PMQs row over Baby P
A baby dies gruesomely, avoidably and in circumstances which people had dared to hope could never happen again. The speaker of the Commons is forced to intervene to calm tempers after the prime minister and the leader of the opposition engage in an angry clash. "Good grief" will, no doubt, be the reaction of many and "a plague on both their houses"
However, as the heat subsides a little, what light does today's PMQs exchange shine on the policy issues and the political positions of the two men?
David Cameron suggested that the Haringey inquiry into what went wrong was "completely unacceptable" since it was "being led by Mrs Shoesmith, who is the council's own director of children's services". Repeatedly he asked Gordon Brown, "Do you agree with me that she cannot possibly investigate the failure of her own department?"
The prime minister did not answer that question. He simply explained that the government was considering the local "serious case review" into what had gone wrong and Lord Laming - who carried out the Victoria Climbie inquiry - was looking at social service protection for children in every part of the country.
The problem arises because the director of children's services in Haringey is also the head of the Local Safeguarding Children Board which commissioned the report into the failures which led to Baby P's death. Whitehall guidelines state that "any report must be commissioned from a person who is independent of the agencies/professionals involved". It doesn't state that any report should be commissioned by someone independent. A statement is due from the children's secretary which I suspect will set up an independent enquiry.
What then of the politics?
Today's row was triggered by Gordon Brown accusing David Cameron of making a "party political" issue of the tragedy.
It's clear that David Cameron was much keener to talk about this case rather than about the topic pretty much everyone expected him to raise - the economy. Before PMQs began, he had written a piece for the London Evening Standard which they'd splashed on their front page. This may have been because he felt passionately about it. It may also have been because he wanted to avoid a debate about taxes and the case for a fiscal stimulus - a view that would have been reinforced by today's comments by the governor of the Bank of England which posed some very awkward questions for the Tories (see my earlier blog).
What's also clear is that Labour backbenchers were relishing the prospect of a political punch-up on the economy. That's why they shouted when the Tory leader chose another subject. That, perhaps, is what was in the prime minister's mind when he suggested that Cameron was playing politics.
My immediate reaction on the Daily Politics on BBC2 was to say that the prime minister had shown a "political tone-deafness" to the mood outside Westminster and that Mr Cameron probably could not believe his "political luck" that he managed to avoid talking about the economy. Labour's John Cruddas and the Lib Dems' Charles Kennedy - who were in the studio with me - agreed. Interestingly, some who were watching in the Commons gallery did not. They thought the Tory leader's visible loss of temper showed him in a very poor light.
Of course, beyond the Westminster village the public will demand that this story does not become a he says/she says row like those over Jennifer's ear or Rose Addis. If you don't remember them, don't worry. That makes my point.
UPDATE: 17:50: Things are moving fast.
No sooner had Gordon Brown defended the Haringey enquiry into the death of Baby P as "independently compiled and independently assessed" than Ed Balls appears to have ordered a review of the review. Ofsted, the Comission for Health Care Audit and the Chief Inspector of Constabulary will review Haringey Children's Services and report within a fortnight.
If it shows evidence of management failures Mr Balls has the power to take over the running of Children's Services in the borough - effectively replacing the entire management team. He does not have the power to sack individual staff.
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
Whenever Gordon has talk about a topic other than economics his immediately shows he is out of his depth. He may have been a good Chancellor (or at least he thinks he was) but as a Primer Minister he is severely lacking in talent.
Complain about this comment
'Of course, beyond the Westminster village the public will demand that this story does not become a he says/she says row like those over Jennifer's ear or Rose Addis. If you don't remember them, don't worry. That makes my point.'
And if we do remember them what does that mean?
I think your were listening to John Cruddas and Charles Kennedy with a red tinted hearing aid as both were more of the view that David Cameron's indignation was honestly felt.
I'd suggest that you read the responses to your previous blog if you still feel that the general view is that Gordon Brown and Labour had a right to feel that they hold the financial high ground after Mervyn King's comments.
Complain about this comment
Why would Cameron avoid wanting to talk about the economy: the facts show that it is going down the pan under Gordon's watch?
He said he was going to talk about it and was then so insensed by Brown's stance that he used all 6 questions on the issue.
Complain about this comment
Wow Nick you really do love yourself don't you!
Complain about this comment
I remember both of them, and Brown behaved disgracefully today. Not only was he unprepared for the question which is why he waffled so much, as you say Labour MP's were caught off guard too hoping for questions on the economy.
Cameron can ask questions about whatever he wants by the way, not what the media or the Govt want him to ask questions about.
You omitted to say that Cameron did say that "We will come to the economy in a moment", but this was overtaken by Brown's disgraceful accusation of party politicking.
Cameron 10 Brown 0
Incidentally, you are trying to suggest that its a one minute wonder, it might be politically, but it will be ingrained on voters minds on how Brown behaved.
Oh and why did you have to add a touch of hearsay at the end about comments from the gallery, it adds nothing to the story .... unless you were trying to make a point in support of Gordon Brown?? perish the thought.
Complain about this comment
Mrs Shoesmith should resign immediately.
No ifs! No buts!
This is such a shocking state of affairs Gordon Brown should have agreed with Cameron and called for her head. Enquiries come later.
Disgusted by Brown's performance.
Has he no shame. And those backbenchers baying at Cameron for asking the question we all needed to hear,
They should all have been thrown out of the Commons.
The man showed very clearly today that he has no idea what is happening in the country let alone trying to lead it.
Complain about this comment
Oh dear.
I expect your phone Nick to be glowing white hot. Mr. Campbell and Mandelson will not be pleased.
Let me see, today should have gone like this....
9am Swervin' Merv releases UK Inflation report for November with some really hideous figures in it.
10am Swervin' says "Fiscal stimulus in the medium term is ok."
11am BBC line is 'UK heading for recession - fiscal stimulus the only answer says BoE.
12pm Cameron walks into said bear trap in PMQ.
1pm Tory's economic plan in disarray reports the BBC.
Job Done.
Only Brown's complete inhumanity royally screwed the pooch.
Cameron's economy questions were swept aside in visible anger Nick; we all saw it. Cameron was angry because Brown's reply intimated to protect those culpable for this poor child's torture and death.
Cameron never mentioned Haringey, never mentioned it was Labour-ran.
We saw it.
It would have been a massive dereliction on Cameron's part not to ask: How can a £100m organisation and one enquiry already let another child die so awfully and terribly?
Three members of staff got a written warning.
You get a written warning for 'liberating' a sheaf of printer paper from work.
Not having a child die in your duty of care.
You should be facing possibilities of a charge of culpable homicide.
A public enquiry would certainly lay bare the utter failure of Haringey council.
Heads should roll and rightly so.
Brown is now part of that whitewash as are the Labour backbenches for being complicit in shouting Cameron down.
Shame on them all.
Complain about this comment
Andrew Neal made the correct point in my opinion, Blair would have been able to deal with this opennly and with compassion, Gordon (out of his economic bubble of fake global super stardom) obviously can't.
In different circumstances, if Labour weren't desperatly clinging on to the vestiges of the artificial Brown Bounce hoping for a general election in the spring of 2009 they'd be seeing this in a very different light.
I can't stand this desperate Labour muck slinging whenever Gordon looks likes he's about to topple again, remember the 10p tax row? they had to finally give in inspite of all the denials and accusations, so I personally don't want to hear anything further on this issue beyond Brown having the decency to appologise for his lack of understanding.
....and Nick, I often agree with your often cheeky interpretation of events ..this time regardless of what Cameron did or did not do, you're off by a long way.
Brown was a good chancellor, but as a PM he's under qualified if it ain't about money.
Complain about this comment
The outcome of the Victoria Climbie affair was highly unsatisfactory as the blame was placed on the lower ranks whilst the people responsible for the entire system walked away unscathed.
The fact that lightning has now struck twice in the same place suggests that there is something wrong with childcare in Haringey. and there is a suspicion that of a further attempt to cover this up.
Be in no doubt that local Conservatives have been onto Central Office. How decisions are made in many local authorities similar to Haringey are a public scandal and need airing.
Cameron wrong-footed the Prime Minister by choosing a topic other than the economy. This is the name of the game and Brown should have been prepared. The government's response to the situation has been reasonable and balanced. However many people are angry that this has happened yet again. That is the real issue.
Also Cameron is a relatively young man with a growing family. Whatever we may think of his politics he clearly loves his children. This makes the issue very personal to many such as he.
Complain about this comment
Cameron was absolutely right to bring this tragic story up at PMQs - and I totally agree with him that an independent inquiry is needed. I find it truly despicable that many of the Labour MPs started to heckle him during his questioning and it shows the Labour Party in a very bad light indeed - as was stated in the analysis after by John Cruddas. Further to this the Prime Minister's response was utterly useless as always, and to accuse Cameron of 'playing party politics' with this issue is incredibly misguided. Cameron is clearly passionate and upset about the issue and to try and paint it in any other light is ridiculous.
Complain about this comment
Unbelievable. Now Mr Cameron is the focus of criticism for losing his temper.
The BBC just cannot help itself.
As for you, you had the perfect opportunity to admit you may have judged to situation wrongly. Instead you dish out more insinuation. You really have no shame, do you.
Complain about this comment
Your willingness to find some criticism of David Cameron and your unwillingness to criticise Gordon Brown is becoming tedious. You no longer argue rationally and are therefore biased. Perhaps you are not aware of it yourself but you and the majority of your colleagues are clearly Labour supporters. The BBC News at One showed a snippet of Question time but did not show Gordon Brown mentioning the word 'political' which was precisely the point of the report was it not?? It did not show David Cameron asking for the claim to be withdrawn either. How is THIS unbiased reporting? Why are you all so in love with Labour, what are you scared of? The truth perhaps. At the next general election you will have your answer.
Complain about this comment
So Nick you think that this gaffe will go away fairly quickly. It's one more nail in the coffin of a man with few morals desperate to hang onto power. It's not a storm in a teacup for the family of Baby P for whom this error on the part of the authorities will never go away. An extremely insenstive closing statement on your part Nick if you don't mind me saying so!
Complain about this comment
I still haven't seen PMQ's since I cannot bear to look at that dissembling mockery of a PM but I have to say I think Cameron chose the subject of Baby P precisely to wrong-foot Brown who was looking forward to comfortably reeling off another series of moonshine tractor production statistics.
The simple thing for Brown to do was to agree with Cameron that it was indeed a shocking state of affairs and he would tell his front-bench flunky responsible for such matters to take an active interest. Next question.
Brown, being Brown of course, couldn't give a straight answer to Cameron's question about it being a travesty to have the person responsible for Haringey services carry out their own enquiry. He was already ducking the next question - if he agrees that the Haringey person shouldn't carry out her own enquiry then he's leaving himself wide open to any number of Labour government enquiries that have cleared themselves of any wrong-doing. Bernie Ecclestone for example.
What David Cameron should do at PMQ is ask a 30 minute fillibustering 'question' listing the many and various egregious abuses of trust and financial incompetence displayed over the past 10 years by Gordon Brown. Don't even give Brown a chance to reply. Just a 30 minute tirade of facts and figures listing the decisions Gordon Brown has made and their consequences. Not the least of which is to leave us uniquely vulnerable to the economic holocaust at hand.
That'll learn him. If he's not going to answer the question then don't even ask him the question. Just get up and give chapter and verse on what a disaster he is.
And do the same next week.
And the week after.
Complain about this comment
The Baby P case is above politics and Cameron was right to raise it, as Jon Cruddas has pointed out.
Cameron only 'lost his temper ' in the way any reasonable parent probably did when hearing of this case.
Brown could have 'shared' Cameron's concerns and expressed the shock and outrage of the nation.
Instead he delivered a response which showed an inhuman side.
http://theorangepartyblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/pmqs-show-brown-isnt-human.html
Complain about this comment
So you seek to excuse and give Gordon Brown the benefit of the doubt because you think he was expecting some questions on the economy, but you snear , doubt and question Cameron's motives, even though he said he would be asking questions on the economy.
Just the sort of 'balanced' reporting we should expect of the 'impartial' BBC!
Complain about this comment
As both politicians have children, I would have thought that Mr Brown would have agreed 100% with Mr Camerons comments.
Listening to Mr Brown it is clear to me that he has lost his "Moral Compass".
If Mr Brown thinks his political attack on Mr Cameron has raised his own standing with the publics opinion he is very wrong, indeed the latest polling figures ( I exclude the BBC's Politics show poll, which has been proven to be biased!!, read todays Times for further explanation) show Labour to be 17 points behind the Conservatives.
Complain about this comment
I see. This was all Cameron's fault for not asking the the question the Labour backbenchers wanted to hear and why Brown had accused him of party politics.
Drivel, Robinson, pure drivel.
I can't remember John Cruddas and Charles Kennedy agreeing with you either. John Cruddas gave an honest answer, very refreshing for a Labour MP.
Cameron said he would come on to the economy. However, Brown's failure to answer the quesiton and then accuse Cameron of party politics is why the ecomony was not discussed.
Get it into your head - MK is employed by Brown. His report also does not pose any serious questions for the Tories. Are you being blackmailed by the NuLab Stasi?
Complain about this comment
Nick,
I think that you have let the readers down on this one. What it exposes is the fact that Gordon Brown is what I have previously referred to as a one trick pony. It is not the economy stupid, it is Gordon Brown as Prime Minister.
I have also said before that Brown almost needs one death a week of one our soldiers so as to bring a sombre feel to PMQs. He did no have one this week, thankfully. However, he could have done it by making reference to the appalling situation over Baby P.
What I think was so distasteful was the reaction of the MPs who shouted during Camerons quite fair questions. Anybody looking at the press reports of the treatment suffered by that baby will be shocked and appalled, actually almost beyond words, without resorting to unparliamentary language.
Also with regard to Brown can he not give answers without notes, it shows that the labour questions are planted. When the liberal democrat question came I think that he did not expect Cameron to go on Baby P, he was totally abjectly wrong footed, hence the point he made about the manner of the question from the lib dem, that was the question he wanted to answer.
Furthermore, he looked awful when making reference to children, the elbows on the despatch box, the insincerity in his voice. Brown has confirmed that he is not fit to be the PM, the sooner he calls an election the better, they must all go, they are a disgrace.
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown sometimes assumes that everyone is 'in tune' with the argument but doesn't allow for slower thinkers. Thus, its obvious to him that he should not pre-empt the ongoing enquiry, nor should he pronounce on the report which has only just been received. Cameron knows perfectly well that Brown will not interfere directly so he asks a question to try and make Brown seem either slippery or out of touch with the public mood- that is an attempt to politicise the issue and that is exactly what Brown was talking about. Cameron regularly asks 'direct' questions knowing that there isn't a direct answer, it is his sole political tactic: first make the issue appear to be simple, to the audience, then ask a 'simple' question to which there should be an 'honest' (i.e. glib) answer. Brown needs to take this up and point out that judgement requires reflection. It is part of Cameron's lack of maturity that he sees every issue in sound-bites. What would he have done if Brown had declared he was suspending Harringey's social services department and putting it into the hands of a bunch of civil-servants? Brown's remark was not 'cheap' because it will give Cameron's journalist friends in the Mail and the Standard the opportunity to spin the answer into a description of Brown as out of touch or unfeeling - whereas it is Cameron who deserves to be lambasted. In the end, do the families of victims of child abuse and knife crime really appreciate Cameron and his team using their distress as a means of attacking Gordon Brown?
Complain about this comment
17 Where is this poll please . The Times has a populus poll with a Conservative lead of 6%.
Complain about this comment
#17
latest polling figures ( I exclude the BBC's Politics show poll, which has been proven to be biased!!, read todays Times for further explanation) show Labour to be 17 points behind the Conservatives.
I confess I am stunned every time I see a figure like that. Labour 17 points behind the Conservatives. Why are they not 50 points behind the Conservatives?
Who are these people who would even consider voting Labour after the fruits of a decade of their rein of infamy are now laid bare before their eyes? I can understand it on Blogs - you'll always get a few trolls who enjoy winding folk up - but with the anonimity of a telephone poll surely one in three people aren't trolls?
What would Labour have to do to lose these people's vote? Economic collapse not good enough for you? Unemployment increasing at the start of a recession eclipsing the worst figures during the last recession? House prices collapse more in one year than the worst four years combined of the last housing price collapse? House price bubbles of the sort that Gordon Brown vowed to eliminate.
A 3% of GDP structural deficit after 16 years of economic growth? A recession even with those levels of deficit spending? In fact, by 2009/2010, a recession even with 8 - 10% of deficit spending?
What do you want? Tanks on the streets? Suspended elections? What will it take for the scales to fall from these people's eyes?
Complain about this comment
Nick,
You make excuses for the Prime Minister:
"What's also clear is that Labour backbenchers were relishing the prospect of a political punch-up on the economy. That's why they shouted when the Tory leader chose another subject. That, perhaps, is what was in the prime minister's mind when he suggested that Cameron was playing politics."
Whereas you lay into David Cameron:
- He lined up the Evening Standard because he didn't want to talk about the economy
- He couldn't believe his political luck
- Everyone else though Cameron was poor because he lost his temper.
Whereas to everyone in the real world, who watched that:
Cameron lost his temper and didn't ask other questions, because Brown had launched his cheap "playing party politics" jibe.
GET REAL NICK. GORDON'S BOTTOM IS NOT UTOPIA.
Complain about this comment
Not only did Brown and Labour mis-read the mood - I think you have too Nick. That was the most shameful PMQ's I have seen. I think you have become too cynical and are now such Brown/Labour fanboy. On Daily Politics show John Cruddas - a man who'se politics and beliefs I hold frankly contempt got it completely right that Cameron was perfectly entitled to raise the issue and was not playing party politics. All respect to him on that.
Here's the thing - the electorate is interested in policies but they are more concerned about judgement and character and Gordon Brown's lack of judgement and poisonous character showed through at PMQ.
Children and their problems are a touchy subject for both men - one reacted with real empathy and concern and one lost the plot. Gordon Brown is not fit to be Prime Minister and the sooner Haringey's social work department is purged the better.
Complain about this comment
I've already commented on the horror of the Baby P case on the previous forum. On PMQs it was raised, and we all saw the coldness of Brown's reactions. This goes beyond politics. I wonder why the bodies who are always so concerned about human rights for terrorists, foreign born murderers and criminals, who cannot be sent home because they would be in danger, don't concern themselves with British children being tortured in their own homes. Should Amnesty International be contacted?
This is a copy of my previous blogging. I am reproducing it here, since there is now a forum for this tragic case.
Listening to the platitudes on News at Five (Radio Channel 4), I understand that all we will ever hear is "Lessons have to be learned." If this is the best the NSPCC can come up with, then I seriously believe Amnesty International should be brought in to protect our children at risk. This is NOT a political case, it is to spare the suffering of innocent children. How can an inquiry take place, with people such as Sharon Shoesmith being involved? It's almost like getting the accused in a criminal court to act as judge and jury.
Complain about this comment
Nick
Brown could have moved on to the economy at any time.
He just had to admit that cameron hadn't made his question party political - cameron even said that he was just asking for the PM's confirmation that he would be doing what ed balls had already proposed !! It doesn't get less party political than that!!
Either brown wanted to avoid the economy; or he was too stupid to think on his feet and move it on.
I beleive it is quite possible that Brown is entirely incapable of thinking on his feet - that is why he studies the financial details so hard in advance - but out side of that, dither city here we come...
Complain about this comment
20:
Brown made a mistake. Even his own man Jon Crudass admitted as much. Trying to shift the blame for his annoyance at missing the opportunity to laud his economic prowess onto David Cameron is clutching at straws. He was caught off guard and blew his response. End of!
Complain about this comment
Sorry I do not know where your head was on the Daily Politics today but Cruddas, Kennedy and Neil did not agree with you. I think all their empathy was with D. Cameron. I think you got it spectacularly wrong and you are exposed as having Labour bias.
If Labour had no case to answer then why is Balls grovelling all over the place as only he can do.
Complain about this comment
I just heard you on Radio 4 Nick. Own up, where have you hidden the real Nick Robinson (the one who is a professional and unbiased journalist).
Complain about this comment
Nick
Care to comment on the very last line of the BBC report on this -- particularly with the changes highlighted here:-
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/172710/diff/3/4
Complain about this comment
Another truly dreadful reading of the situation by you Nick almost as bad as Browns,if you had a shred of credibility left you would resign immediately.
As I have had to say time and time again awful,awful,awful.
I'm sure Campbell can use a man of your 'ability' at labour party HQ.
I still can't quite believe what tou wrote.
Shameful.
Complain about this comment
I really am dissapointed at the lack of neutrality in your blog,Nick.
I hope that the consevative party have dropped a word on the beebs ear that if they evey get back into power,which despite the BBC ,they may well do at the next election,that the party's over ,the games up the BBC will be broken up or maybe sold lock stock and barrel to Nu Labour.
