Our usual insightful team of commentators are away from their desks this lunchtime so it falls to me to report PMQs,
Questions from Cameron about recapitalisation allowed the PM to patronise him on economic answers. A slip of the tongue for the PM led to him telling the house he had saved the world. Chutzpah much?
Alan Simpson, the Labour rebel for Nottingham South (including the ward I represent) pointed out the value of saving the world when you have an opposition that can’t even save face. He went on to ask whether now is the time to introduce a Tobin tax.
Then Clegg rose to his feet, and began by extending his sympathy to Lance Corporal David Wilson, who died in Iraq.
He told the House a single mother with small children had paid him a visit – and then had to sit down as laughter burst out around the chamber. Not entirely sure why honourable members should find that quite so funny. When the hilarity subsided, he was back on his feet to explain she came with a bundle of letters from the government demanding tax credits back. The letter was near incomprehensible apart from clear threats to take her family to court to repay money she didn’t have. She was terrified. Does the Prime Minister really think this is the sort of help families need in time of recession?
Brown managed barely three sentences in reply, pointing out that tax credits had raised many children out of poverty, and completely skirting over the issue of the huge number of families for whom the system has failed.
Clegg’s second bite at the cherry saw him accusing the PM of being deluded, seeing himself as Atlas with the world on shoulders. The sad fact is, 35 low income families are taken to court every day. The system is confused bureauocratic and cruel, and fixed payments would give peole security.
The Prime Minister replied that fixed payments takes out the flexibility to change to meet circumstances. But it’s this flexibility that leads to families getting in a mess and to a system that really is desparately complicated to understand. And it’s this flexibility that is directly leading to hardship for many.
Later, Phil Willis asked a question on assisted dying, since the death of one of his constituents is to be shown on tv later today.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Friday reading
Demolishing the Tory blue wall
Whoopee! Another Orpington
The other by-elections this week
Congratulations, Sarah Green!
Planning Applications Update Holyrood Ward June 2021
Michael BG
Barry Lofty
John Marriott
James Paton
Michael 1
72 Comments
We’re hashtagging blog posts now?
Very quick off the mark, James! It’s my latest wheeze. Include a hashtag in the blog title so that it shows up in the Twitter announcement of the new post.
Then quickly edit the blog post to remove the hash before any smart alec comments.
Clearly, not quite quick enough!
If you really don’t understand why the chamber fell about perhaps PMQs sketches are not for you.
Heh. My attempt at being po-faced. If I hadn’t got it, I wouldn’t have put it in the title! Tried to explain it to my other half, and he didn’t get it. This isn’t really supposed to be a sketch as such, I don’t think.
Hounourable members found it funny because of the ‘Cleggover’ nickname…not a good show by Clegg this week….
If MPs want to make themselves look stupid by laughing at the plight of single mothers on tax credits, that’s up to them – Clegg can hardly be blamed for it. I hope he will continue to speak up for them.
But by the same token, I hope he doesn’t labour under the delusion that rolling the tax credit system up into a tax cut isn’t going to help people who pay very little tax.
James,
I’m not sure thats fair – they wont laughing at the mother in question; they were laughing at Clegg and that is entirely Clegg’s fault to be honest.
I say again: are you seriously suggesting that Clegg should never mention single mothers for fear of being mocked?
I’m the first person to lament Clegg’s tendency to say stupid things to journalists, but I’ll never criticise him for doing the right thing.
…even if it does lead to embarrassment.
James,
I never said he shouldnt have brought it up; I agree with you that it was the right thing to do. I am just lamenting the fact that the aforementioned stupid comments detracted somewhat from the gravitas of what is a serious point…
When Clegg is an idiot, I’ll call him an idiot. When MPs behave collectively like idiots, I’ll call them idiots. They are to blame, not him.
James,
Clegg loaded the gun; they fired. I think we are missing a wider issue here….how do you think it effected his overall contribution??
Andy McSmith makes the point which appears to elude Guido:
http://amcsmith.livejournal.com/1450.html
So what does he do Darrell – not mention single mothers even when they are being massively badly treated by a system set up by the government.
