Will it ever get as bad as this for Gordon?
January 23rd, 2008
Do PMQs really turn the voters off?
According to a report in the Independent yesterday Gordon Brown is telling friends that the public is being increasingly repelled by PMQs and that the Commons exchanges are now of little use in discussing the issues of the day. He’s reported as saying that “nothing prepares you” for the ferocity of a packed chamber in full cry” and that the weekly event is worse than it has ever been
I’m not so sure. The above short video shows a couple of exchanges between Tony Blair and John Major in the period before the 1997 election when, of course, Blair was asking the questions. The “Weak..Weak..Weak” refrain has become famous and shows Blair at his most aggressive. I do not think that Cameron has yet matched this in his exchanges with Gordon.
In those days, of course, the Prime Minister had to face the house twice a week on Tuesdays and Thursdays. One of the things that Blair in 1997 was to reduce this to once although the time allocated was doubled.
Before Gordon came in I thought that he would change the format to something that would more suit his style. He certainly could have done this during his first few weeks when everything was going for him. Now I think that introducing changes would be very difficult.
The main weapon a Prime Minister has is that he always has the last word during the clashes with the opposition leader. Tony Blair used this to great effect and would save his most stinging comments for the final answer knowing there could be no response. Now Brown is suggesting to aides that Tory MPs are trying to blunt the edge of his final reply by trying to howl him down.
Does it all matter? I think it does. The government of the day has such a control over the news agenda that often the only chance an opposition has to get attention is at PMQs. The Tory and Lib Dem leaders have to use the questions they are allocated to best effect.
It starts again at noon today and is carried live on Sky News, BBC News 24, Radio Five Live and BBC Parliament. Let’s see what happens.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
You may not have noticed, but BBC News has removed “Politics” as a sub-heading on its web site, thus making it a tad more difficult to watch PMQs or any of the debates about the European Constitution. Pure coincidence, I’m sure.
It doesn’t matter outside the House if Brown is shouted down because the microphones will still pick him up. He needs to remain calm and Prime Ministerial.
It does matter inside the village because many MPs know little about politics and even less about television so they get artificially depressed or elated and pass on their moods to the lobby hacks.
More interesting is the suggestion of dirty tricks from Cameron’s Conservatives. Surely not?
An American rigger wrote last week:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/17/AR2008011703582_pf.html
1 - are you sure? I thought i’d noticed that before, but it turned out to be a quirk of accessing from a Pda.
Yes I expect Brown would like to phase out PMQs. He already thinks PMQs means the Prime Minister asks the questions.
Let’s face it, generally Parliament is just a charade. There is little point in debating any policies if the government has already made up its mind and whipped its members into shape. It is a talking shop made up mainly of sycophants who only talk the talk and rarely persaude a vote to go the other way. So yes it is extremely boring to Joe Public.
The real problem is there is no decent opposition to hold New Labour to account so they continue to roll out whatever policies they like based on manipulated information, for example, 24 hour drinking, Cannibis declassification, Home Information packs, Postal voting, GM food, Iraq, WMD. Each time these flawed policies turn into a fiasco creating more problems. Expert opinion, trials, committees, reports, etc are whitewashed so we only get the conclusion the government wants.
Nuclear power is safe in UK, but Germany has inexplicable clusters of child leakemia near power stations. Why is that? Because this government is bent to its nuclear core and we are ruled by deception. If the opposition cannot bring the constant deception to the public attention and ensure it is not continued, then this is not a democracy.
It is time the Tories had a leader who knew how to put the boot in when it matters, then Brown might really feel the “ferocity of a packed chamber in full cry.” And what a shame Nick Clegg has already proven he is just like the rest of them, denying the British people a say on the EU constitution after they promised a referendum. It is clear to me they are nearly all in politics only to feed their own egos and not for the people. No wonder why the public are turned off.
3 - Thanks, Alex. My mistake - I’m using a new browser and had loaded the International rather than the UK version. AOK now.
From today’s Times:
Ed Balls, the Schools Secretary and Gordon Brown’s close ally, went close to suggesting that (interest rate) cuts were on the way. “The good news from Britain’s point of view is that inflation is low, and is coming down,” he told the BBC.
And from the Telegraph:
Inflation could rise significantly above target this year, Bank of England governor Mervyn King warned last night. Rising oil, gas and food prices will push up household bills to such an extent that inflation could rise above 3pc, the level at which the governor is forced to write to the Chancellor to explain.
The rate is currently 2.1pc, close to the target annual rate of 2pc for the Consumer Price Index. But Mr King said: “It is possible that inflation could rise to the level at which I would need to write an open letter of explanation, possibly more than one, to the Chancellor.”
PMQ - which of these two gentlemen is telling the truth?
Mike, is trawling through YouTube turning into a habit these days?!
PMQs does matter because MPs are ultimately humans beings (easy to forget, I know) who will be galvinsed or depressed by their leader’s performances. Indeed any stirring attack or defence can motivate them - witness the brief and, with hindsight, ludicrous - elation of the Tory benches in 1995 when Michael Howard knocked Jack Straw around on the subject of Derek Lewis. So comprehensively were Labour demolished that for a few days there was a buzz that the election “could be won” for us; whilst in the left-wing press there was much hand-wringing and speculation over whether Straw could possibly keep a front-bench position - and indeed over Blair’s judgement. Obivously this was not followed up but occasionally the leadership can gee-up its parliamentary followers and really utilise the excitement to do something. That is why it is important for the leadership to be articulate at the despatch box.
6. Balls also told porkies saying we had borrowed less than other nations so we were in good shape. Which nations ? Zimbabwe ?
