Angus Robertson will become evasive about his commitment

At Prime Minister's Questions this lunchtime Angus Robertson, Leader of the Scottish National Party MPs, was critical of the government's policy in taking refugees from Syria.

It would help if Mr Robertson could tell us how many of these refugees should be admitted to Scotland and who will pay for their settlement there.

One suspects that as soon as numbers start to be discussed Angus Robertson will become evasive about his commitment.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006nldz

Labour referring to the 1930s in Prime Minister's Questions

The problem with Labour referring to the 1930s in Prime Minister's Questions as some kind of economic benchmark is that very few people alive today can remember the 1930s.

In the 1980s it had some resonance as most people over 50 could remember the economic conditions.

Now it is just an historical event that they may, or may not, have been taught about in school.

Someone aged 20 in 1933 would be aged 80 now.

Ask a question at PMQs

Yet another MP (this time Chi Onwurah - previously Chris Bryant has done the same) has been picked to ask a question at PMQs and goes on Twitter to canvass opinion on what she should say.

Are we employing as members of Parliament people who are incapable of thinking for themselves?

Are we employing as members of Parliament people who have no causes or campaigns close to their heart and when presented with an opportunity to speak at Prime Minister's Questions go onto social media to ask what to do (instead of perhaps consulting their constituents)?

Why do we not dispense with Chi Onwurah entirely, saving ourselves £60k pa, and have her parliamentary contributions completely decided by social media and delivered in the Commons via Wolfgang von Kempelen's Speaking Machine?

At this rate it can only be a matter of time before MPs start auctioning their questions on E-bay.

Prime Minister's Questions 28th November 2012

Ed Miliband was more restrained in his style today, which made him appear more statesmanlike.  He should avoid wagging his finger, it does not look good.  The "rats in a sack" remark was unfortunate, and gave the Prime Minister an opportunity for a quick-witted riposte (about Gordon Brown and Tony Blair not able to tolerate each other).

The ad hominem attack he made about bluster and a red face was unworthy and did not add anything to his argument (in fact it rather detracted).

The red ribbons stunt in the doughnut area around the Leader of the Opposition looked contrived (when you are trying to make an impression, that is the impression you make).

Further along the bench was an interesting contrast - the disdainful smile of Harriet Harman with, next to her, the excited shouting and rude pointing of red-jacketed Angela Eagle.

Prime Minister's Questions 7th November 2012

Stunning performance by Nick Clegg at Prime Minister's Questions.

Who would have thought he had it in him.

Leaden ungracious unwitty Speaker as usual.

Sledging

At Prime Minister's Questions the cameras showed, briefly, some of the sledging by Ed Balls towards the Prime Minister - the Speaker does nothing about this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sledging_%28cricket%29

The Labour leader struggled to land a blow - The New Statesman's view:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2012/10/pmqs-review-miliband-struggles-convince 

Does the question asked by Chris Bryant later today have any validity

Is it really the case that Chris Bryant MP is so bereft of ideas, imagination and campaigning zeal that when chosen to ask the first question at Prime Minister's Questions in the House of Commons later today he has to go onto Twitter to find out what he should ask?

https://twitter.com/ChrisBryantMP

So many questions arise from this:

1  Is Chris Bryant not admitting that he is unfit to be a Member of Parliament if he cannot even marshall the intellectual nous to ask a question on his own?

2  What was wrong with asking his constituents?  Or does he really care more about the opinions of his Twitter followers than the people he is supposed to be representing?  Please don't tell me they are one and the same - a tiny fraction of the electorate of Rhondda will have Twitter accounts.

3  Is it not an abuse of House of Commons procedure to allow (encourage indeed) Twitter to influence what questions are asked at PMQs?

4  Are we moving away from a Parliamentary system of government and more towards one in which the ordinary people are able to directly intervene in the House of Commons through on-line participation?

5  If we are moving towards government by social media, is Twitter the best way of introducing on-line participation in the procedures of the House of Commons? - Twitter often brings out the worst in people.

6  Does the question asked by Chris Bryant later today have any validity if it is not really the question of a member of parliament but merely the gobby opinions of some Twitter loudmouth?  

