Cameron and Brown clash at PMQs over Baby P

Jonathan Isaby's verdict: A relatively rowdy session during which the Speaker had to slap down Labour MPs for barracking David Cameron as he raised a very serious point about the investigation into children's services at Haringey council. Brown's decision to accuse Cameron of making party political points clearly angered Cameron, and seemed to persuade him to drop his questions about the economy in favour of pursuing the points on Haringey. Brown failed to answer the substantive point every time it was put and allowed Cameron to come out on top.

12.29pm Tory 1922 committee chairman Sir Michael Spicer asks a brilliant, short, sharp question: "What was the economic theory behind the end of boom and bust?" Brown's reply was waffle.

12.28pm Brown mocks George Osborne and Tory policy over the fuel duty stabiliser in answer to a patsy question from Labour's Mark Todd.

12.27pm Labour backbencher Andy Slaughter raises his concerns about the third runway at Heathrow, with Brown saying that yesterday's Commons debate was an important opportunity to debate the issues.

12.26pm Tory James Arbuthnot raises the issue of the post office credit account and Brown claims the Government is doing all they can to support the Post Office network.

12.24pm Lib Dem Greg Mulholland highlights the level of funding of research into dementia as "appalling" but Brown claims that more money is being invested in all kinds of medical research.

12.20pm The SNP's Angus Roberston asks for British troops to be withdrawn from Iraq and for an inquiry into the war.

12.18pm Lib Dem Bob Russell asks about giving British residency rights to Gurkhas; Brown says the Government is studying the recent high court judgment on the issue.

12.17pm Labour MP Claire Curtis-Thomas expresses disappointment that Lord Mandelson has withdrawn an offer to meet her and constituents to discuss an issue; Brown says he is sure Mandelson would be happy to see her.

12.16pm Clegg repeats his demand for tax cuts for ordinary people; Brown repeats his attack on Lib Dem policy.

12.15pm Nick Clegg asks why anyone should believe what Gordon Brown says on tax. Brown says that if he'd listened to the Lib Dems, he'd be cutting public spending by £20 billion this year.

12.13pm Cameron again asks the substantive question as to whether it is wrong for someone to be investigating their own department's conduct. Brown again fails to give a straight answer to the question.

12.11pm The Speaker has to call for order as Cameron again demands Brown withdraw the accusation that Cameron was playing party politics.   

12.08pm Brown fails to give a straight answer, instead accusing Cameron of trying to make it into a patry political issue. Cameron calls that remark "cheap" and asks Brown to withdraw it.

12.05pm Cameron asks about the Baby P case, wondering if Brown agrees that it is unacceptable that the person in charge of the childrens' services department is investigating her own department. Brown prevaricates and Cameron attempts to ask the question a third time.

12.04pm Cameron: "Only the Prime Minister could be quite so smug on the day that 142,000 people lost their jobs"

12pm Tory Richard Ottaway asked if Gordon Brown would buck the historical trend and that unemployment would be lower when Labour leave office than when they came to office. Brown claimed to have created 3 million jobs and mocked the Tories for having previously described unemployment as being "a price worth paying".

Comments

[chrisblore]

Disgraceful behaviour from Brown in accusing Cameron of turning it into a party political issue and he neglects to withdraw the attack when invited.

[Norm Brainer]

hmm.... it was interesting that brown kept his calm and cameron (seemed to?) lose his temper - not sure how that will play, but brown was out of order and I think Cameron was right to keep on at the same question when he implied he was going to ask economic ones too.

[MrB]

Never seen DC that angry. This is PMQs at its worst.

[Rightwingery]

I like seeing Cameron fired up. It makes him appear as angry with the government as the (vast) majority of the country is. The problem I have noticed in recent weeks is that DC seems far too passive when he should be attacking.

[Elaina Brier]

I am deeply saddened that Cameron chose baby P as a subject for PMQs. This is a hostile environment and not the place to turn the death of a child into a political football.

Cameron clearly lost his cool!!.. Can he be trusted with his finger on the nuclear button!!

[Kate Bollinger]

Anger's what we want!

[The Bishop Swine]

I don't think Dave is doing himself or us any favours by letting his anger show so openly. If the Kitchen is to hot !!
I have noticed this tenancy of David's to get uptight. Sadly Brown won this round.

[NW Supporter]

I know that what happened with Baby P was a tragedy, and Cameron was right to ask the question in the first place, but he really should have got a question about the economy in.

That exchange left Brown fairly unscathed I'm afraid.

[The Bishops Wife]

Even if Brown was out of Order (which he was)
Dave lost the round by letting it get to him so openly. These Eton types are not all that good really...can we have some mature,grown up's on the front bench please. Now can you imagine Redwood making such an arse of himself?

[Steve]

I am deeply saddened that Cameron chose baby P as a subject for PMQs. This is a hostile environment and not the place to turn the death of a child into a political football.

Cameron clearly lost his cool!!.. Can he be trusted with his finger on the nuclear button!!

