Analysing PMQs - How to win

The simplest way of looking at the new, developing relationship between David Cameron and Ed Miliband is to watch PMQs. Every Wednesday, the two leaders face off against each other in what is the most entertaining weekly part of our political cycle. But how exactly do you 'win' PMQs? What exactly is PMQs for? And what does the public really gain from these brief encounters? I'll be looking at these three questions separately, and in this blog post focussing on how politicians 'win' PMQs.

There are two important aspects to PMQs. The first is style. The second is substance. The most important thing to remember is that you don't have to win on both. Winning, or losing, one of them by a large enough margin will negate the other. So when Gordon Brown slipped up and said he 'saved the world', instead of 'the economy', he lost PMQs on style. It didn't matter what points of substance he raised in response to Cameron's questions. The Commons was in uproar, the debate was lost, and tomorrow's headlines had been written.

Ed Miliband's first performance was also judged on style. He managed to make Cameron seem patronising. Miliband's quip that 'despite being new to this, I'm pretty sure that I ask the questions' flooded the Labour benches with relief - that he (and, in electing him, they) wasn't going to screw up - and a belief that he could compete with and beat Cameron in the future. Yet it was also coupled with a line of questioning which had some substance - on the 'unfair' way Child Benefit is to be withdrawn from higher rate taxpayers.

David Cameron similarly joined style and substance last week when he defended the cap on Housing Benefits. It was an area which could have troubled him, but he was unequivocal in his support for the cap, saying clearly and directly that when the government is prepared to offer £20,000 a year towards rent no family should go without a home, and that to offer more would be unfair on working families that can't afford to live in those areas. He combined this policy defence with a joke about a leaked Labour document advising Ed Miliband on how to plan for PMQs: 'He's got a plan for PMQs but not for the economy.'

Winning purely on substance is rarer. In fact it is really impossible because delivery in such a charged environment will always be important and so a certain amount of style becomes a necessity. What is possible is to win on substance without landing a killer joke or getting your troops excited. But this actually comes across as a failure, because if you're winning on substance and fail on style you're missing an open goal. Without his jokes at Ed Miliband's expense, David Cameron's efforts defending the Housing Benefit cap would have ended in a draw with the Labour leader, not a victory. That this joke was a gift from Labour rather than of the Tories' own making shows how the substance of the Housing Benefit debate is yet to be won convincingly.

So to win PMQs it really is important to have both a good style and some substance to what you are saying. It is more common to win on style, because the highly pressured 20 minutes where the two leaders face one another is not really a conducive arena for serious policy debate. In the end, both sides usually attack each other's policy positions (which are mostly entrenched and will not change on the basis of one PMQs) with style not substance, hoping to land jokes and jibes that rally their supporters.

Over time, you would look to make your tactical victories part of a larger narrative. This is what Ed Miliband was trying to do by asking simple questions and provoking Cameron's faux indignation and condescending answers. He want's to present the PM as arrogant to the public. That's what he's doing to win on style. To win on substance over time he's seeking to hammer home his key message about the unfairness of the Coalition's spending plans. That's why he focussed on Child Benefit and Housing Benefit.

Cameron, on the other hand, is seeking to win on substance by making the most of Labour's ambiguous (at best) policy positions, and to keep reminding everyone that Labour put the country in this position. This is linked to personal attacks on Ed Miliband as both a union appointee, and as the author of Labour's election manifesto. Both could prove very damaging to Ed Miliband if they stick. These overall narratives are possibly the most important parts of the debates, because the generalised caricatures of the leaders are what filters down to the majority of the public, who are turned off by the weekly 'Punch and Judy politics' of PMQs.

Tony Blair famously remarked in A Journey that PMQs were the most nerve-racking part of being Prime Minister, and that he still gets nervous every Wednesday in anticipation. That such a capable politician and debater as Blair should say that about PMQs demonstrates how difficult they are to navigate, and how hard they are to 'win'.

Osborne's letter to MPs explaining Child Benefit cuts

Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010

Subject: IMPORTANT - Dear Colleague from the Chancellor of the Exchequer

Dear Colleague,

I wanted to take this opportunity to give you some more information about the two announcements on welfare spending that I made in my conference speech.

We all know that the unprecedented scale of the mess that Labour left behind means this Government will have to take some very tough decisions about public spending. The Conservative Party has been here before and we have always risen to the challenge of rebuilding our public finances.

But in order to sustain public support for the difficult choices ahead I believe that we must show people that our approach is not only tough but is also fair. That means showing that those at the higher end of the income scale are also affected by the measures we take.

The first announcement I made yesterday was that from 2013 we will withdraw child benefit from around 1.2 million households containing a higher rate taxpayer, saving around £1 billion a year. The other 85 per cent of families, 6.6 million in total, will continue to receive child benefit as they do today.

As I said in my speech, I understand that most higher-rate taxpayers are not the super-rich, but at a time like this it is very difficult to justify taxing people on lower incomes to pay £1 billion in benefits to households that contain higher rate taxpayers.

To put this saving in context, in the Budget I made £11 billion of savings from other parts of the welfare system, many of which affected people on lower incomes.

I know some have pointed out that this approach will leave households that do not contain a higher rate taxpayer, but whose joint income is above the higher rate threshold, still in receipt of child benefit. The only way to assess these joint income families would be to create a new complex, costly and intrusive means test that would spread right up the income distribution.

Effectively that would mean abolishing child benefit, which is one of the simplest and cheapest benefits to administer, and bringing every family in the country into a new tax credits system, with families having to provide details of their household income every year. Colleagues will be all too familiar with the drawbacks of Gordon Brown’s tax credits system and I do not believe that would be the right approach.

It is also important to note that we are not introducing a new principle to the tax and benefit system; at the moment a single earner on £50,000 pays higher rate tax while a two-earner couple earning £40,000 each do not.

And as David Cameron pointed out this morning, we should not see this policy in isolation. Other policies contained in the Coalition Agreement will help families, including our commitment to introduce transferable allowances for married couples.

Crucially, I do not believe that fairness is only defined across the income distribution. As I said in my speech, if the welfare state is going to regain the trust of the British people, it needs to reflect the British sense of fair play.

That is why I have also announced that for the first time we will introduce from 2013 a limit on the total amount of benefits any one family can receive, saving hundreds of millions of pounds.

The limit will be set according to this very simple principle: unless they have disabilities to cope with and therefore receive Disability Living Allowance, no family should get more from living on benefits than the average family gets from going out to work. By 2013 this is expected to be around £500 a week.

I believe that this measure will have strong support from the British people, and together with our transformative proposals for a new Universal Credit, it will help to ensure that work always pays.

I know that both these measures are tough, but they are also fair, and I believe that the public will perceive them as such. Our opponents pretend that difficult decisions can be avoided, but they are consigning themselves to the margins of British politics. This is a battle between the vested interests and the national interest. The Conservative Party has always been on the right side of that divide.

Please feel free to contact me or my PPS Greg Hands if you would like to discuss any of these issues further.

Yours ever,

George