Each week, the Pagefield panel give their take on PMQs. Here are this week's thoughts.
Well that was fun, wasn’t it? The Easter recess seems to have done Cameron, Miliband, and Bercow the world of good. Today was PMQs at its rambunctious best with the backbenchers rowdy and the leaders sparring over an issue that is itself becoming a microcosm of the ever-widening gap between the two main parties.
The privatisation of the Royal Mail strikes a clear dividing line between the Conservatives and Labour. Ed Miliband – whilst as Sir Peter Tapsell said, not really seeming to understand what motivates share price fluctuation (the Government was never going to be able to sell it at the value that it is now) – seems convinced that the benefits of the sale have gone to the ‘wrong people’. We should pay note to the language here – the politics of unfairness and the idea of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ with regards to rich and poor are arguments that are only going to be dialled up over the next 12 months.
And Cameron’s response? To paint Miliband as a firebrand, backwards-looking socialist who longs for the days of Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock. Again, the language here is key. Foot’s 1982 Manifesto is infamous for being the ‘longest suicide note in history’ and Kinnock is equally infamous for blowing what seemed an insurmountable polling lead – two events that CCHQ believe Ed Miliband is capable of repeating and to which they will persistently look to alert the public.
The noise behind the Royal Mail sale is what will define the next year of the exchanges between the two leaders. Cameron will always look to pivot to the strong economy and that all are being given the chance to benefit; Miliband will attempt to talk about almost anything else. However, the glaring lack of Labour response to the ‘what would you have done differently’ question, both on the Royal Mail and on the economy, will be starting to raise some alarm bells.
Sam Oakley - Executive
We continued where we left off before the break in today’s PMQs – a couple of weakly bowled arguments from Miliband, stroked easily to the boundary by Cameron. Meanwhile, Bercow stole the show again with another entertaining performance. Perhaps this is what it has come to – a superficial argument MC’d by a budding entertainer.
Miliband this week chose the privatisation of the Post Office as a subject to spearhead his attack on the Prime Minister, accusing the Government again of having mishandled the privatisation. In fairness, his argument was bolstered by the observation that George Osborne’s best man is on the management committee of a hedge fund that, in fewer than six months, secured profits of £36m from the privatisation. This did unsettle Cameron somewhat, but the Prime Minister hit back arguing that Miliband was towing the Old Labour line – arguing against a successful privatisation; and one that Labour would be unlikely to reverse if they were to win the next election.
Firmly positioned on the left, I find myself watching each week in despair – wishing Miliband would bring a more gritty and robust argument to the show. What of youth unemployment, which stubbornly stands at nearly 20 per cent, for example?
Currently Cameron and the Conservatives hold all the cards, and with the recent news of continued economic growth, Miliband is facing a long road ahead in these weekly set pieces.
Ben Winter - Researcher
This week’s instalment of our favourite political drama delivered on noise and bravado as always, but served as yet another warning that the greatest show in Parliament is turning from drama to farce. Labour chose the privatisation of Royal Mail for this week’s topic, but the way in which the discussion unfolded demonstrated the failure of this grand political tradition to serve its purpose in the present day.
A system where there is no obligation to answer the questions asked delivers only a mirage of accountability, and may serve to confirm some voters suspicions that the ‘Westminster Village’ is only working for itself. Today’s questions on the privatisation of Royal Mail sought to examine whether the Government was right to price shares as they did, given the huge gains made by investors in the weeks following the sale. The Prime Minister however, was determined not only to avoid answering the questions asked, but to speak to a completely separate topic altogether.
He is not the first Prime Minister to do so, and this tactic is certainly not confined to the Conservative party. However, a raucous half-hour of aggressive banter, bluster and barracking (aspects which were recently blamed for the absence of female MPs at PMQs) with no real political purpose, works only to further erode confidence in politicians and risks making a laughing stock of this once-great political tradition. Regardless of the topic, such displays hurt politicians in all mainstream parties, and will help only those who profit from the growing ‘anti-politics’ vote.
Nathan Jones - Researcher
You can find a weekly summary of PMQs and other blog entries on the Pagefield website.