We really do need balanced reporting not this one eyed stuff in favour of Gordo's gang.
jethro
Complain about this comment
Where Cameron fails every time is in the way that he makes often strong, accurate and devastating points. His style is probably more suited to the Oxford Union or some debating society at Eton. It is inappropriate from someone who wants to be the next PM. It lacks the gravitas and leadership quality that is needed and often seems little better than name calling.
Cameron was right to bring the matter up and it shows what a poor team Brown has around him if someone couldn't have given him a quick briefing and a piece of paper about something that had been the lead item on the Tuesday's news. If Brown is looking after the economy (our major issue) who is looking after the rest of HMG's activities?
With all his smart 'debating points' successes Cameron still has to do a lot more if he wants to be PM. He should compare Kinnock in '92 and Blair in '97, take policies out of it and then work out why one succeeded and the other didn't. Then if he applies what he has learnt to himself he might give us a better reason for voting for him than the fact that he isn't Gordon Brown.
Complain about this comment
Mr Robinson,
I have just watched your comments on the daily politics and read your blog and I must say that I am embarrassed for you. Your quick to pick holes in Cameron, but when it comes to our Hopeless Leader you always come up with an excuse for him.
The BBC is suppose to set the broadcasting standards, not political bias. Please can you go back to reporting the facts and stop trying to save Browns neck.
Cameron got the better of him today and made him look a fool. Be honest and say it how it is, the labour MP on the show could not defend Brown so how can you!
Get a grip!!
Complain about this comment
Sooooooo matter of factish in your 17.50 update Nick, no comment about Labour desperately scrabbling around trying to make up ground after a disatrous PMQ's by the PM.
IF I read the posts correctly on this site so far, I havent seen a single post in support of your stance, nor for that matter of Gordon Brown.
You ought to get out of the village ocassionally and talk to real people instead of Campbell and his ilk.
Complain about this comment
This sort of tragedy keeps repeating but I do not believe that these politicians have the political will to make the radical changes that are required to produce a more effective 'social services' system.
So the vulnerable babies and children will continue to die until we, the people, start electing whose who have the political courage to handle it.
Because we voters do not take politics seriously enough, in effect, we are responsible for the fate of these children.
Therefore, in the final analysis, it is ultimately our own political apathy which causes these children to be harmed because we do not elect the sort of independently minded people who would deal with it.
Complain about this comment
Cameron just wants to misdirect and stoke rage. His grandstanding and trying to link the government with misfortune is just so way off base and manipulative it breaks the dial. Cameron knows the Prime Minister tends to be focused and isn't so emotionally talkative which is why he went for this with relish.
Cameron's attempt to blame a misery that's caught the public's attention on the government throws up how unprincipled and desperate he is. I found Charles Kennedy's after the event reaction to be smug and self-righteous. This is easy when you have no responsibility for government or the position Cameron tried to project.
In desperate times people want simple solutions and cling to comfort zones. This is understandable but poor performance and rushed responses just fuels see-saw politics and takes peoples focus off driving real improvement. Instead of getting caught up in political gain, I'd hope people could be more understanding and patient.
Britain has real issues with ignoring people and not caring until things go wrong. It's always picking the pieces up when it's too late, but quick to grandstand and wag fingers after the event. Perhaps, the government could have done better but the Tories and Liberals are guilty of fuelling a rushed and judgemental attitude that solves nothing.
Overall, I think, the Prime Minister handled this ambush well. He answered the matters of substance and brushed off the Tory opportunism. This is a much surer performance than he's given in the past, and beneath the rhetoric it must be getting the Tories worried. Plus, the Liberals have an issue in deciding who their friends really are.
Complain about this comment
#15 theorangeparty
Thanks for the link. Your blog says it all in one sentence, really: "It has taken a true Labour MP, Jon Cruddas, to stand up for common sense and tell the BBC the case of Baby P was 'beyond politics' and 'David Cameron was absolutely right to raise it.'"
Let's hope this is another 10p moment that comes back to haunt "Duff" Gordon.
#20 Biased_Beeb
It's hard to imagine how you could be wronger.
As an old Liberal, I dislike both BluLab and NuLab unionist policies, but at least Cameron showed he has a heart while Brown forcefully demonstrated he doesn't have a brain.
Complain about this comment
How despicable for Cameron to try to portray as unfeeling a man who has suffered the death of his own child. We should remember:
1. Cameron does not have a monopoly on compassion and caring ? so it was insulting to others for him to make out he has;
2. He was trying to make his party appear more caring than the government and so gain a political advantage;
3. He demanded that the government ?take over? Haringey Council ? which HMG has no power to do;
4. Cameron, by repeatedly mentioning the name of the female Head of the Social Services Dept. in Haringey, appeared to be acting as Judge, Jury and Executioner;
5. The PM spoke with compassion but also with competence and responsibly;
6. The PM cannot, and should not, make instant judgements on local government officials; as head of government he has to follow procedures. He has announced the national Laming Inquiry and must now allow the Children?s Secretary to read the report from Haringey before the Children?s Secretary announces a specific inquiry into Haringey Social Services if that is what he decides.
Time for Nick to show some humanity and understanding as well.
Complain about this comment
Can't believe that the BBC News was so gutless as to fail to mention Gordon Brown showing (again) at PMQ why he is completely unfit to be PM.
I see even Nick Robinson has toned down his initial (correct) impression, supported by everyone on Daily Politics that Gordon Brown's performance was a complete disgrace. Must admit that this is rather a surprise as Nick Robinson is an excellent journalist who I would have expected to be all over BBC News today explaining how GB had messed up quite so badly.
I'm left with the impression that Nick Robinson has been warned off by somebody in BBC management. I can't see Channel 4 taking this approach.
All very sad and far worse than the Brand/Ross affair which was bad enough in itself.
Complain about this comment
As I recall at PMQ's David Cameron said he would ask about the economy in a minute. It was only his astonishment at the PM's mindless and insensitive response, never mind the slurr cast at him by G Brown that resulted in the exchange, in which Harriot Harman and labour MP's in particular behaved disgracefully.
Nick Robinson seems to have lost his sense of balance. How can he postulate on what Cameron was thinking? This is a line I would expect from labour whips and apologists, not the BBC. Has the BBC lost confidence after Hutton and other recent events? Perhaps this is why I find myself turning to ITV and Channel 4 News for effective scrutiny of the Government.
Complain about this comment
Studiously impartial there Mr. Bobinson.
Defend the indefensible behaviour of the PM and Labour MPs, and belittle the rightful actions of Cameron to use his 6 Questions as he sees fit largely on an issue that has horrified the public.
And the BBC claims to be impartial.
Did you not see Gorbals Mick have to intervene?
Did you not hear the Labour MPs jeering and shouting despite the serious subject?
Shame on them and shame on you. Particularly for the following: "What's also clear is that Labour backbenchers were relishing the prospect of a political punch-up on the economy. That's why they shouted when the Tory leader chose another subject. That, perhaps, is what was in the prime minister's mind when he suggested that Cameron was playing politics."
You know what Brown said. We know what Brown said. You and we know exactly what Brown meant. He and his Party can never look past the cheapest point scoring opportunity and he got it drastically wrong again. The only party politics today seems to have been from the Government.
Complain about this comment
I've just scanned the comments in so far,and people seem so desperate to score points against the government that there's no effort given to the issues. Really, that just tells me where some people are coming from. It's a robotic response and, I note, people aren't adverse to ripping off some phraseology when it suits them. So, yeah. Lots of typical online ego in here.
I've found that a lot of British can be closed minded and partisan with even modest things. I tend to blame this on asset stripping and consumerism. It will take some time to boil off the legacy of Thatcherism but if the government can continue to press a better approach this should change over time.
Some people may not remember the preventable murder of a Polish woman earlier this year and, certainly, nobody will have heard of or care that it took me a week to reclaim money I'd been shortchanged on in a high street store, but both examples help illuminate how deeply embedded poor ways are in Britain. If you want better world, you have to be better people.
Complain about this comment
Let one give DC the benefit of the doubt, and say that he was/is passionate about this case as is GB and everyone who has a heart.
Then why did DC suggest that the PM should simply be the judge and jury and start dismissing people before the inquiry gives it's verdict?
Why did not DC ask GB to dismiss the doctor that FAILED to diagnose this martyr with a broken back?
One also accepts the fact that not everyone see the "good" intension of a leader when he was literally reading on and on, which also gave the impression, that he had actually prepared this long dialogue and had NO intension whatsoever to discuss other hot issues which concern our livelihood.
I give DC the benefit of the doubt, but since this Glossy Mag. model had never lost an occasion to jump on a bandwagon, one has doubts, and for me he came across as if he tried to portray GB as non caring.
Shame.
Complain about this comment
I'm afraid Nick Robinson is as out of touch as most politicians. He'd mugged-up on the economy but Cameron wanted to talk first about a subject that was the talk of the country. It's ridiculous to suggest Cameron didn't want to talk about the economy. He would have been sacked by the Tories if he had not asked a question. But nobody could expect a PM to be a stupid as Brown was today. Brown tried to defend the indefensible and it lasted 5 hours. They have now performed a U-Turn and have still managed to look stubborn. I am not a Tory supporter - far from it. But today was not Labour or Nick Robinson's day. Any more of this and there will be calls for heads to roll....... Sort it out - both of you
Complain about this comment
Mr Robinson
This blog is so out of alignment with what happened at PMQs, which I watched with my own eyes, and so tilted towards exculpating Brown, as to be beyond a joke.
Do you really not get it? The public want accuracy and balance from the BBC. We pay your salary.
Time you found a new job, I think.
ps who are the "some who were watching in the Commons gallery"?
Complain about this comment
I read through Nick's article again. Someone commented that Cameron has never had a Clause 4 moment. I think, his attempt to fuel hate and whip up the gallery with manufactured anger and concern is accidently and disastrously, for him, one of those defining moments.
Cameron's Thatcherite 'tell' at the Tory party conference and this routine bullying and opportunism paints him as a mere follower and quite petty. This is consistent with his personality type, and as people begin to understand this he looks more unfit for government with each passing day.
Cameron is a great showman and knows when to shut his mouth to seal the deal but the Prime Minister dealt with him confidently and caused him to lose the plot. As Nick comments, Cameron's fire and wind may look good on TV but as the radio listeners rumbled Nixon, so the people in the gallery have rumbled Cameron.
Complain about this comment
Nick..Having made some posts regarding distasteful comments on your most immediate previous blog,I am now driven to support all the others on here who think you've made another big mistake.
I find your own comments about Camerons motives in his questioning of Brown at PMQ's today to be as equally distasteful as some of those over at the other blog.
Cameron very clearly said he would come to the economy "in a minute".It was obvious that Browns cold hearted attitude towards the Haringey issue was the catalyst for Cameron to throw away his script,and angrily (and emotionally) challenge the PM. Yet you charge in with a stubborn defence of Brown,adding that,in some eyes, Cameron showed himself up in a poor light.
That can only be the response of a blind supporter trying to justify the unjustifiable.
Shame on you.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Nothing changes. Over 40 years ago I was a medical secretary. I worked for the Lady Almoner's, now known as medical social workers.
The file for one particular child was kept under lock and key. There would be a case conference including probation officers, police, social workers et al.
I typed up their findings and the file was locked up again.
Complain about this comment
As has been said on other political websites, this would not have happened under Blair. For all his failings he knew how to read the public mood and act accordingly (Iraq excepted). Blair would have agreed with Cameron and would have ordered an inquiry there and then thereby defusing the issue. No one has said that Cameron was wrong to raise Baby P as an issue as clearly someone, somewhere failed. Yet it was the Labour backbench who started shouting "Shame!" and Brown chose to play to the gallery. Just looking at the exchange, wasn't Cameron pushing his prepared sheet of questions to one side the equivalent of saying "Right you! Out the back in 5 minutes?"
Complain about this comment
Nick,
You are losing your touch. You need a break.
People outside know that there is a recession.
They know that unemployment will rise
They know that it will take many months (at least) for the economy to get better.
What they wanted to hear today was a Prime Minister who shared their horror and anguish at this sordid case of child abuse, murder and criminal incompetence - and a promise to deal with the matter decisively.
Instead they got the pre-prepared statements, evasions and stubborn stonewalling of a man who was more keen to talk up his 'tractor production figures' than to demonstrate empathy with the nation at large.
I am no fan of Tony Blair, but he would have known how to respond sympathetically and then move on.
Instead we've witnessed one of the most unedifying performances of Gordon Brown at PMQs.
Indeed he has the ability to turn gold into lead.
Complain about this comment
Nick, you're obviously miffed at Brand and Ross getting all the attention at the Beeb so came up with this ridiculous analysis of events.
The only positive news for Labour in all of this was John Cruddas's which shows they just might avoid slipping into oblivion after the next election if he can find some supporters from his party who also show some honesty.
As for Brown, I look forward to seeing you and him holding hands on the way to the Job Centre. You deserve each other.
Finally, why is the moderation of comments so slow? Are the Beeb worried about criticism of your misjudged analysis?
Complain about this comment
Nothing new. Over 40 years ago I worked as a medical secretary for the Lady Almoners now known as medical social workers.
A particular child's file was kept under lock and key. He was frequently brought into hospital and each time a case conference was held. The conference consisted of many 'professionals'. After their findings I typed the notes and they put the file back under lock and key. Up to my time of leaving the child was still alive. I am tired of hearing 'we will learn from this' with each dreadful case which happens today.
Is it not time that the 'professionals' became accountable for their actions?
Complain about this comment
I think you should take a holiday Nick.
I watched the daily politics today and your report of Mr. Kennedy and Mr Cruddas agreeing with you is not what I heard.
For anyone reading this, I suggest viewing the Iplayer and deciding for yourself.
Complain about this comment
I've noticed that Ken Clarke is stoking up fear and doubt. Just when things are calming down and the press are being positive he opens his mouth and runs people down. Put next to Cameron's assault this looks a little deliberate and suggests to me that the Tories would rather talk Britain into a recession and fuel hysteria than focus on fixing things. But, what else can people expect from a nasty and directionless party like the Tories? No wonder sensible leaders and the media are deserting them.
Complain about this comment
37:
You Sir are living in CloudCuckoo land!
Complain about this comment
#37
I really must apologise for not getting the joke sooner. You are hilarious. Keep 'em coming Charles, I just can't get enough of that post-modern irony stuff. And Zen. Don't forget the Zen. That's the best bit.
Cheers!
Complain about this comment
I have just watched PMQ's and Nick Robinson's remarks and I must be in a minority of one. I did think that Brown's suggestion that Cameron was making political capital out of this was ill-judged strategically because he opened the door for Cameron to become persistent and duck the issue of an alternative Tory economic strategy. A blunder certainly but insensitive, inhumane, out of touch? Where did this come from?
I felt that Brown was initially quite well attuned to the mood and it was only really when tempers frayed and it got a little out of control that he started to bluster. In the circumstances, Nick's subsequent remarks seemed quite balanced, especially as both Crudas and Kennedy seemed to agree with him. Personally, I think some posters are making rather too much of Nick's alleged pro-government position. Everyone was genuinely surprised at PMQs.
Complain about this comment
CEH @37...again!!
"Cameron just wants to misdirect and stoke rage. His grandstanding and trying to link the government with misfortune is just so way off base and manipulative it breaks the dial.
Cameron's attempt to blame a misery that's caught the public's attention on the government throws up how unprincipled and desperate he is.
Overall, I think, the Prime Minister handled this ambush well. He answered the matters of substance and brushed off the Tory opportunism."
If anyone is trying to stoke rage,it is you Charles.Your disgraceful comments previously;your inability to apologise for them ,and your repeated attacks on Cameron for behaving like a human being show you up what you really are.
Complain about this comment
I could believe in David Cameron's sincerity if he had gone to PMQs with all the right information in preparation for his verbal assault on the Prime Minster about Baby P. But when he referred to "a 17 year old mother, and an illiterate boyfriend", one realised that, unless he was talking about a totally different case he had, yet again, got the facts all wrong. One wonders who briefs him at CCO. Gordon Brown has the excuse that, as PM, he doesn't have dogs and bark himself. David Cameron has no such excuse. He was quick enough to get the ES on side prior to PMQs, but then he blew it, not only because of his hysterical outburst, but because he was so woefully ill-informed. If he did, as he said, watch the reporting of the case on the television last night, and had read today's press reporting, he would have known that the mother is 27 years old and what on earth has a person's literacy got to do with their parenting skills. Does he think all parents with mild learning difficulties are monsters? He has absolutely no idea.
Complain about this comment
'Overall, I think, the Prime Minister handled this ambush well. He answered the matters of substance and brushed off the Tory opportunism. This is a much surer performance than he's given in the past, and beneath the rhetoric it must be getting the Tories worried. Plus, the Liberals have an issue in deciding who their friends really are.'
This is the best joke I've heard all year. I think there is a good case for permanent exclusion here. The down side is that here is no better blogger to support real evidence for the removal of Gordon Brown.
Complain about this comment
Oh dear. Gordon was an utter shambles and really shamed his office today. Today's little performance has confirmed a few of the bad things I have heard said about Brown. Quite an eye-opener.
David Miliband, where are you now? Your country needs you.
Complain about this comment
Ed Balls on Channel 4 News trying desperately to rescue the PMQ gaffe and failing miserably!
Complain about this comment
I was appalled at Brown's remarks made at PMQs today - what a shameful 10 minutes for him and the Labour party.
I am also appalled at Nick Robinson's profound cynicism.
Apart from that, his assumptions always favour the governmental stance. Where is the objective scrutiny of recent government activity? And why have the media completely backed off Gordon Brown?
The whole thing stinks. Someone is pulling Brown's strings - probably Alistair Campbell - and we all know the BBC are TERRIFIED of him.
It strikes me the BBC is being "got at", because all they seem to do currently is regurgitate governement spin as fact.
Complain about this comment
Oh dear, Nick - your short hand has let you down again. I watched PMQs and the after piece on the Daily Politics Show and what you alleged was said in your blog was no way near what actually happended. I think it is time the BBC started to put some editorial control over your imput. I know you like your scoops, like the advanced information you got from Ed Balls today when the Govt was in a bit of mess and they were trying to get themselves out the sticky stufff, but this is not professional journalism. Its awful. It should be objective and straight down the middle. Cameron can ask whatever he wants at PMQs. He does not need to consult you or the Labour party. If the tories win the next election I would go looking for another job;because you are not going to be treated very kindly by them. If you were even handed in your reporting no one would mind but I think people of all political persuasions now think you are becoming a bit of a joke. David Cameron should be applauded. If his intervention has saved a life in Haringay all credit to him. The economy can wait another day. Its going to be in trouble for ages to come and questions about that can wait until another day.
Complain about this comment
Mr. Robinson
I hope you change your tact on tonights 10pm News you appear to have lost the mood of the majority of the poster on here. I think its time you reported with balance.
Complain about this comment
#37 CEH
It's about time this Government started to bear some of the responsibility for the appalling treatment and death of a helpless little baby. This is not the first, but the second time it has happened at Haringey Council.
Our Government, through the Council, have appointed people to run Haringey Social Services and these people, along with the Government - starting with the Children's Minister, Ed Balls, should be held jointly and severally accountable. Social Services have a Duty of Care towards the children they are supposed to be protecting, at a cost of £100 million per year. Losing their jobs should be the least of their worries.
Complain about this comment
How very Nu Labour public sector:
A department with a budget of a hundred million a year allows 2 children, on its radar to die cruel, painful and protracted deaths..
The director of said department is also the head of the board which is tasked to commission the report into the failures. (You really couldn?t make that up). Christ!
The PM comes to the dispatch box saying hes is only considering another review and wont even give a serious answer to a request about serious consideration.
The public sector broadcasters political correspondent tries to diminish and dilute the opposition leaders points by making out that he just wanted to draw attention away from questions about the economy.
All hail the android emperor?. Eh Nick!
And what the hell does?. Whitehall guidelines state that "any report must be commissioned from a person who is independent of the agencies/professionals involved". It doesn't state that any report should be commissioned by someone independent
DO I need Sir Humphrey to explain?
Complain about this comment
Robinson...you are an absolute disgrace to your profession.
You are supposed to be impartial, not a lackey!
Complain about this comment
You really are clutching at straws Nick and I am completely convinced that you are now nothing more than a Labour mouth piece.
You and the organisation you represent a disgrace.
You might want to acknowledge that Ed Balls has just announced everything that David Cameron called for during PMQs. That would seem to vindicate the stance he took.
Complain about this comment
30. At 6:01pm on 12 Nov 2008, the-real-truth wrote:
Nick
Care to comment on the very last line of the BBC report on this -- particularly with the changes highlighted here:-
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/172710/diff/3/4
If this site has picked up a genuine edit then it just shows that the BBC is little more then a mouth piece of the Labour party.
