PMQs - Beneath contempt

No doubt some people will instantly assume that I too am going to raise the spectre of "party politics" in the same way as Gordan Brown did today over PMQs, and they'd be right. But for once, I am not turning my fire on David Cameron. Instead I think Gordon Brown highlighted in one fell swoop why he is hopelessly out of his depth in the job as Prime Minister.

Whilst on "home ground", discussing interest rates, the economy and the credit crunch, Gordon Brown appears to revel in the mess he shared in making. However, on any other subject, any other discussion, he shows his inability to think on his feet and a lack of tact, gravitas and, dare I say it, class. For all Tony Blair's faults, none of the accusations could be aimed his way.

Today David Cameron asked some serious and purposeful questions about the handling of the latest sorry case of child murder in Haringey (and am I the only one concerned that these child murderers seem to be able to remain anonymous ?).

Gordon Brown, could not answer a simple question on the subject and instead levelled accusations of making it a "party political issue" at Mr Cameron. Actually, I didn't see it that way, and the only person who chose to make it a party political issue was Gordon Brown.

If politicians are not allowed to ask serious meaningful questions of the Prime Minister in PMQs, what is the point of PMQs at all, then again, we might ask what is the point of Gordon Brown.


Anonymous said...

(and am I the only one concerned that these child murderers seem to be able to remain anonymous ?).

I am assuming (guessing) that there may be other children indirectly, or perhaps (heaven forbid) directly involved or related to one of the convicted, and that is the reason for this.

I can't think of any other reason, to be honest.

I couldn't listen to the details as they came through on the radio, and missed much of the detail (deliberately, in a cowardly kind of way), but I did see a replay of PMQ's on youtube.

I'm no Plastic Dave fan, but he appeared to be asking a simple question as to if it was correct for the head of a department to run an inquiry into the said department.

Brown waffled twice about the national review then made some pretty outrageous comments about party politics. Not very gracious.

I'm reluctant to kick off too much about this less we loose sight of the real issue and fall into the same trap, but it wasn't his finest hour, to say the least.

RobC said...

In all fairness I feel Cameron was absolutely genuine on this particular issue and good on him for raising it when there are so many other pressing matters he could have brought up at PMQ.

I am no Tory but I've always felt we should be more gracious even to Tories when it is appropriate as here. Once again Brown is shown up to be a mean spirited and partisan politician who is unsuited to be PM. The best contribution though came from our own Lynne Featherstone.

Malcolm Redfellow said...

Of course there are good legal reasons for the (temporary) anonymity.

Read what is in the public domain already, notice the key gaps, and it becomes clearer.

Nothing like the whole nasty story (and, no, I don't know it either) is yet generally available.

Equally, you may be emotionally satisfied and emotively satisfying in your defence of Cameron. Cameron was loose and inaccurate with the known facts in his statements. His implications were even more bizarre: "a social services department that gets £100 million a year and cannot look after children" should be a marker of how deprived some of the wards in the east of the Borough are, rather than a crack about public expenditure. Witness: this is a small borough which has to undertake a dozen section 47 (child abuse) reviews each and every week.

I suggest, too, you read the Hansard transcript of what Brown actually said. He does not accuse Cameron of partisan politics: Cameron chooses to draw that accusation. Brown does quite clearly spell out the proper approach: Parliament, even PMQs, should not be a kangaroo court, leaping to judgement. The verdict may be in for the tabloids, and the lynch mob despatched on its way; but that is not appropriate for Parliament, the highest court in the land.

Bill Quango MP said...

good point, well made.

James Higham said...

Most seem to agree on this.