If MPs stop, or temper representing their constituents because they might get embarrassed then they should find a different profession.
BTW Paddy spent years suffering derision everytime he stood up to talk about the former Yugoslavia in the 90s
Hywel,
Of course not, it was just frustrating and I think Clegg’s overall demeanour at PMQ’s is actually starting to reflect that frustration incidentally; actually the point Brown made about the inflexibility of fixed tax credits was well made too.
I think it’s true that fixed tax credits would create as many problems as they solve.
Normally extending condolences to a fallen soldier doing its bidding abroad is enough for parliament to let someone get through a full question. It really is disgraceful that this schoolboy stuff is the only time that people seem to focus on parliament these days.
It’s great that Nick Clegg is standing up for single mothers re tax credits but it would more impressive if he guaranteed Lib Dem opposition to the current attack on single parents receiving other benefits.
As for Phil Willis he told Radio 4 this morning that it was wrong to show a film of assisted death because people might watch it for the wrong reasons ie “because it’s good television”. Presumably the broadcast should be banned – what kind of Liberal position is that?
I agree that Nick Clegg should not be mocked when making a serious point about single mothers.
But had he not boasted about being such a stud, he wouldn’t be subject to such jokes.
Once again, the curse of our leader strikes down our credibility,.
Can we have a leadership contest yet?
Because of course the last two have been so good for our credibility
“But had he not boasted about being such a stud, he wouldn’t be subject to such jokes.”
He didn’t…he said he had slept with ‘no more than 30 women’. Which is sort of the opposite. By your logic, William Hague is a drunk. (Which he isn’t, of course. I don’t want to get sued).
MPs should be ashamed at themselves for laughing on such a serious question. Perhaps they could laugh at single mothers in the face during their constiuency surgeries and see the reaction.
He didn’t boast. He joked.
He didn’t joke. He answered a loaded question put to him by Piers Morgan. The correct response in such circumstances is to propose shoving Morgan’s tape recorder down his throat. Politely, of course.
It’s a question of being a bit streetwise, surely. Ming shouldn’t have asked that question about failing schools changing their leadership just when we were doing that ourselves. Nick shouldn’t have said he’d been visited by a single female, he should have said he could cite the case of a single mother with problems, etc etc. Then he’d have avoided the trap.
I agree with David to be honest; its not a major complaint that should let loose a leadership contest, its just frustrating…
Well, in any case, fortunately on this occasion everyone is too busy laughing at Gordon Brown to laugh at Nick Clegg.
I’m clearly missing something here.
Why is it amusing when Nick Clegg asks a question about single mothers?
Liberal,
Scroll up :)…
It’s a pun on the word ‘single’.
Vince Cable seemed to think it was amusing, anyway.
The comments above do show the damage the deposing of Kennedy and Campbell did. Prior to that it would have been inconceivable for people to demand leadership elections.
Even when Paddy was at the height of his machinations people held back. Now one PMQ goes badly and people are reaching for Article 10.2
Hywel,
Yes, I thought the same thing. It reminds me of something I wrote 18 months ago.
It doesn’t help that we keep picking the wrong guy . . . 😉
I disagree with you all!
I think it is good for us that Clegg is getting mocked in this way on this subject.
It draws attention to his earlier comments (which means people are paying attention to him), it highlights Clegg’s humanity and it shows his ability to take a joke, but it also shows our opponents cruel intolerance and their ability to get easily sidetracked from the important issues which are of public concern.
If Clegg intentionally chose to phrase his question in this way (knowing he would be mocked) it shows his foresight and his wider perspective, which makes him grow as a statesman.
If Clegg unintentionally let the words fall out of his mouth it shows he is an instinctual and single-minded man, unconcerned about his own welfare when it comes to promoting the concerns of those in need, which shows him to be on the side of angels.
…will he be able to keep it up as the number of his visitors inevitably increases?
Clegg’s sharp new haircut is clearly affecting his popularity stakes… positively!