       




No use expecting the Speaker of the House of Commons to intervene - he must be the most biased Speaker of post-war times, entirely pro-Labour.

Prime Minister's Questions, 7th December 2011

Have just watched this week's PMQs.

Ed Miliband asked why the government was so slow in taxing private jets - I thought the Prime Minister was very quick-witted in responding to this (referring to former Labour prime ministers use of private jets).

John Baron MP called for a fundamental renegotiation of the United Kingdom's relationship with the EU.

Tory grandee Sir Peter Tapsell referred to the Eurozone and said "fiscal union will pose a great threat to the liberty of Europe" (by creating an undemocratic power bloc within the EU).  In reply the Prime Minister praised Sir Peter's "great knowledge, wisdom and foresight".  But he didn't really answer the question.

Prime Minister's Questions, 14th July 2010

I watched Prime Minister's Questions at lunchtime.

One of the questions was from Keith Vaz's sister who has "popped up" as MP for Walsall.

I thought we had ended the corrupt practice of families regarding the House of Commons as a resource they can use to enrich their particular "family firm". Of idiot children, aged mothers and endless siblings being eased into public positions because of who they are related to. Or are we supposed to believe Valerie Vaz got herself selected and elected entirely on her own merit?

I would like to see a convention (or better still legislation) preventing more than one member of a family holding a House of Commons seat at any one time.

Just as nauseating was a question from one Tory backbencher whining about the amount of paperwork he had to complete to reclaim his expenses. The simple answer to this is to end all expenses full stop (and without "compensating" pay rises). There is no end to the arrogance and greed and corruption of these people.

Prime Minister's Question's, Wednesday 7th July 2010

Lunchtime today I managed to watch Prime Minister's Questions.

This is the first time I have done so since the new government was formed (I suppose I could watch the recorded version, but it is never the same - you need to see it live).

I was impressed at how competent David Cameron looked. He is very quick-witted. At one stage he seriously discomfited Alan Johnson (later in the studio Andrew Neil produced a killer clip of Alan Johnson from the election campaign).

The Speaker's behaviour was irritating. John Bercow is probably the most undignified Speaker of modern times. Perhaps the post should be directly elected (and removed) by the people.

Chuka Umunna asked about knife crime. Roger Williams asked a question that appeared to be interesting, but was so obscurely worded it was unintelligible. Rushanara Ali asked about housing in the East End.

More: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00t164p/Prime_Ministers_Questions_07_07_2010/

Prime Minister's Questions, 15th July 2009

At lunchtime today I went up to the Board Room to watch the last Prime Minister’s Questions of this parliamentary session. Andrew Neil explained the MPs would now be on holiday until mid-October, and consequently his political programmes will also be off-air (is this long break really necessary? – the world doesn’t come to a stop just because MPs are lazing away the summer). On the studio panel Kevin Maguire, political editor of the Daily Mirror stood in for Nick Robinson.

The cameras went across to the House of Commons. The Speaker, the odious John Bercow, looked ridiculous in the huge Speaker’s chair (he is a little man). Ironically he has rejected the traditional Speaker’s wig and robes, which may have helped him fill the chair a bit more adequately.

The government front bench looked drab (apart from Peter Hain’s lurid pink tie). On the other side the Opposition seemed to have grouped pastel cream colours around their leader, giving the camera shot a fresh-looking appearance. These subliminal details are important (but I know colour psychology is hard to get right).

This was a remarkable Prime Minister’s Questions – possibly the most remarkable I have seen. David Cameron, leader of the Conservatives, effectively used his six questions to force an emergency debate on Afghanistan, using twenty minutes of the half-hour PMQs to talk about the most important issue facing the country. The Speaker tried to stop this interlocution but was rebuffed by David Cameron.

Gordon Brown told us once again: “We have got to make sure terrorism does not hit the streets of Britain, which is why we are in Afghanistan…” This ignores the issue that since we are an island, with only so many points of entry, surely if the budget and personnel currently allocated to the war in Afghanistan (9,000 men and women and £2.5 billion) were reallocated to border security (and monitoring those demographics generating “home grown” terrorism) how would it be possible for terrorism to take place on “the streets” of Britain? The case has not been logically made for ensuring the security of the United Kingdom by fighting a war in central Asia.

