Who won?

Teddy Ryan: Today’s PMQs was a very interesting affair. There wasn’t a clear winner although both would no doubt argue victory. Harriet highlighted the cuts to police funding which is set to reduce the numbers of police officers on the beat. I felt that she was perhaps slightly limited in her range of questions, only once mentioning something which wasn’t related to the police force. Given that yesterday was National Bury Bad News day for the government, I would have liked her to perhaps concentrate a little more on some of the issues which have been eclipsed by the royal proposal. On the one occasion Harman mentioned staff from Conservative HQ being put on the government payroll, Cameron was more than up to the task and his repartee generated a raucous atmosphere in the chamber.

Cameron was typically evasive of direct questions, refusing to state the exact number of frontline police officers who would be taken off the beat as a result of 20 per cent cuts to the police budget. He refused to reconsider the plans for elected police commissioners which are set to cost the taxpayer 100 million to introduce, declaring it a price worth paying for ‘more accountability in our police forces’.

From Cameron we saw, yet again references to the ‘the mess we inherited’. I have a feeling this avenue of defence will cease to be effective once the real effects of the cuts start to hit home.

Samuel Walker: David and Harriet were both in good form. A PMQs this heavy on detail doesn’t usually suit David (great minds as his can not be trifled with minutiae), but he sounded good making the connection between deregulating small business and today’s upbeat employment figures, but there was no way he was getting away from the political grenade lobbed at him by the Manchester police force.

Harriet took after him on this well. It really does stretch credibility past breaking point to claim that a 20 per cent cut in funding will have no direct impact on frontline policing and Harriet wasn’t letting him get away with it. Her direct questions about staffing reductions were measured and forceful. David’s responses listing the numbers of back line staff in the Manchester Police sounded horrible and as if he were attacking the police force itself, not clever.

I absolutely give this one to Harriet. She is really very good at PMQs and, dare I say it, Ed could learn a thing or two from her composure and even tone.

Best backbencher?

TR: Today’s best backbencher was Owen Smith, drawing the chamber’s attention to an article in the Sun in which Cameron stated that he would be ‘employing 3000 more midwives’. He asked whether the PM would be doing something which his deputy hadn’t by ‘honouring his pledge’. Cameron’s answer to this was his usual question-shirking self and his lack of a direct answer would suggest that we won’t be seeing a significant increase in midwives.

SW: Labour’s strategy of pushing Cameron to deliver specific plans and specific numbers is a good one. This government is clearly struggling to get on it’s feet and get some much needed detail into their nebulous policy announcements, which often leave them sounding like an opposition. The Labour backbench as a whole ought to be congratulated for sticking to this strategy and asking a series of sensible and forensic questions.

However, I give this one to Karl Turner who successfully highlighted the disproportionate pain caused by housing cuts felt in areas like Hull. He was right to criticise the cut of the Gateway Pathfinder programme which was a real boon for his constituents struggling to make ends meet. A point he made well with his powerful delivery.

Best question, answer, comment or joke?

TR: The best comment or indeed chant this week goes to the Labour party backbenchers for their orchestrated cries of ‘Coulson, Coulson, Coulson’ in response to Cameron’s reference to Alastair Campbell ‘sexing up dossiers’ prior to the Iraq war.

SW: Not a particularly amusing PMQs, I do miss Ed’s zingers, which are usually pretty funny. David’s slip of the tongue promise of faster wheelchairs got a pretty good laugh, and taken with good humour across the chamber, actually quite a nice moment.

Honourable mention goes to Nigel Dodds of the DUP for loading as much grandstanding into a question as possible. As preface to a banal question on Afghanistan troop training he managed to load in his congratulations to Wills and Kate as well as reminding everyone that the ranger who lost his life was actually from Northern Ireland. I know the DUP lack the major parties’ campaigning opportunities, but this was in very poor taste indeed.
 

Photo: Screenshot