A game of chess
Lloyd Evans 2:22pm
Fascinating details dominated PMQs today. Instead of the usual custard pie-fight this was a game of chess. Things began with talk of downpours and sandbags. Both leaders were concerned that the sodden folk of Cumbria are receiving enough hot soup and blankets. The PM reminded us that he’d recently popped up there to squelch around in his wellies shaking people’s hands and nodding sympathetically.
Then Cameron pulled out a firecracker. He accused Brown of shambolic incompetence in allowing public money to flow into the hands of a front organization for Hizb ut-Tahrir, an extremist group whose constitution denounces non-Moslems in virulent terms. ‘They are combatants in the battlefield. Their blood is lawful, as is their property.’ One thing’s for sure. Islamic militants have a rattling good turn of phrase. Brown was stumped by this disclosure and Cameron played his hand shrewdly, postponing the most damning evidence to maximize Brown’s embarrassment. Brown fessed up that he wasn’t aware the group had received public money. Cameron offered facts. Cash from the Pathfinders Scheme, set up to specifically fight fundamentalism, has found its way into the extremists’ pockets. Brown floundered. ‘This will be looked into in detail,’ he said and then tried to reinforce it with, ‘everything he has said will be investigated in great detail.’
Cameron wondered why Hizb-ut Tahrir hadn’t been banned, given its psychotic rhetoric and its call for ‘Jews to be killed wherever they are found.’ Brown ascended into the statesmanlike register which he seems to find so becoming. He lectured Cameron on the perils of banning political groups and he praised the virtues of the law-abiding Moslem majority. ‘To proscribe an organization you need evidence. And he [Cameron] would not expect me to make an early decision. Advocacy of violence has to be clearly proven’, added Brown, ignoring the fact that it had just been proven, pretty clearly, by the man he was debating with. The PM’s pretence of omnipotence was rather betrayed by his inability to pronounce ‘Hizb ut-Tahrir’. I thought I heard him say ‘Its Oop Her Ear’ Let’s hope the poor chap isn’t going deaf as well as everything else.
Nick Clegg rose and fielded a disarmingly bland question about the terms of the Iraq Enquiry. The Enquiry is a Christmas bonus for the LibDems, a golden opportuniy to rediscover their lost vote-winners, Tony Blair and the Iraq war. For the next year, Clegg and Co will be busy reminding everyone that they’re super-tough on illegal invasions. Brown walked straight into Clegg’s trap and blithely announced that both the conduct of the enquiry and the publication of the report are a matter for Chilcott. No they aren’t, said Clegg, and he produced a protocol listing 9 pretexts for censoring information and granting each Whitehall department an individual right of veto. Clegg laid brutally into Brown. ‘Why did the prime minister do this? How are we to learn the truth if the Enquiry is being suffocated on Day One by his government’s shameful culture of secrecy?’ The PM replied with faint assurances. The only grounds for suppressing information are national security and international relations, he said. But these concepts are highly elastic. Clegg already has his season ticket for the Enquiry. He’ll return to this issue whenever possible.
From the backbenches Patrick Cormack tried to cheer everyone up. He rose to his feet, ruby red and brimming with malevolent bonhomie and asked ‘When did the prime minister first realise he was infallible?’ A good thrust but it might have worked better against the Papist Blair than the Presbyterian Brown who swatted it harmlessly aside.
The Labour member for Gloucester, Parmjit Dhanda fed the PM an easy question about Hizb ut-Tahrir. Banning political groups makes them more attractive to extremists, said Dhanda, ‘so we should listen to ACPO before we proscribe these organizations.’ My guess is that Dhanda hadn’t planned to ask this. It was improvised to help Brown out of a hole. The PM agreed with him warmly. ‘We mustn’t get into a position where our decisions act as recruiting sergeants for militants.’ He then capitalized on his newfound aura of competence and started waffling about enlarged budgets for anti-terror organizations and from there, with a horrible clanking of gears, he swung around and took a pop at Conservative plans to reform inheritance tax. ‘The beneficiaries of their policy will resemble the leader of the opposition’s Christmas card list.’ This was shameless. A question about Islamist murderers transformed into an attack on Tory tax reforms. Brown’s priorities couldn’t be clearer.
