skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Bit of an odd session today, with a six-question break in the middle of Ed Miliband's questions to the PM. Even odder, however, was the huge cheer that Miliband got when he stood up to speak: for a split-second I think he thought something else was going on in the Chamber. Still, it's definitely good news for the Labour leader that his party is starting to support him.
The first question, as it tends to be with Miliband, was very simple. He asked if it was a good thing that unemployment was rising. Cameron responded very well and actually gave an honest answer, stating that he was worried about the figures but that there was some progress being made. He then, cleverly, raised the issue of youth unemployment and pre-empted the Leader of the Opposition by saying that it had increased by 40% under Labour.
And so it all started to go wrong for Ed. He clumsily read out his clearly scripted line which bore no relation to what Cameron had just said, and accused him of being complacent - Cameron's answer had been anything but. He then delivered a hopeless line about how the PM was 'rumbled' in Oldham. It made no sense. Predictably, Cameron laid into him for his inability to debate properly and his reliance on his notes, before easily swatting away his attack on the coalition's decision to scrap the Future Jobs Fund with some excellent statistics.
We then endured a 6-question interlude before Miliband got back up to ask the PM if he could guarantee that hospital waiting times would not increase. This was a well-designed question, because the PM can't guarantee it. He can't because he's abolished top-down targets, and that means that there is no longer scope for a centrally imposed guarantee. But Cameron failed to make this point, and to argue that his reforms would reduce waiting times, which was his biggest slip-up of the day. Instead he just started to attack Labour for not promising an increase in NHS spending.
Miliband said Cameron was taking the 'National out of the NHS', which is a nice line but didn't really reinforce the point Miliband made in the previous question. Miliband then got a little personal, and called the PM 'arrogant'. By now Cameron had got back into his swing, and he came up with a line - I've no idea why he didn't use it earlier - that the waiting list times were in the NHS constitution. He also said the reforms would save £5bn and improve the NHS.
The session started with Cameron on top and ended the same way too. Miliband made some comments about broken promises which didn't fit his earlier questions and were horrendously delivered, prompting Cameron to make yet another joke about his sub-standard debating skills.
What's most worrying for Miliband is that if he can't kick Cameron around on Lansley's NHS reforms and bankers' bonuses then what can he beat him on? These were golden opportunities for Miliband to make life very hard for Cameron and yet, aside from a couple of good questions, he has not managed to do it. So poor is his delivery and his inability to divert from his script that he's managed to make it an issue that Cameron highlights as much as Miliband picks up on dodged questions. Cameron was on better form than last week and, aside from one missed opportunity, was on top for the whole debate. So while Miliband's attacks on the NHS might play well in public, they were not good enough to save him from defeat today.
Cameron win.
What did IDS do to deserve this attack? He suggested that people may not be being realistic if they waited for a job to become available in their home town: 'The truth is there are jobs. They may not absolutely be in the town you are living in. They may be in a neighbouring town... We need to recognise the jobs often don't come to you. Sometimes you need to go to the jobs.' Using Merthyr Tydfil as an example, he said people had become 'static' and that they 'didn't know if they got on a bus an hour's journey they'd be in Cardiff and they could look for a job there.'
McCluskey then pulled out my personal favourite comment: 'Cant the ConDem coalition really believe that the unemployment being created by savage government cuts will be fixed by having people wandering across the country with their meagre possessions crammed into the luggage racks of buses?'
You've got to love the unions. I mean, they're great when they're defending an individual teacher falsely accused by a student or a council employee hounded out by an overbearing chief executive, but they just lose the plot when it comes to national issues. The simple PR problem they have is that people switch off when they hear rhetoric like that. No-one really believes that there will be Indian-like bus trips with bundles of luggage falling from the roof down the M4 to Cardiff, it's just not credible...
Headlines are great, aren't they. One can make you feel good and another can make you feel crap. Even when they are about the same thing. Today we had new data out from the Office of National Statistics about unemployment, which was given very different treatment by the BBC and the Guardian:
The BBC's main headline today is that the coalition's spending cuts will 'hit the north harder'. I'm sure that comes as a big shock to all of us, especially if taken in conjunction with the Daily Mail's story from yesterday discussing figures that suggest 24 per cent of north eastern households have no inhabitants in work.
The overall UK figure is that there are 3.9 million households where no adult works. In these households there are 5.4 million adults and 1.9 million children. This has led to fears that there are children being brought up knowing nothing other than benefits.
Their reliance on the state will obviously mean that northern areas will suffer the initial brunt of cuts. The problem for the coalition is that while it is rightly seeking to review benefits and to force those wrongly on incapacity benefit back to work there are not enough jobs in these areas to accommodate the current unemployed, let alone the newly unemployed.
Predictably, the Labour party and the unions are condemning the cuts as unfair and ideologically driven. They say that the government is risking the recovery and hitting the poorest hardest. Each attack of this nature is frankly an admission that Labour failed to help the poorest in society, and that it failed to build an economy that would protect the most vulnerable people in the most at risk areas of the country.
It's not that I dislike Labour - indeed it has much to commend it - it's just that they had 13 years of government to make an impact on this. 13 years to make the north and other areas less reliant on the state for jobs and to make people less reliant on the state for welfare. They failed to do that. It was a mistake that was compounded by their economic policies, which were based on faulty underlying assumptions about the cyclical nature of growth and led them to borrow and spend too much money. For them to now sit in opposition and bleat about cuts is not credible. It's too easy in opposition just to be opportunistic, and their party is becoming ever more so as it seeks to redefine itself. I just hope they stop when they eventually elect a new leader.
Posts