Perhaps they should just abandon the attempt to appear impartial as it doesn't seem to be working.
Complain about this comment
I blame the speaker, he should ensure all the questions are answered, if not the person should reply in a written answer.
Nick, have you missed something out with Andrew Neil on BBC2 Question time? When the Leader of the house got a barracking from the speaker... leaders running their own inquiry does that not ring a bell?
All to easy to see why the back benchers got a little angry, bet they weren't even whipped on the subject.
Complain about this comment
I'm afraid you have misjudged the incident Nick. John Cruddas and Charles Kennedy were spot on.
Cameron's anger was heartfelt and honest in my opinion. This was genuine.
Why be so cynical? Can't politicians speak from the heart?
Your assessment is wrong. Cameron was justifiably angry with Brown's inability to answer a simple question and try and make cheap political points.
Sorry Nick, but shame on you.
Complain about this comment
A few facts and a few opinions.
Facts
PMQs is the most confrontaional and Party Political event in the parliamentary process.
The Baby P case was only concluded yesterday and therefore sub-judesay to that point.
The report prepared by an independent body was given to the minister this morning.
Opinions
Cameron was probably not wrong to ask a question about the case but given the above facts surely could have accepted that it was not possible or correct to go into detail about sanctions as yet undecided during PMQs, only 2 hours after receiving the report.
Cameron sets the agenda at PMQs, he asks the question, he should and could have stopped at one or two questions and asked for a detailed and urgent response later today.
There is no doubt in my mind that he was avoiding the economy and politicising this event. It was frankly shameful political exploitation of a tragedy.
No Prime Minister, politician or Council will ever eradicate this sort of event because cruel and devious people exist and they d cruel things always have,always will. Social Services will minimse theses crimes as far as possible but mistakes (if shown to be)are a fact of life.
Anyone with a brain knows that these things happen regardless of which party is in power nationally or locally.
Cameron's behaviour in pursuing this with all six of his questions was just appallingly bad judgement and done for his own political benefit, nothing else. Then to claim innocence after the third question that party politics was never on his mind beggared belief.
A sad day IMO opinion. Cameron could have moved to another question at any point when it was clear it was politically heated, he chose not to. You'd have thought he may have wanted to goon to the economy.
Before PMQs the comentatorsI heard on R5 said (paraphrasing) that he woldn't be looking forward to PMQs with the Economy inevitably going to dominate. They clearly didn't realise he had other plans.
Complain about this comment
Some of you guys astound me. David Cameron desperately wants to be the next PM - he thirsts for power and, taking a leaf out of the TB and BC book, he is acting like crazy to make a good impression. He's quite good too - much better than Gordon Brown.
This is a horrible case but don't let it turn you into complete fools. I'm being generous here and assuming there was some turning needed.
Complain about this comment
Nick
You more or less go along with Brown's line that Cameron was playing politics with a tragic situation by suggesting as you do the he was happy to use it as a means of avoiding the economy as a topic.
Cameron said he had a question he wished to put before he moved on to the economy. All Brown had to do was to break the habit of his PM lifetime and answer it - surely not too much to ask given the subject mannner.
I imagine Cameron was no different from the rest of us in feeling genuine horror and anger at the fate of that poor child and I'm not surprised that it was inflamed by Brown's non-answers followed by his despicable accusation followed by his graceless refusal to withdraw it.
Just an awful performance by Brown on a human as well as political level. John Cruddas gave an immediate an clearly genuine reaction which was that he thought the exchanges did not show his party of his PM in a good light. Cruddas and Kennedy have got it right - you have not.
Complain about this comment
As well as the tragedy of Baby P, there are two other stories in the headlines this week with not only a strong child protection angle, but in which the various child protection agencies can be seen clearly to have performed badly (I?m referring to the child in Herefordshire who was nearly subject to a court order in relation to heart surgery that she had decided she didn?t want, and, of course, to the Shannon Matthews case). It is a perfectly valid view that an unacceptable degree of failure is endemic in the child protection process, and that the combination of the secrecy behind which the agencies operate and their high proportion of internal rather than external regulation do nothing other than make failure endemic.
In that context it is wholly appropriate that David Cameron should do exactly what the Opposition is there to do ? hold the Government to account. With child protection being topical it was reasonable that he should ask questions today. It was also reasonable for him to expect the Prime Minister to be prepared to answer them.
Unfortunately, the PM was not ready, and that was desperately unprofessional on his part. He was wooden, repetitive and evasive. Cameron had every right to be annoyed, and to express his annoyance as a sequence of reasonable questions went unanswered. Brown?s accusation that Cameron was trying to use child protection as a party political football was actually itself the first party political element of the exchange. It is an accusation straight out of the Brown ready-use phrase book, translates as ?stop making me look stupid? and is usually used as part of the answer to Cameron?s sixth question, so he can?t reply. In the context of the day, it was a disgrace, compounded by his refusal to withdraw it.
So Nick, I don?t agree with your assessment. I think you defended Brown because it is your instinct to do so. By defending him, and making cheap remarks against Cameron too, you spread smoke over the real problem, which is that there are fundamental problems in child protection which urgently need to be resolved. For me, Brown?s disinterest in the subject, his laisse faire attitude to the system as it currently stands, and his willingness to deflect valid criticism of what is going on in child protection, amount to a disqualification from office.
Complain about this comment
Brown has revealed yet again his inability to think outside the box and to deal effectively and empathetically with issues unrelated to what he has gemmed up on (in this case the economy).
Clueless Brown is not Prime Minister material - he only shows any function when there is an immediate crisis to deal with (floods, foot & mouth and banks).
Complain about this comment
Hardwidge@47
It was the TV viewers who saw through Nixon (allegedly). The radio listeners heard a confident voice, but on TV he had a five o'clock shadow, was sweating profusely and looked decidedly shifty.
Your historical inaccuracy is another thing that weakens your argument.
Complain about this comment
If it shows evidence of management failures Mr Balls has the power to take over the running of Children's Services in the borough - effectively replacing the entire management team. He does not have the power to sack individual staff.
Well of course not. I mean we cant have public sector staff, responsible for catastrophic failure leading to the deaths of children being fired can we.
Outrageous suggestion
Complain about this comment
Ed Balls tonight does the decent thing and rescues his leader from further embarassment by following David Cameron's advice. Obviously a last minute decision to save face but fooling noone. The damage to reputations has already been done.
Complain about this comment
If it shows evidence of management failures Mr Balls has the power to take over the running of Children's Services in the borough - effectively replacing the entire management team. He does not have the power to sack individual staff.
Well of course not. I mean we cant have public sector staff, responsible for catastrophic failure leading to the deaths of children being fired can we.
Outrageous suggestion
Complain about this comment
Please Nick...can you point to exactly what bit of the daily politics piece where you think John Cruddas and Charles Kennedy agreed with you? I watched it twice and fail to see it. What struck me was the sincere and truthful (for those that saw PMQ's) way in which they both though Brown was WAAY out of order whereas you you seemed to think that Cameron was acting or not really angry but just appearing so to take advantage of the situation. I was staggered as you also endeavour to use up half the allocated time waffling along and making other similar comments about Cameron and add (for BBC non bias effect I imagine [snigger]) the tone-deaf bit about Brown.
Complain about this comment
48:
Incidentally the year I was born. Hear Hear!
Complain about this comment
Nick
Your blog reads like a governmental damage-limitation exercise written by Alastair Campbell himself. Perhaps that's what it is. Shame on you - you don't deserve to be called a journalist.
Complain about this comment
The (few) defenders of Brown and critics of Cameron, regarding today's PMQs, should take note of two simple facts.
Firstly, Cameron stated quite clearly that he would come on to economic matters shortly, but was then so astonished and enraged by Brown's answers that he was driven to pursue the matter further.
Secondly, Blair would have skilfully wrapped up the matter in his first response, and not made a hash of it in the way that Brown did.
And it does seem a great pity that Nick Robinson's impression of the reactions of the others on PMQs was so at odds with the judgements of the majority of the viewers.
Complain about this comment
Charles_E_Hardwidge are you Nick Robinson in disguise? You have CLEARLY not seen or listened to PMQ's and you have clearly not seen or listened to the Daily Politics programme linked in the post. What ARE you on about? Your posts are so incredibly out of sync with the OP and all the comments; I've seen some of your seemingly sensible posts on other threads so what has got into you?
Complain about this comment
I think that David Cameron looked like a bit of a prat when he lost his temper. Why? Because on the subject of infant death, above all others, Gordon Brown has some bitter personal experience. It is a simple statement of fact that this case will have affected him deeply; it would have been distasteful had he indulged in vocal histrionics of the 'my angst is greater than yours' variety.
Labour MPs will be well aware of this, and that may account for their hostile reaction to Cameron's outburst.
Complain about this comment
In answer to Charles_E_Hardwidge:
Mr Hardwidge, according to this blog you have written forty one (41!) paragraphs about this topic today. Please do not claim that this message board is full of online egos when you are overflowing with righteous comment.
The vast majority of people commenting today are of the opinion that Nick Robinson got it very wrong and that he should be reporting in an unbiased way.
Please, no more lectures. We have a right to air our views when we feel that an injustice has taken place. It is called free speech.
Complain about this comment
'Scuse me!! I've just been listening to The Daily Politics and Nick saying David Cameron was thinking he couldn't believe his luck that questions were "not allowing Gordon Brown to focus on the problems I've got with the economy"... Whaaaat?
DAVID CAMERON'S problems with the economy?.....
Nick must have lost every sense of reasonable responsible reporting?
How the 'ecky thump can it be David Cameron's "problems with the economy"
Gordon Brown has caused the largest part of the problems...he has been in charge for the last eleven years not David Cameron.
About time Nick stopped grovelling to Gordon, Campbell & Mandy et al and got on with the job of holding this government to account!
Complain about this comment
Chusk @57,
Your posts are getting more shrill and desperate.
Complain about this comment
Putting party loyalties to one side for one minute and having listened to PMQ`s, I would say and any fair minded neutral observer would agree that Cameron used this issue to mount a personal attack on Brown and its only after Cameron`s jibe about Brown not answering the question did Brown question Cameron`s motives. Surely no one, not even Cameron is questioning Brown`s and any right think persons absolute horror at what happened to that poor child. The fact is that Brown whether or not you agree with his politics is decent family man, and the comments made against him here and elsewhere are disgusting and the perputrators bring the whole political movement into disrepute
Complain about this comment
well well well...the link to The Daily Politics show has BEEN REMOVED from the opening post! Any particular reason? For those that wish to watch and listen here it goes...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/default.stm
Complain about this comment
Having read through many of the comments re Nick's blog, I'm absolutely bewildered. So much so, that I went and re-read it to look for signs of lefty bias. Sorry folks, it just ain't there. Did any of you read Nick's comment re the PM being "tone deaf to the public mood"? That Labour propaganda is obviously just too subtle for me.
I have a strong suspicion that many of the people who leave comments here are the sort who complain about being persecuted by speed cameras - a virulent, if slightly irrational, strain of reactionary.
Complain about this comment
Vote Tory for no more awful baby deaths! ...
Complain about this comment
#57
Sir, you would be hilarious in a zoo or in a circus clown routine, but the fact that you are out there, sharing my world, is frankly disturbing.
Complain about this comment
Where's grandantidote? I miss his ludicrously starry-eyed politics, dreadful spelling and grammar and inane, digressive rambling... Nick's blog just isn't as much fun without him.
Complain about this comment
Why are you, the BBC news team, so scared of Alastair Campbell? Are you intimidated by his physical presence? For pity's sake grow some backbone and stand up to him. Here's an wacky idea; go and do some journalism, uncover as many facts as possible and then present your findings as objectively as possible. It may not be very nice for the government, but without the truth how can the country improve?
Complain about this comment
Message to moderators
Blogging doesn't really work if the mods take a 60 minute break during peak hours!
Complain about this comment
Cameron is consumed with desire to be the next Prime Minister of the UK. Compared to that, he doesn't give a rat's about Baby P or any other Baby. His outrage is mainly acting. He's an actor, for god's sake. C'mon, we've been through all this with that other consumate actor, Tony Blair - let's please not get fooled again, it would be embarassing for all of us.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
76:
Even Jon Crudass didn't accept your take on the situation. Give it up for goodness sake. Gordon Brown was found wanting and Nick Robinson joined the wrong bandwagon!
Complain about this comment
I guess this won't get past the moderators but why did the bbc change this:
Labour backbencher Jon Cruddas told BBC Two's Daily Politics the case of Baby P was "beyond politics" adding: "David Cameron was absolutely right to raise it."
to this:
Labour backbencher Jon Cruddas told BBC Two's Daily Politics the case of Baby P was "beyond politics" adding that Mr Brown's answers did "shine a positive light" on his party.
in the news story?
This kind of bias is an appaulling abuse of the bbcs position
Complain about this comment
Nick, like Brown has done today you yourself have really shown your true colours!!!!
Complain about this comment
I dont know who I am more shocked with Nick, Gordon, or exBatterseaBoy?
David Cameron has always said that family, more so his family, is important to him; and for this trio to imply otherwise is bad judgement all round.
Nick, Cameron clearly said that he would address the economy in a moment, but as such, to me, it was not his priority because he would have probably got a drubbing and it would have been most likely 2 questions at the most to limit the damage.
Gordon, I found it difficult concentrating on the newspaper reports because this case sickens me that this has happened AGAIN! Cameron was right to make a stance about your character assasination that he was making a party political point based on your own insecurities. Cameron made a valid point about not being allowed to police their own failures; This is not a misdemeanor we are talking about here, we are talking about a death of a child, irrespective of age, that could have been avoided.
Cameron was more than fair in his exchange and giving up questions to allow for you(Gordon) to rethink your stance; Not just on retracting your statement about party politics but to say "You know what, you are right! We should look at this expediently because the people of this house and the country need to be reassured that we are putting children first, ahead of the economy, the unemployed, and falling house prices because this is the second unacceptable death of a child where this organisation is involved and lets forget about the Executive Summary as this doesn't get away from the hard fact that someone has died where we are all required to defend them."
As for exBatterseaBoy, Gordon circumstance regarding his family situation, tragic as it was, it by no means comparable. Gordon was not showing any responsibility or even ownership and you could see him trying his best to dig himself out of the biggest hole that had been put there by himself and himself alone. Even Gorbals Mick(oops not suppose to call him that) tried to give the PRIME MINISTER guidance that his tactics would not be reflected on positively outside the bear pit but he still continued to be aloof and not made a decisive leadership decision. Cameron didn't need a focus group to tell him how he felt, and that is clearly demonstrated in his Evening Standard article, and that was put together before the disaster that was PMQ.
All three of you should be reflective of your words and actions.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
97. At 3:28pm on 12 Nov 2008, phoenixarisenq wrote:
65. Charles_E_Hardwidge
I did not see this comment, and in fact despise the writings of this person. But I defend free speech, even to that of Holocaust deniers. I believe that this comment should have remained, so we could all see what a distorted sense of morality this writer has.
He has many times referred me to moderators, as he has others, but I say NO. Let there be free speech. By his writings the man will be judged. Give him enough rope and he will hang himself.
Wonder how long it will be before he tries to have this referred!
This posting appeared on the Problems for Tories Forum. but I'm placing it here too, as the subject is now relevant on this forum.
Complain about this comment
Like so many others, I was ashamed to hear and then to read your partisan (and it seemed to me) deliberate misreading of this exchange at PMQs.
It appears that you have given up on impartial reporting and commenting; your main interest seems to be in polishing your own image as a pundit, and presenting political events as you would like them to be seen rather than as they really are; in attempting slippery self-justification when you get your predictions wrong.
Complain about this comment
Was that Ed Balls or the Ricky Gervais character from The Office who gave the statement this afternoon?
Complain about this comment
perry @ 79
Brown's disinterest in the subject, his laisse faire attitude to the system as it currently stands, and his willingness to deflect valid criticism of what is going on in child protection, amount to a disqualification from office.
Nope.
Just means that Brown is not good at Blairite (or should I say Clintonite since he was the absolute master of the art) phoney empathising - aka acting up a storm.
It's one of Gordon's (few) good points.
Complain about this comment
I think Mr Robinson, you got it totally wrong today and it looked like you were making excuses for the Prime Minister. It looked to me as if Mr Brown was frustrated that HIS chosen topic didn't fall into his lap at PMQs and he couldn't handle being wrong-footed. Yes he's sorry about the child but it is Ed Ball's job to sort it and he didn't want his half-hour on the telly taken up with it. As I said on the last thread, we all know politicians (and those who comment on them) can be deeply cynical. I think today David Cameron was genuinely furious, and disgusted at Gordon's Brown's inability to relate to what he was saying in regard the Baby P case. It does again bring into play Brown's lack of real empathy with the ordinary electorate. I am reminded again that it was him who really thought it was OK to tax the poorest and give it to the better off ; who believed it was fine to offer OAPs a rise of 75p on their pensions; to cut the money to the armed services making our soldiers less safe. He lacks humanity and that's a serious failure in a Prime Minister.
He did not behave properly today and people will have noticed.
Your comments re what was said in the public gallery smacks of na na nana na, so there! ...and you are mistaken if you think the others on the Politics show, including the hard-bitten Andrew Neil saw it your way.
Complain about this comment
This is not a party political issue! ... people who don't see that David Cameron is acting over this Baby P case are as foolish as those who think that Gordon Brown is an economic mastermind ...
Complain about this comment
Nick,
A lot of people here are accusing you and the BBC of bias towards the Labour party (and I mean A LOT of people).
But now it seems to have got so blatant that it is obviously counter-productive and your efforts are actually driving people to the Conservatives.
Could it be that this is all a double bluff and you are really a true blue underneath?
Having watched you on the Daily Politics, if those views are really what you think, then you need to get out into the real world and meet some real people rather than all these politicians.
Complain about this comment
After listening to todays PMQ it is all too clear the Prime Minister is considerably out of his depth.
Not only were his comments evasive but they also showed a huge lack of experience.
When will he do the decent thing and call a General Election!
Complain about this comment
Crikey! Someone here (who shall remain nameless) is as unpopular as Brown.
It must be the shared personality type......
Complain about this comment
Wll Nick, judging by the weight of comment they are "agin" you and "agin" Brown. The so obvious bias on your part deserves a response from you or perhaps the Editors!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#102
Sagamix
I agree with you - Cameron desperately wants to become Prime Minister. It's because he desperately wants to improve this country. For all your cynicism, today he got his way - the govt buckled and Balls announced there would be an independant enquiry. Are you able to imagine that a person might want to to change things for the better? And that person might become an MP? And that person might become leader of the opposition? And that one day they might be the PM - and STILL want to improve things? We live in hope. I accept you may be proven right in years to come, but for now Cameron has my vote.
Complain about this comment
Well Nick, Brown avoided answering Cameron's questions about the laughable idea of Haringey Social Services investigating themselves, he then accused Cameron of making the issue party political. I think Cameron was right to be indignant and even angry, I am angry that this unfit for purpose 'public service' like so many others, gets away with failure, accessory to murder in this case, and no-one gets sacked. Same as in our hospitals where people are murdered by MRSA all the time. Yet you emphasise Cameron appearing angry? You couldn't make it up, except in BBC lalalalalala land. Oh, and where were you when Brown was so angry at PMQs that his hand was shaking (check it on Youtube). The evidence is clear, the child was murdered while under the protection of Haringey public servants. Don't mess about, remove their leaders immediately and draft in proven competents from outside to clean out this den of failure. And it ain't political geddit?
Complain about this comment
I misremembered: the people listening on the radio saw through Kennedy's weaker argument and the people watching TV were thrown by his presentation.
The point I made was sound enough: Cameron looks cool as a packaged TV item but rang like a dud to people who had a more detached front row seat.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Today we have received two pieces of tragic news
Firstly the death of an innocent toddler who caused no harm to anyone and has been so violently murdered by what can only be described as a sub human life form that we will have to pay to keep for many years.
Secondly the relentless rise in unemployment. The extraordinary rise in prices and credit was bound to end and even a blind person walking backwards could have seen it coming, why then not the BoE and the Government?
The result is that a sector long forgotten by this Government, Manufacturing (of which I am a part of for now) slips further into decay. It maybe in a few months I will join the jobless as a result of the incredible complacency of the PM both as Chancellor and Leader, for which I thank him!
All in all these two issues show how under the Labour Party Great Britain has decayed beyond belief and it deeply worries me what my teenage sons have to look forward to.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
I just watched The Daily Politics - and yes. You are out of order sunshine.
When on the Daily Politics - you recognised that Cameron intended to get onto the economy. You fail to recognise that on this blog.
More revealing, however, you reveal that both you and the Labour benches were ready to watch the Conservatives try and fend off comments from Mervyn King (which you went and blogged on anyway despite the way PMQ's turned out!)
