Jonathan Isaby's verdict: "Another incredibly pedestrian and repetitive performance by Harriet Harman deputising for Brown. William Hague asked her the crucial question of the day - would she agree with Mervyn King on fiscal stimulus - no fewer than three times and she utterly failed to give an adequate answer".
12.25 Is Gordon Brown trying to upstage Harriet Harman?! He is now live on the BBC News Channel addressing an audience in New York!
12.23 Philip Dunne asks why it is the armed forced do not know if they will be getting a pay rise next week. Harman says that the Defence Secretary will doubtless address the issue in a forthcoming Commons debate.
12.22 Tory MP Julian Brazier asks how many foreign terror suspects have been deported; 150, Harman says.
12.17 Cable asks for a tax cut for the lowest paid, but Harman fails to address that point in her answer.
12.16 Harman speaks about the need to work together internationally and decides to mention that Labour made the BoE independent.
12.15 Vince Cable also goes on the BoE governor and asks what freedom of manoeuvre the Government now has.
12.13 Harman again refuses to answer and talks about Brown meeting with world leaders as the Tories go to the fringes of European politics (a reference to the EPP withdrawal) and accuse the party of having a "millionaire's manifesto".
12.12 Hague gives her a third opportunity to agree with Mervyn King - else the public will conclude that the Government are in open disagreement with him.
12.11 Hague accuses here of dodging the question but says it was understandable that "inheritance may preoccupy the niece of the Countess of Longford" He asks for a yes or no answer on whether she agress with Mervyn King. She declines to do so.
12.09 Harman says the defining moment has been how the Conservatives said they would press ahead with a tax cut for 3,000 millionaires.
12.08 Harman prays in aid the "global unprecedented crisis" line again. Hague quotes Mervyn King verbatim and says his intervention was "extraordinary" and a "defining moment". Does Harman agree with the BoE governor?
12.06 Harman says the Tories would make the recession worse and longer.. Hague makes fun of the fact that several senior cabinet ministers are busy travelling the world rather than getting on with the job. He asks Harman about Mervyn King's comments on fiscal stimulus.
12.05 Harman say £5 billion will be released to businesses; she say 93 businesses and corrects herself to say 93,000. Hague retaliates with a succession of inaction on the Government's part. He quotes Geoffrey Robinson as saying the Government is "behind the game".
12.04 William Hague asks about the Government's loan guarantee scheme - which is still not up and running.
12.03 Harriet Harman explains Gordon Brown is in New York ahead of the G20 summit.
12.02 Again the Speaker's watch is slow; we're still on DfID questions...
Jonathan Isaby
Harman again?
I feel like I'm sitting down to watch a public hanging or something.
Posted by: Neil Reddin | March 25, 2009 at 11:52
Poor William , Bashed by Harriet , he looked lost for words. He had no answer to the Inhertiance tax bomb which wiil explode come the general election.
Big mistake Dave and George . Ken Clarke is right , it should be an aspiration not a giveaway when 2 million people are unemployed.
Posted by: Gezmond007 | March 25, 2009 at 12:17
Why are we giving a £2billion tax cut to just 3000 people.....Have we taken leave of our senses??
Who is in charge of our Treasury team ..Clarke or Osborne!!
I can see the Labour propaganda machine destroying us on this one.
Tax cuts for millionaires when we know we will have to raise tax for ordinary people to sort out the public finances
Mad....... simply MAD!!!
Posted by: Elaina Brier | March 25, 2009 at 12:22
Afternoon, Gezmond. Glad to see you're here as usual. We must obviously be watching different PMQ's. Harriet is clueless. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | March 25, 2009 at 12:25
Amusing to see an obscure LibDem MP seeking return of banker's bonuses when his party is sitting on £2.4 of impermissible donations which should have been returned.But then the Tories never returned the Polly Peck money.I presume Gesmond is a labour troll.
Posted by: michael mcgough | March 25, 2009 at 12:30
Who let the trolls in?
The IHT cut will benefit most those with assets of less than £1m.
Yes, millionaires will also benefit, but so they will from, say, an increase in the personal allowance!
Posted by: Neil Reddin | March 25, 2009 at 12:32
Well that was awful. I know it's theatre but in these desperate times our political leadership look dreadful refusing to answer questions in the way that Harman did.