Posted by: Elaina Brier | November 12, 2008 at 12:24

***An absolute IDIOTIC comment.

Everybody just shut up and let McLabour continue to destroy the country by its actions and innactions!!!!!.

[chrisblore]

I'm somewhat disappointed that Cameron allowed himself to be "hooked" by Brown. The party political line was a cheap shot and enticed Cameron into using all of his questions on Baby P. It's clearly an extremely important issue and one that DC cares about personally but it was clear that he wasn't going to get anywhere with Brown when he had no intention of answering the question.

[Ben]

I disagree with what's been said. Cameron was using PMQ's as it should be to address real issues in a constructive way, in response Brown made it political. Cameron getting angry made him look human as opposed to Brown, the cool, heartless, Stalinist Prime minister. Get more angry Cameron, wear your heart on your sleeve, people will vote for a human politician.

[John Reeks]

I suspect DC never intended to ask a question about the economy in the first place, despite what he said. I thought it worked well - Brown prevaricated, and there is surely no harm in showing some anger about that in this exceptional case. DC is on the right side of public opinion on this one.

[Iain]

Nothing wrong with a bit of passion, it makes you think a politician actually believes in something.

[David (One of many)]

"Now can you imagine Redwood making such an arse of himself?"

Wales... anthem.

Seriously, I can't believe anyone can be disappointed with what Cameron did today. He got the economy - and Brown's attitude towards it - at the beginning. Maybe he could have asked one more question, but most arguments will be made at the pre-budget report. What we have instead is a PM refusing to answer the most basic of questions, turning the murder of a baby into a party issue by allowing the woman involved to be her own judge, and showing himself to be completely free of grace in the House. For those who think Cameron's ire today was somehow forced - this is precisely the sort of issue that is central to the things he cares most about. You only need to look at his emphasis on the family to see that.

[The Bishops Wife]

I will not vote for a guy who cannot keep his cool. It was a fair question and Brown was clever to turn the table, sadly David fell for it hook line and sinker big mistake.
He also refered to the PM as "YOU", please control yourself David.

[RichardJ]

Top marks to Cameron. Brown showed himself up to be a nasty piece of work.

[John Reeks]

Sorry to all you DC haters - watch the Daily Politics and you will see how remarkable this really was - Brown BLEW IT bigtime.

[The Bishops Wife]

Wales... anthem.

Isn't it time to forgive Redwood his one big Gaff? We need his brains badly.

[chrisblore]

"I will not vote for a guy who cannot keep his cool. It was a fair question and Brown was clever to turn the table, sadly David fell for it hook line and sinker big mistake.
He also refered to the PM as "YOU", please control yourself David."

I cannot disagree more about not keeping his cool. Look at Brown who "keeps his cool" all the time by just not addressing the questions being asked or the problems of the day. That doesn't make him any more correct that Cameron who clearly cares very deeply about these issues and cannot help but get visibly frustrated. There's nothing wrong with showing your human side!

[The Bishops Wife]

What DC haters ?

I do not see anyone here hateing the guy, after all he has made us electable again.
Truth is that he is a very young man and needs time to mature. I don't think letting his anger show is good for us.

[Tony Sharp]

However much of a scandal the death of Baby P is and however appropriate it is to raise it as an issue, it is not one of huge importance to the majority of people.

The most pressing issues affecting millions of people are business closures and contraction, rising unemployment, inflation, the tax burden and how the economy can be stimulated without increasing this country's massive public debt.

In failing to hold the government to account we appear to be surrendering to their arguments and actions. Who looks like they are providing real leadership when Labour's narrative goes uncountered in this way? How can we reject claims that Cameron is lightweight when he will not engage on a matter of such national importance?

[Raj]

Agree with RichardJ. Cameron was right to get angry and not let Brown get away with turning a question about an accused being her own judge into one of party politics. Where does he say "enough is enough" on this sort of thing, or does he let Brown claim party politics over any criticism of the government and get away with it?

Sometimes it's good to get angry. Not that I would support Cameron doing this, but in 2005 when Prescott punched the guy that threw an egg at him most people were sympathetic or said they didn't think badly of him because of it.

[Raj]

How can we reject claims that Cameron is lightweight when he will not engage on a matter of such national importance?

His first question was about the economy.

[Norm Brainer]

There's nothing wrong with showing your human side!

I agree - with limits. If he totally lost his cool then I would say it was bad, and he did say 'you' but immediately apologised so think it was OK, and although he may have looked bad to some There's nothing wrong with showing your human side!

I agree - with limits. If he totally lost his cool then I would say it was bad, and he did say 'you' but immediately apologised so think it was OK, and although he may have looked bad to some in the immediate aftermath, I'm sure most people will sympathise and may start to see brown for the horrible piece of work that we all here know, but his supporters often don't.in the immediate aftermath, I'm sure most people will sympathise and may start to see brown for the horrible piece of work that we all here know, but his supporters often don't.