David Cameron did not challenge the principles on which the war was being fought, but returned again and again (in a very measured and considered way) to the issue of inadequate provision, especially equipment, to fight the war effectively. He referred to “four defence secretaries, two shared procurement ministers, and a defence secretary that is twenty-first in rank in the Cabinet.” It seemed a damning comment on what ought to be our most pressing political and national endeavour.

The rest of the questions were hardly worthy of mention. There did seem to be, however, an absence of planted questions. The only planted question I could identify was by Anne Begg who asked about the Speaker’s Conference on the Diversity of the House of Commons (an unintended ironic question since Speaker Bercow is a former white supremacist who in his FCS days apparently resembled an extra from Mississippi Burning).

The war in Afghanistan has entered national consciousness, after a long dormant period. It is uncertain how this new awareness will impact on the political situation, especially as a mood is arising that something must be done. Presumably resources must be allocated to ensure “victory” or the British forces should be withdrawn.

I was reminded of past neo-colonial conflicts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnpaCbUV2eY&feature=channel_page

Prime Minister's Questions, 20th May 2009

Above: St Stephen's Tavern (on the left). Just across the road from the Houses of Parliament. When I first joined the agency I was warned about Terry (our MD): "...and don't whatever you do get him started on what he said to Sir Ronald Bell in the dive bar of St Stephen's Tavern back in seventy-eight..."

A very hurried lunch today, but I went up to the Board Room to join Terry watching Prime Minister's Questions on BBC2.

The bench behind the Prime Minister looked far too cramped, with a sort of jostling and elbowing going on ("there's far too many MPs" said Terry). Gordon Brown read out the latest casualties in Afghanistan but saved his sincere tones for valedictory praise of the Speaker (who announced his resignation yesterday). As the Prime Minister addressed the Speaker's chair it seemed like one lost cause saluting another.

The Prime Minister looked very ill at ease in this session. He made an unfortunate slip about the post office losing millions of letters. He meant losing the business, but it sounded as if the Royal Mail had actually lost that number of items, leading to guffaws of unkind laughter from the Opposition (just to one side of the Prime Minister we could see Harriet Harman narrow her eyes, as if willing him to get a grip).

David Cameron asked again and again when there would be a General Election. Gordon Brown should have been better prepared for this onslaught. Even the most junior PR on our top floor could have predicted these questions and come up with some lines.

One Labour backbench MP referred to those brave British soldiers who "died in the cause of Afghanistan" which made me wonder what exactly is "the cause" that must be mentioned so obliquely.

Conservative Stewart Jackson stood up to talk about fairness and equality in the cause of grandparent's rights ("surprised he has the nerve to show his face" said Terry - Stewart Jackson was disgraced in the on-going expenses scandal).

Labour's Keith Vaz got up to point his finger righteously over the issue of human trafficking. On the bench behind Diane Abbott MP had a worried look on her face, as if concerned for him. Mr Vaz was wearing a lime green tie, and I wondered idly whether it was silk, and if so whether we had paid for it (Keith Vaz had used taxpayers' money to buy luxurious silk cushions for his second home - there is no mention on Google of this money being paid back).

An excellent question on the building of a high speed rail network.

An interesting question by Martin Linton on the Citizen's Convention (but who would trust this lot to "reform" the constitution - they would only gerrymander the whole process to suit themselves).

But mostly I thought how unimportant and irrelevant all this was. I used to look forward to Prime Minister's Questions each week. Now I just felt what a charade it all is.

Disgusting people (most of them, but not all).



Above: have just watched the start of Newsnight. A Conservative MP has been forced to "stand down" because he has spent £2,000 of taxpayers' money on an in-lake "duck house". There was some debate about what a duck house might look like. One of our neighbours has a lake duck house which I photographed recently (see above). It seems a reasonable use of tax payers' money, although it should be expenditure authorised by the Department of Environment rather than the House of Commons Fees Office. An in-lake duck house keeps the ducks safe from foxes, which is reasonable.