If any of this performance is relayed on the evening news the reputation of MPs in general and Harman in particular will sink even lower.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | March 25, 2009 at 12:35
Elaina might like to have a quick guess as to how many houses in UK are worth more than the cut-off point for IHT and les than £1M. I'd be surprised if it's only 3000 but I'm sure someone here can supply the correct figure. When Elaina has her answer she might not need to ask herself why Osborne's pledge resulted in such a turn-round in the polls a couple of years back. Labour are p***ing into the wind with that one.
Posted by: Henry Rogers | March 25, 2009 at 12:36
Get it right Michael it,s GEZMOND 007, some people just won't face up to the truth.
I take it you think it,s going to help the Tories to be seen to helping the rich while the rest of us struggle.
Posted by: Gezmond007 | March 25, 2009 at 12:37
PM Dodge the Qs - no wonder the public have little faith in politicians and this gov't in particular.
Posted by: Groucho | March 25, 2009 at 12:38
Harman did not say that 150 foreign terrorists had been deported - she shrieked that 150 had been excluded, as was Geert Wilders]. There is a distinct difference, the number deported may be as few as 6.
This is reminiscent of Jacqui Smith, in October 2007, promising firm and immediate action on the 4,000 [later 9,000] illegals employed in the security industry. A full report was promised by December 2007 but never came. We now hear that in the past 18 months exactly 35 of them have been deported.
Posted by: Victor, NW Kent | March 25, 2009 at 12:38
Looks like the Government have 1 of their slogans ready for the dirty fight ahead 'Millionaires Manifesto'.
Posted by: joshuwahwah | March 25, 2009 at 12:39
I think it would be rather more useful if William Hague (and Mr Cameron) returned to the previous practice of using the six allowed questions on different topics, either as two lots of six, or even on several topics.
At the moment, going with all six at once means that the first half of the session is dominated by that one exchange. Ordinary backbenchers on both sides don't get a look in, it's very predictable and therefore unenlightening - the whole exchange follows a pre-planned arc with both sides building up to their pre-prepared punchlines.
PMQs is supposed to be an opportunity for MPs from all sides and at all levels to question the prime minister. These days it's just the Gordon and Dave (or Harriet and William) show.
Posted by: Nigel Rathbone | March 25, 2009 at 12:40
When Brown and Darling were trying to copy Osborne, how high did their bidding reach?
Having said that, I do believe that what Ken Clarke said was correct. Brown has made such a mess that we should row back from all our pledges until we can ascertain the cumulative damage of 12 years of Labour.
Posted by: David Belchamber | March 25, 2009 at 12:40
Can somebody help me translate what was said at PMQ's on EUCB2 as i cant understand Scotch!.
Posted by: steve | March 25, 2009 at 12:41
Was that supposed to be a witty remark Steve? It could be argued to be bordering on racist.
I suspect it's their views rather than their Scottishness that you really object to. If you want Pat McFadden and Charles Kennedy banished from the airwaves, do I take it you're happy for Michael Gove, Liam Fox and Malcolm Rifkind to be excluded too?
Posted by: Nigel Rathbone | March 25, 2009 at 12:58
Is Harman going madder? The rehearsed nonsense just spilled out and over the Commons. I suppose this dead regime, this ex-regime, this "resting" regime has degenerated into contextless monologues. None of their schemes have been implemented. When can we get to vote this lot out?
Posted by: Jamal Akhbar | March 25, 2009 at 13:05
I know you do not like comments like this. BUT Kenneth Clarke was right when he talked about 'aspirations'.
You can see what the Labour line will now be Tories looking after millionaires. It is not true. It is a lie BUT it will resonate in the minds of the people we need to support us.
Cameron and Osborne showed their political immaturity by telling Clarke to issue a clarification.
How on Gods earth the Tories can promise anything, when this country is looking as if it is in the last chance saloon, other than aspirations is beyond me.
People are not stupid.
Posted by: johnny come lately | March 25, 2009 at 13:10
Posted by: Neil Reddin | March 25, 2009 at 12:32
The IHT cut will benefit most those with assets of less than £1m.
Yes, those who pass on assets of £600,000+ would benefit. That's 5.4% of estates. Not just millionaires then. Glad that's clear.
It was clear that Harman wasn't going to answer the question. Asking it over and over again was dull. I do think it was a mistake that she didn't have an answer prepared.
Posted by: resident leftie | March 25, 2009 at 13:11
Looks like the Government have 1 of their slogans ready for the dirty fight ahead 'Millionaires Manifesto'.