[Andrew Woodman]

Some appalling coments on here lacking in humanity as much as Gordon Brown was today.

[HF]

DC thought quickly on his feet and focused on the slight Brown gave on baby P. Correct call, well done.

He has bought a few days to deal with the Osborne problem.

[Raj]

Isn't it time to forgive Redwood his one big Gaff? We need his brains badly.

Bish, the point was that the Redwood fan-club pretend he's infallible, when clearly he has made mistakes and still can do so.

More importantly, let's not forget that he has been in the Shadow Cabinet during both Hague and Howard's terms. I'm not saying he's a waste of space, but if he was that good why didn't he help the Tories to better results in 2001 and 2005?

[Iain]

"may start to see brown for the horrible piece of work that we all here know,"

No it reminded people of the flawed character of Brown that everybody loathed before it was hidden behind the economic troubles of the country. The disaster for Brown is that he re-established that link with his performance at PMQ’s.

[Norm Brainer]

12.29pm Tory 1922 committee chairman Sir Michael Spicer asks a brilliant, short, sharp question: "What was the economic theory behind the end of boom and bust?" Brown's reply was waffle.

His reply seemed to say about the party opposite stuck in failed policies of the past.
So brown was saying that his old policies were failures so best just ignore them and move on?

[pp]

Nothing wrong with being angry.

If the speaker required the brown to answer, then cameron could have asked six different questions instead of two - over and over.

It really put brown in the spotlight - showing all of his worst characteristics.

No empathy, no ideas, no answers.

[Jennifer Wells]

A disgraceful performance by Brown.

Cameron was asking perfectly fair questions.

Rather than answer them he accuses Cameron of party politics.

Shame on Brown.

[Raj]

Comments from the Daily Politics.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7724210.stm

Labour MP Jon Cruddas says, on Daily Politics, that Mr Cameron was "absolutely right" to raise the issue of Baby P. [He said] the PM's answers on Baby P did not "shine a positive light" on his own party.

Former Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy tells Daily Politics says Tony Blair would have dealt with the Baby P issue with far greater empathy than Mr Brown. The PM seemed "out of touch", he adds.

BBC political editor Nick Robinson says it was an "extraordinary" PMQs and that people had expected much more debate on the economy. Mr Brown showed a "political tone-deafness" to the mood outside Westminster, he tells Daily Politics.

That would suggest Brown has come out the loser, not Cameron.

[a-tracy]

Elaina Brier 1224 - surely safeguarding children is the governments top priority and if the system is still failing even after all of the rulings, recommendations etc it is the opposition politicians key role to hold the ruling government to account. Especially when babies are being tortured to death.

[Ben]

Couldn't agree more with Andrew Woodman. Cameron was looking for a simple uncontroversial yes from Brown, he was then prepared to move on to the economy and let it be. I think anyone with decency would respond with the same degree of anger as Cameron at the suggestion that he used a baby's death for political gain. I applaud him for it, today he has regained my trust in him. Asked to chose between a genuine human politician who's wavering a bit on econmics at the moment and a man who would sink to such party political depths but whos in a increasingly strong political position, and i chose Dave everytime

[gnosis]

Shabby performance from both main parties today.

[Peter Harrison]

I think this was an excellent PMQ session for Cameron. Look at the result:

- Jon Cruddas (Labour) says Cameron was "absolutely right" to raise the issue
- Jon Cruddas (again!) says Brown's answers did not "shine a positive light" on Labour
- Charles Kennedy says Brown seems out of touch
- Nick Robinson says Brown showed a "political tone deafness" to the mood outside Westminster

Hammering Brown on the economy is ineffective. He genuinely believes he is an economic genius so looks and sounds confident on the subject. Todays PMQs draws attention back to Brown the person and shows that he is not the right man to lead the country.

Brown could have dealt with the matter easily. Instead he tried to make a perfectly reasonable question into a party political matter and defended the indefensible. No surprises there, then.

[The Bishops wife]

“Agree with RichardJ. Cameron was right to get angry and not let Brown get away with turning a question about an accused being her own judge into one of party politics. Where does he say, "enough is enough" on this sort of thing, or does he let Brown claim party politics over any criticism of the government and get away with it?”

How is the Government implicated in this death? Is everything that goes wrong in social services directly a Labour issue?

As it is DC fell for one of the older tricks in the book. Brown came out of this looking like the more skillful player. As far as I can see DC let it get to him and he then breeched Parliamentary etiquette, which is always a mistake.
Lets face it the moment a person loses his or her temper people turn off. DC needs to take a few moments to cool down before pressing his attack.
Its not like this is the first time in recent weeks Dave has clearly been upset and obviously angered. I want a PM who can keep his cool when everything is going pear shape; at the moment DC is not that man. I am serious and I do care about winning the next election. Don’t you think the average person will also notice this tendency to anger?
I want David to stay in the job but I also want him to consider some anger management courses. I had hoped that mace swinging was a thing of the past….L.O.L.

[RichardJ]

"Lets face it the moment a person loses his or her temper people turn off."