Prime Minister’s Questions, 11th March 2009

Three topics interested me:

There was a lot of talk about the renewed violence in Northern Ireland with a unanimous support for unity among the leaders of Northern Ireland, as if unity could be willed into unilateral existence. This ignores the fact that the problem of republican extremism lies in the unreconstructed politics and creation myths of the Irish Republic. These in turn depend upon the legacy of the extreme policies of Eamonn De Valera which have never been examined or scrutinised in any meaningful way. What the “Real” or “Continuity” IRA are doing to Martin McGuiness and Gerry Adams is what de Valera did to Michael Collins. The pattern will repeat itself until the original thesis is challenged and faced down within the Irish Republic. Blatherings from Peter Hain about encouraging unity are meaningless in this context.

In reply to a question from Labour’s Andrew Miller the Prime Minister referred to a “car summit” which presumably means we are going to attempt to revive the “big car economy” despite the opportunity to use the downturn to reconstruct our harmful dependence on the internal combustion engine.

Conservative Nicolas Winterton raised the inflationary consequences of “quantitative easing” (printing money). In reply the Prime Minister said “we have kept inflation low in this country” – this is not true as inflation was kept low by artificially cheap Chinese imports and the true rate of inflation was demonstrated by the explosion of prices in the housing market. Quantitative easing must lead to hyper-inflation as whichever politician attempts to turn off the tap will lose the subsequent election (and so the tap will never be turned off until the system collapses again – you can see this coming!).

Prime Minister's Questions, 4th March 2009

Above: is there no end to the parade of lickspittle lapdog politicians scurrying across the Atlantic whenever there is a power change in Washington?

I watched Prime Minister's Questions at lunchtime. The Prime Minister wasn't present, having gone to America for a thirty-minute meeting with the new American president. Leader of the House Harriet Harman took the Prime Minister's place, sitting on the front bench between David Milliband and Alistair Campbell.

The studio preamble predicted that Harriet Harman would be laughed at by all sections of the Commons for her recent public populist comments and not-so-public manouvring to replace Gordon Brown. With the Prime Minister away nothing serious would be said. I prepared to witness some knockabout silliness.

But the list of armed forces personnel killed over the last two weeks seemd unusually high, and when Opposition Deputy Leader William Hague led with a reference to the lack of objectives in Afghanistan I briefly thought an attempt would be made to hold the government to account for their chaotic and contradictory foreign policy. "They have given their lives" said William Hague, and I waited for him to tell us what they had given their lives for. When he failed to develop his question I found myself becoming angry, and the rest of Prime Minister's questions passed in a blur.

What are British armed forces doing in Afghanistan? What were/are (it is unclear whether we are in or out) British armed forces doing in Iraq? What exactly is the British Prime Minister doing in Washington?

Although I have many individual American friends, for a long time I have been ambivalent about "America" in a collective sense, and I do not regard the American government (whatever party) as a friend of the United Kingdom.

At best the two countries are allies with a broad spectrum of similar interests - but it goes no further than that.

There is no special relationship, there never has been a special relationship, there never will be.

There never will be because if a democracy is functioning properly a government is the servant of its people and must put their interests first, ahead of those of foreigners.

The Anglo-American "special relationship" amounts to no more than a special permission granted by British politicians for American presidents to use United Kingdom assets and interests as if they were their own (and increasingly this means the waste of young service men and women who are being killed pointlessly in Afghanistan while America manouvres itself into a position where it can claim "peace with honor, not peace with surrender" and scuttle off home).

This is not to condemn the American government. They are a foreign government pursuing their own national interests. But I do condemn British politicians for their self-interested addiction to American publicity and (shameful to say) American money.

It is no coincidence that the mega-lying creep Tony Blair and his Lady Macbeth wife were feted at The White House while Gordon Brown was allotted thirty minutes. Foreign leaders are bought and sold as a matter of course in Washington, and those who are not in favour are given short shrift. European politicians may be finessed with more skill, but their effective status seems to be little different to the third world despots openly paid-for by the CIA (again, this is not to condemn the American government - they are a foreign government pursuing their own national interests).

