Who won?

Conor Ryan: Today’s first PMQs for Cameron was a low key draw. Harriet Harman started by acknowledging the shocking events in Cumbria, and with a question on Gaza where there would appear to be cross-party agreement. Her next two subjects were plans to allow anonymity for men accused of rape and the planned married tax allowance. On the first, Cameron could cite the Home Affairs select committee in his defence, though he seemed uncomfortable with the issue. However, Harriet was on surer ground with the married tax allowance, which the Liberal Democrats oppose. By linking its small benefit to £500 million deficit reduction, she had a clever way in, though Cameron made it a draw by pointing out that Labour had allowed a married tax allowance in inheritance tax.

Will Parbury: This is Cameron’s 129th time at PMQ’s but his first as prime minister. It should be a cakewalk for him seeing as he has co-opted the Lib Dems who have now been silenced. It’s right that the PM pays tribute to soldiers lost in Afghanistan, and later Gaza and Whitehaven but it changes the tone of PMQs to one that is much more favourable to the government. Harman led on Gaza asking about the position of British nationals saying the blockade must end but then moves on to anonymity of rape defendants, an issue that is being asked about by many Labour women MPs. Her questions on marriage tax allowance ended with the line “Nick agrees with me!” Cameron was pedestrian but today was always going to be easy for him. It was businesslike, responsible, the kind of politics the voters say they want but no fireworks.

Conor Pope: I wouldn’t say there was a clear winner. Harman certainly came out on top on marriage tax allowance and anonymity in rape cases. Her line about it sending “a devastating blow” to rape victims that they are not to be believed was the nearest she came to really landing a blow. Over the half hour, Cameron was solid, as expected, and appeared measured and (Heaven forbid) almost statesmanlike on the Gaza blockade.

Chris Paul: Cameron edged overall, but nothing much in it. Pretty subdued with Afghanistan deaths, unfolding dramas in Cumbia, and international tension on the high seas. Cameron was boring but steady. Few cases of words mumbled and jumbled, but nothing catastrophic.

But Harman picked her post-Gaza flotilla questions on rapist anonymity and marriage allowance well and kept at them. Thought Cameron made a bit of a mess of the customary roasting of the sixth question; bit bullying. And a mistake to remind us of inheritance tax versus a £3 a week, and far from universal, marriage benefit costing half a billion pounds.

Best backbencher?

Conor Ryan: Best backbenchers were Jim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton) and Bridget Phillipson, newly elected for Houghton and Sunderland South, who asked questions pertinent to their constituents – the former on Building Schools for the Future, Labour’s school renewal put on hold by the coalition threatening plans close to completion and the latter on aid for Nissan that Lord Mandelson had planned forcing Cameron to admit he didn’t know.

Will Parbury: Douglas Carswell’s question was apparently crowd sourced on the internet. If I was one of his constituents I would be a bit annoyed that he opened up his questions to every rightwing case on his blog. His question on eliminating the House of Lords accords with his own views, funny that. Cameron announced a draft motion on elected House of Lords by December. Points for innovation in questioning even if it was only superficial.

Conor Pope: I thought Ian Davidson was excellent… until the Speaker stopped him. Bullish, eloquent, funny – although maybe not the most effective scrutiniser seeing as he was stopped. A shame really, looked on good form and an approach like that would have rattled cameron with a decent question.

Chris Paul: Ian Davidson probably wins this for outing Lib Dems as despicable, distrusted, dis- and des- everything. Silly but satisfying. Also wins award for best comment.

Best comment or joke?

Conor Ryan: Best quips – Cameron on the inheritance tax and Harman saying “Nick agrees with me” on the married tax allowance. Overall, Cameron seems comfortable in the role, though his outward confidence conceals a lack of awareness on key details: he said, for example, that the education budget would be protected for the pupil premium; in fact only schools, 16-19 and Sure Start are.

Another observation: the whips are clearly priming Tory backbenchers with populist questions on high salaries in the public sector.

Will Parbury: Ian Davidson was the cream of a poor comedy crop with “Do not the vast majority of us distrust and despise the Liberal Democrats?” Summoned agreement from members across the house.

Conor Pope: There wasn’t a wealth of comic material on show today. As I said, Ian Davidson was quite amusing, and Cameron’s statistic on public spending on plantpots was played well. However, Harman saying “On this one, Nick agrees with me” in regards to the marriage tax allowance takes it for me. When the camera cut back to Clegg and Cameron laughing they looked almost nervous, both of them seeming all too aware that Harriet was completely right; like a couple locked in a loveless marriage, staying together “for the kids”. Or maybe for that extra couple of quid a week the Tories will give them.

More comment:

Will Parbury: This was the first day back at school and everyone was on best behaviour. Consequently Toby Perkins, the new Labour MP for Chesterfield, asking about the 10,000 cut in university places was serious, and Bridget Phillipson, asking about a government grant for electric cars in her local Nissan plant, made a confident debut. They will be followed by many more Labour MPs over the next few years asking about ConDem cuts. Julian Lewis asked a question about scaling back our commitment to Afghanistan reflects concern about the mission across the backbenches on both sides this will also be a running theme.