QUESTION - Is Mr Brown aware that The Head Economist in California University is giving a seminar next week in Stanford titled ‘The Coming Collapse Of The Euro Area’?
His name is Professor Eichengreen. He was the IMF’s Chief Economist prior to becoming Professor of Economics and Political Science at Berkeley.
What discussions are going on between the Prime Minister and other European leaders about Britain and her currency?
Something I noticed. Gordon Brown stated in the last PMQs that on Northerm Rock he was taking the action needed for the stability of the economy.
If the stability of the economy hinges on the fate of one bank, then the economy must be in a very fragile state!
It’s pointless for Gordo to moan about PMQs - if he doesn’t like then he needn’t have taken the job.
It is Gordon’s bad luck that broadband technology is improving so fast. It’s now possible for millions of people to watch this spectacle for a while in their homes and offices, and even on the move, who would previously have been cut off from it.
But what is bad luck for him is good for democracy.
There’s a good chance that Brown will try and stop PMQ’s. For the first time in his life, he has people questioning his genius and his right to be the great leader. For a control freak like him, it is a massive challenge.
The guy’s a proven coward- he will try to run away from it, like everything else that’s dificult
5 - no, thank you, mirthios. That explains it.
Bah Humbug! Are you doing your usual devious trick of creating a new thread just after I’ve posted? Your fiendish plan won’t work this time, because I’m going to re-post it
:
I was amazed to read a message written by none other than our esteemed leader who wrote
“I cannot understand why SeanT and others get so worked up about the EU - they are very much in a small minority. Before Christmas Mori asked respondents “What would you say is the most important issue facing Britain today? (Spontaneous)”. there was no prompting.
Guess what the proportion was of respondents who said one of Common Market/EU/Europe/EURO?
Just one miserly percent.
The vast majority of people just do not give a damn.”
I would have thought that someone who is clever enough to be a professional gambler, albeit a Lib Dem one, would be aware that the EU significantly influences a whole range of policy issues.
What issues were named as the most important by the other 99%? Immigration? Energy? Taxation? Criminal justice? Trade? Isn’t Lord Smithson aware that the EU makes most policy in those areas as well? The figure of 1% above is completely meaningless in terms of judging how important the EU is.
12 - “The guy’s a proven coward”
I agree but can you think of any other Labour MPs who aren’t?
They stood by and let Blair start an illegal war based on lies. Each and every one of them should be in a war crimes tribunal. Yes some made very eloquent speeches, a couple resigned from their government jobs, but not one of them had the guts or the principles to resign from the Labour whip.
I don’t see a single Labour MP who has the guts to stand up and say that the party of spin, deception and gerrymandering is not the party they joined.
For “Gordon Brown telling friends” read spin doctor telling reporter. As Nick Robinson says in his blog Brown is a man who “sees questions as a risk not an opportunity”. PMQs are not really about the questions and answers but about the competence and talents of the party leaders.
Gordon’s considerable weaknesses as a PM have been exposed by PMQs and I sense from reports on the China/India trip that the lobby hasn’t been too impressed by his abilities on the China/India trip. As PR dragging the major political reporters round in four days or so in close proximity with lots of set speeches and hurried visits and not enough sleep can easily turn negative but a Blair or Thatcher equivalent trip would have been reported very differently .
WRT the previous thread, I’d be surprised if the Conservatives *didn’t* pick up 25 seats in the North and Scotland. A net gain of 25 there would still leave them short of a majority.
You’re right that any changes Gordon Brown makes now will be seen as a response to his poor performance. I’m sure PMQs isn’t any fun, but I never heard Blair crying and moaning about it because he was so damn good at it.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
JohnLoony @ 14 — the question is not whether the EU matters at all but whether it matters electorally. The answer is no, unless one of the big parties campaigns on it.
There are a number of issues like this, things that ought to be important but aren’t. The West Lothian Question, PFI, and electoral fraud to name but three subjects that could easily become scandals if, and only if, Cameron were to take up arms. Trouble is, he might become hoist by his own petard.
In the American races, in particular on the Republican side, we see the reverse phenomenon: voters attach tremendous significance to things that do not matter because they are not matters for the president, such as gay marriages (states) and abortion (the constitution and judiciary following Roe vs Wade 35 years ago yesterday).
Politicians and citizens must surely worry about the EU and all its works but as punters we must embrace cynicism.
14 - Why would anyone get worked up by a little thing like who runs Britain? Should it be run from Britain or from a foreign land? Of course, according to Labour, it is racist to say that as William Hague found out.
The EU machine has one objective, to create an unachievable utopian superstate by progressively stealing away the right of nations to run their own affairs and this is against the will of the people. The result will be a disaster.
Letters From A Tory @ 18 re Blair & PMQs.
Blair reduced two sessions of PMQs to one. To what degree that was due to fear or to his contempt for parliament, who can say.
Certainly Blair — unable to think on his feet — was not particularly good at PMQs, as Hague regularly showed. If it appeared otherwise, it was because his other opponents were bad, and because the Prime Minister has natural advantages, especially the last word.
20- what kind of disaster- the 20th century saw a few in Europe as nation states ran diametrically opposed foreign policies.
The Euro is now proving something of a success to those countries that joined.
Again- brilliant Mike, using these clips to bring events to life
U tube is just fantastic- we use it with elderly relatives to reminisce about music, history, events that were dear to them. Can be very emotional.
21 “Blair — unable to think on his feet….”
I don’t think so, John L! Whatever your criticisms of His Tonyness (and I have a load, with some bigoted prejudices thrown in for good measure) surely you have to agree that he was masterful at thinking on his feet. Good repartee, good question answering skills and (even more importantly) good question avoiding skills. The guy was a genius in that department.
has anyone noticed that in Blair’s early period he say “yeah” quietly to himself as a sort of encouragement. Very peculiar.