Previous
Keith D
November 25th, 2009 2:36pm Report this commentShameless indeed Mr Evans. The government have long since held that chalice with pride. Neather and the wilful destruction of our society for electoral gain,Lisbon and the running off to sign away from the glare of the betrayed electorate, unimaginable sleaze and this barely scratches the surface. The most shameless act of all? They are still there
toco
November 25th, 2009 2:37pm Report this commentBrown's comment about Inheritance Tax is so revealing-signs of a drowning man-if that is all he has to offer we should be pleased as it is much better for the Country that he concentrates on side issues rather than important matters.Phew!
Austin Barry
November 25th, 2009 2:52pm Report this comment"We mustn’t get into a position where our decisions act as recruiting sergeants for militants."
According to our spineless elite every third-party event acts as such a recruiting sergeant except of course Islam itself - the Lord Kitchener of recruitment.
AndyinBrum
November 25th, 2009 2:54pm Report this commentAnd will the prime minister being wishing good luck to Ali Kyeda in this years X-Factor?
As i stated in the live blog, i have the bone i wont let it go sorry, but when under pressure and lying (or at least telling misstruths), Brown stumbles over sentences, stutters and can't pronounce words or names. At least with Blair it was never that obvious
Jon Rosenberg
November 25th, 2009 3:00pm Report this commentYou are quite wrong to suggest that Brown merely swatted away Patrick Cormack's gleefully vicious question. Brown's anger, which was already at a dangerous level after his lost jousts with Cameron and Clegg, got the better of him for the rest of the session after Cormack's innuendo. The jabbing finger; the ever faster, tumbling over themselves replies; the reddening features were all in evidence there after. The man has far too thin a skin to be a senior politician.
Mark C
November 25th, 2009 3:01pm Report this commentBrown's answer about inheritance tax was obviously the answer he had planned to give to the question he had planted. His tame backbencher changed the question but Brown could not change the answer.
Norman Dee
November 25th, 2009 3:14pm Report this commentYes, but when are we going to see some public discussion of Neather, apart from people remonstrating with this site for not revealing more, I have seen nothing else.
Or have I missed something ? whats going on ?
Chris lancashire
November 25th, 2009 3:15pm Report this commentCan any CHer or Spectator staff tell me whether it is within the Speaker's power and remit to say "Please answer the question". Too, too often Brown (and others) answer the question they would have liked to be asked.
JohnOfEnfield
November 25th, 2009 3:40pm Report this commentChris
Mr. Speaker has already asked Brown at least twice (in one recent session) to explain Government policy and not to try & impute policies to the Conservatives.
I must admit I had to go for a lie down when it happened.
It can't be much of a step to ask him to answer the question as well. I am sure that Broon would also need to lie down after that.
Marcher Baron
November 25th, 2009 4:11pm Report this comment"And he [Cameron] would not expect me to make an early decision". It's not just Cameron, Gordie me lad; nobody expects you to make an early decision - or indeed any decision other than the wrong one, far too late. Brown can dither for Europe! In fact, I'm surprised he hasn't slipped in a new office with huge pension and lots of perks. EUropean Lord High Ditherer-in-Chief is tailor-made for him when he is finally given the Order of the Boot.
davefromluton
November 25th, 2009 4:46pm Report this commentThis type of questioning by Cameron needs to be pursued more frequently.
Brown has demonstrated on several previous occasions that he cannot think quickly on his feet and he is always discomforted by the unexpected.
He was obviously expecting the economy - so why give it to him. Just find examples of Government incompetence (not hard), preferably ones not in the news that week, and major on those
TrevorsDen
November 25th, 2009 4:58pm Report this commenttoco- its worth remembering that the IHT proposals give tax relief to anyone except if they are a millionaire - not what the Mirror seems to think.
Tiberius
November 25th, 2009 5:01pm Report this commentIf Bercow asked Brown to answer the question, he'd simply ignore him and trot out more tractor production figure.
He's beyond shame and most other redeeming characteristics of a human being.
JAD
November 25th, 2009 5:36pm Report this commentI enjoyed your sketch, though it's probably worth pointing out that Chilcott isn't leading an Enquiry, but Chilcot is leading an Inquiry...
Best to get these things right if your job is ripping the p*ss out of others, eh?
emil
November 25th, 2009 5:48pm Report this commentTo all the bloggers banging on about Neathergate, why raise this issue now, when it will be much more damaging (and not long forgotten) during an election campaign???