That makes you sound very "in Labours pocket".
Finally - Andrew Neil pointed out to you on The Daily Politics - "Why would Cameron shy away from the economy, or Mervyn King's comments - especially with other such bad news around for the government like unemployment."
.........yes Andrew Neil was hinting to you that you were being a little one sided on the anticipated economic debate......
After today - you appear very much as if there is someone in the Labour party lining you up and wrecking your supposed impartiality.
Complain about this comment
Isn't it clear that gordon brown is exactly the type of person responsible for the failings in Haringay?
A person with no internal 'moral compass', just a general ability to follow rules, with no real comprehension of why they are there in the first place.
Complain about this comment
Just watched the BBC TV news coverage for PMQ's - edited nicely to make sure anyone who hadn't seen the whole exchange would think:
1. Cameron went off on one
2. Brown said don't score political points
3. Rowdiness occurred in parliament.
The editing did not show that Cameron asked reasonable questions, which Brown avoided and the Labour benches howled about.
The editing certainly managed to take the sting out of Brown's "insensitive jibe".
The BBC will no doubt be awarded a "People's Medal"for public services (to one Gordon Brown) at the next Labour conference.
Complain about this comment
I'm not sure why my posting 103 got referred to the moderators, but to re-iterate it was basically exactly the same as what everyone else is saying.
ie that the BBC is showing breathtaking bias in reporting Cameron's stand as a cynical political point-scoring exercise, and that Brown has proved he's totally inhuman.
I'm glad Cameron faught his corner at PMQs; the BBC might not have liked it, but it did the job, because hours later Ed Balls announced exactly what Cameron had asked for. If Cameron hadn't pushed it at PMQs it would have been swept under the carpet by the labour spin machine.
Complain about this comment
97. sagamix wrote
Vote Tory for no more awful baby deaths! ...
mmmm NO
But how about.... Vote Tory for:
A PM that might just answer a question in a straight forward manner.
A party that would give us smaller government.
Oh yes and how about Vote Tory because anything, ANYTHING is better than Brown and his incompetent friends.
Works for me and I bet itll work for a good majority come the next election.
Complain about this comment
Embraman2 (message 96: "Having read through many of the comments re Nick's blog, I'm absolutely bewildered. So much so, that I went and re-read it to look for signs of lefty bias. Sorry folks, it just ain't there. Did any of you read Nick's comment re the PM being "tone deaf to the public mood"? That Labour propaganda is obviously just too subtle for me."
Yes...that's right it clearly IS too subtle for you. The whole post (and the Daily politics showing - he's even removed the link to it after EVERYONE picked him up on the direct LIE about Kennedy and Cruddas agreeing with him) is all about 95% smearing and casting doubt on Cameron, 4% waffle and 1% subtle sop to appear non-bias (and failing miserably...except to you).
Complain about this comment
#76 - Eatonrifle
Just a technical point. Parliamentary privilege rules mean that nothing is sub judice within the House. In the age of televised parliament, there are probably rules to prevent sub judice comment being made in order to prevent it getting into the wider world.
Complain about this comment
76. Eatonrifle
Fact, If the Android Emperor had simply answered the first question with something along the lines of:
Yes I will be reviewing the file handed to the government this morning with all haste and will consider all options available, including taking control of this failing department.
Then Cameron would have had no where to go would he? But the Android Emperor isnt that clever is he?
Hence why he should not be the emperor.
Complain about this comment
I watched the bits that mattered online. I think, some of the players are falling back on cliche, sentimentality, grandstanding, and a little smug self-righteousness.
There's the shock and latent hostility from Cruddas, Nick trying to look on top of things and chum the audience, and Kennedy trying to look serious and bi-partisan while expanding like cat sitting on a radiator.
Pardon me for keeping my radar switched on and tagging the targets. It's a side effect of being detached and alert, or as sociopathic as Robert X. Cringely accuses Steve Jobs of being. Who knows?
While people are floored by Cameron's attempt to shock and awe I remember and have personal experience of people being ignorant and cruel. It's a very ordinary thing and all too common.
Some of these things look big and ghastly, and they are, but getting caught up in them or overlooking our own mistakes is worth avoiding. People often feel powerless and surprised but our own choices do matter.
If Britain is to be a better and kinder place, there's a role for the government and media, but an everyday role for ourselves. We might not stop wars, put off recessions, or save lives but every little helps.
By admitting our mistakes and hostilities to ourselves, perhaps, we can be less arrogant and hurtful. This is key to what Buddhism calls correct action. It's not much but, I think, it's key to making a difference.
Complain about this comment
105. sweetAnybody
"I guess this won't get past the moderators but why did the bbc change this:
Labour backbencher Jon Cruddas told BBC Two's Daily Politics the case of Baby P was "beyond politics" adding: "David Cameron was absolutely right to raise it."
to this:
Labour backbencher Jon Cruddas told BBC Two's Daily Politics the case of Baby P was "beyond politics" adding that Mr Brown's answers did "shine a positive light" on his party."
>>>>>>>>>
And that last paragraph was the EXACT OPPOSITE of what John Cruddas said.
Very clearly he said "it did NOT shine a positive light on my own party"
Yet the BBC kept the word NOT out of the paragraph for most of the day!
Utterly, utterly SHAMEFUL!
(and I bet the mods delete this one!)
Complain about this comment
Nick you realy should stop covering for Brown, he has shown himself up today and Cameron had every right to be angry.
I am angry that another baby had to die, but to hear the PM treat it as just another review, one that could be done by the same department that 'reviewed' the last case and achieved nothing.
It is not just dismissive, but an insult to any but the most hard hearted.
I am furious.
Complain about this comment
An open message to Lyndsay Roy MP
I do hope that you now understand why the young people, in whom we both tried to instill good values, were so resistant to that message - given the example they are set by members of the UK Parliament.
I was less concerned with the words of the PM and Leader of the Opposition at today's PMQs than by the appalling behaviour of your colleagues, and their Tory equivalents.
That you chose to abandon young people to join a bunch of baying idiots diminishes, not enhances, your reputation.
Complain about this comment
An issue like this needs to be seriously considered in depth. It is not suited to knee-jerk questions and answers in the highly politicised atmosphere of Prime Minister's Questions on the spur of the moment in reaction to this morning's press.
Mr Brown did not handle this well in his presentation, but was right not to fire off half-baked answers to half-baked questions on such a complex and emotionally fraught matter. Mr Cameron was effectively asking him to shoot from the hip, which had he done so, would most likely only have succeeded in making the task of those who must investigate this more politicised and difficult.
Someone with the true interests of the case at heart would not have been looking for such quick answers thought up on the hoof.
So of course Mr Cameron was using this for political gain. He has struggled to find any voice on the economy, and has looked all at sea in recent weeks. And under pressure we have now found out how he responds and what sort of man lies underneath the politician's charm. It was not a pleasant sight.
Complain about this comment
Re the case of baby P. It should be remembered that children can be removed from their familes only if Social Services can provide evidence to the Court that a child is, or has been, subject to ill treatment or neglect. The fact that the advice of the medical profession was sought, indicates that Social Services had concerns about the child; however, once the doctor failed to diagnose or find the injuries sustained by the child, the chances of a successful application to the court, would have disappeared.
Complain about this comment
So i
Its Cameron's duty to ask the questions Labour expect.
But the PM is allowed not to anwser any of them.
He is allowed to insult the the most deplorable way, and Cameron is not allowed to be upset by it.
You are a muppet.
Or should that be a puppet.
Complain about this comment
105 I sincerely hope that is not correct.
Cruddas said IT DID NOT SHINE a postive light on his party.
That would be a very bad misquote from the bbc.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
114 sagamix
"This is not a party political issue!"
Quite right, so how can you possibly defend "Duff" Gordon for claiming that it was?
Complain about this comment
Perhaps, Nick's more reasonable line isn't what the Tories want to hear? I could see this happening a few weeks ago when Tory HQ tried to slaughter Nick over the toxic Thatcher topic.
I learned to my cost when I praised Nick for a few topics that he'd spend the rest of the week zig-zagging like a warplane dodging missles. I don't agree with his headline chasing and he can misjudge things sometimes but if you want to muscle him or paint him into a corner it tends not to produce the desired effect.
Nick provides a regular and high quality blog that folks should be grateful for, and if they can look beyond the point scoring it's a real opportunity to discuss and understand issues and, sometimes, have an impact or influence issues in positive ways.
Complain about this comment
This article is frankly dishonest. John Cruddas and Charles Kennedy gave a fairer analysis of Cameron/Brown than you do. Yet you're supposed to be the even-handed one. Shameful.
Complain about this comment
BABY 'P' . Rest in Peace. Can we only pray and hope the distress, horror, disbelief and anger of the British public, parents or not, can be harnessed and focussed on making this the last murder of a baby?
According to reports, Baby 'P' suffered, painfully, under the persistent, unchallenged torture and ultimate murder .. under the constant gaze of so-called professionals under the public pay of Haringey Social Services!
Complain about this comment
Would Brown have considered this was "not a time for party politics" if Haringay had been a Tory controlled council? Not likely!
Still, it was amusing listening to one of the rats who already left the sinking ship (Ruth Kelly) trying to defend the indefensible on the World at One today.
No need for Cameron to waste his time talking about the economy. Today's official numbers did that job for him.
Complain about this comment
I have just realised, after watching Newsnight, that the killing of this child took place 15 months ago and that the report which arrived on Balls desk this morning has been available since July - with only one small amendment since then.
Beverley Hughes came up with some claptrap about the Department not being able to see the report in case any new information came out at the criminal trial. What if failings by Harringay had contributed to ongoing torture and abuse of other children in the meantime ?
Are we really being told that nothing could be done by the Government Department concerned during all that time to check whether any immediate action was needed ? After the horrible killing of a toddler and the earlier 'never to happen again" death of a young girl involving the same authority ??
This is breathtaking - as is the gall with which Ballls and Brown now tell us they are acting immediately and urgently.
I guess we should be grateful that nothing similar has avoidably happened to any other child in months that have passed - assuming it hasn't.
Complain about this comment
I would like to say something in support of Brown, Robinson and Balls.
The trouble is - I can't think of anything to say.
Complain about this comment
#133
Good one Charlie boy. Liked the Buddha bit, but still prefer Zen.
Thought the joke about Nick in #143 was in rather poor taste tho'. Not sure he'll thank you for the dripping sarcasm in the last para.
Be cool!!
Complain about this comment
"They thought the Tory leader's visible loss of temper showed him in a very poor light."
Please explain why. There seemed ample justification to lose one's temper to me.
I generally find your blog interesting and thought provoking but this particular episode borders on a distortion of the truth and should really have a "Complain about this comment" at the bottom just like the responses do.
If people feel that you are trying to score points rather than analysing impartially your credibility will evaporate instantly.
Complain about this comment
Nick, up to now I've gone along with the idea that your Labour bias is down to some journalistic game of playing devil's advocate in order to illicit the more impassioned responses from the majority opinion-holders (ie opposition/anti-government types) I'd even come to terms with the idea that you were becoming used to being a part of the news rather than a reporter of it in some crazed manner of becoming some sort of celebrity.
However, how you can see fit to call yourself a journalist after this disgraceful "analysis" of today's PMQ's is just beyond me because so far as I can tell you're neither voicing fact nor opinion. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that this blog has been written by either Campbell or Mandelson, because up to now I thought they were the only two types despicable enough of trying to spin it in the way you have.
Why on earth would Cameron want to steer the topic away from the economy in the first place? What would he have to gain from that? Brown ruined the economy as chancellor and is living with the consequences as PM. Blair was probably the worst thing to happen to this country since the Black Plague but still Brown has managed to make things worse! Being leader of the opposition at the moment must be like shooting fish in a barrel and there is so much ammunition out there to do it with Cameron could more or less choose any subject and have Gordon on his back foot.
I honestly never thought I'd see the day when I wished to see Blair back in Downing Street but after Brown's PMQ's today I found myself doing just that, which in itself shows me how thoroughly awful Brown is as both a person and a politician.
For me, the only mystery is why anyone would consider voting for these people at all, unless they were directly employed by the state in the first place via benefits - or in your case Nick, the licence tax.
Roll on May 2010 when we can finally kick this lot into touch and draw a line under the worst period in UK history since...well...since the last Labour government!
And as for CEH and the other government apologists on here, shame on you all.
Complain about this comment
I've just realised how much I miss Andrew Marr.
Complain about this comment
Nick, how bad does this Goverments record have to get before you start asking questions of Browns credibility, if this is not going to happen I suggest you go and work for the Guardian where they will welcome you with open arms.
Complain about this comment
You know, if I were a sad and lonely but basically inteligent person, and desparately sought contact (with out incuring large phone bills) - what I woudl do is...
Post sycophantic pro-brown messages on a high profile blog, knowing that the jarring contrast between the apparant sophistication in the presentation of the messages contrasted with and the boundless irrationality of supporting brown would draw comment/interaction.
But as I am not a Charrred Effergy of a Hedgehog - I can only guess...
Complain about this comment
redonthebed
Your name says everything about you and your political views.
I watched PMQ's and the Daily Politics today as it occured and I can whole heartedly state I came to a conclusion 100% opposite to yours.
Take the red blinkers off for once in your life pal.
Complain about this comment
What an absolute phoney Cameron is. Just watched PMQs and the phoney angry pushing his notes of the desk self conciously performance was embarassing to watch. The whole ambush line of questioning basically 'Why isn't Gordon Brown as angry as me?' from Cameron was sick and opportunist. Everyone is angry. No party has the monopoly on that. Then the review and the E-mails and the anti brown astroturfers?(is that right word?) went on how Gordon Brown doesn't care enough. Are their no depths they won't sink to?. I'm sure the 'The Sun' will have enjoyed the performance.
and
djlazerus@151
No sir, Shame on you and the phoney you call leader. A performance worthy of an awful American TV movie. Shame on the opportunist bloggers who are using this case in their little game. Politics is sick.
Complain about this comment
I had a decent respect for your integrity Mr Robinson and thought wrongly as it has turned out that you were, as you are actually paid to be by the taxpayer(sorry licence fee payer), impartial.
You initial reaction on the DP programme appalled me as I watched it and your subsequent take on the affair also leaves me utterly cold as well as pretty baffled. Nobody else on the show agreed with you but you cannot seem to recognise that fact.
Then I had a moment of clarity and realised that you would never have gotten anywhere near the position of political editor if you weren't a believer in the BBC's unique take on "impartiality"
Complain about this comment
dhwilkinson
Do you not think just for one second that after seeing all the posts disagreeing with your assessment of the situation that you might possibly be wrong?
90% of the posts here disagree with you and if it were not for one or two people repeatedly posting the percentage would be even higher.
But then again the sheer tone of your post gives the impression that your "mind" was made up before the events actually unfolded!
Complain about this comment
158@babyboy1664
This blog isn't a democracy. I don't read this blog to decide what my opinion is. Cameron was acting. It was obvious. He also acts like he is being unfairly treated in interviews. Even the softly softly Andrew Marr who tends to just let the politician speak. he performs without notes like an actor learns lines for a play.
He wanted to paint himself as a caring emotional leader of the caring Conservatives to gain political advantage. In doing so they proved they are a manipulative bunch of opportunists and it was quite sick to jump onto this particular bandwagon. It was truly a performance of American True life TV movie proportions.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
earlier posts have referred to Gordon Brown losing his own daughter and for that we are meant to feel empathy towards the PM. I disagree and I'm afraid that yet again it is because of our continuing occupation of Iraq and the war in Afghanistan.
When will people realise that we are responsible for the deaths of so many children. We might not be pulling the trigger, but we have trained and armed the killers. How many 'accidents' have there been where a family has been shot, or a wedding party massacred.
Some may say that it was the Americans who did that, they are supposedly our allies, does nobody understand that the population of countries we are fighting in do not see any difference between any of the occupiers. Remember Harry with his baseball cap 'we do bad things to bad people'. Well the killers of Baby P are very bad people!
What I would say is that Brown, Bush, Blair all have the blood of innocents on their hands, I don't know how they can sleep at night. It might not be them who pull the trigger or drop the bombs, but they are the ones giving the orders. I prefer to refer to the 'War of Jenkins Ear' famous for being started but nobody could remember what the hell it was all about. Can somebody tell me what the point of Afghanistan now is. It is just a killing zone. Just like the streets of Haringey.
Brown is guilty, yes his daughter died, and he is a son of the Manse, but he is just as much a killer as the men who murdered Baby P. And yes, I am angry that as we move past remembrance day for the slaughter of so many young men that it is we who are still killing the innocents, no memeorials to these terrible days in our history.
Complain about this comment
check this out:
http://www.childrenswebmagazine.com/mugabe.htm
Complain about this comment
Nick,
it was not only Brown who was shocking at PMQs, it was the labour MPs who ought to look into their consciences about the events as the unfolded.
What struck me was that they do not seem to understand anything. Let me refer to Remembrance day and the way the politicians stand at the memorials praising the fallen, of all the conflicts.
As they stand laying their wreaths do they feel no shame. Let me give you a few facts from the Great War. War was declared on the 4th August 1914. They had the bank holiday extended because of the problems with the Stock Exchange and the banking system, seems familiar. Next, do you know what the honourable members did on the 10th August, yes they had a holiday, couldn't miss the Grouse shooting season could they. So, I say that the mock outrage shown by the MPs over Baby P is not new. They are the continuance of an arrogance, of a total lack of really caring, they make me sick, as do all those apologists for their behaviour. They are the last men, they are a disgrace, this is the worst parliament and it is time for change, they serve no useful purpose, it just all so very sad.
Complain about this comment
Nick
Having watched Brown's PMQs, read your blog and then just watched your 'performance' on the politics show, (thank you #95) I'm not sure which demonstration of cynical callousness has shocked me the most.
A 17 month old baby has been tortured to death, not only by beatings, but also dragged by the head by dogs around his family home ? yet you witter on how Gordon would have returned to his office & thumped the wall in reflection upon his poor Commons performance today, and speculate upon Cameron's motives for raising the subject.
I've got [real] news for you... I'm glad SOMEONE has.
I am also glad that you and your blogs demonstrate for all to see, what is the heart of darkness in the governance and media of this country. So Ed Balls is holding an inquiry... like the one supposed to ensure that Victoria Climbie's death would not be repeated? Yeah right.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
I think that you are going to have to, not only listen to your 'performance' on the Daily Politics, but more importantly look at yourself. You seem to have acquired a certain sneering, smug smile which passes over your face as you give us the benefit of your analysis. Maybe you are also being used, in the same way that Peston was, with your 'exclusives'. First with the news, I have only just noticed the first four letters of the word analysis, and those letters can actually best describe your current performance today, you have been looking to closely to your own analysis.
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown, and the Labour MPs who joined him in the accusation of 'playing politics' should be utterly ashamed of themselves after today's PMQs.
If anything demonstrates the disconect between real lives and politics that is the Westminister village it was this disgraceful display.
Not only did Gordon Brown think it was business as usual, with the usual point scoring about 3million enemployed under the Tories 25 years ago on a day when unemployment is up again (and the real figure of unemployment is probaly much higher than 3million), but he utterly refused to deal with the issue and realise quite how serious it is - and how it makes a mockery of all the boasts he makes about spending.
There might well be more police, more doctors, more social workers etc under a Labour government, but if they are all incompetents, expected to work in a system that is investigated by the person ultimately responsible for the failing - and will no doubt produce a whitewash so typical of enquiries under Labour - then the fact is it is a total waste of time and money.
Frankly, this is not a game and you would do well not to treat it as such in your reporting.
Complain about this comment
Interesting take on the days events by Simon Hoggart. he's no fan of Gordon Brown and he basically says a plague on both their houses. Even speaks highly of the Speaker.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/nov/13/simon-hoggart-commons-child-protection
And who would have thought Nick Robinson was a dangerous left-winger? People will be forgetting he's best mates with Iain Dale next.
Complain about this comment
Cameron asked a very reasonable non-partisan question - about the acceptability of people in charge of child protection investigating their own failures - and he gets accused of party politics. I'm not surprised his mood turned to fury. I'd be furious too with Brown's response. The only people who chose to bring politics into the affair are the PM and his party.
My admiration for Cameron has only gone up. I am impressed that he has a very human and caring response to the plight of abused children rather than the political calculating response shown by Brown.
Nick, I think your summation of this episode is miles off the mark, when in fact the reality is about the serious matter of a child protection department's failures and its seemingly apparent carte-blanche to cover them up - something that isn't endemic to just one local authority but seems to be acceptable everywhere. You would be better off asking the question that follows logically on from Cameron's questions: if the management of a child protection department is allowed to be its own judge and jury, then what other awful things are going to either happen or be uncovered elsewhere? It's vital that the Government take steps to introduce better governance of these social services departments than clearly exists at present.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
I think that the commentators are actually not identifying some of the other problems in our society.