22- The backlash will come when the people of Europe realise they are ruled by unaccountable faceless over-paid dictators in a law making factory in another country who they cannot remove through the ballot box.
There will be an uprising, a rise in the far right, terrorism, conflict and ultimately war. This is human nature. If you supress people, eventually they will rise up. The EU will not work.
John Lennon might have imagined it. Imagine there’s no countries. It is a very naive child-like view that if all countries became one there would be peace.
PMQ’s do matter, but perhaps not as much as we think. They raise the morale of the backbenchers, when their, ‘champion’ does well etc. Out in the, ‘real world’ probably not as much as we think or would like.
Gordon Brown is telling friends that the public is being increasingly repelled by PMQs
How would he know? It’s more likely they are increasing repelled by him.
11 It may be possible for millions of people to watch PMQs via Broadband but the number of those who actually bother is in the thousands many of whom post on here .
22 tell that to the Italians, the Greeks and even the French.
Food for thought!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jan/23/socialtrends
PMQs immediately after the conference season was pretty brutal. Not only the “First PM in history to flunk an election because he thought he was going to win it” line, but also Brown wetting his pants right away and getting the shakes.
The man’s his own worst enemy. Cameron can ask moderately good questions, safe in the knowledge Brown will show himself up.
As for changing the format, if the length of time/number of questions for opposition leaders is unchanged, he could get away with it. A meaningful change (like giving Cameron 3 questions instead of 6, or cutting the time to 7 minutes) would get him pilloried by all but the most loyal sycophants.
Start the day with a smile!
How the Daily Mash sees the economic crisis.
http://tinyurl.com/2v3jq2
Augustus Carp @ 24 re Blair thinking on his feet. No, which is how Hague so often undermined him. Blair was, however, very well briefed, and always had the choice of whether or not actually to answer a question.
From previous thread to stjohn @ 54 and others.
Betting on Spreadfair is rather like making love to a beautiful but virtuous woman.You woo and woo her and nothing happens…..but when it does,it is well worth the wait.
Regarding the slight dispute between Richard and Mike.Both are ‘right’ in their own way and Richard was correct to state that Spreadfair has been very stong for Labour.Where Mike is corrct is that all that has changed and that the roadblock looking to Buy LAB seats in the low 270s has finally disappeared.That is the most significant feature.
I love Spreadfair even given the penurious commission rates I have to pay there because you can trade in and out of positions on that site without having to offset the actual Spread…. twice.
It would be nice if Spreadfair were to offer lower comm. rates on long term markets.
Not gonna be a good PMQ’s for Brown, northern rock, shares slump, marching coppers, and this. Cameron is going to have a field day. Brown can’t get rid of PMQ’s now, no matter what high minded arguements he comes up with to try andjustify it, it will be reported as cowardice(which is what it really is). Cameron will be able to get a great deal of running out of the subject if he does try, damaging Brown’s already heavily tarnished reputation even more.
PMQ’s is reported in most of the papers, and on the news.
Interesting headline in the, ‘Times’ hmmmm Dave might have some explaining to do!
http://tinyurl.com/3bvdst
6 mirthios Lawson made agood point on Newsnight last night that it is Balls and Brown’s job to sound positive and shore up confidence.
He then spoilt it when Paxo asked him if he believed them and he said something like, ” Good heavens, no”.
PMQs: if I were Prime Minister, I should seriously consider reverting back to the twice a week schedule.
Today’s should be safe for Brown insofar as the gobal crash seems to have been shortlived. Will he be out of touch owing to his foreign escapades though? Does he know about kebabgate, for instance? Cameron could have some fun with that sort of topic: things that will resonate with the public but might not have made it to Brown’s briefing.
37, I doubt people care. As an atheist, it seems bloody silly for me to permit selection based on which holy book you happen to believe, but deny it for academic ability.
It’s hardly the burning issue of the day, with global financial turbulence, Northern Rock, police inquiries into Harman (and possibly Hain) etc etc etc.
It’s going to be difficult for Cameron to come off well. He’s either got to ruthlessly attack Brown’s record, but it may not stick and he’ll look childish. Or he’s got to address other matters, and he’ll be accused of not getting to grips with the big affairs of state. I think the Northern Rock pseudo nationalisation is his only option, but I hope he leaves it for Clegg.
40
‘So Mr Bin Laden! why exactly, do you want to send your son to St. Pillocks?’
37. Its not hypocritical to be hypocritical to a bunch of hypocrites.
42. Your old school, presumably.
How did you guess?
There must be something in this religious education. My father a devout RC, sent my brother and myself to Catholic schools, we are both devout, atheists!! Dawkins rules as far as I’m concerned.
The interesting thing is the Times, could have chosen anything out of that interview to highlight, they chose that.
37. Can’t really see anyone caring.
On the subject of PMQ’s, it’s the evening news soundbite that counts and Cameron knows that. That’s why when he’s put in a moderate performance, it is usually still a success as the killer soundbite is out there.
37. From a school’s point of view the fact a parent is willing to give up their spare time and attend church services they are not interested in is a good indication that the parents are committed to their child’s education and will encourage them to perform and behave well at school. You don’t have to believe to do this for your child. There is also nothing stopping parents from working class backgrounds to do the same, showing their commitment to their child’s education. I’m sure many do.
Cameron is now referring to Brown as “that strange man in Downing Street”.
