PMQs live blog | 14 December 2011
PMQs 14 November
Labour party
Wednesday
Tuesday
The Polls Back David Cameron
Brother Korski is, as always, the voice of urbane reason on all matters european. I have little idea whther David Cameron done brilliant in Brussels lately or whether he’s blundered badly. Neither verdict seems satisfactory or sufficiently nuanced. There is this, however: in one respect he has done the rest of europe a favour: had he agreed to a new treaty he would have been forced to hold a referendum in Britain and it is hard to see how any treaty, be it ever so favourable to Britain, could have passed. Cue more diplomatic shenanigans and assorted other awkwardness in Brussels. By standing aside Cameron may have “isolated” Britain but
Labour reach out to the Lib Dems (again)
Others have already been there, but it’s still worth noting Douglas Alexander’s article for the lastest issue of the New Statesman. Much of it, it’s true, is a predictable attack on David Cameron’s recent activity in Brussels. But slightly more surprising is the fact that, rather than criticising the coalition in toto, Alexander saves his ire for the Tories and reaches out to the Lib Dems. Here’s the relevant passage: ‘The roots of what happened on the night of Thursday 8 December lie deep in Cameron’s failure to modernise the Tory party. Just because he puts party interest before the national interest, there is no reason others should do the
Where we are now
Reading through the paper’s this morning, it’s even clearer that we didn’t learn much from that marathon Europe debate yesterday. But here are my thoughts, anyway, on where it leaves us: 1) Ed Miliband lacked credibility from the outset. As Malcolm Rifkind put it, he’s had three days to work out whether he’d have signed that Treaty or not — and he still can’t make his mind up. God knows Cameron is vulnerable on this, but he won’t be hurt being attacked for indecision by a man who still cant make any decisions. 2) Clegg’s misjudgment, cont? First, Clegg backed Cameron after the veto. Now, he says he disagrees with
Friday
Cameron on top — for now
Looking at the British political scene today, David Cameron is in a very strong position. His own party has rarely been happier with him. His coalition partners, despite being the most pro-European party in British politics, are standing by his decision to use the veto. What Liberal Democrats keep stressing is that the British government was not actually asking for that much and that Sarkozy’s behaviour left Cameron with little option but to wield the veto. Labour are in good spirits today. But they don’t have an answer to the question of what they would have done in the early hours of this morning. Instead, they are saying that
Cameron’s ‘No’ leaves Clegg in a tight spot
It’s days like this when we should remember that Britain is, officially, the most eurosceptic nation in the EU. Europe may not rank high on the average Brit’s list of policy priorities, but many will nonetheless cheer at the idea of us stepping aside from Merkel and Sarkozy’s bulldozing plan. Whether the PM swashbuckled or blundered into saying ‘No’, that ‘No’ is unlikely to harm the public’s perception of him — and will probably boost it. That’s what makes all this particularly difficult for Ed Miliband. Unlike some in his party, the Labour leader is not inclined to out-sceptic Cameron, so that leaves basically one alternative: to claim that the
Wednesday
Ed the arch-bungler lets Cameron off the ropes
Ed Miliband had an open goal today. And he whacked it straight over the bar. Cameron was in trouble from the start. Having placated the rebel wing of his party with vague talk about ‘repatriating powers’ he is now expected to deliver. But he can’t make specific demands without weakening his hand at the negotiations so he has to talk in generalities. The Labour leader spotted this weakness and tried to exploit it with one of his lethally brief questions. ‘What powers would the Prime Minister repatriate?’ Cameron gave several answers without addressing the issue. His aim in the negotiations, he said, was to resolve the eurozone crisis, ‘and that
Tuesday
Labour’s late to the policemens’ ball
Labour has today unveiled a panel of experts to consider the future of British policing. The review, chaired by the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Lord Stevens, will report by spring 2013. There are far-reaching changes underway to the institutional structure of the police. The coalition government is pursuing sweeping reforms of police pay and conditions and creating a remodelled national policing architecture, with a new National Crime Agency. The boldest reform — devolving governance to locally elected Police & Crime Commissioners (PCCs) — will have long-term implications. In this context, and in light of budget reductions of 14 per cent over four years, any study of the fundamentals of the
Sunday
Baseline advantage
One of the advantages the governing party has during an election campaign is the ability to set the baseline. It is your plans which every other parties’ are measured against. So, if they plan extra spending you can accuse them of a ‘tax bombshell’ or if they want to spend less than you, then you can say they want ‘savage cuts.’ After Tuesday’s autumn statement, Treasury sources were adamant that there would be a spending review before the end of this parliament setting out the cuts the coalition would make to meet its fiscal mandate. Danny Alexander confirmed on Newsnight that these would be jointly-agreed coalition cuts. But Nick Clegg
The importance of being earnest | 4 December 2011
The absence of growth and the importance of credibility are recurring themes in this morning’s papers. John Lord Hutton has told the BBC that revised growth figures make pension reform even more urgent, and he added that the deal that was put before trade unions was ‘perfectly credible’. Meanwhile, David Cameron has insisted that ministers increase their pension contributions by an average of 4.2 per cent (more than the 3.2 average across the public sector) to show that ‘we are all in this together’. Pensions also feature in an Independent on Sunday interview with Tim Farron, the Lib Dem President. Farron says he has ‘sympathy’ with state employees who are caught
Friday
Balls’ blindness
This week has marked something of a watershed in the British economic debate. The story of the strike on Wednesday was not one of paralysis, but of resilience. There was an 85 per cent turnout in NHS staff; Cumbria council kept every office open as so few staff went on strike; Aussies landing at Heathrow cleared passport control in record time, due to the large number of volunteers who were qualified with two days’ notice. As I say in my Daily Telegraph column today, the union leaders went rather quiet afterwards: they misjudged the mood of the country. As has Ed Balls. He is attempting what economists call ‘fiscal illusion’
Thursday
What did the public make of the Autumn Statement?