We now know that somebody was paid to sleep in the house to offer protection, yet they didn't do what they were paid to do. Is that not taking money under false pretences.
We now know that men were staying overnight, is there a case for looking into benefit fraud. were the benefits agency not doing their job, or is it just adverts, not action.
How many other so called single women are actually living or sharing their home with somebody else. Is there not a requirement into what is actually going on with regard to the benefit system. I think personally that it is in total collapse.
There must be a public inquiry into what has gone on, and I noticed that the PM was asked a question about an inquiry into the Iraq war, when will we be getting that because we are now no longer fighting we are preparing for our final ignominious withdrawal.
You miss so much or do you just not want to go there, the darker hidden places. Or are you told not to go there because you won't get the next exclusive if you misbehave. I think that Project Griffin is getting ever closer to the truth. We are a banana republic in all but name, we are the new third world.
Complain about this comment
Having listened to Nick Robinson since his arrival at the BBC - I am even more convinced that his reports are biased in favour of the Labour party.
I deliberately "hang on to his every comment" and I have yet to hear an un-biased report.
Bring back John Sergeant or Andrew Marr !
Complain about this comment
Instead of arguing Parliament should debate other protections for children.
As more details are released exposing the torture of Baby P that led to his tragic death, I am alarmed to read in the press that the 3 guilty face a maximum of only 14 years in prison. When released they will still be fairly young and able to mother or father children. In such extreme cases of child brutality should not courts be given the power to instruct that medical procedures be used while in prison to stop such evil people from being able to mother or father children on their release?
Complain about this comment
Charles #35 (and others)
Charles what is it that you don't get?
DC was trying to make the simple point that it is wrong for a person in charge of a department that has failings to be the one doing the investigating into those failings.
As he reasonably said, that point is accepted in all other walks of life, and is a point that had already been made by the children's secretary.
All GB had to do was say "I agree it is a tragedy and I agree with the honourable gentleman and the children's secretary. We will look into this as a matter of urgency"
Instead we got, "repeat my script, repeat my script, you're playing party politics with the death of a baby, repeat my script". That's what sparked the row. DC was rightly furios with the accusation and so ditched the rest of his questions to try and get an apology from GB. Blood from a stone springs to mind.
To me the most the MOST telling point in the whole thing was when DC added during a question "I don't expect an answer, you never get one". Never a truer word spoken.
Complain about this comment
#156, No I repeat, shame on YOU. Much to your disappointment I am not a Tory, I'm just an honest, hard-working taxpayer who recognises that the only way to ensure effective government is to have effective opposition - something that was sadly lacking during the Blair era, hence the multitude of disasters that accompanied it.
How anyone can justify supporting Gordon Brown's shameful performance yesterday in the commons just boggles the mind.
#168 You make a very interesting point as well. The situation in which this tragic incident arose is a direct result of the disgraceful welfare policies of this government that encourages people to breed without responsibility (earn a free house!) and live your life as a blameless victim, subsidised by the taxpayer.
The only reason Labour have refused to tackle this issue is because these people make up the final remaining majority of the Labour voters left in this country - electoral bribery. It's a sickening state of affairs.
Complain about this comment
#170 That's the sad state that the "Justice" system has descended to under this government.
I'm with Inspector Gadget (http://inspectorgadget.wordpess.com) who said that if he could change just one thing about the system it would be for the media to report how long people will actually serve in prison rather than how long they are sentenced.
A maximum of 14 years means they'll probably be out in 3 - such is justice under this Labour government.
Call an election ASAP.
Complain about this comment
I agree with a lot of *160, but it also shows the main weakness of blogs.
What was a closely reasoned argument about our unfeeling society citing Afganistan's suffering, ended with an attack on Blair, Bush and Brown (rightly so) but did not include Cameron and others who also are in support of the Afgan action. Great issues and wise thoughts strenghten discussion, whereas pathetic party political point scoring weaken it.
Some people blog in order to shout off their opinion - very therapuitic to them! Others blog, hoping to change opinion and get people thinking *160 almost did this, but stumbled at the end.
What has this to do with PMQs? Exact parallel! Emphasis on differences and not on agreements leads to an impression of a fractured society. A plague on both their houses.
Complain about this comment
If like me you are disgusted at Nick Robinson and the BBC bias on any number of stories and blog entries from Nick Robinson then make the effort and complain:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/make_complaint_step1n.shtml
Look forward to unbiased reporting for a change.
Complain about this comment
137# Batson
Absolutely and completely agree. Well said you.
Complain about this comment
I was disgusted by Gordon Brown's performance at PMQ yesterday. Further, Nick just seems to be a mouth piece for the Labour party or perhaps he was watching a different version of PMQ. I watched it 'live', even though it was on the BBC Daily Politics show which is so blatantly biased. Following on from PMQ Jon Cruddas MP accurately described what had happened as did Charles Kennedy, yet Nick managed to twist the whole sequence of events around trying to defend Brown.
Cameron asked a perfectly sensible question about who should investigate the terrible murder of a 17 month old baby in Haringey and pointed out this should not be done from within but by an independent outsider. Brown, as usual, would not answer the question, all the more ironic as he surely must have agreed with Cameron. Indeed only a few hours later Ed Balls does exactly what Cameron had asked the PM to look at. Instead Brown made a snide remark about making political gain and Camerons fury was very obvious and justly so.
Even the speaker seemed amazed at what was going on and the dreadful behaviour of some labour MP's, including the leader of the house who surely should have known better, marked a very sad day for Parliament.
I'm convinced Cameron planned to devote most of his questions to the economy, God knows, he had enough ammunition, but Brown's disgraceful attempted slur had to be dealt with. If anything was still needed to prove what a disasterous PM we now have this was it. He can only ever talk about the economy and even on that fails to see that much of the problem we now face is due to the policies of the previous Chancellor. (ruination of pensions, stealth taxes, sale of gold etc etc)
Complain about this comment
"Lessons will be learned", I awake to this mantra on the television. Another day, and this will be repeated until the whole tragic affair is pushed aside and other news issues take the headlines. Then, unfortunately, a new horrific child abuse case, and the "Lessons will be learned" chant once again.
Sorry, but I know a way in which these officials would learn a lesson they would never forget. But of course, we are a humane society, we must protect not only the beasts who commit these crimes, but the beasts who allow them to perpetuate it.
End result, minor employees will be sacked, and at the most, senior staff will be retired with huge golden handshakes. But, hey there, brighten up, LESSONS WILL BE LEARNED!
Complain about this comment
The central issue about the behaviour at PMQ yesterday for me is that old Gordon is back!
I thought that Camerons question was perfectly valid - given the seriousness of the situation should the investigation by carried out by the people responsible for it in the first place ? The answer seems obvious to me. It's a bit like having PMQs - who would expect the PM to be able to decide what the questions are ? Well apparently (according to your spin Nick) Gordon Brown and the baying Labour MPs do, and you seem to agree with them.
Yesterday was a complete disgrace for New labour. Old Gordon is back - and showing all of his character defects to the world. I wonder what his wife - the new secret weapon - made of it all ? Once again, the PMs statements are "clarified" soon after by Ed Balls announcing a new review.
As for you Nick, do you really exist? Your blog leader looks like it was written by Alistair Campbell, and is hopelessly out of touch with how people perceive this issue.
Complain about this comment
Overnight, more details of that poor child's short life have emerged.
Also, the utter intransigence, complacency and bare-faced arrogance of Haringey Council combined with the breath-taking indifference of this government.
It also transpires that the inquiry report included resistance from Shoesmith for further inquiries and contained a litany of excuses.
Gordon's representative on Earth trying to spin and prevaricate in interview showed a false sense of compassion because Labour knew damn well they had misread the mood; the entire country is incensed at the procrastination, buck passing and sheer lack of accountability and responsibility.
No wonder Cameron was angry when he got more of the same at PMQ. He was bang on.
People can complain about Cameron 'acting' or 'scoring points' which the TV evidence clearly shows he is not. I'm just glad I don't have such an unhealthy sense of cynicism.
Something has to be done, this is Government, with a click of the fingers things happen.
Time and time again, they have proven themselves to be sub-standard in their execution of basic administration.
To excuse them is to condone the endemic sense of failure and half-measures that typifies this shabby government we have.
A 'good crisis' does not undo the sheer incompetence and maladministration of this government.
Brown's utter failure to understand the sense of disgust and also the compelling need to show some urgency at PMQ has reviled the entire nation.
Nick, you got it wrong. The exasperation that Cameron didn't play ball yesterday is all too evident. Shame on you.
Brown, got it wrong, suffering from MacCavity-itis, no mea culpa from him, he just sends a lackey to tour the TV studios.
Another disgusting episode from a discredited and unfit for purpose administration.
Complain about this comment
174. Boilerbill wrote:
"? shows the main weakness of blogs?did not include Cameron and others who also are in support of the Afgan action?"
Cameron is not in power you might as well criticise my cat for it has just as much clout. Your post made sure Cameron's name was put in the frame thus compensating for any 'weakness' or omission in the earlier entry. That's the beauty of these forums they are open to all opinion.
Complain about this comment
Nick's got a 'get out of jail free' card. Just saw Balls being interviewed.
Balls conceded that it wasn't a party political issue but when challenged to defend what the PM said yesterday 'rewrote' the words. Apparently Brown wasn't accusing Cameron of playing party politics?
It seems not just the Beeb is good at judicious editing (Cruddas).
Brown doesn't have a clunking fist - he appears to have a clunking brain. He had such an obvious reply - 'This case demonstrates we need an independent review' .
Exactly what has just been announced.
A legitimate question regarding process has been hijacked by the ragtops as a result of Brown's ill chosen words yesterday - and judging by some of the intemperate posts on here has also been hijacked by some ragbrains.
Complain about this comment
Well well, so Gordie had a tantrum and threw his toys out of the pram because he couldn't bang on about his role in the financial chaos. Surprise.
So where are we? Hugh Jeers has made it clear again that outside of financial matters he is clueless about peoples feelings and that a sensitive approach to a problem might be.
When it comes to finance we still have this problem, who's the organ grinder and who's the monkey. Darkling's doing all the grunt work and taking all the blame, and Hugh Jeers makes all the headlines and grabs any glory that he perceives.
He still has a problem though. When he was in personal control he made a virtue about fiscal prudence, golden rules, putting an end to boom and bust, not allowing national debt to exceed a certain level of the GDP, no unfunded tax cuts, and behaving in a way that is in the best long term interest of the country.
Now he's had to stand all that on it's head, and behave in the totally opposite way, and all this while his claim that the economy is well placed to withstand the turmoil is shown to be complete hogwash.
In fact to quote his own words back to him: "THERE IS NOTHING YOU COULD SAY TO US NOW THAT WE COULD POSSIBLY BELIEVE".
He's busy winding himself up for a spring election, but I suspect the bottle will reappear, since events are moving quicker than he can grasp.
Complain about this comment
137:
This enquiry has been ongoing for at least 15 months. There was nothing knee jerk about introducing the issue at PMQs in relation to an authority that has been letting down its voters for years in spite of 100 mill in revenue. Gordon Brown should have had a proper answer prepared and it was he that resorted to the party political crack. Later in the evening David Cameron was vindicated in his concern by Ed Balls who did exactly what David Cameron had been asking for. The real reason for Gordon Browns's annoyance was that he wanted to bask in the light of The Governor of The Bank of England's morning statement regarding fiscal policy. He didn't get the opportunity to do so and that peed off both himself and his disgraceful backbencers.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
I really am starting to lose respect for you as a political commentator. If you cannot hide your obvious bias you really should consider a different career.
Complain about this comment
Nick, the more you're criticized for pro-tory, anti-Cameron bias, the more biased you seem to become.
I don't think you even realise it. Soon it won't just be the green-ink brigade annoyed by this.
Complain about this comment
According to Ann Treneman in the The Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5142499.ece
According to Ms. Treneman, who was also in the gallery, such was your insinuation, describes a very similar reaction to all the viewers on TV.
Brown did not have sufficient briefing on Baby P, instead plenty of notes on the economy.
Brown was ill-prepared regarding a very important issue. Surely then, with the answer in the question that Cameron asked, a simple yes would have defused the question.
After patently not answering the question, his Cabinet colleagues were trying to brief him during PMQ, Balls to Smith to Brown.
Why was none of this included in your report Nick?
Not good really is it?
Complain about this comment
I guess the people of Haringey have the services they deserve - they voted for the people who run it all.
Its very unfortunate for those who don't get a say.
Complain about this comment
Cameron pre-empts Government decision made later that day, both in an Evening Standard article and at PMQs (DCSF received the report into what happened in Haringey that morning).
Cameron knew that the Government would take some action.
Cameron can say the Government were panicked into doing something because of what he said.
Cameron can then move the media focus from Osborne's abysmal performance in recent times, the incoherence of the Conservative's economic policies and statements (First, Brown hailed as taking leadership and decisive action in response to the financial crisis, shooting the Tories 'ditherer' fox, now Germany and the US both in recession shooting their 'only the UK will face recession' fox).
Is this not spin?
Complain about this comment
sagamix wrote:
Some of you guys astound me. David Cameron desperately wants to be the next PM - he thirsts for power and, taking a leaf out of the TB and BC book, he is acting like crazy to make a good impression. He's quite good too - much better than Gordon Brown.
This is a horrible case but don't let it turn you into complete fools. I'm being generous here and assuming there was some turning needed.
To be fair we could say much the same thing about Brown.
He desperately wants to stay on as PM - he wants to cling to power and will ignore anything negative but jump on the positives as a "mandate".
Cameron came across as emotional about the subject of a baby murder that was literally allowed to happen by social services - a subject that most humans would consider emotive. Brown came across as cold and distant (and this isn't the first time).
I am not sure about other people but I would rather have someone in power who can actually be emotive and who at least appears to care.
Complain about this comment
Charles_E_Hahaha @133 wrote:
"... I remember and have personal experience of people being ignorant and cruel."
Have you ever really wondered why you attract this type of behaviour?
Complain about this comment
Nick's backtracking has started............
Yesterday on the Daily Politics Nick appeared in cahoots with Labour, when he revealed that both he and Labour were awaiting Cameron to be skewered by Mervyn King's comments.........
.... despite Andrew Neil hinting to Nick he was being a bit one sided on economic matters, Nick went ahead and posted the blog with the headline Problem for the Tories" - ignoring the events of PMQ's and relaying the governments intended attack line - the Mervyn King comments.
Nick is now in back track mode. His last blog has an update (without the normal time stamp) stating that Mervyn King's comments aren't a black and white approval of Gordon Brown's policies.
Given the double backlash against Nick, concerning the PMQ's clash - maybe we will get another Gordon Brown-esque statement from Nick saying:
"I am right. I resist pressure to report what people want me to report etc..."
Complain about this comment
Nick,
#174 makes a quite valid criticism of my earlier comments and I accept what is said.
However, the PM will come to the commons next wednesday announcing the death of at least two of our soldiers in Afghanistan. This will bring the sombre mood which was missing yesterday.
What must happen is that Cameron must say that the conservatives support our troops wherever thay are fighting in defence of Queen and country, but that is not what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are killing women and children and as above we might not be firing the bullets or dropping the bombs but we are there in support of people who do, of people who do bad things to bad people.
So, I would say to Cameron that I for one am not content with our troops in these countries. Who represents me in parliament, it would seem nobody, so how representative is our democracy, I don't think it is at all. I can support our soldiers in that they have to follow orders, but when will people understand that sometimes people have to break the rules, there is the moral justification for not accepting orders. It is not treason to say that it is coming to the time when we will be forced to refuse to do what we are told by the higher authority.
Even referrencing to Baby P, somebody must have been told to do something, or not do something and they did what they were told. The elite have lost the plot, they do not understand that when Blair misled the country over Iraq something was destroyed, the link between those who give the orders and those who take them. The same even with you Nick, when we are misled we no longer accept any half truths and reject the propaganda. Blair has utterly destroyed it all and Brown was part of it, he should have resigned over Iraq, that is why I will never take orders from that son of the Manse. He is culpable.
Complain about this comment
This post illustrates two points about the government which are at the heart of why it is a tired, arrogant and rudderless administration.
The first is that the moment Gordon Brown stops talking about spending billions of pounds of taxpayers' money he is shown to be completely out of his depth and a hopeless prime minister.
The second is that the Baby P case s illustrative of the blame free culture that has been cultivated by newlabour and their apologists. No-one ever takes the rap; whether it's Gordon Brown and his boom built on credit, or Tony Blair and his dodgy dossier and invasion of a sovereign state, or lost documents it's never anyone's fault.
The investigating officers can't possibly be the same people involved in the case in the first place. That's like asking a murderer to pass sentance on himself.
People are sick and tired of an administration that, in its eyes, can do no wrong and refuses o be judged.
What are they doing in politics if they expect no-one to ahve an opinion contrary to their own (and one might wellask this question of all their apologists on these posts as well as the BBC).
Talking about progressive politics and fairness in society does not give anyone a divine right to govern. There is plenty of fairness and unfairness all around us after eleven years of newlabour. more questions need to be asked and the independence of inquiries is sacrosanct not optional.
Call an election
Complain about this comment
I note your "what is it that you don't get?" line that you've lifted from Cameron. I'm immune to tricks like that. It's mere framing and laying it on - not worth the bother. I suggest you save the arrogant judgementalism it for someone more naive and gullible. It doesn't add value and just gets people wound up. Not helpful.
I've commented on Britain's broken fundamentals, and cluttered and isolationist attitude. It's contrarian and turf protecting attitudes like this which are at the root of this and other issues. Britain is a mess and squabbling just makes it worse. One merely needs to lift an eyelid and peer into this blog to see it demonstrated ever day.
When the government tries to develop order and balance, the Tories cry "authoritarianism" and "nannying". This sloganised emotionalism is counter-productive and sets Cameron up to deliver dumb and chummy follow-ups like his latest wheeze. This isn't reason, just political happy slapping.
I've run into people like Cameron before. I know his type. They're full of the steel jawed hero when having cups of tea with old grannies but totally impervious to realities especially when it goes against the party line. He's over-promoted lobby-fodder: a rote learner and quite petty.
I can name an indebted and chaotic PLC with bad habits that's run by a person like Cameron. They talk up opportunity and how much they care but they spend most of their time delivering junk and treating their customers like cattle. If anyone thinks a Tory government under Cameron is going to perform better they're dreaming.
What part of that don't you get?
Complain about this comment
sagamix wrote:
Cameron is consumed with desire to be the next Prime Minister of the UK. Compared to that, he doesn't give a rat's about Baby P or any other Baby. His outrage is mainly acting. He's an actor, for god's sake. C'mon, we've been through all this with that other consumate actor, Tony Blair - let's please not get fooled again, it would be embarassing for all of us.
So we shouldn't vote for Cameron because he doesn't care about us, and by the same token we shouldn't vote for Brown because he doesn't care for us either.
I doubt that Clegg really cares for us - so who should we vote for?
As none of our politicians actually care for us isn't it better that we vote for someone who at least appears too?
Pretty much all politicans would sell us out for power and influence - Blair and Brown already have.
Blair surrendering a part of our European rebate on the chance that the CAP will be re-evaluated in a few years - a masterstroke of toading that one!
Brown on promising a referendum on the European constitution and then backing out of it because they had reworded it slightly and given it a different name.
Cameron likely will do the same if he gets in.
The worrying thing is that people seem to think that Brown is doing a job, and distorted views by people like Nick in the media is part of the problem. We hear about Britain being best suited to weathering the financial storm - yet we seem to be sinking faster then the rest of Europe and the US. The pound has plummeted in value compared to the major currencies. The government seems to throw money around like an idiot who has just won the lottery.
Interest rates have dropped by 2% in the last two months and even though the Government have gone on about forcing the banks to past this on to borrowers two of the traditional big four banks (HSBC and Barclays) still haven't committed to it.
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown's lack of morals have been shown up again at PMQ's.
That will be of no surprise to anyone who remembers this:
1. £5 billion annual pensions tax levy
2. 10p tax on the poorest (as part of a con that went wrong)
3. 75p pension increase insult for OAP's
4. Gordon's own Bullingdon club moment
Complain about this comment
Charles_E_Hardwidge wrote:
The point I made was sound enough: Cameron looks cool as a packaged TV item but rang like a dud to people who had a more detached front row seat.
Well to be fair the people on the Labour front bench are the biggest bunch of duds in the House, although only slightly ahead of the rest of the house.
Complain about this comment
Thank the Lord that it is Gordon who is steering us through 'these difficult times'
Safe hands
Not me guv.
Complain about this comment
137. Batson_D_Belfry wrote:
An issue like this needs to be seriously considered in depth. It is not suited to knee-jerk questions and answers in the highly politicised atmosphere of Prime Minister's Questions on the spur of the moment in reaction to this morning's press.