Good stuff - Brown’s transformation into a Major-style figure with added weirdness continues…
37 Cameron actually makes a very good point on “Active Citizens” which points to a dichotomy in the State’s approach.
We all hear about need for parents to be involved in their children’s education and the education ministers have for years pushed for parents to read to kids, parents to engage with schools and teachers etc. The State proclaims choice but then limits the ability to actually make the choice in the name of “fairness” - really an ideological choice to address failure in social mobility above parental choice. The problem though IMHO arises from too few good schools and low parental aspirations and reducing parental ability to choose further reduces aspirations.
As the experience of Chinese and Indian immigrants shows mobility can be obtained through active parenting where parents put education and aspiration first. Allowing more diverse provision in schools would tend to address the shortage of places.
47
Arse!!
PMQs is a weekly ordeal and a humiliation for Brown who, as a control freak and a bully, becomes distressed when he has to account for himself publicly. As the economy continues to deteriorate over the coming months and Brown is put increasingly on the spot, it’s no wonder that he is looking for excuses to scrap PMQs.
50. Isn’t it time for you to go to the Day Centre now?
8 well spotted Hary. Balls blatantly lied when he claimed we had less debt than most other major economies. Head for head we even have more than the US and considerably more than the rest of Europe. Of course the useless interviewer didn’t pull him up on this outrageous reversal of the truth.
coldstone @ 50.
Is that a desperate plea for a Jack W poll?
39 “Today’s should be safe for Brown insofar as the gobal crash seems to have been shortlived.”
On the contrary, it’s only just got going and big debtor nations like the UK and US are going to be clobbered far more than most.
Finkelstein concurs that a downturn is good for Brown
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article3234420.ece
Do PMQs really turn the voters off?
Mike, I think Politics, per se, turns the voters off, as witnessed by the long-term and increasing decline in turnouts. All the important battles have either been won or given-up as lost causes, and there is really no point to it any more. Both main parties are now an interchangeable, hidden coalition of sleazebags out for themselves, who have conspired to turn this once great country into a passive, dumbed-down, politically-correct, anti-social, multi-cultural ant-heap…
Next time, I doubt if Lab+Con combined will receive 70% of the vote on a derisory turnout.
55. Excellend ground from PMQs - “can the PM confirm what the former Treasury lapdog Ed Balls said on the Today programme regarding the Uk’s borrowing compared to other nations…”
52
Day off today!
The interesting thing isn’t what Dave said (although its pretty naff) its how the Times reported it. The response of the, ‘Blue Harpies’ was pretty interesting though.
53 “Of course the useless interviewer didn’t pull [Balls] up on this…”
If you are an interviwer with the weird swivel-eyed lizard that is Balls, do you:
(i) grill him at length about why his answers don’t stack up; or
(ii) do the bare minimum of talking - and get the hell out of there?
39 - “the global crash seems to have been shortlived.”
Posted at 9:06am. 40 minutes later, FTSE, CAC and DAX all down more than 1%.
Hope you didn’t bet on it.
56 Dream on Danny boy, dream on
Do the Tory posters on this site find any interest at all in competing to see who can insult Brown using the most childish language?
I know your leader is setting a bad example but for the sake of readers to this site shouldn’ you aim higher?
63, Blue harpies and blue-rinse brigade are both insults directed at Tories here by others. Glass houses.
Also, Gordon Brown smells of dog poo.
63 - Any thoughts on the Oscar noms?
63 Perhaps you’d care to give us examples of this “childish language” or are you just adopting Brown’s tactic of squealing UNFAIR! when you don’t like to hear the truth?
39-Sai yesterday even before Fed cut that a dead cat bounce was inevitable. I have a feeling we will end the week lower than we started on the FTSE.The worlds Bourses will burn whilst the economic great and good fiddle in Davos.
64
If you didn’t behave like, ‘Blue Harpies’ you wouldn’t be called that.
First of all my own position. The present government has run its course, third term governments are always a disaster anyway. By not calling an early GE, Brown has made a difficult situation worse. The next GE has already been lost by Labour, although the Tories will struggle to get an overall majority, certainly a working one.
That almost certain knowledge, does not make me enthusiastic for what will follow, certainly a government led by as Simon Heffer called them, two PR spivs, like Cameron and Osborne.
What Cameron said was pretty silly, not earth shattering, but silly, to try and defend it like the, ‘Blue Harpies’ did is as silly as pretending that Labour will pull the present disaster round.
19 John L voters attach tremendous significance to things that do not matter because they are not matters for the president, such as gay marriages (states) and abortion (the constitution and judiciary following Roe vs Wade 35 years ago yesterday).
I disagree. The president appoints Justices to the Supreme Court. Any adjustments to abortion law at state or federal level have to pass muster with the Court, and you can be sure that for instance any future justices nominated by Hillary will rule down efforts to tighten abortion law.
In respect of gay marriage it is a state issue but with significant federal implications e.g. federal income tax, inheritance taxes, social security benefits etc etc
You can bet your life that if there is a recession Brown will be doing his best McCavity act again and letting Darling take all the flak.
My guess today is that Cameron will focus on Livingstone to press him on whether the PM supports Labour’s candidate for Mayor in London.
In early 2004 Brown was fiercely opposed to Ken being re-admitted to the party.
60-It was interesting to hear Balls being interviewed yesterday.
When asked what he cooked best he replied” I make a pretty good souffle”
That sums him up..all air and no substance
68, I forgot, was it Smithson or the Lord God who appointed the lefties here arbiters of truth and justice to dispense insults as they see fit, and then complain when rightwingers insult not themselves but their glorious leader, Comrade Brown (who smells of dog poo, incidentally)?
