Although Cameron’s answers were solid enough, he was thrown completely off guard by Ed asking him if he felt that Rebekah Brooks should resign. Mrs Brooks – a close friend of the PM – is causing him a rather large political headache at the moment and it is looking increasingly inevitable that she will resign.
Ed also asked the PM if he would be referring the News International bid to take over BSkyB to the Competition Commission, in the light of new evidence – Cameron’s answer, not for the last time this PMQs, was a copout.
Best question?
Teresa Pearce was spot on when she asked the prime minister to ‘get a grip’ over the increase in knife attacks amongst young people. Her question was pertinent and the issue is one that I feel extremely strongly about. Her sentiments were echoed around the house and I hope that the PM and the mayor are able to resolve this issue. It was in both their election pledges, after all.
Best joke?
In a PMQs that won’t be remembered for its humour, there are two points that did make me laugh. The first probably won’t win me any popularity but it was very funny – David Morris MP (Conservative) said that the Labour party’s opposition to the IMF bailouts was laughable given that in the 1976, Britain, under a Labour government, needed to be bailed out by the IMF. The only other source of amusement in an otherwise serious PMQs, was the look of dishevelment sported by John Bercow – it appears that the speaker is a fan of the ‘bed head’ look.
Not wishing to cast aspersions on Mr Speaker’s coiffure ~ but rather than tumbling untended from under his speakerly duvet, he may simply have had a case of hat head ( giving due consideration to the inclement weather of late). It remains to be seen whether he effects a different look for his impromptu visit to Afghanistan….( commiserations to Mrs B ). As for Ed versus Chipping Norton, the red corner most definitely won. Now let’s hope the full truth is revealed and laid open to proper scrutiny – and anything No 10 tries to cover up in the short term will be likely to have a more serious effect in the future.