OK so given that the review has been going on for 15 months and the report has been available since July and that Haringey have allowed another child to die in the past....
Just how long would you like to give Brown to consider his position. And how long would you like to give him to answer the first question from Cameron, which was essentially, is it right that the boss of the failed department sits as the chair of the review committee?
Everyone but a politician and a public sector political correspondent knows the answer to that question immediately don?t they.
Complain about this comment
What happened to that child was a tragedy, no argument there and it does need to be investigated, but honestly, when the economic fate of millions is in the balance, the fate of one child, however horrifically abused cannot form the main plank of national government business.
Plus the tories argument appears to be predicated on a misconception, namely that Shoesmith is leading the investigation rather than, as is actually the case (as I understand it) she's responsible for commissioning the independent report and will have no influence over it's findings. If Cameron was Tony Blair he'd have been roundly accused of milking public emotion for the cameras. Brown comes out badly for appearing unempathetic though I strongly suspect there is more than a grain of truth in the accusation that Cameron was playing party politics with the issue.
The whole thing borders on the absurd and does neither party any credit, and does the sum total of sod all to improve child protection in this country.
Complain about this comment
SallyCyork wrote:
105 I sincerely hope that is not correct.
Cruddas said IT DID NOT SHINE a postive light on his party.
That would be a very bad misquote from the bbc.
If that type of reworking of a quote had appeared on a film poster trading standards would be involved.
Perhaps someone could could rewrite my quote below:
"Some people think Labour are rubbish and it would be best for this country if they are voted out"
stripping out all the words we don't want to quote and we get "People think Labour are best for this country" - easy, can I get a job at the BBC now please?
Complain about this comment
I'm thinking of starting a Nick Robinson fan club.
Would anyone like to join?
Complain about this comment
Good comment.
Personally, I don't believe Cameron's bright enough to put a planlike that together but he'll seize and opportunity to happy slap someone when he sees it.
The Tory online and offline campaign of tub thumping and whipping up crowds reminds me of the scenes outside the Florida counting house that ushered in George W. Bush's presidency.
Cameron's ability to tell any lie and punch as low as he can go, with all the lack of reason and sloganised emotionalism that goes with that strongly reminds me of GWB when he was in the job.
People are relieved GWB is out of office and with my similar judgement of Cameron and the unreformed Tory party, who seem all too willing to ride his coat tails if it promises a win, it seems some people won't listen no matter what the evidence. Of course, the Tories are different. This time, it's different. Uh, yeah. Pull the other one.
Cameron calls for change and blusters about mistakes repeated in a borough with a poor reputation, yet, the irony of his own leadership and the gang that's following behind seem to escape him. This would be a comedy if it weren't that the consequences of a Tory government were so tragic.
Complain about this comment
189 Balhamu
As ever - trying to defend Gordon ;-) You are at least loyal to the end.....
I'm afraid the Conservatives are terrible at spin.
At PMQ's, all Gordon Brown had to say was - yes he will ensure that there will be an independent investigation and that would have been the end.
Gordon turned it into an issue - Cameron demanded an apology and didn't move on to the economic questions that he said he was going to get onto.
So - I'm afraid you haven't dug Gordon out of this particular hole.
Here are good examples of spin to mull over:
1. Dodging any responsibility for having said "there will be no return to boom and bust"
2. Telling the public "we are uniquely placed to weather the recession"
Complain about this comment
And as for the repeated point from some that Nick is being accused of political bias by Andrew Neil, in all honesty that's somewhat akin to being accused of racism by the BNP.
Complain about this comment
#195 CEH
Charles, wouldn't everything just be a lot simpler if everyone just shut up and did as they were told, eh?
Complain about this comment
The tragedy of Baby P reinforces my view that we need to recruit a substantial cadre of powerful, intelligent, brave people into the caring professions. Teachers now rightly receive, at last, reasonable pay for their front-line role. We need caring individuals with legal training as social workers (perhaps with a new job title).
It is time our society stopped assuming that it is only in the field of commerce that we need "the brightest and best" - surely it can now be seen as the height of arrogance to assume that those who deal with money must get the most reward.
Lastly I want to challenge the assumption that the "multi-agency" approach is the only way. The resources needed to communicate effectively are enormous: trials should be run of having multi-skilled staff, highly paid. This is a debate that simply is not happening. If one raises it in discussion with multi-agency workers they simply do not want to know.
Complain about this comment
187. PhaetonFlanFlinger
Thanks for the link to Ann Treneman in the The Times Phaeton
"According to Ms. Treneman, who was also in the gallery,...Up in the gallery, Lord Mandelson watched impassively. He had come to hear Gordon on the economy but he was seeing something else entirely."
Makes my criticism (on the previous blog) of Nick's report correct then;
186. "Interestingly, some who were watching in the Commons gallery did not. They thought the Tory leader's visible loss of temper showed him in a very poor light"
says Nick Robinson...soon to be ex-BBC Political Editor
So ! Campbell, Draper & Mandy were in the gallery huh! Thanks Nick for letting us know what they wanted you to focus on!
With Ms Treneman's statement I rest my case.
Complain about this comment
#90 embraman2 Good morning
.....Because on the subject of infant death, above all others, Gordon Brown has some bitter personal experience.........
May I take issue with you with the above part of your post?
Neither man has any experience of prolonged, sadistic, cruel and avoidable infant death. Having said that, of the two protagonists, Cameron spoke with a passion initially, which almost crossed the line into rage following the shameful accusation from Brown. Cameron, IMHO, had every intention of referring to the economy in subsequent questions, events, (driven by Brown), overtook him.
Brown is a past master of evasion and avoidance at PMQ's, some questions, not many, transcend party politics, yesterday was once such. Brown needs to acquire, and quickly, the knack of recogising this. For sure, even with his poor presentation skills and unpopularity, people's perception of him may improve if he can find it in himself to be contrite once in a while or, heaven forbid, honest.
For what it is worth, questions pertaining to the economy, had they been asked, would in no way have been a cakewalk for Brown.
Once again, Nick Robinson has done himself few favours with both his words here and comments on television yesterday. His attempts on The Daily Politics, tenuously, I believe, to undermine Cameron are transparent and reprehensible. It isn't the first time is it though recently?
Complain about this comment
Cameron is a political opportunist of the very worst kind. Brown did'nt handle the matter paticularly well,but Cameron in losing his temper and playing the party political card to such grubby lengths showed immaturity and desperation.
I share the concern at this baby's death,we all do,but lets be brutally frank,in the scheme of worldwide global economic meltdown and the questions eminating from it,Cameron saw a safe haven to make a few cheap political points and was shown up for what he is a political opportunist.
I do not buy the mock anger of Cameron. Why?, because when an equally awful death occured in Birmingham last year, when a 6 year old child starved to death despite 30 plus visits by Birmingham Social Services, what did Cameron say or do about that matter. Absolutely diddly squat - the reason why, he could'nt enforce the local rag to write his atricle like the Evening Standard to make cheap capital out of it,and oh of course I forgot BIRMINGHAM is Tory controlled and Social Services budget has been slashed.
Now if that does'nt prove political opportunism,frankly nothing does!
Complain about this comment
balhamu wrote:
Cameron pre-empts Government decision made later that day, both in an Evening Standard article and at PMQs (DCSF received the report into what happened in Haringey that morning).
Cameron knew that the Government would take some action.
Did he? Usually the government doesn't take action until after there is a public uproar. And if Cameron mentioned it in the Evening Standard previously why wasn't Brown briefed on it (he should have been aware that it MAY come up).
Cameron can say the Government were panicked into doing something because of what he said.
To be fair it does look like that, if Brown knew that something was going to be released later in the day he should have mentioned that in PMQs, a simple "Yes, I agree, and we will be releasing a statement this afternoon" would have handled the Cameron situation brilliantly.
As Brown tried to weasel his way out of it we are left to assume that nothing was planned until after PMQs.
Cameron can then move the media focus from Osborne's abysmal performance in recent times, the incoherence of the Conservative's economic policies and statements (First, Brown hailed as taking leadership and decisive action in response to the financial crisis, shooting the Tories 'ditherer' fox, now Germany and the US both in recession shooting their 'only the UK will face recession' fox).
For all the media and some (but not all) economists claims about Brown taking leadership it does appear that Britain is sinking faster then many of the other economies - our currency is dropping against both the Euro and Dollar, our national debt is rising and yet it doesn't seem to be doing anything to stop the problem.
Yes, I admit if these actions were not taken it could be much worse, but we still seem to be worse off then lots of other countries.
Is this not spin?
Complain about this comment
For David Cameron to use the brutal death of a child to score points over aany opponent is dispicable.
He appears to be completely amoral.
THIS IS ABOUT THE BRUTAL DEATH OF A CHILD - NOT TWO POLITICIANS FIGHTING FOR VOTES.
Complain about this comment
CEH
After a long break from this board I'm pleased to see that you haven't changed in attacking Cameron.
Your approach is exactly the same as Brown, and it is this approach that will result in Brown being kicked out of government whenever he is brave enough to call an election.
Complain about this comment
#201.
Incorrect, Ms. Shoesmith ordered the report and like many investigation, chairs the review as well.
ITV News last night obtained a copy of the report and Ms. Shoesmith did not recommend further action be taken.
Sorry but that is not an independent report, that is the person responsible for this failure trying to assert the outcome of the review and actions to be taken.
Also, I would completely disagree with your assertion that one life is not as important as the economic malaise.
We pay our taxes in the belief that they are used wisely, obtain good value for money in exchange for useful services.
This poor child's welfare is exactly what those services should be concerned with.
Instead with have a 100m organisation incapable of performing its No.1 core function - protecting life.
Not once but twice it has failed.
There is little culpability, little in the way of admission of failure and precious little urgency until someone said 'Enough is enough.'
The 'political points' thing is pure hokum and an attempt to huddle round a PM with no emotional intelligence in an attempt to limit the damage.
Aided and abetted by other public services it would seem.
A very, very shabby state of affairs.
It will not do.
Complain about this comment
#201
Economic fate of millions? Will they starve? No. Will they die? No. You've got the wrong perspective, simple as that. Try living in Sudan for a while.
These labour ministers couldn't lie straight in bed. Look at the Childrens Minister rambling in about the reforms after the last Laming review. Here's an alternative view from the audit commission:
http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/reports/NATIONAL-REPORT.asp?CategoryID=&ProdID=17AEBDA5-657E-4ef7-80BB-92214D4C04FF
For those that can't be bothered to look it up:
'The report concludes that the 'children's trusts' created by the government after the death of Victoria Climbie have been confused and confusing. Five years after the green paper Every Child Matters and eight years after the child's death, 'there is little evidence of better outcomes for children and young people' resulting from the requirement that local areas in England set up arrangements to coordinate children's services. A third of directors of children's services say that their partner organisations are 'unclear' of the purpose of children's trusts, and the uncertainty is hampering their efforts to deliver better services'
Put a positive spin on that one Gordon. Dare I suggest that another review by Laming would be equally as useless, with recommendations on equality, partnerships and commissioning. It's all just babble, and does nothing to solve the real problems of a benefit dependant illiterate underclass that knows no boundaries.
On a final note, what about GB's preformance yesterday? He couldn't look Cameron in the eye - weak, weak, weak. Petulant coward.
Complain about this comment
David Cameron's pursuance of his questions about baby P show his ability to be flexible and think on his feet. He said he would come to the economy 'in a minute' but used up his quota of six questions before he could do so.
Gordon Brown fully showed his inability to answer questions and to move from his prepared script. Sadly Nick, you did too.
Complain about this comment
211. greatandydudley
"Cameron in losing his temper and playing the party political card"
Brown played the political card, Cameron was frustrated at Brown's question dodging (admittedly he should be used to it by now). I don't know why this bit of music hall is called PM Questions at all.
Complain about this comment
Putting aside the CBI and Tory party's responsibility for bad managment and the consumer bubble, I read in The Times that governments were working across the world to slowly tighten lending long before this financial crisis hit.
My view for the past year was that some adjustment of wage fairness and house prices was necessary over the medium to long-term. This would be a correction without generating screaming from the usual suspects, and would've worked but for the sub-prime crash and Lehman Brothers being thrown to the wolves.
The Tories always paint the government as wrong and say it's all their fault. They can't acknowledge anything Labour do as being right, or admit any mistakes they may have made themselves. So much for "facts", "fair play", and "change".
Complain about this comment
211 - greatandydudley
A very good point.
This is not the first time 'Dave' Cameron has used the London Evening Standard to mount a co-ordinated campiagn of spin to attempt to control the news agenda.
The tragic aspect of the foaming at the mouth brigade of tory bloggers on here, is that they are heartless enough to accuse Gordon Brown a man who has endured the loss of a young child, of being cold and unfeeling over this case.
They are an inhuman lot.
Bill McFadden
Complain about this comment
This blog is turning into a form of Orwellian cencorship. Your level of doublethink and support of the incumbant government is a disgrace.
Some form of realism about the financial straits we are in would be welcome. I think that the electorate would have been perfectly happy to have heard a debate on the state of the economy yesterday. You seem to think that Brown would do well in such a debate because he has "experience" and because BoE stated that the proposal for a Fiscal stimulus (ie increased state debt) was a good idea.
What I would like to hear is a debate on why we are in this mess. It is simply because of the lies this government has told and perpetuates.
We have has 7-8 years of illusory growth. Fuelled by cheap money, massively increased private debt, hideous public debt figures (esp. if you include PFI, unfunded public pensions), hidden worklessness (Incapacity benefits, students sent on pointless degrees to keep them off the rolls), and a bloating of public sector non-jobs.
The electorate are not going to thank Brown for this legacy. The passengers don't thank the bus driver after he drove the bus over the edge of a cliff.
This goverment has a left an economic disaster and its legacy will be one remembered for its lies and incompetence.
Complain about this comment
mikepko wrote:
I'm thinking of starting a Nick Robinson fan club.
Would anyone like to join?
I am sure Gordon Brown would love to :)
Complain about this comment
#205 jonathan
"I'm afraid the Conservatives are terrible at spin"
Really?
Certainly worked yesterday!
Complain about this comment
Yes, of course yesterday's PMQ's row will probably melt away-but was it not a gentle reminder of just how uncomfortable the PM is when handling issues other than those in his prized economic comfort zone?
Complain about this comment
extremesense wrote:
For David Cameron to use the brutal death of a child to score points over aany opponent is dispicable.
He appears to be completely amoral.
THIS IS ABOUT THE BRUTAL DEATH OF A CHILD - NOT TWO POLITICIANS FIGHTING FOR VOTES.
Actually it was Brown who tried to turn it into a political point scoring issue.
Cameron raised a valid issue - should the head of a failing department head the investigation into that department.
That isn't party political, he didn't attribute the death to Labour policies or Labour cuts. He didn't try and tie the death to Labour in anyway.
He just asked if an in-house investigation is the best way to go.
Complain about this comment
223 Balhamu and 220 Billmcfadden
I'm afraid you judge everyone by the standards set by Labour.
There is no spin here I'm afraid. Cameron published an article on a subject he was passionate about and asked a question on it in PMQ's. That is it.
I can assure you that every single Conservative supporter would have preferred Cameron to use his remaining questions at PMQ's to nail Brown's economic lies.
The fact that he lost his temper at Brown's clumsy grasp of reality outside of spreadsheets, is understandable - but it isn't really part of a well thought through spin strategy is it?
Complain about this comment
The analysis here:
Brown's answers to Cameron's questions on Baby P yesterday shows he is cold and unfeeling
What the PM said
Let me say first?I believe that I speak for the whole country?that people are not only shocked and saddened but horrified and angered by what they have seen reported about what happened to an innocent 17-month-old boy. Every child is precious and every child is unique. Every child should have the benefit of support and protection both from their parents and from the authorities.
So callous!
Complain about this comment
Two beauties in the space of twenty minutes, Charles. Slow down, my sides hurt.
I know it's tempting to milk the crowd when they're so clearly lapping it up, but be careful, some might think you're trying to draw attention to youself, and that would be a shame. You know your just being self-deprecating, but not everyone is a smart as you.
Remember, less is more.
Complain about this comment
May I suggest Nick that you have misread the events at PMQs and it is in fact GB who looks out of touch and in a bad light. However you view this, Gordon doesn't have the empathy or charisma for anything other than interest rates and GDP.
Cameron's question and piece in the Evening Standard was perfectly reasonable. It was Gordon who tried to interpret that it was political, and I would hope no MP would try to make cheap political points out of such terrible events. No wonder we believe MPs to be below estate agents and journalists in terms of trustability.
Also Nick, please try to just report the news, not interpret. We are all capable of interpreting and don't really need to be told by you what we ought to be thinking.
Finally, how about discussing the second defeat in the Lords on a terror issue in a month? That would certainly be an interesting debate on where the government policy is.
Or even further discussion of Mandelson and that chap from Russia
Complain about this comment
#220
I know, it's a scandal isn't it. Imagine those scheming tories using the media to try to spin a story. What cads.
Thank goodness the government wouldn't stoop so low.
Complain about this comment
Nick, you are beneath contempt as is Brown. Perhaps you will bother to read the fury directed at both you and Brown. Even Cruddas had to admit Brown had made an embarrasing mess of his reply. Brown of course cannot see it as he is so deluded thinking he is the saviour of the world (as are you apparently). He will never agree with anything Cameron says and is not fit to govern this country, he is a total embarrasment. Similarly your obvious contempt of everything tory is a disgrace and you should be looking for a job with the Labour party as you are as deluded as they are.
Complain about this comment
#226 jonathan
Do you really let your political view blind you to reality so much?
Complain about this comment
I'm amazed at the brass neck of Labour supporters accusing Cameron of spin.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
We know that Mandy was in the gallery according to one correspondent in the Times.
We know that according to Nick "Interestingly, some who were watching in the Commons gallery did not."
Well they wouldn't would they? Mandy supporting the blues? Come on.
They expected to see a PMQ dominated by the economy. They were weaving a 'narrative' of Tory weakness on the economy.
Cameron's agenda, not Mandy's, Labour's or Nick's.
See Nick's earlier blog post. Which he has since back-peddled.
At PMQ, we were treated to an unedifying spectacle of a PM who accused Cameron of political points scoring, where there clearly was none.
And a total refusal to answer the question from Brown.
I'm sure he's a loving father and he has experienced personal loss.
All the more amazing for the answer he gave. A 'Yes' would have sufficed.
If it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck and looks like a duck.
IT'S A DUCK!
No spin needed.
Give up guys, Brown's a busted flush on this one. Nick isn't covered in glory either.
Still we all know that the PM that got us into this economic mess is just the right person to take us out.
No time for a novice and all that.
Unemployment exactly where it was 11 years ago - some achievement.
Quack, quack.....
Complain about this comment
balhamu wrote:
#205 jonathan
"I'm afraid the Conservatives are terrible at spin"
Really?
Certainly worked yesterday!
It only worked because Brown reacted so badly, if Brown had reacted well it would have been a short interchange with Brown agreeing with Cameron, no accusations of party politics, both men coming across as being in touch and genuinely concerned.
If this had been football rather then politics Cameron's question would have been a soft shot straight at the goalkeeper - only for the goalkeeper to fumble the ball and drop it in his own net. If someone scores a goal because the goalkeeper fumbled it doesn't mean that they are good at football.
Complain about this comment
(Off-topic)
Have you seen the news that the German economy has slipped into recession - 3rd quarter growth at minus 0.5% - the same as the UK?
Clear signs that the UK is the only economy that will enter recession, and that any recession will be far worse than any other country due to Brown's decisions.
Complain about this comment
I can name an indebted and chaotic PLC with bad habits that's run by a person like Cameron. They talk up opportunity and how much they care but they spend most of their time delivering junk and treating their customers like cattle.
Paaah. You can name a company like that?
Go ahead.
I can name an entire country run like that. The UK. Run by an incompetent 'rote-learner' who spits the dummy out when he can't reel off his carefully crafted lies.
A man whose paranoia is such that when Cameron offers the olive branch of parliamentary unity by giving him the opportunity to join Cameron in condemning the failings of the incompetents of Haringey and agreeing an independent enquiry might be in order he just loses the plot.
His visible reaction was:
'Hold on a minute, I'm the PM. I'm the one who every other week gets to lead us all in faux remembrance and unity for some other poor sod who got blown to bits as a result of my crazy war in Iraq.
That Cameron. Where's he going with this? Anyway, I wanted to talk about three million unemployed 25 years ago. And my tractor statistics. He's just playing party politics.'
Only the last bit came out of course.
He really is beneath contempt that Brown. Isn't he?
Complain about this comment
I see you're still making the same old selective and gently patronising comments. That's easy with higher polls and the crowd to your back. The break has obviously done you as much good as the Tories time in opposition. Take another break.