Negative Brown stuff - Northern Rock, Hain’s naughtiness, Harman’s naughtiness, police pay, saying bye bye to Konnie Huq instead of doing whatever it is dictators in bunkers do etc
Negative Cameron stuff - better at PR than Brown (apparently this is a negative now that the Tories are good at it), supports middle classes who bend rules to get their kids into good schools
You’re right. Let’s ignore the £55bn tied up in a single bank, or the plunging FTSE, or the fact that a Cabinet Minister (and soon maybe two) is being investigated by the police. What really matters is that Cameron said something about parents trying to get their kids into good schools. The outrage!
65.UKpaul(only!) At last a sensible post! I’m about 4 films short of seeing everything in all the categories I’m interested in. But I’m hoping I will have in about ten days time.
Overall apart from best DOP where the standard was high I’d say it is the worst year for ages. In the category of DOP’s Roger Deakins is a cetainty and I’ve seen all the contenders. As is Ratatouille for best animation
I havent yet seen Julie Christie or Daniel day Lewis so I might be short of best actor and actress. It’s really boring how long it’s taking for some films to hit the UK. I might have to settle for tapes. Have you managed to see Juno? I’m really struggling to find it.
68 You should no better than to challenge the Shameron stance on here in any way . The Cameroon psycophants are ever ready to produce a chorus of abuse to try and shout you down .
75. Two bad puns in two sentances, you are trying hard.
75 and I should know better than to type no instead of know .
73 Really! I hadn’t noticed that people like seant and a few others were reluctant to indulge in the odd insult, not that I’ve ever complained!!
74 “At last a sensible post!”
Yes - one about the Oscars. Which has how much to do with political betting? Although admittedly a happy diversion, Roger - as in this instance you do know of what you speak.
[78] Yup, if we’d had a Tory government Northern Rock would never have collapsed and neither would the stock markets.
If anyone has punted £50 on the “British Social Attitudes” survey, I’d be really interested to know what percentage of Labour voters don’t have a “bias to the poor” - it’s hard to believe that such voters have any strong partisan attachment, and the number would serve as a useful proxy for Labour’s “core vote”.
65 Yes can we have Roger’s thoughts on the oscars.
Good to see a nice level of debate on here. The usual suspects on both sides throwing casual insults.
82 - Yes there is often more venom here than in a snake farm, but often it is merely the misapplication of wit and sarcasm.
74. NuLab rule no1 - play the man not the issue. See David Kelly for example no 1.
Wow, record showing of Creatures this morning - you’re really not fans of the Government, huh? Note the parallel claims that the whole of PMQ is important because millions see it live via broadband, and Cameron doesn’t need to do well if he gets a soundbite because so few people see it live.
FWIW I’ve disliked PMQ for years - disliked it when TB was routinely triumphant, dislike it now. Lots of people feel that way, and think it shows politicians at their worst - or, worse, that we’re always like that. But clearly we have to put up with it - a change at this point would be interpreted as weakness.
The actual effect is mildly polarising, I think. Most people don’t care, but people who dislike the government are reinforced by clips of Cameron saying something sarky, and people who usually vote Labour are annoyed by the same clips. It’s a factor in maintaining the Labour core vote in the 30s, but also a factor in raising Tory certainty to vote. The effect on backbenchers is similar - unless the result is very one-sided everyone always thinks their man did better than expected.
The only bit that really matters in terms of shifting votes is the extent to which it reinforces a media narrative - it gives a hook to hang a current theme on ‘X pasted Y yesterday on issue Z’. If the media is hostile - and currently it’s certainly not helpful to Labour - then critical PMQ reports are ammunition and if you don’t get a clear win then the media can report it any way they like - which is currently likely to be anti-Brown.
6
‘Ed Balls, the Schools Secretary and Gordon Brown’s close ally, went close to suggesting that (interest rate) cuts were on the way. “The good news from Britain’s point of view is that inflation is low, and is coming down,” he told the BBC.’
Inflation is low,and is coming down,is Balls on drink or drugs?
I can’t help,as a Labour voter,but let the kamikaze option cross my mind:
(a)Recent history shows winning a fourth term goes down like a lead balloon
(b)After three victories,you can honourable lose,saying’Ah well,enough felt it was time for a change’
(c)Were Labour to lose it would be by only a narrow margin
(d)Based on my lifetime,including Heath when I was only a toddler,within 2 years something massive would go bang in DC’s face,shattering his credibility,and almost certaninly dooming him to lose the subsequent general election
So even if DC winds up leader of a minority Conservative govt,I would watch with interest,waiting for near-certain disaster..
O/T - Another 4 missing discs, this time court cases.
86 Not unless he’s the former MP for Chelsea:lol:
89 Portillo? Or Sir Nicholas Scott?
85. So in summary - “yes it’s important” ?
86 If you had listened closely to what Mervyn King said in his speech last night , there was a clear hint that interest rates will be cut at the next opportunity .
91; “yes but not very”.
I’m sure that if Brown had the knack for PMQs that Blair had, he would be rather endeared to the format and not even consider criticising it.
However, Brown struggles with PMQs and so has taken a dislike to them - how predictable.
A Swansea Blog
[87] No - if Cameron forms a minority government, no one will expect or require him to go a full term - he’ll go back to the country after 18 months or so and get a “proper” majority. Also in that situation Labour wouldn’t be able to “clean house” properly (or function as an effective opposition - not that it will anyway), Brown may even hang on as its Leader.
It shows up a merit in the American system - what you can’t do in eight years, you can’t do. Even her most devoted admirers would be hard pressed to list Margaret Thatcher’s successes after 1987 - all the rest of us can remember is the Poll Tax, such a good idea that not one single member of the Conservative Party to-day wants it back.
17. Sean Fear.
How do you square this with your “region-by-region” seat breakdown predictions?
