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. 

Defence Review

Amidst all the detail of the defence review I think it's important to remind ourselves of a few key facts. The most important is that, for all those on the right claiming that these cuts are 'a joke', Britain will still have the fourth largest defence budget in the world following this review. Not only that, but spending levels will be well above the NATO baseline of 2 per cent of GDP and the cut of 8 per cent in real terms still amounts to a cash increase over the next four years. 

Is this a spending review or a defence review?

The question of whether or not this is a spending review masquerading as a defence review is a false one. You cannot conduct a defence review without taking into account what you can afford. That is obvious and unavoidable. What Labour are alleging is thus that what the defence review does is not to find an appropriate balance, but to put the spending issue first and defence second. For example this is, according to Shadow Defence Secretary Jim Murphy, what leads the government to take decisions that leave us without any aircraft for our carriers for ten years.

Is this review short-term or long-term?

The carrier decision plays into a larger debate about the nature of the review: is it short-term or long-term? Cameron was unequivocal. It was a long-term review. And because of the state of our finances, that leaves the government having to make a strategic gamble. Leaving the new carriers without aircraft and decommissioning the Ark Royal (our current carrier) immediately leaves a gap in defence. The government has obviously determined that our ability to respond to the threats the country faces over the short term - the next 5-10 years - is not likely to be reduced. 

What are the threats Britain faces?

That is because they anticipate focussing their effort and money into intelligence, diplomacy, international aid programmes, counter-terrorism and the like. These are the first four of the eight areas laid out on pp11-12 of the Strategic Defence and Security Review. They also fit in more broadly with the direction our foreign policy is taking under William Hague. His speeches have all discussed the need for Britain to remain an active player in the world, something which Cameron reiterated today. It was not surprising to see more money given to counter cyber-terrorism, given how much coverage this has had in the press recently. 

When it comes to using our armed forces, it was telling that there will be no cuts to special forces outfits like the SAS. Aside from the unaffected current levels of commitment in Afghanistan it's pretty clear that the government is planning to make the army smaller once we pull out. 

What does this mean for the future?

The government announced that the Defence Review will be conducted every five years. While this is a welcome innovation, it is partly because the government want to delay making key decisions until the next parliament. Hence the postponement of a decision on Trident (which also saves £700 million). The future is not bleak for the armed forces though. There will still be money for new projects once the economy is back on its feet, and given how shockingly wasteful the MoD has been/is it can't really be surprised that it has lost a few things. 

It's not about tolerance

The Guardian has an editorial this morning questioning the media storm around Hague and his aide. While it's a very noble plea for tolerance in society, with regards to this particular story it misses the point. It says:

"While suggestions that the foreign secretary is anything other than straight are no more than gossip, in a truly tolerant society there would be nothing to gossip about."

I don't care if a politician is gay. It has no bearing on their ability to do their jobs and it is healthy that we have some diversity in government. But that is not what this story is about. The allegation that Hague was having a relationship with Myers does not just mean he's gay, it also means he's cheating on his wife. And it means that when he appointed Myers he did it on the strength of their extramarital affair, not because he would be good at the job.

This is why Guido Fawkes has been chasing the story. It would be equally good gossip if he'd appointed a woman, because he'd still be cheating on his wife and hiring people for the wrong reasons. These stories are traditional newspaper fodder - remember Prescott's affair and Robin Cook leaving his wife? They don't have to cost you your career and they certainly don't require statements detailing the personal tragedies he and his wife have faced.

The same applies to the outing of Crispin Blunt last week. 'Minister is gay' is not news. 'Minister leaves wife and kids after realising he's gay' is news. Anyway, what's important here is the outcome. While papers will continue - rightly - to report these stories, these ministers are not losing their jobs or being deselected. Once the initial story has broken, it dies down.

I don't believe the rumours about Hague and Myers, although I do believe that Myers was supremely unqualified for his job. That he resigned was not unexpected. What is most concerning is that Hague has shown poor political judgement - both in originally hiring Myers above more qualified competition, and in releasing this statement to the press. I have no doubts he'll get through it though.

Fawkes 'ruins holiday', and other things...

Well, with Guido Fawkes' wife reporting that he's 'ruined their holidays again' you can sleep sound in your beds in the knowledge that the world is still in its correct order. Fawkes is currently being accused by Iain Dale of hounding Christopher Myers, the now former SpAd the William Hague, out of his job.

That this story really became news is primarily down to the media's obsession with gays in politics. From the start, when that picture of Hague and Myers walking along together was published in the Mail, this story has been full of innuendo.

Fawkes was chasing the story, and was the first to report that during the recent election campaign, when Myers was Hague's driver, the two had shared a hotel room. More reasonably, Fawkes pointed out that Myers is almost totally unqualified for the job of SpAd, and (probably accurately) claimed that he got it by being close to Hague. The question was how close.

Now, I expected Myers to take a hit and resign, but I am a bit confused by Hague's response. While a personal defence of his relationship with Myers and his marriage was inevitable, such candour about his wife's miscarriages was not. Why so much detail? Does it offer any defence against accusations he's slept with Myers? No it doesn't. It's all a bit strange. Whatever the reason though, the coalition will be very eager to get away from this story and to come back next week reinvigorated.