David Cameron is, I reckon, clearly 'letting up' on Gordon Brown at PMQs. It's a very sorry state when the Leader of the Opposition feels the need to help cement the position of the Prime Minister. Today he had a couple of golden opportunities to ram a stake through his political heart, but pulled back from the brink. Cameron's detractors may say he hadn't got it in him, but most observers reckon it's a deliberate strategy. The last thing the Conservatives want is for the Prime Minister to resign or be deposed.
One other point from PMQs. For the second week in a row, the PM decided to use the same line to get out of answering a difficult question. Stephen Crabb asked whether it's worse to come behind the BNP in Henley or behind the SNP in Glasgow East, and wondered if Brown will campaign in Glasgow to prevent a Labour defeat. Brown didn't even attempt the answer the question. He merely accused Crabb of asking a trivial question. He did the same last week to Bill Wiggin. He may think they are trivial questions, but the fact of the matter is that he is there to answer all questions, whatever their degree of triviality. What a pity it is that The Speaker doesn't force him to do so.
36 comments:
Trying to deliberately associate the SNP with the BNP is absolutely pathetic. Dissapointed.
There was also a trivial but friendly question (can't remember what it was, being so trivial) which he did answer.
You obviously did not listen to Dave's first three questions. Gordon, Geoff Hoon and Keith Vaz are in deep doo doos. Pay attention at the back Dale.
What do you make of the Vaz reward ? Will it be in heaven do you think ?
What about the way that the Speaker intervened during Gordon Brown's "answer" to the last of David Cameron's first set of questions. That was something worthy of comment.
Brown won't answer trivial questions from Tory MPs, but when a Labour MP starts asking daft ones about Gordon Banks, Brown joins in.
Just shows how he calculates, how he says one thing and does another.
Labour MPs should be worried when Cameron is trying to keep their man alive. He's the Tories best electoral asset.
I agree Iain, the easing up on questions will last until about November I think, to ensure that the Brown camp are in it for the long haul. I can't help but think that allowing their conference to go ahead with the Labour party scrabbling to put on a united front will be risk worth taking. The antic's off last year will be avoided, the non-election, Iraq etc will make posturing difficult, this is when DC needs to let Joe Public begin to see the depth of policies they've developed
The question about Keith Vaz didn't sound to me like "letting up" on Gordon Brown, even if Michael Martin helped out by cutting short his answer.
Stephen Crabb's question was not merely trivial, it should not have been allowed as it was not about the Prime Minister's official responsibilities.
Also, contrary to the implication in this post, there is no obligation on a Minister asked a question even to rise to attempt to reply to it. This hasn't happened recently but is perfectly in order.
Couldn't agree more Iain.
It is not the PM's job to say what questions should be asked, but then Brown is such a control freak that this doesn't occur to him.
To Clegg's particularly pertinent question Brown also trotted out "tractor numbers" TWICE despite Clegg telling him after the first recital that he had recited a list not a course of action.
Brown is just not normal--he is seriously flawed, as a person and as a PM.
David Cameron shows a very fine understanding of the tactics of these meetings. On a few previous occasions he has held back, however I have no doubt that when it becomes too late for Labour to do anything about Gordon then no mercy will be shown.
As in the days of Operation Foxley - the enemies leader is worth more to us in place chewing the carpet and shouting in his bunker.
re not a sheep
What happened was that after Brown's reference to allegations, Speaker intervened to rebuke a noisy backbencher, during which Brown sat down as he should. Speaker then looked at Brown saying "Prime Minister" and invitation to him to resume. Brown sat still so the Speaker then called another question. The point of comment should be that Brown did not get up to finish his sentence.
DT
What's the point of driving a stake through Brown now? With two years to go he will never know when the killer blow will come and it must make him more and more nervous.
Just like fishing really.... keep playing the line until its exhausted... pull it out of the water then whack it on the head. (metaphorically speaking!!)
I agree with golfwidow, this wasn't really 'letting up' on Gordon Brown, although it was maybe a bit less personal than some recent attacks. But isn't it remarkable how naive Gordon Brown is? When DC asked him to confirm that no deal was made or jobs offered to win the 42 days' vote, you'd expect any politician of sense to realise there was a devastating follow-up to come, and to fudge accordingly. For once, Brown gave a straight answer. Oh dear...
Also note that this story appeared on the Telegraph website just a few minutes before PMQs.
Nice one, DC.
If you actually knew anything about Parliament Iain, then you would know that a minister can give whatever answer he thinks appropriate. They cannot be "forced" to answer questions by the Speaker.
Gordons repeatedly asking Cameron questions (and not answering those put to him)is getting tiresome.
The last thing the Conservatives want is for the Prime Minister to resign or be deposed.
I suppose it depends, again, on whether you are most loyal to your party or your country.
If you want the country to be in a big mess by the time of the next election then Cameron should "hold back" but if you would rather we had less pain in the meantime...
Won't voters take the view that, if Cameron is more concerned with the size of his majority than the state of the nation, perhaps he isn't the PM we need?
You can't blame this buffoon of a PM for not answering questions if the Speaker allows him to do just that. Blair simply spouted the same rubbish - 'investment' up, 'employment up', bla-bla-bla, for 10 years and he never got pulled up for it.
We are in very dangerous waters - the Speaker is politicised, the civil service is politicised, the BBC is politicised, the police is politicised, social services is politicised, the judiciary (or an awful lot of it) is politicised.