Not when they sympathise with the angry person. I suspect many people could empathise with Cameron's rage.

I think guido sums it up nicely:

http://www.order-order.com/2008/11/gordon-is-emotionally-retarded.html

[johnC]

'Labour MP Claire Curtis-Thomas expresses disappointment that Lord Mandelson has withdrawn an offer to meet her'

If I had escaped from a meeting with the Prince of Darkness I would be thanking my lucky stars. Ask George Osborne.

[David (One of many)]

"I want a PM who can keep his cool when everything is going pear shape; at the moment DC is not that man. I am serious and I do care about winning the next election. Don’t you think the average person will also notice this tendency to anger?"

Cameron gets angry when children die because people don't do their jobs, then decide to judge themselves, and the PM has no problem with this. Brown gets angry when he loses a by-election, then throws phones at staff, and refuses to talk to the Shadow Chancellor for two years because he asks difficult questions. You tell me - whose anger is more imappropriate and dangerous?

[Tim]

Cameron was brilliant today. Angry and quite brilliant.
Brown was his usual self, arrogant, repetitive and oblivious to reason.

[NW Supporter]

Peter Harrison - I don't believe anything Cruddas says!

I really like David Cameron and I'm not making light of what happened to Baby P, but on the day that these unemployment figures are released Cameron needs to be getting at Brown about the economy pitbull style.

The fact is, we simply aren't attacking the Government enough.

[NW Supporter]

He was absolutely right to ask the question he did, but the fact is he only has a few minutes a week to grill him so needs to ask questions that affect millions..........ie, the economy, unemployment etc.

[Wearside Tory]

I am all for DC getting angry and going for the throat about the economy.

However, neither side was reflected well in discussing this case - a truly heinous crime where the death penalty should apply

[meli]

I was really saddened to watch pmq's today. I do believe Mr. Cameron kept his cool far more then I could have possibly done, and I consider myself a nice lady! I am pretty sure I would have had to walk out so as to take time to compose myself. This his a horrific situation that is being disgused and still answers cannot be given. Really I don't know what to think.
For the situation of the baby involved and any government response of it. I guess we all know what is coming next. Schools, doctors and social services all to be linked so as to catch these things before they happen. That is all well and good but how does that stop incompetent social workers, local authorities and doctors who not a one of them put the breaks on this before this poor soul lost his life. How will the government tackle that problem? And while we are at it, I think the discussion should also involve the cases of parents wrongly accused of abuse, who are taken to secret family courts, not allowed to talk about their cases for fear of jail and their children adopted against their will. How does that happen to innocent parents and guilty parents go on to murder their children in their very homes. Please someone explain it. And the mothers and fathers who were wrongly accused by doctors of murdering their children and later aquitted. We have a very serious problem here that needs to be addressed and I agree completely with Mr. Cameron as well as the lady from the Lib Dems on this. An independent inquiry into the activities of these departments is a must before any other thing is done. How possibly can you fix a problem that you fail to recongnise IS a problem?

[The Bishops Wife]

"David Cameron was furious" Sky TV.
“Fuming MP’s” Sky TV.

We will have to see how it plays with the Public. I am a middle aged gentle Women perhaps this kind of thing is now "done".
As it is the real issue has been lost in the noise and fallout. A child died, the truth is neither Brown nor Cameron got the tone right. We are talking about their performance when we should have been looking at what went wrong with social services yet again.

Brown was wrong to claim DC had turned this issue in a party political point, DC was wrong in letting that remark get under his skin. I.M.H.O

[Raj]

How is the Government implicated in this death? Is everything that goes wrong in social services directly a Labour issue?

Where did anyone say it was implicated in the death? The point being made was in this case the department that is ultimately responsible gets to investigate itself, which over such a serious matter is completely inappropriate.

Just because one could argue that you didn't have anything to do with it/couldn't have done anything differently does not mean you get to put yourself in the clear - that should be for someone else.

[Ethan Hurlington]

Brown showed once more that he is a political dinosaur who cannot see issues in any other way apart from 'them against us'... he is a robot. Cameron showed himself to be a human being as well as a politician. Brown blabs about punch and judy politics, but he is the main proponent for this. Well done Dave for getting angry, you mirror the emotions of the majority of the British public. And Ruth Kelly on the world at one showed an equally disgusting obsession with turning things into a political points scoring battle.

[David Cooper]

The breach of etiquette on DC's part was utterly trivial ("you" for "he/the PM") and it would not have gone unnoticed that he immediately turned to the Speaker and apologised for it. Quite a contrast to the PM's refusal to withdraw the allegation of playing party politics over Baby P and (of course) his chronic inability to answer a straight question.