The lack of growth in the economy has taken its toll on the government – and George Osborne – according to YouGov’s post-Autumn Staement poll. After the Budget in March, 34 per cent said the Chancellor was doing a good job – now it’s just 24 per cent. And the percentage saying he’s doing a bad job has risen from from 40 to 49. Here’s how the public’s view of the economic performance of the coalition as a whole has declined since Osborne’s first Budget: Despite this, Labour have failed to seize the initiative. Osborne still leads Ed Balls on the question of who’d make the better Chancellor, 30-24. Indeed,
Osborne’s Autumn Statement was about creating more Tories
In this week’s Spectator – which hits newsstands today – James Forsyth reveals the political calculations behind the Chancellor’s announcements on Tuesday. Here, for CoffeeHousers, is a taster of James’ column: The government wants to be seen as on the side of necessary but fair reform; facing down opponents who believe in ‘something for nothing economics’. Public sector unions, with their desire to protect pensions that are far more generous than those on offer in the private sector, are ideal opponents in the eyes of coalition strategists. On Tuesday, George Osborne chose to raise the stakes in this battle. He announced that he was asking ‘the independent pay review bodies to
Wednesday
Ed Miliband’s Strange Political Judgement
I know Ed Miliband isn’t trying to persuade me or, for that matter, many Spectator readers but I still don’t understand what he’s up to or trying to achieve. At PMQs today he had an obvious choice: attack the government on the economy or on today’s strikes by government-paid workers. Bafflingly he chose the latter, wrapping himself in the red union flag. Not for the first time, one’s left questioning Miliband’s political judgement. The easy answer, much-used by the Prime Minister today, is that Labour is paid by the Trades Unions without whose contributions the party would be bankrupt. Plainly there is some truth to this and perhaps Miliband has
Dave and Ed strike each other
It was a real blood and thunder PMQs today. This was the politics of the viscera; whose side are you on stuff. Ed Miliband chose to start on the strikes. David Cameron ripped into him from the off, calling him ‘irresponsible, left-wing and weak.’ Miliband came back with an attack about how he wasn’t going to demonise dinner ladies who earn less in a year than George Osborne’s annual skiing holiday costs, though he flubbed the line slightly. The Tory benches were in full cry, and throughout the session Cameron kept coming back for another swing at Miliband and the union link. At one point, Cameron contemptuously declared
A day of disruption
Another testing day for the government, as we shift from the autumn statement to a national strike. It will certainly be more noticeable than the industrial action in June. Some 2 million public sector workers will be involved. According to the schools minister Nick Gibb, around 75 per cent of state schools will be closed. And on top of that, airport queues will lengthen; non-emergency operations will be cancelled; and today’s parliamentary proceedings will go untranscribed. The government’s attitude towards the unions — or, rather, union bosses — appears to have been hardening. The brothers will not have liked yesterday’s forecast that 710,000 jobs will be shed from the public sector by
Tuesday
Osborne plays a tough hand well
Today was always going to be a difficult day for the Chancellor. The figures from the OBR were always going to dominate the headlines and the restrictions of coalition meant that there couldn’t be as much as the Tories would have liked on the supply side. It was striking that the loudest Tory cheer of Osborne’s statement came when he reiterated his opposition to an EU-imposed financial transactions tax. But the silver lining for Osborne and co is that Labour still lack economic credibility. It is hard for Labour to savage Osborne for borrowing more than he said he would — which he is to the tune of £158 billion
Sunday
The shape of the Budget battleground
There are still two days and a couple of hours to go until George Osborne’s Pre-Budget Report — but, already, we have a good idea of what will be said. The emphasis, beyond just plain ol’ jobs and growth, will be on combatting youth unemployment; helping smaller businesses; and relaxing the squeeze on middle-income folk. Most of the measures either announced or suggested so far — from the Youth Contract to the credit easing scheme to the suspension of January’s fuel duty rise — fall into one of those compartments. Whether they’ll work or not is a different matter entirely. As for Labour’s response, they’re already making it —
Saturday
Wrestling over cuts
Britain’s economic debate has been reduced to WWE-style wrestling, where two figures adopt semi-comic personas and have at each other for the entertainment of the crowd — while not doing any real fighting at all. So it is with Osborne and Balls. Rhetorically, they are poles apart; one championing cuts, the other spending. But you’ll notice that neither quantifies the cuts. That’s because Osborne is simply enacting an only-slightly-souped-up version of Darling’s plan and the real difference between the two parties is tiny. This was the point of last night’s Newsnight, where David Grossman filed a report (in which yours truly was interviewed) about the great pretend fight between two
Friday
We cannot forget the riots, nor ignore their causes
If I’d said that an MP had accused the Church of England of being too obsessed with gay marriage and women priests — and not worried enough about how God can keep young boys out of harm’s way — you’d probably imagine that a Tory had gone nuts. But this is the David Lammy, Labour MP for Tottenham, who has gave an interview to our Books Blog. In it, he elaborates on the theme of his new book: that his colleagues are so keen to help single mothers that they’ve lost sight of what really helps working class boys. Amongst the contributing factors, he mentions two things that may cast