Faking anger is one of the easiest tricks in the book. If you can't keep a straight face while telling a lie wrapping it up in anger can disguise that and get under people's emotional radar. It certainly goes some way to explaining the Tory dreg around here.
Complain about this comment
Come on now Nick, I generally enjoy your Blogs, therefore can you get back to writing them yourself.
This one was clearly written for you by A Campbell.
We all saw for ourselves just what kind of Man Gordon Brown is
Complain about this comment
It really does sadden me reading some of these posts that people are so caught up in their football team following of their particular party that they simply can't get the message of why so many people are angry.
We've seen Brown shaking with rage over the economy, we've seen him thumping the dispatch box so hard it had to be repaired, we heard the righteous indignation about Russel Brand and Jonathan Ross which really should have been too trivial for a Prime Minister to even comment on.
But this time, when you would have expected he'd be angry, as he's a parent himself, he wasn't thinking about the child, he was thinking how to twist the knife into Cameron, how to score points and how to whitewash the activity of a Labour council.
he even covertly attacked Cameron again
on the very same subject as he failed to answer the question from Lynne Featherstone.
I think you people who're still attacking Cameron on this are simply incapable of understanding why your comments are so out of order, wether Cameron played politics is neither here nor there, it's the fact that Brown did and was happy to do so, he's supposed to be a Prime Minister and when I said in an earlier post that the PM should appologise, I didn't mean to Cameron, I meant to the nation he's let down.
Complain about this comment
'Tone deaf'? - more like graceless.
I think that Gordon Brown has siezed on the economy as a lifeline and he was completely thrown when Cameron did not lead with that.
He's completely lacking in any form of empathy and really only wants to tell you what he thinks. What you think is completely irrelevant in his world. Thats not a leader - thats a dictator.
I don't think Cameron did himself any favours by loosing his temper but when faced with the lack of grace displayed by our Prime Minister you can sort of understand it.
What was the icing on the cake is that he asked for an independant inquiry, Brown would not concede Cameron was right to ask and then a couple of hours later, one is announced.. Joined up government - lol !
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Mr Robinson,
I have never posted before, despite the fact that, like many others I have followed yours blogs for some time.
However, yesterday I was very angry at the way you reported the exchange at PMQ's and feel you completely misread the situation. Nevertheless I let it go by.
This morning though, I was simply incredulous to read your latest blog, which seems to try to justify your previous stance - which seems to have attracted only criticism - and also appears to try to heap more implied critcism onto David Cameron.
I voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 and didn't vote at all last time around. For some time now it has been clear to me that Labour have been making a mess of the economy and since he became PM Gordon Brown has failed to impress me.
David Cameron, I felt, came through the exchange with Gordon Brown yesterday with 100 times the integrity of his opponent. His very real anger simply matched the flash of anger I felt myself at Gordon Brown's attitude during the exchange - and frankly Nick, I find it scandalous for you to seemingly try to spin this any other way.
I will be looking forward to an opportunity to vote out this government. In the meantime please have a long hard look at how the BBC is reporting recent events. I'm not going to make an overt allegation of bias but in my opinion the BBC has recently seemed to look to play down any criticism of the government and tried to flip things onto the tories - even when there appears to be no logic there at all.
Please try to stick to reporting the facts and get a bit of balance back.
Complain about this comment
That's how to deal with the hecklers, Charlie boy. Must have learned that at your master's knee I suspect.
I know they don't all have to be funny, but do try to keep the standard up.
Chin-chin.
Complain about this comment
It seems to me that Robinson is trying to set the agenda for the news - at any cost.
Remember after the Glenrothes by-election? He specifically said "it confirms OUR narrative that there is a sustained Brown Bounce" - a phrase I believe invented by Robinson, and propogated by the BBC ever since.
Now, to keep this story alight, there has been, in my view, a systematic and concerted attempt by the BBC to -
1. Stop any credible and objective scrutiny of Brown and his policies - similar to "multi-culturalism" and global warming
2. Cherry pick news which only shows the Conservatives in a negative light - for example, their approach to the economy, the Osborne affair
3. Attempt a thinly disguised character assassination of David Cameron
Robinson gave it away when he said Cameron was pleased to keep the economy out of PMQs - in other words, the BBC natural assumption falls onto the government line.
The BBC have been waiting for a long time to unleash their venom against the Torys, and sadly, it seems to be working.
Complain about this comment
"Lessons must be learned from the case of murdered child abuse victim Victoria Climbie, Health Secretary Alan Milburn has said".
That was Labour's response to the tragedy of Victoria Climbie in January 2003.
Now, in November 2008, Labour's response to the tragedy of 'Baby P' is - guess what - "lessons must be learned".
These politicians are clearly useless. They failed in their responsibility to clean up the Haringey act in 2003 and I see no reason to believe they will do anything different in Haringey now.
What is first needed is a change of Government - then a clear out of the Haringey Social Services department.
Complain about this comment
I agree this was a cynical attempt by DC to avoid discussing the economy. The Tories are as clueless as the rest of them. And (confession) I'm supposed to be a Tory voter. Our political class is a shambles.
Complain about this comment
227 Balhamu
Always trying to polish Brown's turds.... ;-)
Did you read the whole transcript? If so you will noticed brown couldn't answer even the most basic question on the case - i.e."is it wrong for people to mark their own homework given the severity of the case?"
Brown showed all the leadership qualities of a puddle. He couldn't even make a decision to say - "I will ensure that there is an independent review".
He then went on to accuse Cameron of playing party politics with the issue, and then refused to withdraw his accusation. That is the callous part.
Complain about this comment
201. , Chad Sexington
What happened to that child was a tragedy, no argument there and it does need to be investigated, but honestly, when the economic fate of millions is in the balance, the fate of one child, however horrifically abused cannot form the main plank of national government business.
This sums up perfectly the 'marxist' ethos of Nu Labour and its so-called social workers. Anti-marriage, anti-real families, anti-religious and above all anti-child. This is still supposed to be a Christian country, and the famous Gospel song teaches "His eye is on the sparrow." Judaism teaches that whoever saves one life, it is though he saved the whole world. This writer negates the death of a child, putting the economic fate of the nation before an individual. Where have we heard this before?
215. PhaetonFlanFlinger
After reading the fearful remarks of #201, it is refreshing to see there are people with values. One wonders if perhaps Ched Sexington is in the employ of some council, in a people-caring capacity!
Complain about this comment
#195 master hardwinge
It's a little later than I might have liked, but I've been busy.
Your diatribe in this post contains none of the normal aloofness that is the trademark of your well thought out and well adjusted contribution to the debate on this thread.
Where was the serneity that a zen master would normally indicate surrounds every aspect of his being?
This was just another biased and one sided presentation of a bitter person's view of the current situation and, as such, has no merit whatsoever.
Complain about this comment
Charles_E_H
"Putting aside the CBI and Tory party's responsibility for bad managment and the consumer bubble..
The Tories always paint the government as wrong and say it's all their fault..."
That is new angle if I ever heard one! Give this to Campbell and Mandelson.
Do you remember Digby Jones, whoBrown made a minister? He was the head of CBI?
Remember Turner, now FSA boss, he was active in CBI? Remember also CBI annual meeings Brown adressed and they praised Brown? They hardly toed Tory lines. They were hand in glove with Brown the last 11 years! Tories have been in opposition during the last 11 years in case you are just visiting from Mars!
About Tories acknowlegement. Brown did not do it when he took over a perfectly working economy in 1997. In fact for most of the Labour fisr term he was basking self delusion about his wizardry of economics while it was Ken Clarke's legacy. Who made BOE weak and created a weak FSA whcih could not police?
Complain about this comment
Message 242:
"This morning though, I was simply incredulous to read your latest blog, which seems to try to justify your previous stance - which seems to have attracted only criticism - and also appears to try to heap more implied critcism onto David Cameron."
Spot on. I have the disctinct impression of a too-cosy relationship between the BBC's senior political commentators and the higher echelons of the Labour Party. I used to value the insights of Nick Robinson et al, and still do so to some extent; but the underlying feeling of partisanship remains. This has less to do with the BBC per se, but with the individuals concerned.
Complain about this comment
#247 jonathancook
Brown answered the original question saying that he does not agree with Cameron's view (the process which all parties signed up to was that this process was good), and that the Minister for Children will take a decision about whether further action is required based on this report
Cameron wanted the exact phraseology "No, I disagree. It is right that the head of Haringey Children's Services should be carrying out this report regardless of potential conflict of interest". That would have been the only answer where he didn't follow up with "You never give straight answers" theme he's been pushing.
Brown didn't want to pre-empt a decision being made by his team - that's good leadership isn't it, trusting his team to make a decision and not taking it for them.
Take a decision = Stalinist.
Not take a decision = Ditherer. Delegate a decision = Poor leadership
Cameron was blatently playing party politics. Maybe Brown shouldn't have pointed that out so clearly, because the 'hurt' Cameron was then able to feign played right into DC's hands. Conservative problems on their economic policy and dissatisfaction with Gideon off the front-pages, and enable him to further embellish their 'strange man' narrative of the PM.
Complain about this comment
I ask anyone here to consider this in your own work setting.
If handed a report on a very important issue, that has been the subject of legal action, a long and detailed report, would you want to give your conclusions two hours later when the person responsible for reading and drawing those conclusions hasn,t even had chance to read it once.
David Cameron unless a complete fool and I don't think he is would know that this would be impossible and more importantly IRRESPONSIBLE!
But he ploughed on anway even though only he, not the PM could have moved on to a new subject. HE KNEW EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS DOING>
Complain about this comment
235 Balhamu
It is a shame that Germany has slipped into recession.
They have been working for years to gain control of their economy and have recently posted a budget surplus.
So - you will conclude - that Germany are at least in a better position than us to weather their recession.
Complain about this comment
#187
It was David Cameron who came to PMQs with an ill-informed brief. He referred to 'a 17 year old single mother', the mother in question was aged 27 and married. He referred to her boyfriend as being unable to read but able to beat a child. Are we to assume he believes anyone with literacy problems is a child-beating monster? He is a posturing fraud and yet again found a bandwagon to jump on. The fact that his chosen ride was in appalling taste seems not to have occurred to him. He should take care. His fondness for histrionics could be his downfall.
It wasn't only the Guardian writers who found his posturing distasteful. Some columnists in the Telegraph did too.
Complain about this comment
132 Carrots.
Sorry its an opinion again not a fact and frankly his response was not a million miles from that IMO. Cameron could have moved on, he knew the report had only been with the govenment for 2 hours without asking.
Complain about this comment
Charles_E_H
"'ve run into people like Cameron before."
I tell you something. I worked in Scotland in 1980s and knew a few who worked with Brown as lecturers-Brown was a sociology lecturer in then Glasgow College of Technology.
These were hard Labour supporters. Even for them Brown was much too cynical about others, too pontificating and too quick to lose hs tempers when any one disagreed with him particularly about his view of Labour Party. He was a party apprtchick from Fife, comfortability raised in a previleged Scottish Presb Bishop house hold which had such sway in all walks of life in Scotand- Presb church had tentacles in schools, universities and about every where. I know about Brown not from you from his ex-colleagues in Scotland from Fife.
Complain about this comment
Listened to Balls interview on radio and heard him say, in response to a direct question re Brown accusing Cameron of playing party politics with this issue, that the reason Labour were angry with Cameron was that he had said the mother was 17 when she was in fact 27.
If that was the cause of all the fuss, why didn't Brown simply correct Cameron ?
Even by the standard of Balls to which we have had to become accustomed this latest spin is utter balls.
The facts of this matter are simple.
1.Cameron was perfectly entitled to raise the issue and ask the question he asked. Thank God somebody did for this is truly an appaling case which culminated in the child's death 15 months ago with absolutely nothing yet done to reduce the risk of recurrence.
2. Brown was quite wrong not to answer the question. As Mark at #234 said, it was an easy question for Brown to answer. So why didn't he ?
3. Brown was even more wrong to stoop so low as to accuse Cameron of stooping so low. That was a shameful, nasty and unworthy act which demeaned the PM and the House.
4. Cameron was angry. Aren't we all in regard to what happened to this toddler? Wouldn't we all be if we were Cameron, in the face of Brown's conduct ?
5. The Speaker caught the mood of the country - to his credit. The House didn't - to it's shame.
This is an awful tragedy but it was Brown's response that turned into a party political football, not Cameron's question.
Complain about this comment
"232. At 11:03am on 13 Nov 2008, balhamu wrote:
Do you really let your political view blind you to reality so much?"
Wonderful irony...wonderful!
It was irony wasn't it? If not, it really would highlight unbelievable hypocrisy.
Complain about this comment
#253.
You omit one important detail.
That the person commissioning the report is the same person in charge of said organisation under scrutiny and also the chairperson of the review panel that will review the report and its findings before it goes 'upstairs'.
And that same person had already recommended no further action.
If that was a report I had to read, with the option of a fully independent report still available.
I'd have thrown it in the bin and ordered an independent report immediately.
Complain about this comment
Nick said:"Interestingly, some who were watching in the Commons gallery did not. They thought the Tory leader's visible loss of temper showed him in a very poor light."
Personally I like to see politicians getting angry and that it is a positive thing. It showed Cameron actually cared.
Complain about this comment
204) Charles and Nick
'Personally, I don't believe Cameron's bright enough to put a planlike that together but he'll seize and opportunity to happy slap someone when he sees it.'
But has bright enough to have a job something you don?t appear to have by how much time you spends on here.
I am an none voter I don?t support any party, so I consider myself neutral until today.
I have always enjoyed reading some of your comments over the year, even though I don?t believe you are a Zen Buddhist, but today any credibility your posts had with me went out the window with your sycophantic excuses, misdirection and spin to put the blame on Cameron for asking a question that needed to be asked.
The mistake was browns.
Cameron did ask a perfectly reasonable question one I would have expected him to ask as leader of the opposition.
The same question that was asked prior to pmq, I also noticed it was asked on the hys forum prior to the start of pmq so it wasn?t something on Cameron?s mind it was something on a lot of ppl minds myself included.
Despite what ever gloss and spin you put on it brown misjudged it and Cameron rightfully slapped him down for it.
Accept it (I suspect your own none Zen like arrogance wont let you )
Brown wont make that mistake again?
I found browns response was emotionless and shameful as did many I suspect just like him falling asleep during the remembrance ceremony Saturday night there was a clear shot of him dozing off.
Don?t try to respond I now deem your posts little more than the ranting of a troll now, and not worth the effort of a read.
As this is my first post on this blog and my final one its pointless to try.
Little crumb of comfort brown hasn?t lost a vote and Cameron hasn?t gained one either. From this quarter
Nick sorry but you have also lost any credibility as well.
Remember nick this is about the horrible death of a child which a lot of ppl on here seam to have forgotten they are more interested in using it to score petty goals of each other including the subject of my attack, you could have used this blog better by promoting a debate into getting some understanding on how to prevent it in the future.
Complain about this comment
Every single week Gordon Brown seems to sink to a new low at PMQ. He never answers a question, preferring to sidestep them by quoting things which happened over a decade ago. This does makes up for the pain the country is going through under his watch and because of his policies throughout his time as Chancellor.
The PMQ from yesterday was a disgrace and almost as bad as the reporting of it by the BBC. The BBC are supposed to be impartial yet time and time again they prove they are not. Cameron clearly stated his intention to ask some of his 6 questions about the economy but due to the arrogance of Brown he decided (rightly) not to. How Nick Robinson can then defend the PM, shows just how biased he and the rest of the BBC are towards the Labour party.
Complain about this comment
Also Nick, your defence Gordon Brown, lets call it 'Brown nosing', is totally unacceptable.
After yesterday's ding dong in the commons my respect for David Cameron has increased.
My respect for you Nick - has not.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
253. Eatonrifle
Consider this in your work setting:
In one department a worker dies while under the supervision of manger X.
Do you:
A.. Appoint the manager X who may or may not have been at fault to head the investigation.
B.. Appoint another manager from a different department to head it.
Assuming that you did A the first time and a second worker dies do you do A for a second time.
When asked if it was right to do A, do you:
1...Refuse to answer the question
2.. Concede that using the manager X to conduct the review was in fact not appropriate and certainly not in the best interests of transparency and that any future reviews need to be conducted by an independent manager?
Complain about this comment
At 6:46pm on 12 Nov 2008, Charles_E_Hardwidge:
Honestly CEH, you never cease to amaze me. Thick as two short planks!
Complain about this comment
The natives are getting restless
Complain about this comment
balhamu wrote:
#247 jonathancook
Brown answered the original question saying that he does not agree with Cameron's view (the process which all parties signed up to was that this process was good), and that the Minister for Children will take a decision about whether further action is required based on this report
The problem is that not all of us speak "Brown", he (like most politicans) phrases his answers in such a way that it always looks like they are trying avoid answering the question.
Cameron wanted the exact phraseology "No, I disagree. It is right that the head of Haringey Children's Services should be carrying out this report regardless of potential conflict of interest". That would have been the only answer where he didn't follow up with "You never give straight answers" theme he's been pushing.
He asked a question which would naturally lead to a yes or no answer. Not answering direct questions is an old trick and is used when someone really doesn't want to answer the question - seeing Brown's discomfort Cameron was right to push at it.
Brown didn't want to pre-empt a decision being made by his team - that's good leadership isn't it, trusting his team to make a decision and not taking it for them.
Take a decision = Stalinist.
Not take a decision = Ditherer. Delegate a decision = Poor leadership
If his "team" had not came to a decision then he could have said that - he didn't. He could have said that Ed Balls is investigating the options and will make a statement later. A good leader knows what his team is working on, Brown looked like he didn't. What was worse is that the government then looks like it stole Cameron's idea when they made the announcement.
Complain about this comment
#259 Span Ows
If you read my posts you'll see that I'm no blind supporter of Labour and think they have made a lot of mistakes.
I tell you what - one area where Brown and Labour have made a catastrophic error:
Not imposing significant extra regulation on the City (and trusting that 'the market knows best' was a massive mistake). Tighter regulation would have been well worth the capital flight to e.g. New York (no matter what other voices were saying), and the side-effect of a less distorted economy would have been welcome. A related mistake was not controlling extravagent City bonuses (through e.g. higher taxation or better corporate governance) - it was quite obvious no-one was worth that amount of money.
Complain about this comment
246. moraymint wrote:
"I agree this was a cynical attempt by DC to avoid discussing the economy."
I didn't realise the Leader of the Opposition *had* to ask about the economy.
Complain about this comment
Eatonrifle
He wasn't asking for a view on the report. That WOULD have been unfair. He was asking if it was a good idea that those in charge of the failing department should investigate those failures.
A bit like asking the man who wrecked the economy to fix it again!
Complain about this comment
Charles
Yet more words, and yet you never actually say anything.
Just tell me what was unreasonable, rage stoking, or any of the other things you accuse DC of about asking if the person running the department should investigate the department?
If you can answer that, fine. If not, then you have no case.
Complain about this comment
Nick
Your two most recent posts are incredible. The behaviour of Labour MPs in PMQs yesterday was disgraceful, as was Brown?s reaction to the perfectly legitimate questions posed by Cameron. The Governor of the Bank of England warns us of the dire state of the British economy. And your ?take? on both of those? That it is the Conservatives who are in trouble.
Cameron was entirely justified to show anger at PMQs not least because, as he rightly pointed out, Brown never gives an answer. On one level, the baby?s death should not be a political issue. On another, it is very much so. As Cameron pointed out the social services department involved receives vast sums of taxpayers money and thus should be openly held to account through the political system. Dig a little deeper and it?s a fairly safe bet that politically correct attitudes, pushed so hard by the likes of Harriet Harman, will have played their part in the way social services managed this dreadful situation.
As far as the Governor of the BoEs statement is concerned, he may have said that some fiscal stimulus is in order and that may seem to go against the Conservatives? recent statements. However, should not you - as a supposedly objective journalist - at least question whether the Governor?s view is valid. He hasn?t been exactly sure footed in recent times.
Shouldn?t you also ask how the fiscal stimulus will be funded? More borrowing? The recent plunging of the pound suggests that the markets do not have a particularly high opinion of UK credit-worthiness so who will do the lending?
The last time Labour got us into this sort of mess the Chancellor had to go to the IMF with his begging bowl. There?s an interesting report from the Institute of Fiscal Studies on the web that analyses Labour?s behaviour around that situation. You should read it. This time though the IMF is likely to be short of money. So, there is a nasty little possibility lurking in the background that the hidden agenda behind Brown?s recent visit to Saudi Arabia was to test out whether the money he needs to borrow could come from there. If that proves to be the case it will be a truly Faustian pact. Again, isn't this something an objective journalist should be examining? Or is a bit too complex for the simplistic - and generally unquestioning - approach the BBC seems to take to NuLabour in general and Gordon Brown in particular.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
Does the Nu-Lab government control all media outlets?
Should the public continue to pay for this biased clap-trap via TV licensing?
