PMQs live blog
Peter Hoskin 11:52amStay tuned for live coverage of PMQs from 1200.
1202: And we're off. John Maples asks Brown to clarify our objectives in Afghanistan. Brown says that "since 2001, our main objective has been to stop terrorism".
1204: In response to a question from Anne Begg, Brown says he is "committed to increasing the diversity of Pariament".
1205: Cameron now. He asks whether to maintain support for the Afghanistan mission, we've got to "make more visible progress". Brown repeats his point about "tackling terrorism," and that the mission also aims to bring "social and economic development" in the country. He adds that the Government will review "equipment and resources" after the Afghan elections.
1208: Now Cameron pushes on the "insufficient" number of helicopters in Afghanistan, drawing an unfavourable comparison between the (greater) proportion of American helicopters and the number of British helicopters. Brown's response, that old favourite: "We're doing everything we can."
1210: Brown: "We have a helicopter Bugdet over the next three(?) years, that will be £6 billion, that will improve helicopters for the future." He adds that "While the deaths have been sad, they are not to do with helicopters."
1212: Cameron says that Brown can't deny that the lack of helicopters is a problem. He supports the claim with quote from military figures, including Lord Guthrie.
1213: Brown reels off helicopter production statistics, before claiming he's received assurances that the troops "have the equipment they need". Hm. He says that what's really needed are more Afghan troops.
1215: Incisive stuff from Cameron: "We have 500 helicopters as a country, and we only have 30 in [Afghanistan]".
1217: Brown says that helicopters "need to be adapted to operate in Afghanistan". To which, I suspect, most people will think: But does it take 8 years to adapt them? He then continues - disgracefully, in my view - that this "shouldn't be an issue for cross-party disagreement".
1218: Shameless stuff from Brown, in reponse to Cameron: "I hoped that this debate would have remained free from party politics."
1219: Brown: "We are doing everything we can..."
1220: Woah. Fiery stuff from Clegg. He says that people "want change, but they're watching a Prime Minister doing nothing." He even says that Brown is "fiddling the figures."
1221: Brown: "The opposition parties have no policies for reducing unemployment."
1222: Clegg: "Who does the PM think he's kidding?" This is getting quite heated.
1223: Brown: "I think the leaders of the opposition parties should go away for the summer and think why they have no policies for the recession." Erm, maybe Brown should go away and think why he's way, way behind in the polls...
1224: Back bench questions now.
1227: Questions on poverty, regions and autism care.
1228: Another question on helicopters. Brown gets quite flustered, and repeats the points he made to Cameron. "We're doing everything we can..."
1232: Brown: "Defence spending has continued to rise in real terms, in contrast to the last years of the Conservative government."
1232: And that's it.
VERDICT: A solid and - dare I say it? - statesmanlike performance from Cameron today. His questions on equipping our troops in Afghanistan were sensible, measured, and left Brown floundering. Throw in a surprisingly acerbic performance from Nick Clegg, and it was a pretty dismal session for the PM.
Previous
Colin
July 15th, 2009 12:17pm Report this commentBrown and Labour are very vulnerable on defence funding and procurement. If Cameron plays this right, he'll see off Labour for a generation.
Harman's demeanor during the questions from Cameron on defence funding was shocking.
patrickinken
July 15th, 2009 12:53pm Report this commentAre you as bored as I am that Brown keeps saying that he is doing "everything he can" to sort out something or other?
But it is even worse when backbench Labour MPs ask him to confirm that he is doing "everything he can". Isn't this the sort of thing that should be confined to pantomimes.
Dr.A
July 15th, 2009 1:05pm Report this commentgood job he's abolished boom and bust and saved our economy from big downturn in this GLOBAL RECESSION, or buying our troops the equipment they need when we go into these wars might have been hard going
EyeSee
July 15th, 2009 1:22pm Report this commentGlad you like the 'politics' of MP's throwing words and maybe insults at each other in the House of Commons. Surely in a real-world parliament and not our fantasy one, a government would fall over something as serious as the needless deaths of soldiers in a war with no strategy? There should be talk of prosecutions and the likely length of sentence for those culpable (Brown and Hoon are dead certs, Blair should probably have been hanged already). But no, as the expenses debacle showed, there is no sanction whatsoever on politicians. I wonder what event (probably on the face of it quite minor, as they often are) will unite, focus and trigger the anger of ordinary taxpayers to take direct action. Which may well be violent. In the meantime, can we replace the armoured Jaguar of our (not threatened) PM with an ordinary Astra and explain to him that, due to a shortage, his 'normal' vehicle is not available. That would make him more accessible too!