[Aquaist]

Anger displays weakness, not compassion. Both Cameron and Clegg display their anger far too readily and it's not a good sign, not for potential leaders.
Cameron seemed to lose his anger at Brown in relation to a personal attack rather than the issue itself. Neither came across very well.
On a day when he had a whole arsenal of economic issues to raise he chose a 'human interest' issue- of course everyone's appalled by this (and to infer that DC cares more than GB is ridiculous, however much you dislike either party) and wants it to get sorted out, so personally I think that these issues should be discussed in the house in a situation which doesn't limit DC to 6 questions. Ie, to focus on it in the way he did in this time and place was playing politics (well, of course everyone's playing politics). I watched it and cringed when both men spoke. Only Clegg came out with any dignity but I guess no-one's that bothered about him.

[James]

I agree with Wearside Tory that neither side came out of the exchange very well today, and that there are definitely more appropriate places to ask questions about this tragic child's case rather than the bear pit of PMQs.

[Raj]

We will have to see how it plays with the Public. I am a middle aged gentle Women perhaps this kind of thing is now "done".

I refer you to something that was much worse - Prescott's election campaign punch. Arguably he could have been prosecuted as self-defence has to be proportionate (and punching someone isn't proportionate to being egged once) - yet he got away with it and polls suggested most people supported him over it.

If those same people then thought it was inappropriate for Cameron to get angry they would be rather two-faced.

[James]

Surely Raj isn't still going on about something that happened nearly eight years ago as a defence for Cameron losing his temper today? Raj - time to move on.

[Nigel Rathbone]

I thought Cameron's question didn't cross the "playing politics" line at the time, in the context of PMQs.

However, I then saw an Evening Standard billboard at 12.40pm, announcing "Cameron fury at Baby P case".

How is this possible? Clearly some pre-leaking going on here. THAT is the playing politics I'm afraid, and it doesn't look good (Brown's response wasn't good either IMHO BTW).

[strapworld]

Brown is a one trick pony. His behaviour today was utterly disgraceful.

I cannot believe that some of the comments suggest Cameron was wrong in raising the torture and killing of baby P. What planet do these people belong to?

Cameron did not mention that Harringey was a Socialits Council. He did not make it political. Brown did because he just cannot THINK. This is the man who, sadly, is the Prime Minister! Charles Kennedy was right on the Daily politics show when he said Blair would have dealt with calmly and correctly the first reply! The truth is that Brown is not up to the job. He disgraced his office today and owes THE BRITISH PEOPLE an apology.

I have complained to the BBC who made a quite unbelievable observation which, in effect, put himself in Cameron's head and assured the viewers that Cameron was playing politics - HE should be sent to Afghanistan to cover the war!

I hope that now Cameron realises what an utter swine Brown is. That what I have been saying is the truth and he has got to get into a dirty fight. Perhaps this shocking exchange will put the steel in his backbone.

BROWN is beneath contempt!

[The Bishop Swine]

"How is the Government implicated in this death? Is everything that goes wrong in social services directly a Labour issue?

Where did anyone say it was implicated in the death? The point being made was in this case the department that is ultimately responsible gets to investigate itself, which over such a serious matter is completely inappropriate.

Just because one could argue that you didn't have anything to do with it/couldn't have done anything differently does not mean you get to put yourself in the clear - that should be for someone else."

I think my wife's point was that it isn't a party issue. In which case Brown was wrong to claim DC was making it one. At least I think that what she means. Of course DC should have simply made the point again and insisted that it was not a party issue. Instead he lost his temper. Blair would never have been so heartless but then Brown is a more difficult political animal.

[Richard ROBINSON]

Frankly, I want a Prime Minister who gets angry when a 17 month old baby is tortured to death.

[London Tory]

Anyone who has read the New Labour books by Selsdon, Naughtie or Lance Price would long ago have reached the conclusion that Brown is a seriously unpleasant piece of work. It is a matter of uncontested public record. And we have still got Alistair Campbell's unedited volume to come !

Brown calculates sly partisan political advantage from the moment he wakes up to the moment he goes to bed. It has nothing to do with a duty to public service, and everything to do with McLabour's historical sense of bitter self- entitlement.

I thought Cameron got it spot on today.

[strapworld]

Brown is a one trick pony. His behaviour today was utterly disgraceful.

I cannot believe that some of the comments which suggest Cameron was wrong in raising the torture and killing of baby P. What planet do these people belong to?

Cameron did not mention that Harringey was a Socialist Council.(Harringey) He did not make it political. Brown did because he just cannot THINK.But let us never forget that Harringey have now got the blood of two children on its hands!

Charles Kennedy was right on the Daily Politics show when he said Blair would have dealt with it calmly and correctly with his first reply! The truth is that Brown is not up to the job. He disgraced his office today and owes THE BRITISH PEOPLE an apology.

I have complained to the BBC, about Nick Robinson, who made a quite unbelievable observation which, in effect, put himself in Cameron's head and assured the viewers that Cameron was playing politics - HE should be sent to Afghanistan to cover the war!

I hope that now Cameron realises what an utter swine Brown is. That what I have been saying is the truth and he has got to get into a dirty fight. Perhaps this shocking exchange will put the steel in his backbone.

BROWN is beneath contempt!

