2010 PMQs in Review

It's been a year of change for PMQs. What began with a straight fight between Brown and Cameron – occasionally deputised by Hague and Harman – was changed in May by the General Election. The coalition between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives meant that Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg wasn’t asking questions at PMQs but sitting on the Government benches – and indeed occasionally deputising himself. 

Labour’s defeat saw Brown resign, leading to the mother of all leadership contests. During this period, Labour’s deputy leader Harriet Harman was charged with facing Cameron over the dispatch box. This also gave Jack Straw the chance to step up as her deputy on occasion before, at long last, Labour held its vote and decided to give Ed Miliband the honour of leading the Party.

Phew. There can’t be many years when seven different people take to the dispatch box for PMQs. Yet in spite of the high turnover, there has been a degree of continuity. David Cameron quickly established himself as an able debater back in 2005 and the transition from Blair to Brown in 2007 meant he became more and more dominant against a Labour leader who didn’t really want to be there.

Cameron’s strong performances against Brown were the main theme of the year to May. He was in command of his brief, his jokes were better, and his party’s high poll ratings meant that he had the broad support of his backbenchers. The fallout from the recession made Brown an easy target, as it undermined his economic record. In the run-up to the election polling suggested that the public strongly favoured a reduction in state spending, which meant that Brown’s efforts to paint Cameron as ideologically committed to cuts were blunted by his own inevitable need to outline spending reductions.

Given his poor eyesight and the fact that his personality was unsuited to the quick cut-and-thrust of PMQs, Brown actually did better than I had expected. But it was only rarely enough to win PMQs.

If we needed a reminder of the limitations of PMQs it came in May, when the General Election did not produce an overall majority for any party. In the end, it seems the fact that Cameron was regularly besting Brown in the Commons only served to increase the Conservatives’ confidence, and not their share of the vote.

The forming of the coalition meant that Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg was now a member of the Government, and that he was no longer entitled to ask two questions at PMQs. This shifted the focus more heavily onto the battle between and Government and the opposition. It also meant that there was an even more obvious change from the leaders’ questions to those from backbenchers.

The resignation of Gordon Brown meant that Labour began its lengthy procedures to select a new leader. The result of this was that Cameron spent the first five months of his leadership facing Labour’s deputy leader, Harriet Harman. I must say that I found Harman impressively combative. Cameron was moving his Government towards the CSR and the SDSR and was regularly put on the spot by the Labour stand-in.

Harman is my 2010 PMQs overachiever for this and one other reason: her annihilation of Nick Clegg in November. Deputising for Ed Miliband, she relentlessly pressed the Deputy PM on his party’s hostage to fortune: its election pledge to scrap tuition fees. It was truly masterful.

But apparently all good things have to come to an end. And so, on September 25, Ed Miliband was elected as the new leader of the Labour Party. His first performance at PMQs was awful.

Being successful at PMQs isn’t just about actually winning an argument or making a good point, it’s also about managing expectations. I truly believe watching Ed Miliband’s first outing against Cameron must have been one of the most worrying and demoralising moments of the year for Labour MPs (and it wasn’t a great year). He was predictable, slow, unoriginal, wooden, and appeared out of his depth. It was a huge let-down, and makes him the worst-performing PMQs competitor of 2010.

His performances have since improved. He is better than Brown. But he should be a lot better than Brown. He is now competing with Cameron, but he only wins when Cameron himself performs badly. Thankfully he has the potential to be better, but he will have to totally re-evaluate his approach in 2011 if he is to make the most political capital possible from what should be a very hard year for the Government. Miliband’s also still facing a Conservative leader who isn’t quite sure how to play him.

In contrast, David Cameron has had a relatively successful year at the dispatch box. His strengths are obvious: he’s quick-witted, smart, in command of his brief, and has a human demeanour. He was naturally more gifted than Brown and had learnt how to defeat him. He is better than Harman and despite her plucky performances he still regularly delivered coherent political and economic arguments.

It’s against Miliband that he’s been least impressive. Ed is not yet performing well and yet Cameron has almost let him get the better of him on a couple of occasions. He’s my top performer of 2010 but he will need to pick things up this year.

Top Performer: David Cameron
Overachiever: Harriet Harman
Underachiever: Ed Miliband
Biggest Victory: Harman absolutely destroying Clegg on tuition fees, 10 Nov.
Best Quote: Harriet Harman, 10 Nov: "We all know what it’s like: you are at freshers’ week, you meet up with a dodgy bloke and you do things that you regret. Isn’t it true he has been led astray by the Tories?"

PMQs - 10th November 2010

Following the disunity displayed by the PLP on Monday this could have been a very difficult outing for Harriet Harman but her relentless focus on tuition fees left Nick Clegg struggling.