Which really raises the question: what do British politicians hope to achieve by their humiliating self-abasement to American presidents? Hints are made about access to "secrets" but it is entirely unclear whether these "secrets" are really worth knowing. Reference is made to availability of military technology, but Britain is not a poor country and presumably can afford to defend itself without relying on foreign assistance.

The main beneficiaries of the "special relationship" seem to be British politicians with over-inflated egos who get an opportunity to appear on the world stage and forget for a while that they represent a small country with limited power (and ironically British power and influence was diminished in large part as a result of American foreign policy post-1945).

Thirty minutes indeed! If that is the value they put on British friendship we should try them with a dose of British neutrality. Or even (I'm talking at a government to government level) British enmity.



Above: Tristram Hunt identified some weeks ago that Britain would be slighted by the incoming American government. The British alliance has become an embarrassment to the new American administration. What do they care if a few more old-world fogeys are killed in Afghanistan.

Prime Minister's Questions, 11th February 2009

At noon today I watched Prime Minister’s Questions.

In the studio Hazel Blears was talking to Andrew Neil. Even after twelve years of power her verbal style is one of opposition. This ruse (if it is a deliberate ruse) takes you in briefly until you realise that she is part of the power structure and needs to be explaining more and complaining less.

The cameras went across to the House of Commons where there was a great deal of red on the Labour benches.

Referring to whistleblowers, sackings and resignations, Leader of the Opposition David Cameron asked about the behaviour of Sir James Crosby (simultaneously poacher and game-keeper as a banker who sat on the FSA, presumably regulating himself).

Gordon Brown tried to obfuscate the scandal by referring to the process of inquiry (“the KMPG investigation” and “the Walker Committee”).

David Cameron continued to refer to Sir James Crosby and made a frontal assault: “The Prime Minister has been relying on him for economic advice.”

Gordon Brown distanced himself from Sir James Crosby, saying he had been involved in two reports which were now finished (the curl on his lip and snarl in his voice telling David Cameron he had been ready for such a trap).

David Cameron fatuously asked the Prime Minister to “admit he got something wrong” (Gordon Brown’s position echoes that of Asquith – Come one come all this rock shall fly, from its firm base as soon as I).

Gordon Brown launched into a long list of Tory shortcomings (but seemed to be put off by David Cameron and George Osborne whispering in front of him).

David Cameron asked Gordon Brown whether his prediction about the resumption of economic growth in July this year was still credible.

Gordon Brown called the Leader of the Opposition a “do nothing” and seemed to imply that President Obama shared this opinion.

At this point the shouting on the Labour benches had reached such a pitch that the Speaker stood up and told them bluntly “Don’t push your luck”.

David Cameron ended his viva voce examination of the Prime Minister by accusing him of “incompetence and arrogance”.

Gordon Brown bellowed back “wrong, wrong, wrong” and pointed forcefully to David Cameron.

Shortly afterwards Nick Clegg, Leader of the Liberal Democrats, attempted a trap question of his own, but the whole exchange fell flat (we saw the Culture Secretary apparently laughing at Mr Clegg’s ponderous points).

Later in the session Tory Angela Watkinson asked an intriguing question that I would like to know more about. Something about an illicit appointment. She must have known what she was doing when she asked this.

Prime Minister's Questions, 4th February 2009

Labour MP Karen Buck started the session by asking about energy prices, but I was distracted by the woman in the row behind her who was nodding her head so frantically it looked as if she had convulsive dyskinesia. The Prime Minister's answer was similarly upstaged by an MP in the row behind who was rootling around in her bag, eventually producing a packet of tissues. The camera gave us a long view, and further along the bench we saw Foreign Secretary David Miliband with his legs crossed and his arms folded so that he resembled (with his shock of black hair and look of concentration) Harry Houdini in a straight-jacket.

David Cameron began his six questions by criticising the (apparent) protectionism of President Obama. Gordon Brown broadly agreed with him that protectionism was a threat to the world economy. David Cameron then criticised both the American and Indian governments for their poor attitude to the Doha negotiations - again Gordon Brown broadly agreed, pointing out that without the Doha agreement national states would be free to raise trade tariffs.

Having established Gordon Brown's commitment to globalisation David Cameron then raised the topic of "British jobs for British workers" and asked if the Prime Minister's use of that phrase showed a lack of judgement.

