Pmqs

Bad 24 hours for Mrs May. A last-minute Christmas shopping-trip to Europe yielded no bargains whatever, even though she had £39bn to splurge on an extension to her premiership. Back home she found a conspiracy of seditious Tories baying for her resignation. The Queen of Narnia is a masochist. She finds punishment stimulating, and perhaps slightly addictive, so she showed up at PMQs looking calm and expectant. Her mood was buttressed by certainty. This evening her fate will be decided. All she has to lose is everything, but the result is out of her hands. This probably settled her nerves. ‘Brazen it out’, was her only tactic today. Asked what

Today’s choice for ‘A Book At Bedtime’ is the government’s draft Brexit deal. At daybreak the masterpiece was being referred to as a 500-page tome but its estimated length has now risen to 540 pp. That explains why the PM looked so calm and unruffled and at PMQs. No MP is going to risk brain damage by working through this Proustian monster. Even the wonkiest wonk in Westminster won’t read it all, and May stands to profit from her colleagues’ ignorance of the fine print. Roger Gale, who once held the demanding role of children’s TV producer, spoke up for every workshy lazybones in parliament. He asked the PM to

Given relations with her own party, Theresa May will have been far more worried about the second half of Prime Minister’s Questions than the first. On the basis of the backbench questions that were asked, the session went pretty well. Only one Tory MP raised Brexit at all, and that was Jacob Rees-Mogg, who asked for assurances that the European Court of Justice would not get the final say on cases arising from the Brexit withdrawal agreement. May was able to tell the Chamber that this wasn’t true – though the Sun’s report this morning on the matter was pretty strong – and that was all for Brexit. Instead, her

A strange PMQs. Usually the session is dominated by honking throats and empurpled faces. Today there were interesting facts and useful opinions. Amazing! An expertly briefed Jeremy Corbyn put Theresa May on the spot by noting that she’d omitted to say ‘Chequers’ in her conference speech or during recent performances in parliament. So is it dead? No, she said. And the question forced her to mention her orphaned love-child by its baptismal name – ‘the Chequers plan’ – for the first time in weeks. Next, a financial shock. Corbyn asked her to confirm Philip Hammond’s warning that quitting without a deal will still land us with a divorce bill of 36 billion

Poor Jezza. The Labour leader had a decent showing today but he was outgunned by Mrs May who performed with astonishing prickliness and aggression. Mr Corbyn claimed that Universal Credit has forced millions onto the bread-line. The PM countered that reform was vital. She cited a young mum in Maidenhead who’d been advised to skive, not work because benefits paid more. The advice came from the Job Centre. The PM received an unexpected stroke of fortune. One of Mr Corbyn’s ploys is to recite weepy letters from constituents whom he identifies, rather like lost puppies in need of a good home, by their first names only. For once, Mrs May

‘He should apologise!’ PMQs opened with a backbench question about anti-Semitism and Theresa May lobbed it straight at the Labour leader. She demanded that Jeremy Corbyn show contrition for joking that Jews in Britain ‘don’t understand English irony.’ Corbyn diffused the attack, a little clumsily, and said he deplored racism everywhere, ‘including the Conservative party.’ May didn’t press him on it. Corbyn had a decent script today. He prised open Tory divisions and he restated the latest hissy-fits between bickering cabinet members. He added a few croaks to the chorus of denunciation for the Chequers deal, and he finished with this. ‘When will she publish a real plan that survives contact with

There is something horrible and unnatural about seeing Theresa May in trouble. Her aloof and grandmotherly face becomes a canvas on which all kinds of dreadful emotions are drawn. It’s almost too much to watch, really, it’s like seeing Miss Marple on a shoplifting charge. She arrived early at PMQs with a gravestone pallor. It was the same grimace she wore on election night when she realised she’d blown her majority. Lips tightly pursed. Small eyes held in a rigid squint. Fear and remorse etched in every powdered wrinkle. She sipped at her water and fussed with a Kleenex. Then she hunched in her seat, neither resting against the leather

Today’s PMQs could have been very tricky for Theresa May. Jeremy Corbyn had an array of targets to choose from. He could have pressed for Brexit detail ahead of Chequers, mocking the Cabinet divisions on the topic. He could have gone on the National Audit Office excoriating Esther McVey over her claims on Universal Credit. Or he could have asked about the Electoral Commission finding against Vote Leave – a campaign that two of her Cabinet Ministers were at the heart of. If these options weren’t enough, he could have got her to respond to the US letter demanding that the UK spend more on defence if is to maintain

Some of Britain’s top Berc-ologists met recently to discuss a letter sent by John Bercow to MPs nearly a decade ago. He was advertising his suitability as a successor to Speaker Martin and he promised to serve ‘no more than nine years in total,’ if he were to win the election on June 22 2009. ‘Any Speaker should be able to make a mark in that time,’ he added, setting himself an idiosyncratic goal. To make a mark. As if parliament were a concrete bridge and the Speaker were a hoodie with a spray-can. Today, nine years and a bit later, is the first PMQs since Bercow outstayed his own

PMQs today was a missed opportunity for Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn chose to go on the NHS, rather than Donald Trump’s border policy. But this needn’t have been a mistake. Corbyn, after a rather long preamble, started off by asking what taxes would rise to pay for this increased spending. Theresa May replied that Philip Hammond would set all this out in due course. At this point, Corbyn should have asked May to rule out specific tax increases, for example an increase in National Insurance, or to embrace certain measures, such as removing the earnings cap on National Insurance contributions. This would have put May on the spot more. Instead, he