I believe you estimated a Labour tally of ~250 seats, which would imply a loss of approx. 110 Labour MPs.
Does this all compute??
94 “Brown struggles with PMQs and so has taken a dislike to them”
I predict he will develop a strong dislike for General Elections too. Around about May, 2010…..
92. Yes and he also said that inflation (CPI) was likely to breach the 3% limit.
Brown has stuck to announcents of increases in tractor production since 1997, with comparisions of grain harvests in 1989-1997. His focus on Tory economic mismangent is begining to ring hollow.
He and his party managers are very reliant on obscure backbenchers reading from prepared scripts to highlight rising levels of treatment for boils, plague and pestilence in their consitituencies. Perhaps there have been significant improvements but given the levels of spending on the NHS is this unsurprising.
Camoron’s six questions, and Cable’s two allow the opposition parties to put pressure on Mr Has-Bean. This is when Brown appears to lose his bottle, his answers rise in volume, almost to a shout, his complexion reddens and his hands shake, unless they are grasping the lectern. Brown is saved from the pressure by interjections from Gorbals Mick, who invariably rides to the rescue. Brown appears to be keeping his anger under control but one wonders if he will really lose it in front of his own MPs and the cameras. Compared to his early PMQs there has been some improvement in his approach, but all too often he resembles a wounded bear, angry and too ready to strike out at random.
PMQs rarely give backbenchers the chance to ask questions, and have clear answers from Brown. They cannot stand up and ask supplementry questions. He can get away with not answering the questions from the opposition before some helpful NuLab minion asks about tractor output. His tactic of trying to ask questions of the Leader of the Opposition is an attempt to avoid his own responsibilities.
Brown has been sitting next to Blair for a long time, and has learnt little about it. Given his reluctance as Chancellor to appear in the Commons to be held to account or questioned on the shambolic admistration of Tax Credits, is this really a surprise? Essentially opposition questions can’t be micro managed, controlled, but even with the dice loaded against them the opposition parties can undermine Brown’s standing. If he can’t take the rough and tumble of PMQs, he really ought to reconsider his position.
97 - He already has, he thought about it didn’t see the polls and ran away.
Interesting clips… Two point spring to mind.
1) Blair was great
2) The Tories, smiling away like idiots, were in total denial about their position. At least the Labour benches aren’t as glib
I rather enjoy PMQs, and I think that it is important for a Prime Minister to get a reality check once a week. It also forces the Prime Minister to get into the detail of the burning issues of the week and to understand his own Government’s position on all such topics with sufficient clarity to be able to articulate it. I don’t see how that can be a bad thing.
85 nothing to do with holding the leader of the government to account then. Supine MPs and a political class merely interested in its own perpetuation is a depressing fact of life. the fact the person being questioned isn’t required to actually answer any questions is the worst feature of all and stretches back as far as I can recall from when it was only on the radio.
O/T Alex Salmond has a new friend:
“Alex Salmond and I have virtually never even talked about this job but I know for a fact that he - and anyone else who’s representing Scotland, unless they’re the enemy - wants billions of pounds to come into Aberdeenshire and Scotland.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/7203148.stm
85: Nick, the two things that most turn people off PMQs are the PM not answering the questions (plus in Brown’s case asking them too) and the ‘Can the PM tell me how wonderful he is and how pants the Tories are’ type questions.
101. Rather extreme straw-clutching by the sullen and dwindling band of Labour supporters today.
92
Balls must be one of the few people in this country that thinks that ‘inflation is low and coming down’,he needs to get out more.
Train fares,energy bills ,council tax,food and petrol ring any bells?
I guess its just a question that if you repeat a lie often enough (the consumer price index as a measure of inflation)you eventually believe it.
107.
Inflation is low and coming down.
Balls.
108 - Balls misspoke he didn’t mean to say inflation, but Labour’s poll rating is low and coming down.
98. 3% on CPI must mean 7 or 8% on RPI.
Still Balls says inflation is coming down so that’s ok.
105 Three things actually. You forgot to mention Cameron’s usual refusal to acknowledge the point made before continuing with the next rehearsed soundbite for the evening news.
I watch PMQs and often see a different live feed to the ones many conservative supporters see. Yes Brown’s bluster is awkward but Cameron’s over confidence is equally off-putting.
107. I note a recent trend toward ministers referring to ‘the problems in America’ as the root cause of the UK’s economic difficulties.
It’s all starting to sound very reminiscent of the pathetic ‘world recession’…’green shoots’…style rhetoric of the early 1990s. Next we will have Balls et al telling us that unemployment is a price ‘well worth paying’.
112 - As long as we don’t have Alistair Darling doing a Piaf impression!
112…..the pending unemployment of 100+ Labour MPs will of course be hugely beneficial
I’ve just been reading both the Cameron Times interview and the way SKY have reported it - Haven’t seen any TV coverage yet but there seems to be a change in the way he’s portrayed. Though no fan of his, I do think there’s an aspect of “Well its his turn now, let’s start the kicking”.
The Times frontpage is interesting in its choice of headline. The interview, although highlighting no great depth, was wide ranging in the subjects touched upon (with the exception of the usual name-calling), yet the media narrative is one of ‘fudge’ on the one single issue of faith schools.
Is this the start of the media move back to focus on Cameron? Just a quick observation.
111. Cameron is supposed to ask the questions, not the PM. When Brown asks a qeustion back Cameron is under no obligation to answer or even acknowledge it.
re 111. This is questions to the prime minister - not questions to the leader of the opposition and the Speaker should always, rather than just occasionally, stop Brown from responding by asking questions of Cameron.
Interesting though that in the extracts shown above John Major was using the same technique of answering a point by putting a question.
