Fantastic, wasn’t it?
Seeing Ed Davey rise on Wednesday lunchtime to ask the first of two questions to the Prime Minister, as the leader not only of the third largest Commons caucus but of the biggest third party presence in our Parliament’s elected chamber for a century.
The first time a Liberal leader has been able to do so since pre-Coalition Nick Clegg in the early months of 2010.
Ed, rightly, went on carers and social care; an issue personal to him and to countless families across the country.
A serious leader asking about a serious issue.
But the question which appeared to get the most media attention after the session was actually asked by the SNP leader in Westminster, Stephen Flynn.
Now reduced, as the leader of the fourth biggest group, with just nine MPs, to an occasional question (where we were just a few short weeks ago), Flynn-an accomplished media performer, whatever we may think of his politics-asked about the big domestic political issue of the week; the very controversial two child benefit cap.
It got me thinking.
What should be the Lib Dems PMQs strategy?
What should our leader’s advisers be advising?
To stick to our own agenda each week, regardless of whatever is the political headlines/controversies of the day?
To always do serious, statesmanlike, responsible?
Or to always go with what’s likely to grab the headlines?
My advice, for what it’s worth, would be to mix it up.
As the former Labour MP Dennis Skinner once noted, sometimes the House of Commons is like a morgue and others it’s like a zoo.
You have to be able to weave and waft to its mood and, indeed, the mood of the nation depending on what is in the news and what’s on people’s minds.
Most of the time, yes, that’ll mean asking serious questions about serious policy issues.
But Ed and his team shouldn’t be afraid to be political if the occasion requires it.
They also shouldn’t be averse to sticking it to both Labour and the Tories in the questions they prepare.
It’d also be nice to sometimes hear Ed use humour as a tactic at PMQs.
He showed, to such great effect during the campaign, that showing a self-deprecating, light-hearted, funny, side to his personality can pay dividends.
The public like it and they like him.
The Tories don’t decide on their new leader until November.
So Ed has a number of months (albeit with a gap when Parliament won’t be sitting) to powerfully impress on the House and the nation that he is the leader of the real opposition.
That his and our credible, constructive opposition won’t just oppose for the sake of it but we will hold Labour’s feet to the fire on health and care, on housing, on education, on protecting civil liberties and the rights of minorities, and on much, much more.
Our 72 MPs will, I have no doubt, make a massive contribution to our Parliament and our nation.
I look forward to seeing all that they achieve in the months and years ahead and in cheering on our leader as he rises each Wednesday to hold the Prime Minister to account.
* Mathew Hulbert is a former Councillor, is a regular commentator on TV and Radio, and is Co-Host of the Political Frenemies podcast.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Two frogs fell into a pail of cream - You won't believe what happened next
Our weekly ward surgery tonight #dundeewestend
Graphics and AV tools for solo consultants
Imaduddin Ahmed
Nigel Jones
Joseph Bourke
7 Comments
Can I suggest that Ed should ask some questions on details of how so-called Great British Energy will work?
Why is it necessary for the government to put in £8.4 bn if the hoped for investment of £25.2 bn is itself worthwhile? What’s the deal? Is this an example of “a socialise the losses and privatise the profits” project?
To get the £25.2 bn the Government must be offering to ‘de-risk’ this. If they are guaranteeing a return of 10% it’s going to cost £2.52 bn in the event investors only break even.
We don’t know the exact details of how this will work because the Government isn’t saying but it has to be something along these lines. It’s like a bookie offering to take bets with a guarantee he’ll give us our money back if the horse loses.
If the Government is willing to accept a worst case loss of £8.4bn there is nothing to stop them putting up the entire £25.2 bn themselves. This way if the project does make a profit it will be going to the Treasury instead of the private investors. In other words if the horse wins, they’ll keep the money rather than giving it away to someone who wasn’t prepared to take any risk to begin with.
The strategy will change as parliament progresses, but opening with care was a smart move. Not just because it was prominent in our campaigning, but because it’s an issue that many Labour and Conservative voters take an interest in, and will be keen to support us as we push the government to do better. For the time being questions should have a positive, constructive and willing to collaborate tone. The time will come when something more combative is required, and it will be all the more effective for holding off until there’s a need for it.
There may be times when something very topical or two entirely separate questions are justified, but for the time being I think keeping to the main themes of our recent campaign is the best way to give us a bit of identity. A common complaint is people don’t know what we stand for, and this is a good way to let them know.
Realistically, most news reports will cover just one of our questions (if any), so sticking to a single theme is the best way to ensure they are covering the message we want to get out that week.
Great point Mathew. It’s a shame that in the world of politics that most politicians have to sort of be entertainers and do things that is media grabbing.
But you are absolutely right that we probably do need to balance the strategy. Yes, be a constructive opposition but not be afraid to be too timid where we think Labour has a weakness and also bring in some more colour from Ed.
I actually remember in the early years of David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn when they started as leaders they actually used a lot more gentle, person-centred tactics and more cordial line of questioning their PMs opposite but in the world of [politics where every Party is competing for attention they soon quickly dropped their more cordial and reciprocal approach. I know for certain the Greens won’t be applying that approach (even on areas where they probably in agreement with Labour).
I think the care one was a good one to start with and I think if done right, IF, they that could help set up our narrative where we establish our identity in the Commons on a issue and the debate where we can go a bit more aggressively and on the attack.
I think Ed should probably replicate what he and his team did so well in the campaign – balancing serious topics and points but with some good humour, one lines and laughs at the expense at Labour. I think that could also work.
It’s not just PMQs where we have to be mindful of this. Much bigger than this was the SNPs motion on child benefit which got loads of media coverage after triggering a rebellion and a heavy handed response.
They did the same with Gaza, their strategy is to make their motions about a subject the labour party is deeply uncomfortable with and milk the ensuing drama for free press.
The fact we left it to the SNP to do this yet again rather than exploit our greater size to get in there first is really quite astounding!
I don’t think the SNP tactic would have worked for us. While some who are anti-Labour/Starmer loved the idea of humiliating Starmer, there are many who would love to see the end of the two-child cap who believe, or at least accept that it’s not possible to do so yet, and they include the sort of traditional Labour voter who lent us their support.
The SNP did get some coverage for drama, but most attention was on Starmer, and there was plenty of criticism of the SNP for being petty for the sake of it. For the time being we’ll do better to effect meaningful change for those who need it if we cultivate a reputation for being the constructive opposition.
What are we? We stand for freedom, fairness and an outward focus. If Labour look illiberal, we call them out. If their centralising tendencies come to the fore, we press the case for federalism. If they appear to promote a diminution in fairness, we call them out. If they improve our relationship with Europe, we support them vigorously. If they resile from human rights, we protest and protect. But I don’t think we ought to be in the game of taking the Mickey for its own sake. Jokes, yes; demeaning, no.
There was a decent sized feature on the unfair way unpaid carers are penalised when their earnings go just over the thresh-hold. The subject is gaining traction and I think Ed and the party’s determination to not just raise the subject, but to keep it in the public eye is paying off.
I’d be surprised if there wasn’t a change to the cliff-edge approach to receiving carers’ allowance, and hopefully also a lot more sympathy towards those who exceeded the thresh-hold by a small amounts and the approach to over-payments.