May 1st, 2010 - 'No general election to be held due to ongoing 'unparalleled' terrorist threat to the UK.'
So what are you going to do about it??
Interesting tactic by Cameron, and one that was tried by Kinnock in the dying days of Maggie. Many reckon his decision to table a vote of no confidence on the night of the first ballot in November '90 was actually an attempt to get the Tory Party to rally behind her.
From what I could see DC got a one word reply ("yes") and almost immediately accused the PM of being unable to give a straight answer to a straight question! The only one let off the hook was Cameron - by dint of the Speaker's rather strange intervention.
As for answering the question - he did so within the rules. These are only that the PM must get up and say something in response. If that something is to point out that the question is trivial then so be it. If the Tories don't like it perhaps they didn't ought to ask trivial questions.
Simple, really.
It's for the Speaker to decide which Qs are trivial: "questions are . . . inadmissible . . . which are trivial, vague or meaningless." (Erskine May, 24th edition, p. 356)
All irrelevant really. Hague regularly filleted Blair, all to no effect.
Cameron should just lay into him. Labour will limp on with Brown regardless.
What was the Speaker doing on Brown's 'answer' to Cameron's 3rd question? The guy is a total joke!
It's just dawned on me that watching New Labour over the years has been like watching the Wizard of Oz. Blair had no head, Brown no heart and Mandelson is Dorothy. The backbenchers are munchkins. Et bloody cetera.
@ David Boothroyd
"there is no obligation on a Minister asked a question even to rise to attempt to reply to it. This hasn't happened recently...."
Too damn right. Brown in particular hasn't answered a single question directly for at least several decades. Transparency? Yes indeed. The man is a transparent liar and fraud.
Unsworth said...
"Brown in particular hasn't answered a single question directly for at least several decades..."
Didn't you hear his answer to David Cameron's first question today?
Couldn't have been more direct or succint.
Brown is a dork. He's smeg head. He's Kryton without the personality. He's a total twat. There's nothing else to say. As for what he's done (rather than what he is) he's financially ruined the UK.
@ David Boothroyd
"there is no obligation on a Minister asked a question even to rise to attempt to reply to it. This hasn't happened recently...."
Too damn right. Brown in particular hasn't answered a single question directly for at least several decades. Transparency? Yes indeed. The man is a transparent liar and fraud.
That is of course David -"A-Conservative -victory -is psephologically-impossible"- Boothroyd , who is never wrong about anything
For the last time, Mr Newman, I never wrote that at all.
"Trying to deliberately associate the SNP with the BNP is absolutely pathetic. Dissapointed." --- don't be daft there was no attempt to tar the SNP with the BNP brush - it was pointing out some political facts of life. I think it was a fair question - the answer of course is it would be far worse to finish behind the SNP since it would cost Brown his job.
And from what I hear Camerons first couple of questions skewered Brown.
Given that Labour might well finish behind SNP and thus Brown gets the sack I think the Tories ought to be getting their retaliation in first on his likely replacements - Straw and Milliband.
Straw was Browns campaign manager or Gawds sake (a job looking increasingly like that of the bloke who carried Goliaths shield) and Milliband a man so in awe and admiration he pointedly refused to stand against Brown. 'Jugement? Ils?'
Oh and on the subject of answering questions or not - the point for Brown is how he avoids answering them. He is not answering questions badly - a better PM would avoid answering them better.
Newmania said...
"That is of course David -"A-Conservative -victory -is psephologically-impossible"- Boothroyd , who is never wrong about anything"
David Boothroyd said...
"For the last time, Mr Newman, I never wrote that at all."
Newmania, you are confusing David Boothroyd with that twit DAVID LINDSAY.
"the fact of the matter is that he is there to answer all questions, whatever their degree of triviality."
How many times do I have to explain this?
He there so that MPs may try to get him to answer, and so that everyone may assess his response.
'trivial'? He has a nerve considering some of the butt-kissing "questions" some Labour drones pop up and ask.
RE "What a pity it is that The Speaker doesn't force him to do so".
What a pity yes, but a surprise?, no!, the McSpeaker is afterall, working FOR McLabour and will be directly taking orders from them.
Given that Gordon Brown has such reverence for 'convention', when can we expect the removal of that oaf of a Speaker and his replacement with an MP from one of the opposition parties, as was the convention prior to the elevation of 'Gorbals Mick' to a role he is manifestly unsuited to. Silly question, obviously Gordon has a vested interest in stuffing as many official posts as possible with his fellow Scots, regardless of their abilities or fitness to task.
Des Browne...Alastair Darling...Douglas Alexander...the list of dross just rolls over us. Blair and Brown always valued loyalty above ability (though Blair tolerated Brown because of fear of the consequences of sacking the duplicitous control freak)
Roll on May 2010, perhaps the adults will return to government....at long last.
Brown's dismissal of Opposition questions (such as those this week and last) in the manner you describe is disrespectful to elected members, especially backbenchers who do not have a guaranteed opportunity to ask the PM a question during this session. Only Cameron and Clegg have that right.
It is now embarrassingly obvious that Brown just cannot hack it as PM. It is no wonder that reports on overseas attitudes toward this country's Government have shown how our esteem has gone down in recent years, most of all in the Brown period.
I really wish that something would happen to effectively force a General Election this coming autumn.
Post a Comment