As opposed to Labour's 'This Is A Pointless Because We Won't Keep Any Promises We Make In It Manifesto'?
Posted by: Chris Irvine | March 25, 2009 at 13:17
I think that Labours last Manifesto promise were just 'aspirational'. Maybe?
'Harman' was terrible again today. However, I don't think Mr. Hague was much better. The IHT and Millionaires line seems to be something that is repeated over and over again. It will resonate with some, but only time will tell if it will be effective.
Posted by: joshuwahwah | March 25, 2009 at 13:28
BREAKING NEWS....
There is to be an inquiry into Iraq. Looks like 'Miiband' has backed down.
Posted by: joshuwahwah | March 25, 2009 at 13:33
God that woman (Harman) is awful: shrill, clueless, patronising, arrogant...
Please let's get rid of this shower and soon.
Oh, and Geezmond007, as it is called PMQs (i.e. questions to the government) why should the opposition answer questions?
In terms of the Tory inheritance tax plan, here in Exeter there are loads of homes above the threshold. If any of the owners have savings etc... they'll be clobbered.
I can't see many of these people being/considering themselves millionaires but, then again, they'll wake up to the fact that Labour does not represent them.
Posted by: james taghdissian | March 25, 2009 at 13:43
I don't know what the shrill Hattie Harman was on about; surely, by definition, it will actually be millionaires who will continue to pay IHT, whilst the 'hard-working families' that Brown continually rabbits on about will at last be able to leave their children something worthwhile; they will need it to pay for Boom and Bust Brown's debts. This will benefit many more than the 3000 people that Harman mentioned.
Correction; only millionaires who pay their taxes here will pay IHT. Gordon Brown's wealthy chums, whom he has cosied up to over the years and who he has allowed to salt their earnings away in tax havens, will be exempt.
Posted by: David Belchamber | March 25, 2009 at 14:10
We are pensioners living on £12000 a year. We bought our house in 1980 for £40,000 when the interest was 17%. Most of my teacher`s salary was spent paying the mortgage. Because of the Brown Boom our house is now rediculously overvalued so is within the inheritance boundary.This is far from uncommon and applies to many middle income earners. But now according to Harriet Harman (niece of some countess or other) we are classed as millionaires! All of you applauding this "brilliant" soundbite should start looking at the facts. I include Steve Richards from the Independant who spoke on Radio 5 after PMQs. (I wonder what his salary is?????)
Posted by: liz kemp | March 25, 2009 at 14:31
Millionaires' Manifesto? Manky mendacity more likely. It is precisely at the £1m the relief stops. Eamonn Butler points out elsewhere today
"Taxes have gone up by half (in real terms) since 1997, but public spending has expanded even faster.
Gordon Brown has plugged the gap with borrowing, and then more borrowing – so much, in fact, that the International Monetary Fund has been warning him about it since 2003."
Have tax thresholds risen anywhere near as far? It is precisely Brown's artificial house-prices boom that has sucked in people into the IHT fold on the basis of one illiquid asset that usually has very sentimental connections. Correcting this anomaly is not wrong nor a millionaire's manifesto.
More moot, M(y/i)ners Millionaires Manifesto...
Both indicative of stupidity, laziness, lack of principle and inability to govern.
Myners enabling banking millionaires to write even bigger retirement cheques - either stupid laziness or an attempt to deflect blame for the FSA's many failings.
Miners Compensation Scheme where lawyers (how many on the Labour Benches, - Harriet's Friends and Family fund?) trousered the greater part of the fund for themselves without a smidgeon of remorse. Millionaire lawyers abound and then multiply as they sue the NHS at £800 an hour for blunder cases? Where the millionaires then? Who are Labour's lieges to? The Working Class, the common man, I think not. Provide him with poor services out of his ever rapidly increasing taxes and then tax him further to get compensation for injury and damage so that he needs to work more - perhaps he can polish the Ministerial Daimlers to get the readies for meat twice a week. He must pay for his own uniform though.
Whose Millionaire's Manifesto would I rather suffer?
No contest.
Posted by: snegchui | March 25, 2009 at 14:35
Hague was very lacklustre today and let Harman off the hook about Mervyn King. I'm afraid to say she came across as strong and very competent today, with less reliance on jokes about baseball caps and fourteen pints, in contrast to Hague's reliance on House-pleasing jokes as substitutes for policy (he should have learned those lessons back when he was leader).
