He reiterated his support for the government’s timetable for withdrawal from operations in the country and asked the prime minister to update the House on events in Egypt.
David Cameron rarely broke sweat in his responses as he outlined the UK government’s support for three of the least controversial notions in politics: democracy, human rights and peace.
Barnstorming it wasn’t, but those looking for a more considered and consensual approach to PMQs will be happy. For the rest of us, normal service should resume next week.
Best backbencher
Vernon Coaker has enjoyed a few testy exchanges with Tory frontbenchers in his time; his question on the removal of support for a young disabled constituent was passionately put and forced a circular non-answer from the PM.
Best question, answer, comment or joke
Moments of levity were few and far between, but gaffe-prone Nadine Dorries’ unintentional promise of a ‘warm welcome’ for those considering an enormous incinerator in her constituency raised a half-smile – though not from her.
Elsewhere, Ronnie Campbell’s attack on the government’s cuts programme was refreshingly direct, with Cameron parroting the line that they were all the fault of the previous government. While that argument still springs easily from the lips of ministers, its mileage in the country will not last forever.
Quiet? Muted? Dull? All suitable words to describe Ed M’s performance at PMQ’s. Just as Gordon Brown left Downing Street last year in a whimper so has Ed M begone his leadership. If today’s performance is anything to go by, he intends to fully support Tory-led foreign policy (including agreeing a date for British withdrawal from Afghanistan – a deliberate U-turn from past Labour government policy) and, at the same time, refrain from attacking Cameron’s domestic policies. Perhaps I have failed to grasp the subtle long-term political manoeuvring of our leader (i.e. agree with as much Tory policy as possible and, at the same time, play the ‘mea culpa’ card to the media to apologise for past mistakes) but I have been under the impression that the Opposition Party in Parliament is there to “oppose” government policy!! I didn’t vote Labour for our leader to sell our proud past ‘down the river’ or behave like a simpering, ineffectual and anaemic opposition. I profoundly disagree with the tack that states “short-term sympathy with majority party voters leads to long-term support for defeated party”. I strongly believe that most voters want to see a visible gap between party policies. Agreement on ‘issues’ only clouds their choice. I want to see and hear from every Labour MP a passionate opposition to this government’s aim to dismantle the public sector. If you can’t provide a viable alternative to the working class misery planned by the Tories and Lib Dems then perhaps you don’t deserve to be leader. The general population may be disenchanted with this Tory-led regime at the present time (and will certainly be disaffected as this government’s cuts become more personal) but will they be hoodwinked into believing that the country has to go through this ‘pain’ before we achieve ‘pleasure’ in 2015? The present pathetic Labour opposition points more to “country hoodwinked” than “country united”. My advice to Ed M: either become a vociforous advocate for the working classes (which is presently non-existent) or step down!