. As I say, more in anger than sorrow, they were out to lunch.

[Anon]

For some years - unrealised by many of the external commentators - there has been a vicious, unrelenting battle fought within the MoD over the type of equipment to be purchased for the Army.

The battle extends to the Navy, too.

One view of Britain's withdrawal from the tri-national CNGF -- or Eurofrigate -- collaboration is the inevitable result of delays and cost overruns. Another is a steely determination in some Navy quarters that it was never going to work.

[Richard North]

"The battle extends to the Navy, too."

Agree.

And there is a battle Royal going on at the moment over the "future combat ship". The debate is going on behind closed doors, amongst the same "experts" who cocked-up the CNGF decisions and left us with the over-priced and under-performing Type 45.

The debate should be out in the open - discussed properly in parliament, but there has been no attempt by the opposition to smoke out the issues - neither through written PQs, Westminister Hall debates nor opposition day debates.

Yet, if this goes through and the Conservatives win the next election, it is a Conservative government that will have to pay the bills - and take the flak.

It is absolutely scandalous that the issue has not been raised and pursued rigorously.