The chamber was very full for this first PMQs of the autumn session. Full, except for Ed Miliband, who with two minutes to go was still not in his place. The Prime Minister was in his place, listening to the conclusion of Cabinet Office Questions, looking tanned, somewhat detached. If he had been wearing half moon glasses, he would have been peering over them.
The buzz in the House led the Speaker repeatedly to call for calm, which he did not get. Some of the microphones were not working, meaning that several of the questions were lost in the melee. And then in came Ed, a single grey streak in his otherwise black hair. He sat down.
The Prime Minister rose and began proceedings by offering his congratulations to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on their son, Prince George, a reminder of the length of MPs’ summer holidays.
The first question came from Christopher Pincher, (Cons, Tamworth) who asked whether, now that the economy was in such rude health, it was time to “abandon Plan B,” and accept that the Government economic plans were working a treat. The PM agreed with the premiss of this toadying question, and cited a long list of favourable economic indicators that are “all going in the right direction.” He finished with the somewhat un-nuanced jibe at Labour that, on the economy, ”they were wrong, we were right.”
Ed Miliband then stood, to roars from all sides of the House. At the forthcoming G20, he asked, will the Prime Minister urge all other nations to match the UK’s aid programme to Syria? The PM said he would do so, and stressed that humanitarian aid and political pressure could be combined with a clear message of “revulsion” at the use of chemical weapons.
Ed followed with a question about aid to the countries bordering Syria that are dealing with a large number of refugees. The PM agreed that this made the case for a Syria peace process even more urgent.
Ed then said that “revulsion at chemical weapons is shared on all sides of this house,” and with that, there was much shuffling in seats and some voluble harumphing. Miliband prefaced several of his questions with this line and each time he did so it was met with increasing displeasure by the government benches. He evidently wanted to make clear that, despite unkind suggestions that last week he effectively scuppered UK military action against Assad, he still deplored the use of chemical weapons. Can the PM tell the House what he is doing to assist the proposed Geneva peace talks, he asked? The PM replied that “we wont get a peace process in Syria unless Assad recognises his regime is under threat,” not only from outside, but from Syrians also.
“There is no difference in this House,” began Miliband, once again stating his disgust over Chemical weapons, and the roars went up around him once more. Noticing this, Ed suggested that a calm tone was appropriate in this debate, but this only brought more concerted. Miliband managed to get out his second question on peace talks, and the PM once more stressed that the people involved in the war need to see the benefit of peace talks. Assad has to understand that “there is no victory he can win against his people.”
Miliband then turned to Iran, first by reminding the House, if it had not been listening, that nobody disagrees with the revulsion at the use of chemical weapons (more jeering). But what is the government position on Iranian participation in peace talks? By way of answer, Cameron reminded the House of the recent sacking of Britain’s embassy in Iran.
Miliband rose to the dispatch box once more, first to say that “last week’s vote was not about Britain’s shirking its global responsibility,” which drew a loud chorus of displeasure from the Government benches. What more was the PM planning to do to get peace talks under way? Cameron replied testily, saying “my only regret was that last week it was not necessary to divide the House on a vote…” and the end of his answer was lost in the downpour of shouting.
Jack Straw, (Lab, Blackburn) the former Home Secretary, returned to the question of Iran. The sacking of the UK Embassy took place under the former Iranian regime of Ahmadinejad, he said. There has since been a change of government—does President Rouhani look a better bet as a potential partner for negotiations? “We need to see progress,” from Rouhani on Iran’s nuclear programme and Britain should deal with Iran “very very cautiously,” said Cameron.
Margaret Beckett then asked a question about the Lobbying Bill, which was unveiled in Parliament yesterday and was roundly attacked from all sides. Cameron replied that objections were only being raised because Labour MPs “don’t want the Trade Unions brought within the law,” a reply that drew loud objections form the Labour benches.
Jeremy Corbyn then asked about negotiating with Iran, but was told by the PM that “if we believe there’s a key,” to solving the Syria crisis, such as simply getting Iran on side, then we are much mistaken.
There followed further questions about Syria, the economy and also welfare reform. As Cameron worked his way through yet another long list of positive economic statistics, the Labour front bench sat still. Douglas Alexander pursed his lips. Ed Miliband sat rigid, face impassive.
Then came a question from Jesse Norman (Cons, Hereford and South Herefordshire.) The most notable thing about Mr Norman was that at around 10:30 this morning, it was announced that he had been sacked by the Prime Minister as one of his in-house policy experts. The problem is, however, that once on the order paper, the question has to be asked. And there is was, in black and white: “Q6 Jesse Norman.” He stood and asked a perfectly reasonable question about cancer treatments, but the politics of the situation rubbed out its content. So did the snickering, whispering and elbowing of neighbours among members on both sides of the House. Norman failed to vote on the Government’s side last week in the Syria debate. A spokesman from No 10 later explained that “He’s done some very good work, but didn’t support the Government on a three line whip.”
There followed further questions about the sunny state of the economy from the Government benches, which Cameron accepted gladly. Ed Balls shook his head as the PM read out the long list of economic positives, and also held up three fingers to Cameron, perhaps as an indicator of how long it has taken the Government to restore growth. Balls is a big fan of such gesturing during PMQs. He has invented political semaphore.
The father of the House, Peter Tapsell, then stood, at which the House hushed. “I’ve always had,” he began slowly, “the Armageddon question in the back of my mind,” he said, a revelation that brought the House rigidly to attention. If the US bombs Syria and then the Russians are invited into Syria by Assad to “degrade the rebels,” asked Tapsell, “what would Nato do? The PM answered by wondering about the sort of Armageddon the people of Syria would face if nothing is done to help them.
The lowest, most agonising moment in the session came after Jim Hood (Lab, Lanark and Hamilton E) asked why the PM supported the bedroom tax, but not the mansion tax. Cameron replied by asking whether Miliband had any plans to reform the “spare room subsidy,” the technical name of the bedroom tax. WIll you reverse it, Cameron asked Miliband across the chamber? Will you reverse it? Just a nod. Go on. Miliband leaned over to say something to Harriet Harman, seated to his left, leaning out of the way, attempting to escape the ghastly moment.
The session was completed by a question from John Mann (Bassetlaw), asking what the government planned to do over falling wages. Cameron retorted that Labour complaining about the present state of the economy is like an “arsonist complaining to the fire brigade,” a line dreamed up for no other reason that to be included in reports such as this one.
Questions ended, the House emptied quickly.
