Balls and Osborne: Entertaining? Yes. Informative? Sort of.

Today we saw the first clash at Treasury Questions between George Osborne and Ed Balls. The format of these questions always meant that this exchange was likely to be a little underwhelming, and less exciting and revealing than the battle that they'll fight in the media, and that proved to be the case. But what we did see were two MPs desperate to kick each other about at every opportunity.

Ed Balls was in his element. It's not that his questions were great - they weren't. It's that he was clearly having the time of his life. He looked totally assured, like a man who completely understands what is required of him. His questions on America and the difference in snow were always going to be weak because Cameron and Osborne have both acknowledged that the figures for the last quarter of 2010 were bad even without the adverse weather. Plus any actual comparison with America's economy is riddled with problems. His joke about a hurried mini-budget was better though, as was his pointed question about Osborne having to revise down his first growth forecast, which will be a focus of attack for Labour and is something the Tories are desperately hoping to avoid.

Osborne's approach, as ever, was marked by his usual insouciant demeanour and brutal verbal assaults. Like Balls, he doesn't get fazed. On this occasion he delivered two very good lines, the first claiming that now both Balls and the Ed Miliband know what it's like to be people's second choice. More cruelly (to Ed Miliband, at least) he asked Balls what it felt like to be working under the man who used to do his photocopying. Importantly, Osborne called Balls a 'deficit denier', a line we can expect to hear again and again from the Government.

As usual, the event was a waste of time for anyone wanting to learn anything about the economy, but then that isn't the point. These sessions are political, and that's what we saw today. Every question and every answer is designed to hammer home a message about the other sides' economic incompetence: 'The Tories are leading the country into a second recession' versus 'The Labour Party caused this mess and after a bit of pain it'l be fixed and life will be great'. This was just another small part of a debate that will run throughout this Parliament. 

Craig Oliver has his work cut out

Craig Oliver has a lot of work to do in his new role as the Tories' communications chief. Despite having ideas which could genuinely change the country for the better, No. 10 is failing to convey its messages to the public. The explanation of higher tuition fees - a policy that actually benefits the poor - was appalling. And we are seeing the same mistakes again as the Government directs too little attention to explaining NHS reforms, as well as its ongoing inability to convey the meaning of the Big Society.

The NHS reforms are suffering because Ministers consistently fail to explain them clearly. People want to be reassured that their services will not be cut. Frankly, the public does not care at all what particular structure NHS bureaucracy takes. They need to know that doctors support the proposals, and that their services will improve. To ensure the first one, the Government must get doctors - GPs in particular - on their side, and ensure that they fully understand the changes. The second will require simple and easily comprehensible messages about the future direction of the NHS. It is amazing that Andrew Lansley has been allowed to work for so long at these reforms and yet no-one has ever pressed him devise a way to encapsulate them in a simple media narrative. Hopefully this will now change.

The Big Society is an ongoing problem, which has suffered from incomprehensibility since its inception. No-one appears able to clearly explain it. And now with the Government starting to reduce the funding to local authorities it looks like a bad joke: your services will continue if you do the work yourselves. What the Big Society is about is responsibility. It's about the social networks we have - our families, our friends, our neighbours - and finding ways to ensure that all those people who live in the same area as you have help if they need it. The Government needs to move from the conceptual to the practical, and actually start to outline just how people can get involved.

So Craig Oliver will have to deal with all of this and more. Indeed, it seems that just to provoke another section of the public the Government has chosen to start a poorly explained programme to sell Britain's forests. There is not yet a coherent media narrative that explains why this is a good thing. There should be. In fact, there should have been one even before the measures were announced, because unless the public knows that a problem exists, they won't take kindly to changes to something they quite like. Craig Oliver must ensure that in the future, all announcements are solutions to clear problems, and that they can be condensed into a simple, clear message.

PMQs Review - 2nd February 2011

Well, today's session was certainly different: It was the most civilised PMQs I have ever seen. If I was being cruel, I might say that Ed Miliband has given up trying to better David Cameron, but I don't think that's the case. Of course he's not been particularly effective recently, but I think what his new approach signifies is a new approach from the Labour leader to his role.

Now that he has the economic terrier Ed Balls in the Shadow Chancellor's role and has Doug Alexander as his hyperactive media spokesman, Ed Miliband does not need to get his hands dirty fighting David Cameron. I have long been critical of Miliband's poor debating style and it seems he's found a way to overcome it, because this new approach meant that it was totally irrelevant. He's changed the game in a manner I frankly did not expect, and deserves full credit for it.

I'm not suggesting that every PMQs will be like this - today's topics of Afghanistan and Egypt are two areas where the Government and Opposition are largely in agreement - but that the shift in style is an acknowledgement that what Miliband was doing wasn't working, and that it was actually harming his image. What we saw today was an attempt to rise above the usual 'bunfight' that is PMQs and begin the era of 'new politics', which is still an often repeated but largely meaningless phrase. If Ed Miliband can create that kind of pure political image he'll be in a very strong position - although he may well find that David Cameron can play this game too.

So how on earth do you score this, given that they didn't really compete and they agreed on pretty much every point? What I think has to be noted is that this style of PMQs stemmed from a change in approach by Ed Miliband. Because of the nature of PMQs, the Prime Minister doesn't really have a chance to set the initial tone. So for creating a novel atmosphere and changing a dynamic that has not suited him, the win must go to Ed Miliband.

Remarkable Ed Miliband victory.