Harman's prepared jokes were excellent and she was on the front foot throughout. She began with a simple question to Clegg, asking if he could update the House on how his plans to abolish tuition fees were going. This brought howls of laughter from the Labour benches. Nick fought back with those tired lines about the deficit and the legacy of the previous government.

She pushed again with a Clegg quote from the election campaign in which he called the prospect of £7,000 fees a 'disaster'. Clegg started to warm up and retorted that the system was fairer than anything under Labour and that it would help part-time students 'shamefully treated' by the opposition.

Labour's Deputy Leader then landed the best line of the exchange about Clegg meeting some 'dodgy bloke' at freshers' week and doing something he'd regret. The backbenches on both sides were laughing now - even William Hague couldn't hide his smirk (see above).

Clegg hit back by arguing that Labour was far from the party of students, pointing out that Labour had introduced tuition fees after opposing them in 1997 and introduced top-up fees after opposing them in 2001. They also set up the Browne Review and now disown its findings. He then asked Harman if she'd be going outside to explain to demonstrating students what her party's policy was.

Then Harman got to the real meat of the debate, and hammered home what should be a central part of their attacks on the coalition. Fee increases for students are not to increase funding for universities, but to cover the money that the government is cutting from universities. 'What is the cut to the university teaching grant?' she demanded.

Nick lost his bearings. He'd been defensive but generally assured until this point but here he started mumbling about the Labour party's plans to make massive cuts, which he couldn't be specific about because Labour don't even know what they are.

Harman came straight back at him, asking if he'd been taking lessons from the PM on how not to answer questions. She said the cuts to the university teaching grant were a 'staggering 80 per cent' and that the government had 'pulled the plug' on university funding. By now Clegg's responses were incoherent, as he said something generic about being progressive and fair.

Labour's Deputy Leader finished by mocking the Lib Dems' pre-election pledges. Clegg then tried to cram in a joke about the PLP's Mutiny Monday, but it was way too late and totally off topic. He looked completely lost, complaining that before the election he didn't know how bad things would be in government after Labour.

It was a big surprise to see Clegg so weak in debate, given that it's supposed to be one of his strong points. He didn't really land a single attack on Labour, and his Mutiny Monday joke was deployed out of desperation. Harman, on the other hand, was assured and relentless in her attack on the Lib Dems leader. In truth she has an easier time attacking the Lib Dems than Miliband has with Cameron, because they are so vulnerable on the compromises the are making. Even so, she defeated Clegg with some panache yesterday, matching excellent prepared jokes and quotes with points of real substance.

Solid Harman win. 

Budget! Here's my two cents...

The 20% VAT rate is obviously going to get lots of coverage, and rightly so. Every media outlet is using the words 'regressive' and 'unfair' to describe it. It isn't fair because it does hit the poorest* disproportionately. People in the middle will lose out as well, missing out on benefits and also facing higher taxes.

But on the whole, I thought that the budget was pretty reasonable.

There were genuine attempts by the coalition to avoid putting all of the pain on those with the lowest incomes. Efforts to freeze public sector pay will only affect those earning higher salaries, those with wages that mean they will really struggle to pay all their bills and get enough food will have some protection. The raising of the allowance limit by £1000 as part of the drive to get it to £10,000 is very promising.

The call for government departments to cut their spending by 25% by the end of the parliament is surprisingly high. I suspect that there is a lot of waste in the public sector and that these cuts could be made. What worries me, and probably everyone else, is that useful and important things will be easy targets.

Harman's best line was that the Lib Dem's have sacrificed thousands of people's jobs in return for a few ministerial positions. Will read brilliantly in the Mirror. The rest of it was naturally - given that she didn't know exactly what was coming - vague and probably wouldn't have changed whatever Osbourne had said. Her cries that the cuts were ideologically driven were amusing, given how driven the Labour party is by its ideology. The Tories feel more comfortable with a smaller state, and they are looking to redefine the role of the state in our lives. They are right it is too large. They are right that the current benefits system is flawed, and they are right in trying to encourage private sector development. Labour are wrong to believe that simply creating government jobs in poorer areas solves the problem. Government is there to help people, not simply employ them all if they can't find jobs.


*It goes without saying that the convenient social definitions - the poor, the middle class, the rich - are useless. They are simple generalisations loaded with political implications. While there is just one budget, it will affect each individual in a different way. And the current media obsession with asking locals in Nottingham or Gateshead or wherever what they think of the budget and it's effects on them is irrelevant to everyone except themselves. Well, maybe that's a bit strong. But you get the point: the definitions are flawed.