Victor Southern
November 25th, 2009 5:59pm Report this commentTrevorsden
It is neither really. The Osborne proposals would exempt estates up to £1-million from death duties[excuse the blunt term]. That means that an estate of exactly £1-million or any larger estate will benefit. If an estate of £1-million involved then the saving to the legatees is 40% of £675,000 which is £270,000. However, an estate of £10-million will still pay a total of £3,870,000 in tax having saved only 6.6%.
The proportionate benefit then is more marked for the smaller estates since an estate of £500,000 will be free instead of paying £90,000. It is at those levels that some difficulties now occur. The beneficiaries simply cannot find the money without selling the house which is usually the largest part of such estates.
So, the chant that only millionaires will benefit is indeed almost the opposite of the truth.
Holly ......
November 25th, 2009 6:55pm Report this commentYou know that feeling when you think you know something, have just about got your head around it, then....wallop! you're not sure, you have a moment of doubt?
Inheritance tax. Are the Tories going to scrap this for estates up to £1m?
Does this equate to estates under £1m are exempt?
Meaning only estates OVER £1m are liable?
Which is great news for anyone with an estate under £1m.
If this is the case why do Labour persist in
saying that the Tories are 'looking after their rich chummy chums'?
Any one here know the facts?
Roger Daley
November 25th, 2009 7:57pm Report this commentIt was nice to see Jack Straw wearing his white ribbon today whereas he couldn't wear a poppy a few weeks ago.
logdon
November 25th, 2009 8:22pm Report this comment"The Labour member for Gloucester, Parmjit Dhanda fed the PM an easy question about Hizb ut-Tahrir. Banning political groups makes them more attractive to extremists, said Dhanda."
He would say that, wouldn't he?
A bit like Ahmed's 10,000 merry muslims descending on the HoL when Wilders was scheduled to come.
Or Malik's desire to fill the Commons with muslims.
Or a muslim police officer's attempted prosecution of C4 over Undercover Mosque.
Whatever happened to caveat emptor?
Eric Hargreaves
November 25th, 2009 9:23pm Report this commentIt will be done in such a way:
-If one's estate is valued at <£1 million, one will be exempt
-for every £ over £1 million your estate is worth, you will pay 40% on that excess.
eg if your estate is worth £1.5 million, that is 500k over the threshold, so you pay 40% tax on the 500k = 200k.
JohnPage
November 25th, 2009 10:16pm Report this commentYou could also have reported on Andrew Neil tearing into Jacqui Smith afterwards on The Daily Politics, which immediately added information on the Islamic and banning issue. A straight summary of PMQs posted some 2 hours later doesn't really hack it.
Alan Douglas
November 25th, 2009 11:27pm Report this comment"his inability to pronounce ‘Hizb ut-Tahrir’. I thought I heard him say ‘Its Oop Her Ear’"
A few days ago I thought Brown was revealing family secrets while talking of his hidden aunt "alchy" Aida. Several times in one speech.
Alan Douglas
Hysteria
November 26th, 2009 1:54am Report this commentLogdon - Whatever happened to caveat emptor?
dunno
but excreta torae cerebum vincit
Amadeus Plonquer
November 26th, 2009 7:12am Report this comment"We mustn’t get into a position where our decisions act as recruiting sergeants for militants."
Brown can't even spell Milibands.
Nicholas
November 26th, 2009 8:29am Report this commentOpen questions for Parmjit Dhanda MP:
Why should Parliament listen to ACPO before proscribing organisations? What democratic mandate do ACPO have to determine what organisations should and should not be proscribed? Why not listen to me and other voters? We actually voted for parliamentary representation. We prefer parliament to represent the will of the people rather than the will of an unmandated commercial enterprise of self-serving senior police officers.
Neil Turner
November 26th, 2009 9:38am Report this commentAnybody see Nick Robinsons piece on BBC 10pm news ?
Apparently letters were flying back and forth because the schools in question were not HizBT. The head teacher came on to say "3 out of 4 of our governers are not members of HBT".
So that's ok then. Only one governer is a member of this extremist group.
What really annoyed me was Robinsons glee that the Tories had got it wrong". Ironically, the piece showed just how right Cameron was to challeng this, and how deeply ingrained Islam is in the BBC
Mucker
November 26th, 2009 12:58pm Report this commentWhen Balls is in the news support for labour drops.
Cam had decided that enough was enough and he need to get Balls back in he spotlight!
Back to top