Oranjepan
“If Clegg intentionally chose to phrase his question in this way (knowing he would be mocked) it shows his foresight and his wider perspective, which makes him grow as a statesman.”
I’ve long suspected you aren’t actually a Liberal Democrat, but an opponent seeking to bring down ridicule on the party by posting the most ludicrous opinions you can think of in the guise of a loyalist.
You’ve finally convinced me that my suspicion is correct.
CCF,
so you’ve got over yourself and have rejoined the party then?
What on earth gave you that idea?
Not that it’s any more ludicrous than any of your other ideas …
If you aren’t prepared to put your money where your mouth is what right do you have to complain that the party is being taken over by the likes of me or anyone else you might disagree with?
There is, of course, such a thing as Lib Dem hyper-sensitivity to anything that we perceive might make our beloved leader look weak/a figure of fun. I was listening to Five Live’s coverage this morning, where John Pienar and the emailers and texters who commented afterwards reached a broad consensus that Clegg’s question was a good one, and the rest of the house looked like douchebags for laughing.
I suggest we worry no further about it; nobody else will.
I’m not complaining that the party is being taken over by “the likes of you”, you idiot! I’m saying I don’t believe you’re a member of the party at all.
Surely no one could be so utterly stupid as to think Clegg deliberately set himself up as the target of mockery, in order to show “his wider perspective” – whatever that means? Or could they? Maybe you’re going for a new world record, or something.
CCF,
I’m more than happy to set myself up as a target for mockery if that is the best way to make my case. By responding in that tone you make my point for me.
CCF: At a time when cynicism about the political system is pretty high, Clegg could do worse than try to look disliked and bullied by the establishment. Nowhere is this easier than at PMQs, asking a serious question, and receiving a wall of puerile noise in response. Oranjepan may be attributing Clegg with more long-game outside-the-box thinking than is realistic, but it’s not such an outlandish thought as all that, if you ask me.
Laurence (and others)
First, Chris lost. Second it was his own fault (calamity Clegg memo, a series of weird policy vacillations) which doesn’t suggest he would have been gaffe free as leader.
It’s time to get over it.
Oranjepan
Oh, come on! You’re not for real, are you?
It’s not clever to carry on with the game after you’ve been rumbled. Own up now, and then go away and leave us in peace …
Andy Hinton
You think it’s “not outlandish” to suggest that Clegg would deliberately evoke the Piers Morgan gaffe in order to get MPs to laugh at him, in order to “try to look disliked and bullied by the establishment”?
What about Oranjepan’s other bizarre claims – that the £30 a week pension blunder was an attempt to make Clegg look more human? Or that the resignation of Lord Jacobs was a cunning plan to support the Lib Dems by telling the press that their policies were a disgrace?
I may be wrong, but I reckon the bloke is just winding you all up.
I’m over it. I wouldn’t support Chris again – he’s had his two bites at the cherry. But what do you suppose the outcome would be if we could rerun the 2006 election? Chris would have made Cameron look like a small boy. Never mind.
CCF,
I did not make those claims, just as I did not say with certainty that Clegg was deliberately calculating at PMQs. I simply cannot know this (and I’m not convinced that it is necessarily a good thing anyway).
All I am doing is pointing out that it is possible to interpret actions in a variety of ways and therefore that we should be careful about jumping to conclusions based upon our own preconceptions.
The complete picture is always more complex than any individual might believe on first glance, so why attempt to paint it in black and white?
Oranjepan
I repeat – I reckon you’re trying to damage the party by posing as a supporter and posting the most ridiculous things you can think of in that guise.
I can’t think of any other explanation that fits the facts.
Well, I think I’m starting to understand why you’ve stopped ponying up your subs.
Where’s your imagination, where’s your vision, where’s your optimism gone?
Oranjepan wrote:
“…will he (Clegg) be able to keep it up as the number of his visitors inevitably increases?”
No, you didn’t REALLY write that, did you, Oranjepan?
Hywel Morgan (no relation to Piers) wrote:
“First, Chris lost. Second it was his own fault (calamity Clegg memo, a series of weird policy vacillations) which doesn’t suggest he would have been gaffe free as leader.”