This was a fight or flight moment for Gordon Brown, and true to his character he chose "fight". In what seemed a rehearsed rhetorical response he asked whether there was anyone who did not want British workers to have jobs. The Labour benches voiced support, although not as enthusiastically as they usually do.

David Cameron threw at the Prime Minister Keith Vaz's criticism of the slogan, and went on to say that Gordon Brown was unable to admit mistakes (this seems a fair point).

Gordon Brown finished his weekly set-to with David Cameron by going off at a tangent and saying the Tories were "talking Britain down" (as well as being "do nothings").

This was not the end of "British jobs for British workers" however.

Liberal-Democrat Leader Nick Clegg refined the slogan into "British taxes for British companies", and a Dr John Pugh stood up in the remote backbenches to recommend "British holidays for British and non-British people".

Having thus established the phrase as a way of torturing the Prime Minister, we are likely to see it repeated in endless variations in the months to come.

Above: the recent "wildcat" strikes against the employment of imported labour have a genesis in the disillusion of indigenous social classes C2, D and E with the political party that has formerly represented their interests. The government's response has for some time been inept (claiming that comfortably well-off professional people who retire early to run a gite complex in Provence are comparable with migrant labourers under-cutting the established UK wage structures is an argument that leaves most people bewildered and angry). The collapse of the old Liberal party in the Edwardian period (to be replaced by the old Labour party) shows what can happen when this core demographic starts looking for a new political home.

Above: a Chinese business demonstrating a commitment to... what exactly? What nervousness has led to them displaying a flag in their window? Lord Mandelson in the House of Lords condemned the "zenophobia" of the wild-cat strikers which doesn't seem to be language designed to calm the situation down (historically in European culture zenophobia results not from hardship per se, but from hardship combined with a sense of national or class humiliation).

More on the Doha negotiations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doha_Round

Prime Minister's Questions 28th January 2009

Above: the eastern end of the Houses of Parliament (you can see the Speaker's residence and the clock tower) with a glimpse of Whitehall, and then the lavish new offices MPs built for themselves (Portcullis House).

Labour's Paul Flynn set the tone of the questions by referring to the recession and telling the Prime Minister "the people who suffer the most are those who have the least." Other recession-related comments (dressed up as questions) followed. A Labour MP called Cunningham (there are two, so I'm not sure which one) told the Prime Minister portentiously "there is anxiety in the Midlands".

Conservative Andrew Murrison wanted to know why our recession is deeper than anywhere else (the Prime Minister denied this and said the Conservatives were "living in a dream world" by talking in this way). Two Labour MPs (Jessica Morden and Don Touhig) expressed concern about the big redundancies at the steel-maker Corus ("the British people are worth backing" said Don Touhig, as if this might have been in doubt by the government). Labour's Ian Gibson asked how the downturn would affect the Private Finance Initiative (a complex financial wheeze where private companies build public assets and "lease" them to the state in a sort of hire purchase arrangement, thus avoiding the current cap-ex appearing in the state accounts).

Conservative Andrew Selous asked why the pound was falling if Britain was in a better position vis-a-vis the recession than other countries. The Prime Minister rounded upon him with righteous anger, implying the falling pound was solely a result of the Tories talking down the economy. Tory grandee Sir Peter Tapsell asked, in an elegantly oblique way, whether the Prime Minister regretted selling off the nation's gold reserves so cheaply (the Prime Minister blustered in reply).

In the set-piece exchange between David Cameron and Gordon Brown the Opposition Leader again tried to get the Prime Minister to eat his words over the abolition of "boom and bust" producing a sequence of damning economic quotations ("Ahhh!" said the Tories collectively and helpfully). Gordon Brown not only refuted the charge of hubris, but produced an equally hubristic comment by telling David Cameron "the UK will avoid a deep recession". If he is wrong he won't be around to account for that remark, but future Labour leaders may regret Gordon Brown's economic pride.