OT, very sad news about Heath Ledger. He was great fun in First Knight, and brilliant in Brokeback Mountain.
Just goes to show. He was apparently someone who had it all - talented, handsome, rich, adored, beautiful wife, lovely kid, all his life ahead of him - then he breaks up with the wife and kills himself with prescription pills a year later.
RIP, mate.
116 But my point is that he asks questions simply designed for the headline & soundbite rather than showing any great depth or knowledge of the subject. And by not responding to an answer shows him as unable to debate the subject, which all helps to fuel the belief that many voters have of him, namely that he is merely PR driven with a desire to be PM and no more.
It just puts people off PMQs and fuels the general malaise about politics. I do expect the turnout to be very low indeed at the next GE.
117 - Indeed and he got swept away by the biggest landslide since 1906.
As we all know, we now live in a broken and lawless society because of the policies of New Labour.
At least for half an hour a week, Labour MPs aren’t damaging the country by coming up with more flawed policies.
In the same way that dangerous mental patients can do no harm to us when they are locked up, perhaps PMQs should be extended from half an hour to forty hours.
That would be the safest thing for society. Keep them in the asylum and let them out for weekends only.
[105] - PMQs is a national embarrassment for the two reasons you mention, though I might also add that the leader of the Opposition often asks questions as though he were scoring points in a sixth form debating society, rather than on the important matters of the day to the most powerful person in the country.
Although it would seem to be letting Brown “off the hook”, something I am reluctant to do, it is tempting to suggest that it would benefit politics in the country for PMQs to be abolished.
Seriously, what benefit does the absurd media circus serve?
117. Mike
Interesting though that in the extracts shown above John Major was using the same technique of answering a point by putting a question.
And look what good it did him!
117 I do agree with you regarding Brown by the way, my original point was merely to inject some balance into the initial diatribe - with the wider view of politics in mind.
I for one would welcome more Labour posters on this site and less of the partisan claims.
I’m not a Gordon Brown fan - wasn’t well before he became PM and his performance as PM is as bad as I expected. Realised today that part of this was the first coup attempt in 2004 when Tony Blair was at his weakest with combined health and family problems, which led to the “I won’t seek a fourth term” announcement. While recognising “that ’s politics” couldn’t help but compare Blair’s response to Brown losing his daughter in 2002 to Brown’s use of difficult family problem to Brown’s advntage.
So many of those complaining on here about PMQs - “it puts people off politics”, “it feeds voter apathy”, “no wonder turnout is low”, “it makes voters dislike politicians” - are Lib Dems and Labourites who, by coincidence, are right this minute trying to deny the people their democratic rights.
i.e The chance to vote in an EU referendum. The chance to participate in a crucial political decision affecting the entire country. The chance to take part in the democratic exercise that was PROMISED BY ALL PARTIES IN THEIR MANIFESTOES.
Really. What more can you do to fuel apathy and dislike of politics than deliberately lie to the people? And take away their right to vote?
Apart from Peter the Punter, Lib Dems and Labourites are hypocritical scumbags.
IMO Brown pays Cameron an unnecessary compliment when he asks him a question. Does anyone really care what this week’s position is from the other side of the commons? It will be different next week.
IMO Brown needs to find other ways to draw attention to Cameron’s weaknesses, rhetorical mocking worked well for Blair. Maybe just lowering the temperature will deny Cameron the oxygen of publicity. If I were Brown I would praise Cameron and welcome his conversion to the middle ground.
119. Erm, its PM questions. The rules are that the PM is asked questions by the house, including the leader of the opposition. Cameron not answering isn’t him not wanting to debate the issues, but him following the rules as set out. He asks the questions, Brown answers (or doesn’t, as he seems mostly to do) that is the point of PMQ’s. If Brown wants a proper debate he could go on question time (he never ever has) and have one, or do a public debate with his opponant(same again).
118. SeanT
Yes, very sad news.
Apparantly, the fact he “had it all” was part of the problem. He was very comfortable with it.
“Fame” is sh1te. Everyone thinks they want it, but as soon as they get it, they can’t handle it.
This whole thing reminds me of River Phonenix. Kurt Cobain was another.
So many actors/musicians turn to drugs and suffer depression. They can’t define themselves, or their lives anymore.
Britney Spears and Amy Winehouse are two of the latest to go off the rails.
And we can think of more who’ve had problems… Pete Doherty, Robbie Williams, Owen Wilson, McCaulay Culkin…
The list goes on and on.
Screw fame. Not interested.
126 “Apart from Peter the Punter, Lib Dems and Labourites are hypocritical scumbags.”
There’s nothing more off-putting than a self-righteous tory (he smiles)
129. “He was very comfortable with it.”
Doh! That’s “He was very UNCOMFORTABLE with it”!
OK - so I’m a Blair fan - and I hardly ever watch PMQs since Brown took over, but Brown can’t just cancel PMQs because he’s rotten at it. I mean, he’d have to cancel his premiership too, if he were to be consistent. Oh, no - that wouldn’t worry him, would it?
I have plenty of videos at my site on Blair if you want to see how it SHOULD be done.
Btw, Blair called PMQs “a blood sport, with me as the quarry” - and he said, “it’s all bo**ocks”. Yet Hague, IDS and others admitted that he was unbeatable in the forum.
So it’s not just me …
http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/video-pmqs-prime-ministers-questions-house-of-commons/
128 If there is no debate then what’s the point of PMQs?
After the hubris of recent years it’s refreshing and timely to see the Labour muppets squirm as their chickens start coming home to roost. Carry on cackling and squealing lads, it’s the beginning of the end for you lot and your increasingly weird leader’s appalling misgovernance of this country and it’s economy.