If my memory serves me right, when the campaign started, Clegg’s election was being presented in the media as an inevitability. He was this wonderful man, a latter-day messiah who would charm all before him. Then as the campaign got underway (and we had the TV debates) it became obvious to everyone (expect Linda Jack) that Huhne was by far the better candidate. One more week and Huhne would have won. How many members kicked themselves for voting too early?
I don’t think it was the media that won it for Clegg, though they tried their damndest. It was the Parliamentary Party. All those MPs lining up to endorse the man who would give them the easier ride. It is they who must take the blame, and some will pay with their careers no doubt.
They only way out, as I see it, is a palace coup followed by a Howard style coronation of Chris Huhne. Not very democratic, but do we really want another leadership election shambles 18 months before a general election where the wrong candidate wins once again?
“Where’s your imagination, where’s your vision, where’s your optimism gone?”
I repeat, I don’t think you’re for real.
I think all these bizarre things you come out with are just a huge, elaborate wind-up.
I thought Darrell the Victorian moralist’s responses were the most depressing for a supposed Liberal, but then I saw CCF and Orange having a PMQs-esque childish spat of their own and I got the urge to bang my head against a wall…
FWIW, I think you have something of a point, Orange, when you say that it makes Clegg look more statesmanlike than the rest of them when he rises above this sort of thing, but 1, that’s not hard, and 2, he shouldn’t have to.
Jennie
What I was disagreeing with was the crazy suggestion that Clegg may have deliberately engineered the ridicule – which was of a piece with his other crazy suggestions recently, such as that Clegg may only have been pretending not to have a clue what the state pension was.
Sorry if you think I’m being “childish” for saying I don’t believe a word of it, and I don’t believe Oranjepan is for real. But at least as I’ve left the party I’m not obliged to live up to your ideas about what a “supposed Liberal” should be …
I don’t think you are being childish for stating a view, CCF, I think BOTH of you are being childish in the way you are going about it, though. Spending thirty comments ping-ponging the same point back and forth is not a productive use of either of you’s time, nor of those of us who have to scroll past it vainly looking for more than one substantive point.
You’re not obliged to live up to ANY of my ideas. I’m a Liberal. I don’t want to tell you what to do. But I’m not averse to letting you know when you look like a prize arse. What you choose to do with that information is entirely your affair.
Jennie
This is what I can’t understand about people like you. You complain that other people are wasting time arguing about something – and almost invariably your only comment on what’s actually being argued about is something vacuous along the lines of “a plague on both your houses”, or “I agree with A when he says the sky is blue”. And you couple your complaints about “childishness” with statements like “you look like a prize arse”. And all at once we have another ping-pong match of your own creation!
… or would have, if I was going to get drawn into it any further. Sorry, love, you’ll have to find someone else to feed your trollishness today.
Jennie
Ah yes, I thought the “T word” was overdue.
“Liberals” who can’t encounter someone who has a different opinion without calling them names …
Clegg’s (un)Candid (un)Fan – Jennie was just giving you constructive feedback. Maybe you should listen instead of flying off the handle yet again. I have my grumpy moments and get into flame wars from time to time, but you are something else.
Well, now I really have been told. Obviously I’d better shut up.
CCF – Jennie said that the childness came in the ping-pong of comments, not the comments themselves.
Reading what you THINK it says, and reading what it ACTUALLY says, are two different things.
Sesenco,
I agree with your analysis of how Clegg won but I think it would be a disaster if we were to change leader again now.
He’s made a few gaffe’s, but he’s likeable and will probably gain ground with the public as he becomes better known.
Liam
“Reading what you THINK it says, and reading what it ACTUALLY says, are two different things.”
I understood perfectly what Jennie said. She was indeed accusing me of being childish, as she went on to confirm in her next comment.
I’m sure Oranjepan is a true Lib Dem, and that he seriously means what he says. I don’t think what he says is crazy. However, I do think it’s wrong. Ridicule really, really matters in politics. Ignore that at your peril.