Mark M
July 15th, 2009 1:24pm Report this comment"We're doing everything we can"
Given that we have no money left presumably 'everything we can' is not a lot at all.
We just had 281,000 people unemployed in the past three months. Get some of those to help refit the helicopters.
Dewi
July 15th, 2009 1:48pm Report this commentThe last years of the Conservative government didn't feature two wars the last time I looked. Frankly, I don't believe his "continued to rise in real terms" line either -- if it looks like a Brownie it probably is one.
Damon
July 15th, 2009 1:52pm Report this commentCan someone explain the comment about helicopters used in Iraq needing to have their rotors adopted for Afghanistan. I wouldn't have thought the air in Afghanistan was too different from that in Iraq - sounds like a Brownie to me.
Ian Walker
July 15th, 2009 1:55pm Report this commentBrown is indeed doing "everything he can". Unfortunately, with a Civil Service that is ignoring him, and a Cabinet that hates him, it equates to precisely sweet F.A.
Pat Morgan
July 15th, 2009 2:01pm Report this commentI think it was absolutely disgusting that Brown wasn't there yesterday to show his respects for the servicemen.
If he can send them into war the least he can do is be there for them.
He rings up to see how Jade Goody is and he and his wife take part in the "Gay Pride" march on Saturday.
Jez
July 15th, 2009 2:42pm Report this commentI was listening to this on the radio;
To Ann Begg; *Maybe* the more pressing issues of the day could ideally have taken priority over your really important (to you) reasurance that there will be soon more Black, Asian, Gay, Lesbian, Traveller, Swahili, Transexual, Eskimo etc members of parliment....
Well... maybe after the House debated the rather not so important (to you) Afghan theatre issues... that *seem* (again, only an opinion) to be, from a long term perspective, teetering on a knife edge.
Great timing Ann. Well done.
Mark, Newbury
July 15th, 2009 3:10pm Report this commentI notice that Brown has applied arms sanctions againsted Israel and the British armed forces. What did the Israelis do? They didn't vote for this stupid party did they?
trevorsden
July 15th, 2009 3:36pm Report this commentDamon.
Heat and dust probably has a lot to to with it. But why should it take 8 years??
patrickinken
July 15th, 2009 4:05pm Report this commentTake a look at the National Audit Office report on the 8 Mark 3 Chinooks delivered by Boeing in 2001 - http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2008/06/04/chinook.pdf.
It is a real shocker.
The Bellman
July 15th, 2009 5:02pm Report this commentDamon, TrevorsDen: I really hate to defend McSnotty or the grossly incompetent MoD procurement process, but the air density at the higher altitudes in Afghanistan require different rotors from those operated at approx sea level in Europe and Iraq. Otherwise they cannot generate sufficient lift, and fall out of the sky.
A curiously flat session today, I thought. Cameron sounded chippy; and, however breathtakingly, disgusting hypocritical and evasive of McSnotty to criticise Casual Dave for making political hay out of this, I'm afraid that's how it came across to me.
That doesn't excuse McSnotty's stunning display of emotional autism, reeling off tractor statistics as a fig-leaf for actually delivering operational effect. Hardly a comfort to the widows or a light to the orphans.
I'm also slightly mystified why, if the helicopters aren't as important as those Nasty Tories are trying to say, this foaming idiot is so proud of having spent so much money addressing the issue. And, in fact, of having spent so much on Urgent Operational Requirements, notoriously the least effective way of bridging a capability gap.
But, in his little socialist world, spending money *is* the most important activity, of course.
RotorHead
July 15th, 2009 5:14pm Report this commentDamon, the blades referred to have better lift/drag characterisics than the blades they come with. This spares more power to lift decent weights in Afghan air, which is hot and high, both factirs having an effect on air density. The less-dense air reduced the engine power, and also the rotor has to work harder to produce the same amount of lift. The altitude of Afg makes it worse than Iraq. So anyway, the new blades allow a bit more of the diminished power to provide the excess power needed for lift. Which means you can fly missions with more fuel or payload. I believe this only applies to the Sea King, which really shouldn't be there anyway, but many RAF helos can't hack the mission at all.
RotorHead
July 15th, 2009 5:14pm Report this commentOh, yeah, they have dust filters, and they suck power too.
Frank P
July 15th, 2009 11:57pm Report this commentpatricklinken
"Isn't this the sort of thing that should be confined to pantomimes."
Yes; it is therefore entirely appropriate. Bring on the clowns ... don't bother, they're here!
Frank P
July 16th, 2009 12:01am Report this commentBtw
The Ringmaster? Also v. appropriate: Peta Mandelson, of course.
Frank P
July 16th, 2009 12:03am Report this commentRotorhead
As you say, "... and they suck power, too."
Back to top