Mrs Balls is as bad as her husband on BBC2 now. It’s the kids I feel sorry for. Imagine what it’s like when they ask for their pocket money to be increased. Browbeaten into accepting nothing because inflation is going down.
130. I’m just stating the facts. I’m not insulting anyone or trying to provoke. Labourites and Lib Dems simply ARE hypocritical scumbags, and I think the more thoughtful ones, like Nick Palmer, would probably admit that they are hypocritical scumbags.
I mean. How dare they complain about voter apathy and a dislike of politicians, when they behave with venal arrogance, and deny us a chance to vote on the future of the nation, a vote they explicitly promised us?
The disdain for he electorate is arrant and repugnant. And this behaviour is precisely why people are not bothering to vote anymore. Why should they? The government doesn’t want to know. The government thinks the people are stupid. Too stupid to understand the issues and therefore vote “correctly”.
Given the chance lefties would abolish elections and decide everything by just asking each other what to do, at agreeable dinner parties in Canonbury.
I would argue PMQs is very important.
It is the single event in the week where the leader of the country must come down from the comforts of the Downing Street Bunker, into a hostile environment, and face questioning. It is democracy in action.
Sure the shouting and the bawling looks a bit strange, but it’s all to stoke this atmosphere of discourse and debate - genuine, honest, lets-get-down-and-fight, courtroom-style debating. It is very important for our democracy. To say a PM who doesn’t have good debating skills and is therefore poor at PMQs and disadvantaged is to say that they are not a good PM - debating skills are very important for the top job, you need to be able to communicate and get your point across.
Yes, sometimes *even* in a hostile environment!
This is why PMQs is so good. It is a surrogate for the country. Some people cheering you on. Some people shouting back at you because they think you’re not doing a good job. Every Prime Minister should be able to handle that. And if they cannot, I honestly believe in our British version of democracy they should not hold the position.
133. The point of PMQ’s is exactly as it is called, for the prime minister to answer questions made by members of parliament. If Brown wants to change it to a debate he can do, but he’d have to add a great deal more time onto it each week as half an hour wouldn’t be long enough for that, and be prepared to come under more pressure, which we know he’s been unable to handle so far.
Ted.”I for one would welcome more Labour posters on this site and less of the partisan claims”
While the site is completely overwhelmed by very young (I hope for their sake) Tory posters who write nothing that’s either interesting or amusing but just chant insults not only will you not see Labour posters you wont even see sensible Tory ones. You Ted are a rare exception today but it’s noticeable that the standard is so low that even Printz has come out of retirement
Casino Royale, Labour notionally now have 348 seats, so IMO, their likely loss at the next election is 100.
‘Ed Balls, the Schools Secretary and Gordon Brown’s close ally, went close to suggesting that (interest rate) cuts were on the way. “The good news from Britain’s point of view is that inflation is low, and is coming down,” he told the BBC.’
I wouldnt expect anything less from the man primarily responsible for the mess we’re in. During Brown’s 10 year tenure as Chancellor, it was Ed Balls, the Harvard economics ‘genius’ and ex FT journalist who really ran things, as Brown “didnt have too much of a grasp for figures”
” 20- what kind of disaster- the 20th century saw a few in Europe as nation states ran diametrically opposed foreign policies.
The Euro is now proving something of a success to those countries that joined. ”
Good for them… the pounds not doing bad either thanks.
37. This is a massive clanger from Dave and a great opportunity for Labour. They could say,
“Labour’s policy is to allocate a proportion of parents/children who aren’t from the faith in question, so that non-Catholics, for example can legitimately send their kids to a Catholic school. Why doesn’t Dave support Labour’s policy?”
and
“If as a parent you lie to the school then you are implicating your kids in this lie. Is this a good way to bring up children?”
But will Labour pick up on this? Is there anyone at Victoria Street or Downing Street who is now specifically responsible for rebutting Opposition errors? I think not, and that’s partly why Labour is f*cked.
139. But you Woger, will always be with us, like gen1tal herpes, or the poor.
Because you have nothing else to do, after your retirement from your, ahem, “career”.
I think Gordon Brown is a sincere person. The trouble is he thinks he has to be economic with the trith in PMQs and that is difficult for him.
Blair was a master manipulator and revelled in the untruth, whereas Brown finds it uncomfortable to “perform.”
The answer is simple. Brown should just tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
It would be a breath of fresh air and only then will the people not be turned off, because right now it is all to do with scoring points and repeating pre-prepared soundbites, avoiding the question and playing to the cameras. It is all a badly played charade.
139. ‘young Tory posters who.. write nothing that’s either interesting or amusing but just chant insults ..’
But Roger that sounds just like you. The only difference being that you are an old gyet and should know better.
133 Surely if it is to be a genuine questioning of the PM on topics of specific interest to MPs, then parameters should be more tightly drawn - do we really need a high profile media dominated bearpit? Surely the place for “politics” is in big debates on controversial subjects (and I hesitate to mention this) such as the current EU constitutional arrangements debates.
Cameron’s perfect put-down when Brown resorts to asking him a question would be to say “My Right Honourable friend seems a little confused; the purpose of this session is about the Leader of the Opposition asking questions of the Prime Minister; I’m not yet the Prime Minister…
Part of his job description is to answer questions; if he won’t, I’ll take it he doesn’t want the job anymore. A pity, after he took so long and destroyed the careers of so many others to get it”
We’ve got some BBC wonk on the Daily Politics telling us the last 4 PMQs have been victories for Gordon Brown and David Cameron is ‘in trouble’.
Yes. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
149. It’s Michael Crick. Well known Labour man.<