[James]

Remarkable to see Strapworld (and many others less dubiously named) touring the message boards posting virtually identikit condemnations of "shameful Brown" and "disgraceful Socialist Haringey", whilst (rightly) complaining that the issue should not be made party political. What an utter hypocrite.

[albert son of a gypsy]

I notice that james is obviously touring the same message boards as strapworld.

Let us remember that this is a free country (just) and if strap wants to write in each and every so be it!

I happen to agree with him.

Perhaps 'James' will tell his other colleagues in the number 10 bunker that they are on a loser on this one!

[YMT]

Cameron was glorious in his anger! He needs let it out more often against Brown, When Brown gets angry he starts shaking, stuttering and looking feeble, Cameron on the other hand looked like he could strike down an elephant.

[automated robot]

There is a very big difference between getting angry, even VERY angry, and losing control. If DC isangry then he is reflecting the feelings of the majority of the people in this country - when they aren't feeling let down and anxious! The real world is a pretty unpleasant place at the moment - real, ordinary, hard-working people know their jobs are iminently at risk.

[David]

Nigel Rathbone, Cameron wrote an article in the Standard this morning on the Baby P case. That is what it refers to.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23585667-details/We%27ve+had+a+raft+of+excuses+and+no+apology/article.do

[James]

Albert - indeed I have, as I'm interested to read people's thoughts. I have posted only here and only in the context of this debate. I won't be copy and pasting nor will I be making the issue party political. As I have said, I think the issue should be addressed but on less boorish and theatrical stages and that both Brown and Cameron did themselves no favours earlier this afternoon. Nigel Rathbone's point is also worth considering before the likes of "Strapworld" wade in so carelessly.

[Norm Brainer]

that the issue should not be made party political. What an utter hypocrite.

brown has made it a political issue - it is no longer just about the original case but his behaviour at PMQs.
it is perfectly OK to directly target brown's lack of compassion without mentionning the council (who, from brown's reaction, I'm guessing is labour - hadn't thought before)
the question is "what now?" ... Cameron shouldn't let brown get away with that and write and ask for an apology/retraction - but to do so might make it look to some as exactly the party political point scoring he is accused of.

[Mark M]

Brown doesn't even seem to be trying these days. He flatly dismisses almost every question unless its one of his sickeningly fawning backbenchers. I wonder if he is even bothering to listen.

[Ben]

Can some people in this forum get some perspective please?!

Charles Kennedy was spot on in his analysis of what TB would have done. I think this is exactly what Cameron expected. Agreeing with Cameron in his analysis would have been completely uncontroversial! Once this had happened the economy would have become the issue.

To suggest that the question was politically motivated is just synical nonsense. Although cheap point scoring is more often the object of politics, sometimes we all rise above this for what is right. Cameron managed this today and Brown failed spectacularly. I think although this doesn't inheritantly make Brown amoral as some have suggested, it does indicate that a man so isolated in the upper echelons of government for so long has lost focus from the issues that matter, and is far more focussed on beating the other side.

[Louise]

I don't think Cameron should have been asking this question, to me it looks as if he was avoiding the economy because he thought he'd get a pasting over yesterday's debacle.

I want a PM who can tackle the big issues. Yes, perhaps Baby P should have been raised at some point, and yes, it makes me angry (my ex-boyfriend works in Birmingham social services as an administrator and says the job is heartbreaking at times) but I'm not sure that this was DC's finest hour because of the lack of discussion on the economy.

The problem is we have turned PMQs into a boxing match, heavily scripted as everything else is. While Brown's remark isn't good, I think there are other subjects that were important that were not discussed and I pay £25 a year for DC to ask proper questions not use innocent babies as smokescreens for what otherwise would have been a complete flooring.

Nil-all draw.

[James]

Norm - you're missing the point. So outraged regulars were here that they made next to no comments on this before they sniffed an opportunity to gain party political advantage following PMQs. To do so and accuse others of the same thing is hypocritical and will only distract us all from the issue - making sure such failings never happen again.

[Ben]

Almost everybody is missing the point.

This wasn't about politics! Stop talking about draws, and wins and how it'll play, none of it matters!

Cameron was right to raise the question. It was an important question, in my view far more imporatant than the economy, a question on which would have achieved little.

A baby died.....no a baby was tortured to death! As a people, willing to accept sub-standard child protection, content with not learning the lessons of the past have allowed this to happen AGAIN! It is simply unaccepatable. To place the issue of the economy, to talk about degrees of wealth, and jobs etc after such a sickening event seems somewhat like skewed priorities.

A baby was tortured to death!!!! The economy? WHO CARES?!

[Norm Brainer]

James, this thread/blogpost is about PMQs and so is the place to discuss what happened at PMQs and what it means politically etc.

If the post was about the baby killing and people posted the same things then I would agree with you.

[Mike Routhorn]

Trying to palm the issue off into a blizzard of committees like Brown did was appalling at every level.

After Victoria Climbie wasn't the last set of committees supposed to ensure this could never happen again?

