Fraser Nelson

This time, Brown came ready for Cameron. If asked about one of the many embarrassing issues dogging him, he’d say “he has missed the opportunity to talk about substance” then indulge in his list of fake economic greatest hits. Cameron thought on his feet, pointing out that the substance is going wrong for the PM too. But Brown responded by again saying that Cameron can’t talk about substance, and produced another boast. So, much for the great exchange. I don’t have time here to Fisk it, but Brown’s list is disingenuous at best and downright lies at worst. It is a confidence trick: people believe that because Brown recites all this he must have a point. He doesn’t.

When it comes to Iraq, we know all about the US surge and its effect – there are facts, figures and reporters in the US-controlled zone. But what’s happening in British-controlled Basra? We have little idea. When Brown pitched up yesterday to say he was handing over the security file because Iraqi police are now up to the job, we have to believe him. “There are now 30,000 Iraqi police and armed forces,” he said. “As a result of that we can move to provincial control over the next few weeks.” Now, I tend to mistrust any assertion from Mr Brown with a statistic in it. I am more inclined to believe Arnaud de Borchgrave, editor-at-large of UPI, who said this in a Washington Times column last week: “Who's in charge in Basra today?

There is conspiring in the corridors once again in Westminster. Who could replace Gordon, they ask. Labour’s problem is that the young pretenders are too young and the idea of caretaker leader seems slightly ridiculous, it would look absurd for the government to change Prime Minister twice in the same Parliament. So, Brown will solider on while the battle of succession rages just beneath the surface.  After ten tedious years of firm party discipline, life is finally returning to the corridors of the House of Commons. A lobby journalist on patrol can once again gather intelligence, whether it be from ministers colluding behind the Speaker’s chair or clusters of Labour MPs holding impromptu crisis meetings.

I normally review PMQs from the chamber, and conclude Brown has bombed. So I tried a TV view for a bit of balance. Labour does looks better from this vantage point. In the gallery, you can compare the volume of roars (Tories far better) and see every face (Labour glum, Tories exuberant). But on TV you can just see a broad panorama of the chamber, and only the faces in the camera “donut” – who look lively, under instruction from the whips. For the first time, Brown came armed with figures, attack lines and put downs and knew when to use them. I’d actually say that Brown won.   It is simply outrageous that Brown is using the Hayden Philips party funding inquiry to defend himself from Labour’s failure to obey the current campaigning law.

The monthly Cameron press conference is far more congenial than Brown's. Coffee is offered at the door, together with biscuits made by the chef in downstairs kitchen. But for all that, it's quite thinly attended and short (30 mins). Cameron called every journalist in the room by their first name, being utterly at ease. I guess one of the purposes of these briefings will be to strike a contrast with Brown, who only knows a handful of journalists.. Cameron had an entrée for us. He announced, statesman-style, that he’d just spoken to Sayeeda Warsi in Sudan and could confirm the pardon of Gillian Gibbons. No one cared. All questions were on party funding. A ban in billboard advertising “would be more Stalin than Mr Bean” he said.