Conservative Graham Stuart referred to "Labour sleaze" (at least, I am almost sure he used that loaded phrase) and asked about the four Labour peers accused of amending legislation in return for (secret) commercial payments. There is much comment about how peers cannot be removed from the House of Lords, but I don't understand why not. Peers are created by the Crown and can be attainted in the same way - it could be done through an Order in Council on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Prime Minister's Questions 21st January 2009

Above: St Stephen's entrance to the Houses of Parliament (are those police the same ones who bullied Damian Green?). If you attend PMQs in person you go through various security measures, along a long corridor (which leads down on the left to Westminster Hall) and into the Central Lobby. Then up some stairs and into the Strangers Gallery (steeply tiered and with a poor view - like the old £1 seats reserved for the blind at the top of Covent Garden).

I watched Prime Minister's Questions on BBC2 at lunchtime today, although I was interrupted so many times I only had a vague idea of what was being discussed.

Someone called Caswell started off, complaining about government plans to keep the details of MP's expenses (ie what they actually purchase with our money) secret. The Prime Minister told Mr Caswell that the new proposals were more transparent than the old system, and in any case were more than foreigners were allowed to know about their legislators (as if that should console us). Tory Edward Garnier returned to this topic later in the Questions and told the Prime Minister keeping expenses secret showed "hideous levels of insensitivity" at a time when ordinary people were facing hardships. The Prime Minister repeated his doublespeak that the new secrecy was actually more transparent. Later in Andrew Neil's studio there was confusion about whether the vote would be "whipped" (mandated) or not. Later still it was announced that the proposals had been dropped (seemingly with no explanation).

The only other part of the Questions I was allowed to watch uninterrupted was the exchange between Opposition Leader David Cameron and Gordon Brown. Increasingly these interlocutions resemble the "talk and relationships"Jeremy Kyle Show on daytime television (comes on at 1 o'clock). David Cameron is the stern Jeremy Kyle figure, angrily confronting a defiant NEET no-hoper who has been wasting money on gambling and living-it-up while the women and little ones go without. "Only the Prime Minister can laugh at these unemployment figures" David Cameron accused Gordon Brown. The BBC cameras switched onto the government benches and we did indeed see the Prime Minister with an undignified goofy smirk on his face. Off camera we heard an unmistakable Tory accent shout "Shocking" (the word shocking pronounced with unfathomable depths of contempt and disgust).

The government has also handed the Opposition a lot of ammunition over the past week, and David Cameron was able to deliver an impressive sentence which scorned the employment minister's sighting of "light at the end of the tunnel", Baroness Vadera's discovery of "green shoots of economic recovery" and Margaret Beckett's announcement of "recovery in the housing market".

The Prime Minister recovered when dealing with Nick Clegg (Leader of the Liberal Democrats) telling him "we have recapitalised the banks, given real help to families and brought in measures to help lending" - delivering this with the sincere passion he is sometimes capable of.

Note: I have just looked again at Prime Minister's Questions and it seems that the BBC has edited out Gordon Brown's grinning (it was definitely there in the live broadcast). Why has this been done? Is this manipulative fakery of some kind?

See Prime Minister's Questions: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/default.stm

More on NEET no-hopers: http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/ete/neet/

Prime Minister's Questions 14th January 2009

Above: I never tire of looking at the Puginesque marvel of the Palace of Westminster - there is always some new detail you havn't noticed before.

At lunchtime I half-watched Prime Minister's Questions while I worked through the draft of my 2009 plan (we are all required to write sections of the agency's composite Plan for the coming year).

The Prime Minister insisted that the economic crisis was global (his "no more boom and bust" promise was thrown at him again).

There was much quoting and counter-quoting of a long-gone Tory Chancellor (mirrored later in the day by Baroness Vadera saying she could already see "the green shoots of economic recovery" - some hope).

David Cameron said the government was copying so many Conservative policies they needed a photocopier (how they laughed on the Tory benches).

Nick Clegg called the Prime Minister a copycat for the way he was taking up Conservative initiatives.

The rest just seemed to pass over me until Conservative Richard Bacon asked about welfare standards of imported foreign pork. The association of the name Bacon with the subject-matter pork seemed to have the whole House of Commons tittering. It even provoked a rare (and excrutiatingly leaden) joke from Gordon Brown.