DC asked an entirely reasonable question crying out for the answer 'yes' but Brown couldn't or wouldn't step away from his belief that committees, reviews and enquiries are the answer to every question.

[David]

A gaff is used by fishermen. A gaffe is a blunder.

[Alfred T Mahan]

Raj, 12.49:

'More importantly, let's not forget that [Redwood] has been in the Shadow Cabinet during both Hague and Howard's terms. I'm not saying he's a waste of space, but if he was that good why didn't he help the Tories to better results in 2001 and 2005?'

Maybe the result was better than it would otherwise have been. We'll never know. Anyway, read his blog if you want sensible comment and polices on economics. It's no good listening to Gids and Dave.

[MrB]

You can say what you like about Redwood and his supposedly superior qualities but the fact is that 'weirdos' don't win elections, and John Redwood doesn't have a reputation of being at ease, natural or charismatic. That's why DC will win, or at least do better than Brown even if his policies aren't bomb proof.

[James]

Norm - point taken.

[Raj]

I don't think Cameron should have been asking this question, to me it looks as if he was avoiding the economy

So I guess the country should be pleased with the latest set of employment figures?!

[Raj]

MrB has a point. Sad as it is, Redwood will at best be neither good nor bad. He is intelligent but the way people see him is like how they saw Hague when leader of the party (before the Bruce Willis haircut). You can whine and complain that's not fair, but it's the truth. The only people I know who have said they thought he was an asset re the public side of things were staunch Tories (and more traditional ones too). Floating voters generally laugh when he's mentioned.

Maybe Redwood could help out behind the scenes but he won't do much good in the public eye.

[Ben]

Norm.

I think your comment simply exemplifies all that is wrong with our politics. Too often it's the politics that takes centre stage and not the issue itself. All i hear Nick Robinson commenting on these day is the process of politics, how things will play etc. and not the actual issue!

I think this needs to change, although if the consensus in this forum is that this isn;t the important issue then perhaps those with ionterst in the IMPORTANT issues would like to discuss this in a new thread!?

[John]

Even if Brown was out of Order (which he was)
Dave lost the round by letting it get to him so openly. These Eton types are not all that good really...can we have some mature,grown up's on the front bench please. Now can you imagine Redwood making such an arse of himself?

Thank you Mrs Redwood!

[Saltmaker]

Louise, having never seen you write anything positive about the Conservative Party I'm suprised you still hand over your £25.

Fortunately Cameron's political judgement is better than yours. Despite the mood here, Tory tax announcements were reported positively by most mainstream media and the all important BBC.

And on PMQs, what's the point in going after Brown on the economy, again? We'd get nothing new. The figures out today mean that the headlines tonight are already going to be full of economic woe. Through his predictable inability to answer a simple question, Brown has added a whole new subject to that negative press -- he does not understand people. That's more damaging to Brown than any question Cameron could have asked about the economy.

[Alfred T Mahan]

Raj, it'd be a good idea if JR were at least allowed to help behind the scenes, as you put it - at least the party would have some coherence in its economic strategy, which is more than can be said at the moment. I don't get the impression the front bench understand either what is happening or what to do about it.

[Ben]

This thread is making me angry, I'm going to add nothing more to this forum today except one quotation from the Times today:

"Baby P was found shaven-headed and covered in bruises and scabs when he died in the dirty, flea-ridden house in August last year. His fingernails and the tips of his fingers had been torn off and he had been hit so hard in the face that one of his teeth was found in his stomach"

A lot of what is being discussed in this forum and indeed in the political arena after today's PMQs is utterly insignificant!

[Ben]

This thread is making me angry, I'm going to add nothing more to this forum today except one quotation from the Times today:

"Baby P was found shaven-headed and covered in bruises and scabs when he died in the dirty, flea-ridden house in August last year. His fingernails and the tips of his fingers had been torn off and he had been hit so hard in the face that one of his teeth was found in his stomach"

A lot of what is being discussed in this forum and indeed in the political arena after today's PMQs is utterly insignificant!

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

For interest.

From Justin Hinchcliffe, Haringey Conservatives:

"I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that Labour-run Haringey has learnt absolutely nothing - zero - from the tragic case of Victoria Climbie. Our Social Services department and the weak and incompetent leadership of local politicians are failing our vulnerable children. We were told that lessons would be learnt from Victoria Climbie's death. Anyone who has heard or read about the barbaric and evil treatment of Baby P cannot have failed to weep. Social Workers visited Baby P on sixty occasions. It’s absolutely astonishing that no action was taken. Councillors Meehan and Santry - the Council Leader and Cabinet Member for Young People respectively and Sharon Shoesmith, the Director of Social Services, should immediately step down from their positions. Those doctors and social workers involved should be suspended pending an independent inquiry. That Inquiry should start as soon as possible. David Cameron was right to raise the matter at Prime Minister's Question Time today. Gordon Brown had an opportunity to speak for the Nation and tell us how best we can avoid these terrible tragedies. Not only did he fail, he tried to score cheap political points. He misjudged the mood of whole the House and of the Nation."