Posted by: Jamie | March 25, 2009 at 15:03
Can a bright Tory researcher work out how many Labour MPs would have to pay inheritance tax under the current schedule?
We could start with McNulty, Darling, Meacher and so on (including those who claim ACA and rent out flats in London - John Reid, Doug McAvoy, Cecilia Barlow, Bob Blizzard and many, many more).
I expect it would be quite a high % of the PLP.
Conservatives, of course, could be included on that list but we want to lift non-millionaires out of inheritance tax.
Posted by: Mastiff | March 25, 2009 at 15:04
Oh and Liz Kemp's post makes it clear why this policy is popular and right. Nobody is saying that millionaires should be exempt from inheritance tax (at least nobody with any influence). What is being said is that normal people with normal houses ought to be exempt from such a large chunk of tax that would, in nearly all cases, mean the sale of the family home.
Posted by: Jamie | March 25, 2009 at 15:06
We should be asking the government about whether UK Plc's credit rating will be downgraded.
On IHT, the best thing would have been for DC/GO/KC to say that ALL spending plans are now "aspirations" and that all committments are suspended until we've done a full audit of the public finances upon taking office.
This should be coupled with a statement saying that any proposals will be designed to benefit lower income workers first.
This will not only get us off the spending/tax hook, but will contrast with Brown's refusal to re-assess his plans in the face of the meltdown. People admire politicians who admit they need to change their policies when the circumstances change.
Posted by: Cleethorpes Rock | March 25, 2009 at 15:15
The Speedo side-swipe at Mandy was classic.
I am surprised that Elaina Brier hasn't picked a new name. What's the point in trolling wheneveryone knows you're a troll?
Posted by: Deborah | March 25, 2009 at 15:34
A bit dismal all round. i'm getting a little pissed off that Brown is not treating his obligations to the Commons as seriously as he ought. Say what you like about Blair, he was always there to try his hand at the PMQs roustabout, and Harriet Humdrum is no substitute. Having said that, how much of an indictment is it to be no substitute for Gordon Brown?
Posted by: Ben Archibald | March 25, 2009 at 15:41
Wonderful performance by Harperson, she's even worse than Brown.
Pity she could'nt take over from Broon, she's awful
Posted by: Terry | March 25, 2009 at 16:06
I think that everybody who watches PMQs has now got the message - Labour don't answer embarrassing questions - they reply with a question or, as Justine Greening found out today, a rant!
This is inexcusable! Justine Greening's question was a perfectly proper one relating to the total mess that Labour has made of 79 FE colleges' building schemes.
Most people detest this sort of ploy, and I predict that sooner, rather than later, it will lead to Gordon's political downfall at the polls.
Hague is very convincing and very witty - Harman, in my opinion, is just plain awful!
Posted by: Freddy | March 25, 2009 at 18:12
I really do despair. We are in the midst of the most serious financial crisis for 50 years, our police, immigration and security forces are all incompetent and over stretched, both the government and private individuals are over-borrowed and living beyond their means and still all our pathetic little politicians can do is to play party games.
What this country now needs are policies,and people of principle, not politics and party positioning.
The polling figures clearly indicate that the people are fed up with both Parliament and its present occupants. This is a dangerous situation, where a hung Parliament, despised by all, could easily lead to civil unrest and a breakdown of law and order. People are looking for strong, charismatic leadership, setting out strong basic principles, with just enough initial positive policiy promises to give them hope and some degree of confidence.
Such a position should be natural Conservative territory at a time like this, but there is clearly still a major mountain to climb
Posted by: David Parker | March 25, 2009 at 18:18
Harriet is an inspiration to anyone with a complete lack of talent but an overdose of egocentric ambition.
She was sacked from Tony Blair's Cabinet for being incompetent, only to find that it is a prerequisite in Gordon Brown's 'Government'.
I'd say she's doing a great job - for Her Majesty's Opposition!
Keep up the good work girl - you stink!
Posted by: A Reformed Labour Voter | March 25, 2009 at 18:35
We all know that Gezmond and Elaina are trolls that only surface on a Wednesday to try to spin Brown/ Harman out of a hole. The fact is that the Nipper was fantastic again today, particularly with his reminder that Hapless Hattie is the Countess of Longford's rather privileged niece.
Posted by: Super Blue | March 25, 2009 at 21:41