Prime Minister's Questions, 10th December 2008

The start of Prime Minister’s Questions was delayed this lunchtime. The cameras went from the Daily Politics studio to a rowdy House of Commons where someone was shouting towards the Labour benches about the Scottish football team. The cameras went back to the studio where Andrew Neil looked discomforted.

A few minutes later we again saw the House of Common, the Prime Minister between the Leader of the House (Harriet Harmon) and someone I had never seen before.

Labour’s Alison Seabeck began the questioning by asking about the poor service small businesses are getting from the banks.

The Prime Minister responded in a glad-you-asked-me-that tone of voice, telling her “we led the way with more help…”

Leader of the Opposition David Cameron pursued the theme of banks lending to small businesses, telling Gordon Brown “recapitalization has failed”.

In reply Gordon Brown made possibly the worst verbal slip of his premiership, telling David Cameron “We saved the world…” when he meant to say “We saved the banks…” This may look innocuous enough when written down, but the spoken words, in that chamber, had a devastating effect. There was extended laughter from the Conservative benches. This was not just the theatrical laughter that routinely breaks out, but a helpless genuine laughter while the Labour benches sat glum and silent. Gordon Brown looked unable to cope with the situation. It was the first time I truly understood the saying laughed to scorn.

David Cameron returned to the issue of recapitalization, saying the banks were required to borrow at 12% and expected to lend at 6%.

Gordon Brown listed a confusing set of schemes that meant the banks had all the support they needed (this over-complexity seems to be a hallmark of his style and possibly explains why he fails to communicate effectively).

At this point someone came into the Boardroom to ask me a question.

When I could next concentrate on Prime Minister’s Questions David Cameron was saying that the VAT cut was pointless, and that the government should have used the money to underwrite lending to businesses.

Gordon Brown said, accusingly “he’s refusing to spend any taxpayers’ money”.

David Cameron referred to an article in today’s Guardian (cries of “Ho” from the Labour benches) and said it revealed that the government was about to steal Conservative policies on lending to businesses (cries of “Ah” from the Conservative benches).

Gordon Brown gestured to the Conservatives and said “They are on the wrong side of history.”

David Cameron indicated the Prime Minister and said “He is on the wrong side of mathematics.”

Having come to the end of ordeal-by-Cameron, Gordon Brown rose magisterially (a little too magisterially, as it indicated it was rehearsed) and launched into a comprehensive damnation of the Conservatives.

Labour’s Alan Simpson then asked about a “tobin tax” (on currency movements) and Gordon Brown said it was one of many possible proposals.

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg began his two questions by saying “a single mother came to see me”. Before he could say another word there was raucous lewd laughter from the Labour benches (Nick Clegg has previously boasted about his sexual prowess). When he was eventually allowed to speak he said the system of tax credits was too complex.

The Prime Minister told Nick Clegg the system of tax credits had taken many children out of poverty.

Nick Clegg called him deluded, bureaucratic and cruel.

The Prime Minister said the system was not complex but flexible.

Labour’s Martin Linton asked him about extended opening hours for GP surgeries.

The Prime Minister said “It was all our idea”.

Conservative David Amess asked about fuel poverty.

The Prime Minister referred him to the government’s draught-proofing strategy.

A little later on Liberal Democrat Phil Willis asked about the broadcast of an assisted suicide on Sky TV this evening, saying it was distasteful voyeurism (“sex and horror are the new gods” basically sums up Sky TV’s editorial policy).

The Prime Minister said that assisted deaths were unacceptable, and that Sky TV would have to account to the regulator for its actions.

Labour’s Emily Thornberry condemned the opening in her constituency of the country’s biggest 24-hour lap-dancing club, blaming the Liberal Democrat council (and entirely ignoring the fact that her own government effectively brought about the current plethora of lap-dancing clubs by changing the law).

The Prime Minister told her “we will legislate”.

Questions followed on loans for small businesses (twice); the credit union movement; and the number of deaths of abused children (this one heard in absolute silence).

The penultimate question was by Labour’s Chris Ruane who stumbled over his words as he asked about heart disease. The Prime Minister was so glib in reading out heart disease statistics that it seemed probable the question was a plant. And so Prime Minister’s Questions ended as it began, with an easy lob.