[Mike]

Brown's autism led him to be so disconnected from the mood of the nation over this tragedy that he made a serious error which will damage him. Even the normally biased or somnolent Speaker got it, and tried to limit the damage being done to Labour's image by the braying fools on the back benches

[Alfred T Mahan]

Obviously Baby P's important - and DC was absolutely right to raise the question of the enquiry. But life goes on and we do have other things to consider as well.

As it happens I work in social care and I'm not at all surprised. Saddened, yes, disheartened, yes, but surprised - no. The problems in social services go very, very deep and my thoughts on how to tackle them would clog up everyone's broadband for weeks.

[The Bishop Swine]

Thew Victoria Climbie case resulted in a lot of changes in social services. I have one child who is a private fostering and we had our backgrounds checked out in detail. There has been a lot of intrusion into people's lives as a result and in most case's constant monitoring of "at risk" children. What is really sad about this case is the social services knew of the family and should have stopped what was happening. Clearly there is something very wrong with services in some parts of the country. What we had today, in retrospect was a very cheap shot by Brown, and a PM in waiting who made the cardinal error of taking a snied comment to heart.
What ever we may feel about the PM's questions today one thing is certain Baby P. was not served well by the Social services and neither was the issue delt with in a civilised manner in the commons. A bad day for us all, whatever political colour we may be.

[Norm Brainer]

All i hear Nick Robinson commenting on these day is the process of politics, how things will play etc. and not the actual issue!

That's maybe because that's his job.

Yes, it may be insignificant in comparison to the actual case, and that maybe insignificant to the millions dying in wars etc across the globe, are you saying that we shouldn't discuss the political implications if a case is said to be more significant than the reprocussions of a prime minister's refusal to deal with it properly and accuse his opponents of point scoring? ie. you seem to imply we should let brown get away with it due to the subject matter whereas I'm sure most people here are especially wanting brown to pay for his in-humanity due to being disgusted by the case.

He cannot be allowed to just brush this off.

[John Ward]

This business about Cameron's "cool" is simple enough. Dave has made it clear (most notably in that very revealing video about preparing for PMQs) that his function there as leader of the Opposition is to put the questions that the public-at-large would want asked.

He is entitled to do so, and to expect a proper response from the supposed Prime Minister of the nation.

Daft assertions about "being safe with the nuclear arms button" are as facile as asserting that Jesus wasn't the saviour of the world because he became angry and overturned the money-changers' tables.

There is a reason for every one of our emotions, and a time and place for them to be applied appropriately and wisely. This was very clearly one such occasion.

[Teesbridge]

We have it all wrong about PMQs, according to the BBC, whose report is headlined:

"Brown 'angered' by baby killing"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7723933.stm

Nor did Brown accuse Cameron of being party political;

"The prime minister called for cross-party support"

How could we all have been so stupid as to believe our own eyes and ears?

[Bexie]

This issue is that there has been another on the utterly incompentant watch of Haringey Social Services. That the head of the department is investigating her own department is a scandal and fairly well sums up nulab policy on responsibility of officials for incompetance and malfeasance in the public sector

[Paul D]

And, according to the BBC, Cruddas said that it DID show Brown in a positive light!

[pp]

I remember an 'ai' program called 'elisa' - you typed things in and the program gave a half decent impression of an analyst - triggering new questions based on the words of your previous answer...

I think Brown works on the same basis - certain key words trigger a response of vaguely related tractor statistics, and a negative comment on tory policy. There is no actual thought process - hence him never answering a question, and being un-able to pick up on any wider mood.

It would also account for his utterances very rarely containing any new information(much like blog trolls), just comments on what/who is asking the question.

He is not as good as mandleson in never providing any infomation that is not already known, but he certainly seems to be taking lessons.

[The Bishops wife]

I have watched this exchange for a 2nd time and to be honest DAve comes out on top. Brown is showen up as a callous bully.

However DC must get a grip on his temper.

[Norm Brainer]

@pp... not quite the same.... elisa would try to learn from responses to give a better answer next time.

@Paul D .. I'm pretty sure he said they didn't show them in a good light and have emailled the BBC to tell them to sort it out.

[Mervin Martner]

"Almost everybody is missing the point.

This wasn't about politics! Stop talking about draws, and wins and how it'll play, none of it matters!"

If only..next we will be claiming that the house of commons is a non political forum.
Of course it was a about politics that is what the house of commons is about,politics and legislation nothing more and nothing less.

[Winston C]

This was not about tone!! What it showed was just how limited Brown is.He is singularly unable to think and react on his feet.He sees all questions as direct critiscisms of himself and his Government.In face of this total lack of feeling for the mood of the house and the country, DC was absolutely correct to raise these questions.

Brown's response was utterly repellent and should be seen by the wider electorate as so.If this is the character of the man who is to lead us through recession then we are truly in deep deep trouble.