Hague was toast once he’d been ridiculed about that baseball cap.
Ming was toast once he’d been ridiculed with “Declare your interest!” on that question about pensioners.
Steel was toast once Spitting Image ridiculed him with that puppet of Steel in Owen’s pocket.
Gordon could well be toast, now that he’s saved the world.
Clegg will be toast if he can’t get away from Cleggover.
The way to do that is NOT to ask a question about a single mother who “came to see me”. Almost anything would have been better, for example “came to my constituency surgery”. In Gordon’s defence, at least he was having to think on his feet. Clegg had all the time in the world to get the phrasing of his (very valid) question right. Let’s hope this new guy knows a thing or two about effective communication!
David, what you say is true, but is it something we want to be just accepting?
David Steel/David Owen/pocket was at least an insinuation about something which actually has a bearing on the politics. How many people Clegg has shagged has no bearing whatsover on his job, and the utterly juvenile behaviour of the other parties yesterday does nothing to further the reputation of Westminster in the eyes of an increasingly jaded public, especially because we all know that 30 is a pretty bloody small number for a politician, and can smell the rank hypocrisy of it from Yorkshire.
“… the utterly juvenile behaviour of the other parties yesterday does nothing to further the reputation of Westminster in the eyes of an increasingly jaded public …”
Certainly. But to suggest Clegg might have deliberately provoked that in order to benefit from some kind of sympathy vote, or that he might deliberately have pretended to think the state pension was £30 a week, in order to make himself look more human is to lose all contact with reality.
CCF,
there are different ways of looking at the same thing.
I don’t claim that either of the alternative perspectives I suggested are exclusively or necessarily correct, but I think it does help to have second thoughts about the broader impact.
Does George Osborne know what is the price of a pint of milk or half a dozen eggs? Does this help or hinder his economic analysis?
“Does George Osborne know what is the price of a pint of milk or half a dozen eggs? Does this help or hinder his economic analysis?”
I’d have thought it would be obvious even to you that believing anyone could survive on £1.5K a year would be a handicap in thinking about economic policy.
But we’ve been over that ad nauseam. The point I’m making is that no politician in his right mind would pretend he believed such a thing. The idea is preposterous.
CCF,
do you think Clegg outperformed Brown at PMQs? Is backbench appreciation for potential innuendo as high as their scorn for hubris?
My point is simply that it’s ridiculous to suggest Clegg might have deliberately provoked the ridicule.
All this other stuff you keep coming out with is irrelevant to that question.
Jennie,
I don’t think it’s a question of what we want to be accepting, or not accepting. It’s a question of what the great British public think about it all.
Now I grant you that the GBP give low marks to politicians who spend all their time playing silly games. But they also give low marks to politicians who are dumb enough to make silly mistakes and leave themselves open to ridicule.
If we’re talking about po-faced moralising, well, in my view one kind of po-faced moralising is to make derogatory comments about “schoolboy” humour. I’m going to stand up for the “schoolboys”. When people say they don’t like schoolboy humour, I think they often just don’t have much of a sense of humour at all.
I confess a sneaking admiration for the unnamed MP who had the wit to respond to Clegg’s “a single mother came to see me” by yelling out “31!” I’m the sort of prat who would have loved to have thought of that first. (Comes with a comedian’s name, I suppose.)
And since the underlying target of the joke was male arrogance, I think we might even call it a politically correct joke!
Dave, one of my favourite comedy moments is your namesake discussing a stripper with incredibly long pubes. I’m not averse to humour of the bawdy kind. I just think there’s a time and a place for it, and while tradition might dictate that PMQs is one of those times/places, the GBP is getting mighty bloody sick of it.
I watched this last week and was shocked by the sheer inappropriate nature of the comment. I don’t think I have ever been so shocked! Or have ever stayed stoney faced when there was laughter in the house!
If it had been funny I would have laughed, but sexual innuendo when talking about the plight of a single mother in PMQs should be classed as sexual harrassment or sexism and the same action should be taken as it would if a group of men had laughed in this way at any other workplace.
Not the comment the laughter!!