It all seems so reminisant of a facist regime, i cant pin-point the name of its "most beloved" leader....its on the tip of my tongue...nah ive lost it....
GET A GRIP NICK AND DO YOUR JOB WHATS HAPPENED TO YOUR REPORTING OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS.
Complain about this comment
266#
Was not the report from an independent source, though I accept the departmental head may have commissioned the report.
This doesn't change the time factor ie it had been with the govt for two hours and would have been grossly irresponsible to give a reaction.
Surely you can see that
Complain about this comment
Les establish this please.
Who wrote the report?
The department
or
Independent organisation
Complain about this comment
"What's also clear is that Labour backbenchers were relishing the prospect of a political punch-up on the economy. That's why they shouted when the Tory leader chose another subject."
Nick, is it now in your job description to make excuses for immature backbench hyenas?
They showed themselves in a very poor light yesterday and effectively you chose to side with them.
Once again Crash Gordon has proven himself way out of his depth, and has proven he does not have the pulse of the British people.
Complain about this comment
#203 mikepko
No!
Complain about this comment
David Cameron asked questions that the public wanted answering. It was right that he asked those questions. GB couldn't deliver. He was totally out his depth (almost taken aback)and that is why he said he didn't want to make the child's death a political issue. It was almost as if he hadn't given the issue much thought. I have never despised Gordon Brown as much as I do now.
It was very interesting to see how differently the clash in the commons was reported by the BBC and ITV. We saw much more of the incident on ITV, and Gordon Brown was shown in a very negative light. As one reporter commented, it appeared that GB could not give an answer to a straight forward question. Alternatively, I felt that the BBC edited all the main aspects of the argument and it ended with GB accusing DC of making a political issue out of a child's death. In other words, we could have been looking at two different incidents.
I saw PMQs in full and I know which report is closer to reality.
Complain about this comment
That's another good comment. I'm sure most people know this but they're too caught up in things. The Boris Johnson tactics of arguing and badmouthing are starting again. That's usually a sign the topic's over.
I like a lot of the stuff you write but more conversation with people who would develop that positively might help develop a better quality audience and take some of the puff out of the people who just seem to turn up to cause trouble.
Complain about this comment
#272
He was asking if it was a good idea that those in charge of the failing department should investigate those failures.
A bit like asking the man who wrecked the economy to fix it again!
That's the extra step Brown was taking in his head. He was anticipating that if he agreed 'Yes, it was a little absurd having the person who presided over such an incompetent social service unit carry out their own review and try and fix it' then Cameron would immediately follow up with...
'But why is it okay for the person who wrecked the UK economy to preside over trying to fix it...'
I think Freud would have a field-day with Brown. One of Brown's problems is that he simply cannot conceive why everybody doesn't think and act like him. He just assumes that because he is a deceitful, disingenuous sociopath then everybody must be deceitful, disingenuous sociopaths.
Hence, when Cameron asks the PM to assure us there'll be an independent review of Haringey he immediately thinks 'Now, if the situation was reversed why would I be asking that question?'
And the little voices in his head are quick to answer back....
'Because you'd be seeking to take control of the debate by being the one to call for parliamentary unity - like you do every other week when you come out with some faux pious sound-bite because Cpl Gordon McGregor has been blown to bits in Basra'
or
'Because he's going to follow it up with the parallel case of you having wrecked the economy and now declaring yourself the only person who can save it'.
or
'Because he doesn't want to sit through the three pages of statistical moonshine you've prepared to claim that while the economy is in the crapper that once, 25 years ago, it was briefly even worse'.
All this going on in his head. His mind exploding with being out-flanked by a question he should be able to bat away without a moment's thought if he just stopped assuming that everybody is as devious, calculating and disingenuous as he is.
Still, luckily for him another couple of Marines got blown up this morning so he'll be able to give us all the parliamentary unity pious moonshine next time out. He'll be back dictating the agenda of faux concern.
Perhaps Cameron should just tell him to 'stop playing party politics' when he does. See how well that goes down.
About as well as Brown's performance yesterday I should imagine.
Complain about this comment
To be honest, I shouldn't have to answer this. As 'Eaton Rifles' commented on dealing with reports, anyone with any competence with people should know these things.
I don't do debate. I know the heroes around here can't parse that but I'm more interested in discussion than posturing. So, I'm not interested in making a 'case'.
Better reasoning and a less competitive attitude can help improve the general outcome around here. It acts like Kryptonite on the usual suspects.
Complain about this comment
I think it was quite clear that David Cameron was really effected by this tragedy. No surprise really when you consider the evidence and the amount times a social worker called on the child and mother. It may not be politically correct to lose ones cool in the house, but to see DC really showing his feelings, was good and in sharp contrast to the PM who remained his dour self.
I do not know what some people expect of any party leader, are they not also human beings with the same feelings and emotions we all have. How many people on the street have a strong opinion of Haringay social services.
My problem with the political reporter, is that they seem to think they have physic powers. No matter what a politician says, they will tell what he means. Even if he said the sky was blue, some political reporters will tell you what he/she really said, even if you heard them as well.
This constant reading of what the PM or DV says, can be misleading. The positive message given by any politician, is nearly always changed with a caveate from the reporter, who seems to know more than the politician.
Complain about this comment
281. At 12:40pm on 13 Nov 2008, Charles_E_Hardwidge wrote:
That's another good comment. I'm sure most people know this but they're too caught up in things. The Boris Johnson tactics of arguing and badmouthing are starting again. That's usually a sign the topic's over.
I like a lot of the stuff you write but more conversation with people who would develop that positively might help develop a better quality audience and take some of the puff out of the people who just seem to turn up to cause trouble.
Has anyone noticed that the only comments that CEH considers to be good are the ones that agree with his own viewpoint?
A talented debator will also be able to recognise the strength of viewpoints that oppose his and counter the points raised. However, CEH's debating style is to ridicule the weaker opposing points and either ignore the stronger viewpoints or to try and counter them by making some "out of left field" confused (and often wrong) comment about unrelated topics.
Complain about this comment
282# U676 whatever.
And U think GB is the one with voices in his head?
"Still, luckily for him another couple of Marines got blown up this morning so he'll be able to give us all the parliamentary unity pious moonshine next time out. He'll be back dictating the agenda of faux concern."
Right up there with your best posts, speaks volues.
"
Complain about this comment
#283.
I don't do debate... I'm more interested in discussion and posturing.
Indeed so.
Like mentioning Stephen King, Assassin's bullets, babies and comparing that all to Cameron.
Nice. I can see you honed your skills at Eton too.
Complain about this comment
Cassius also has the mysterious man in the gallery in the frame:-
http://cassiuswrites.blogspot.com/2008/11/nick-robinson-plays-to-very-special.html
Whilst argument between Brown & Cameron is a normal part of political life, and distateful exchanges in the House of Commons are hardly a new thing - I do wonder whether the obvious (sometimes even amateur) bias being demonstrated by the BBC on these issues isn't going to be the thing which blows up unexpectedly in the face of this Government.
The BBC has a duty of impartiality. FACT.
The BBC is funded by a compulsory tax. FACT.
After the last few weeks it is only going to be a matter of time before other commentators (from the blogosphere or elsewhere) decide that the BBC's actions have attained a critical mass that makes them a central part of the story of the final years of New Labour.
When that happens it is easy to imagine both their audience and their funders beginning to desert them, if only to make a political point.
I always thought that this Government would end in protests on the street. I just didn't think that they would centre on the BBC!
Complain about this comment
I don't do debate. I know the heroes around here can't parse that but I'm more interested in discussion than posturing. So, I'm not interested in making a 'case'.
Better reasoning and a less competitive attitude can help improve the general outcome around here. It acts like Kryptonite on the usual suspects.
You wouldn't be suggesting that the people who oppose you are some kind of intellectual supermen?
Although, I find it ironic that someone who in the topic yesterday seemed to think that his offensive posts had been removed because of pressure from Tory Central Office can comment about "better reasoning" and being "less competitive"
Honestly, if I was part of Tory Central Office I can think of 4 or 5 people whose comments I would like to pull (they are well reasoned, well thought out debates which raise valid points which do show the Tory party's weaknesses) however your posts would not be on the list.
Complain about this comment
Oh dear. Cameron has no
plans for the economy so he hides behind false indignation around the baby P debacle.
For any impartial listener to PMQ,s it is clear that Camerons shine has worn thin. He clearly lost the plot this week.
Complain about this comment
Oh dear, Charles. I think some of the adults are beginning to find your constant wit and good humour a bit tiresome. Probably down to a bad day at the office. Recessions, redundancies and disappearing wealth can do that to a person, you know, but we can't expect infants to know all about the grown up stuff, can we?
Why don't you sing us a song instead?
Complain about this comment
276. Eatonrifle
This is the crux of my point.
Sharon Shoesmith, (100,000 per year by the way) is Head of Haringeys Childrens Services. She also chaired the committee responsible for the INDEPENDENT review of the case.
Amazingly she concluded that NONE of her social workers should be sacked. Just 2 written warnings were issued, but she wouldnt even reveal who to.
Funny that.
I know the Sun is sensationalist but read the article anyhow for details of the abuse. If just half of it is true then there is just no way Cameron was faking anger. You just dont need to fake it, youd have to be inhuman not to get angry.
Article here
Complain about this comment
Dear oh Dear Gordon.
You brought back Mandy and Alistair to stop this sort of debacle happening. I would demand a refund if I were you!!
We are also still awaiting an apology over your assinine bahaviour at PMQ yesterday - but then again it is too mild for Hell to freeze over at the moment.
Complain about this comment
The HoC yesterday became, not for the first time, a grotesque place as these politicians slugged it out over the body of Baby P.
People should ask themselves ... is this the sort of democratic system we want to continue with?
A brutally adversarial system, which is, in my opinion, slowly destroying the country.
The two party duopoly has to be broken but only the people can do that .. and most English folk seem to be pretty disinterested in politics at the moment.
Maybe that will change as families up-and-down the land start to suffer in this recession.
Hopefully that will give them time to pause for thought about whether we as a country would do better with a more consensual political system.
It is surely time for the tired old Labour-Tory slugfest, as seen in attentuated form on this blog, to be consigned to the dustbin of history.
We simply cannot afford the luxury of adversarial politics anymore.
Come together, right now ...
Complain about this comment
Nick,
I've just watched yesterday's Daily Politics on iPlayer and I think you've seriously let yourself down. You should watch it again and note the things that Andrew Neill said as I think he was spot on. He didn't lose himself in the double think and party rhetoric but rather looked at it as a human being.
Anyone would be greatly moved by the brutal death of a young child. But what, I think, infuriates people is the refusal by those who are tasked with caring for children who are at risk from abuse and neglect is their refusal to acknowledge any failures on their part. It smacks of bureaucratic indifference and of people more concerned with their careers and pay packets than the vulnerable people they are there to protect. It is quite right that this is challenged.
Cameron was clearly angered by the responses that Brown gave him and was right to challenge them.
There will be many opportunites to discuss the economic crisis in the weeks and many, many months ahead. Yesterday wasn't the day.
Complain about this comment
The Times parliamentary sketch article summed up yesterday's proceedings during PMQ in one word - unedifying.
The BBC's so called factual reporting in subsequent blogs, Daily Politics Show and news coverage of events was poor to say the least. Other news organisations have had more measured approach.
The Speaker of the House was the only one to come out of this with any credit. Perhaps it is also time to review whether PMQ should continue to be televised. I do not find this kind of behaviour acceptable and I believe that many others share this viewpoint.
I am also waiting (but am NOT holding my breath) for an apology from the House of Commons that is directed to the whole country. All MPs to varying degrees were to blame. The public deserves better from the politicians and public service broadcasters.
Complain about this comment
276. Eatonrifle
And just to be clear, I dont hold Brown any way responsible for Haringeys failings, they are an awful borough, everyone in London knows how badly it is run.
I do find it abhorrent that my PM can not answer a simple question. That being:
Do you think that it is appropriate for the head of the department responsible to conduct (Chair) the independent review of the case? and to be able to answer a simple NO.
Complain about this comment
I thought the BBC were meant to be unbiased, or is Nick Robinson subsidised by Labour ?
Complain about this comment
#283 CEH
Just when I think you can't get any more patronising you surpass yourself again!
Spoken like a true Nu-Labourite - not interested in providing a case, not interested in debating a point, and a smug self-belief that you shouldn't have to answer to anybody.
In CEH-world, we should all just shut up and let him tell us how it is and then accept it all without questioning.
I can think of a few regimes where that attitude would have been highly rewarded....
Complain about this comment
#282
"Still, luckily for him another couple of Marines got blown up this morning so he'll be able to give us all the parliamentary unity pious moonshine next time out. He'll be back dictating the agenda of faux concern."
Right up there with your best posts, speaks volues
Tut tut. Playing party politics with the lives of others.
You don't like it up you. Do you?
Complain about this comment
#286
Also look at earlier post #19
You guys say it so much better than me. I just get angry, so very angry and very sad.
I notice that Karsai is in town today, I would love to be a fly on the wall as Brown is asked about care for children in this country of ours. I wonder if the Afghans go around doing to their children what we seem to do to ours. Just who are the monsters.
Andrew Neal asked some very pertinent questions on todays Daily Politics, maybe it is time for the reform of the commons, a blame all the politicians. The one trick pony which is Brown ought to do the hponourable thing and realise that he really is an Aspidistra, something we have known all along.
Complain about this comment
#s 187 & 209
Thanks for answering the question about 'some in the gallery'.
Perhaps a group of members of the public could be asked to give their unbiased verdict on PMQs for Nick to report afterwards.
Complain about this comment
#257 brightfastflipper
"comfortability raised in a previleged Scottish Presb Bishop house hold which had such sway in all walks of life in Scotand- Presb church had tentacles in schools, universities and about every where."
You may have worked in Scotland in the 1980s, but you don't seem to have learned much about the country.
There are no bishops in any presbyterian church.
Scotland does not have an Established Church as you have (with its bishops in the House of Lords involved in law making for the whole UK).
Brown's father was a parish minister in the Church of Scotland.
47% of Scots describe themselves as Church of Scotland.
"tentacles everywhere"! You make the Church of Scotland sound like a sinister American sect.
I have no idea what your agenda is but you have made yourself look very silly.
Complain about this comment
#274 dwwonthew
Good points, and as I have pointed out previously, if he is trying to get money out of the Saudis for any reason, what price the so called slush fund investigation?
Complain about this comment
This is not good enough Mr Robinson and it simply will not do.
Perhaps the time has come for you to fill the position left vacant by Jonathan Ross at least until his unfortunate return to our screens. If you do well in that job perhaps the BBC may even let you keep it. We can only hope that you are able to rise to that challenge as you have failed so badly in your current role.
I would suggest that we all vote off John Sergeant (apologies to his brilliant dance partner) this weekend from "Strictly Come Dancing" This would then free him up to take your position in political reporting without delay - Monday 17th November 2008 seems a good date and certainly not too soon.
It would be joy to see him again in lieu of you the "puppet" of Labour. We are in urgent need of his skill, knowledge and above all his impartial reporting. He will make the perfect Political Editor.
Ps
In any case you have just shown us that you are a far superior comedian to Ross and his like.
Complain about this comment
Charles is constantly telling us not to be so negative about Gordon Brown and to relax into his Premiership as all will eventually come good. And yet at the first sign of any emotion from David Cameron he agrees with all his friends who accuse The Opposition Leader of being a fake and a manipulator over The Baby P Commons incident. The very definition of hypocrisy in my book.
Complain about this comment
290. Decentjohn
Read this
Now this
Tell me how you feel.
Does false indignancy feature any where in there?
Feel a bit cross, angry, bloody furious?
You should these people work in your name, they take you tax every month as salary and deliver this type of service. When they fail they just cover it all up and use even more of your money to give their staff training on how to deal with the media.
So hows it going... feeling really bloody furious yet?
Yes .... Good so you should be.
No ..... change your name.
Complain about this comment
I watched PMQ's. DC was absolutely spot on. The best political comment in the UK is The Sun. They articulate what the non Westminster world thinks. No PC crap! They are clearly on the same side of the argument as DC. As the airwaves are full 7/7 about the economy it's good to hear the politicos talk about something else. Brown was totally out of order and the lemmings that sit on his benches equally so.
As for the economy no-one knows when things are going to get better. No-one. Instinct tells me that ramping up the nation's already over extended credit card with even more debt is a lousy idea. What we should be doing is waging an all out war on the waste in our public services and administrations.
Also, Brown just rewrites the rules to suit the moment. Now we are in the doggy poo it's all someone elses fault. Yesterday it was prudent to keep a close watch on spending ( although he didn't do this). Now it is prudent to borrow. The economics of having your cake and eating it!
Complain about this comment
290:
It wasn't David Cameron who lost the plot this week in what you call the Baby P debacle. Even the partial members of The BBC politics show panel including Jon Crudass (to his great credit) agreed that he had made a bad mistake. He nevers says sorry for any errors he makes so expect the silence to be deafening.
Complain about this comment
I don't normally comment on Nick's blogs, but felt I really had to this time!
I don't know which article most of the commenters read, but when I first read it through I didn't feel he was defending Brown or criticising Cameron, just quite a balanced discussion of the events. I'm normally quite politically neutral, and I wonder how sensitive you have to be to read a huge criticism of your preferred party into this post?
Complain about this comment
#295
I think that there is another problem coming up this weekend for you Nick and the Prime minister. This is the sort of economic summit meeting being held in America this week-end. We have to ask have you been a good boy and will be attending, no doubt as part of the usual huge BBC overkill.
Brown has a problem because the Americans have let it be known that Obama will not attending and that he will meet with nobody, so as not to upset anybody. So, we have all the worlds leaders going to a summit to do what exactly, have a nice cup of tea and to buy some nice christmas presents.
Brown as usual will be left looking like the idiot he is, but also all the other summieers will as well. What on earth can be agreed because the person setting the agenda won't be there and is sending two failed politicuians to represent him, I mean Albright, get real.
So, will Brown show the same ineptitude at the summit as he did at the despatch box on wednesday. What hope is there for economic salvation when even Paulson has now completely changed tack with his $700 billion, this is a shambles.
Complain about this comment
John Cruddas went up in my estimation yesterday after an honest reaction to his leaders poor performance.
I don't know what you were smoking Nick but your total love-in for Gordon Brown needs to stop.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
it is now well known that I don't think that Gordon can handle more than one thing at a time so let me know what you think on this.
we are being told that we are entering a recession, in fact we are in one, and that next year we may actually see deflation, a terrible thought for this reason.
When the state benefits are calculated next year can we expect social security payments to be reduced, or will there be a miserly increase. I still remember the Brown 50p increase for pensioners. Nobody seems to remember that one.
So, when the chancellor gives his statement later this month do you think that he should tell us in advance about the implications on pensions and welfare benefits rather than leave it to the last minute. Or can we expect a spring general election as I have said for some time now.
Complain about this comment
Wow Nick,
I thought your performance over Lord Mandy and Osbourne was bad ... but just when I think your reporting can't get any more biased you go and prove me wrong again !
Wouldn't it just be easier if you stopped trying to report and just repeated incessantly "Gordo is God, vote Labour" ?
It would save so much time.
Complain about this comment
It is almost impossible to get an intelligent comment onto this blog, so many Daily Mail reading, Tory fellow-travellers pile in to heap condemnation on Brown without the slightest idea of the economic issues or any other. If anyone was caught out yesterday it was Cameron! He expected Brown to be oblique and fob him off, instead, the Prime Minister was annoyed by Cameron's careful attempt to make Labour look responsible for the situation in Harringey. Cameron said 'I don't expect to get an answer...' So why did he ask the question? because he wanted to make Brown appear useless by not answering instantly without the facts, as, no doubt, he would do! This was playing politics. Cameron also failed to check the facts of his tirade- the woman involved was not a teenager but a mature woman as were the other participants in this horror. Cameron is so used to gross generalisations on any issue that, even in this tragedy, he has to work in his crude 'broken society' ideas. Meanwhile, the Cons who swamp this blog are oblivious to World economics as they are to global politics in general. They call Brown our worst Prime Minister and an economic failure- that's not what the world thinks! That's why the Tories' lead has slipped. How soon before they realise that Cameron screeching across the floor of the House like the school bully he is, against the measured tones of Gordon Brown, is not a Tory asset. He will awaken the memories of even the most demented Tories to the days of Thatcher who wrote off billions from our economy, caused social devastation which we still live with, and made us the laughing stock of Europe!
Complain about this comment
#282
I hope that it was the scenario rather than the actual incident (the tragic loss of two further Serviceman's lives) that you were trying to use.
The PM had geared himself up to answer questions on the economy, seeing as he is trying to situate himself as some form of super hero striving to save the world from financial disaster.
Trouble is that he is becoming rather one-dimensional and so when DC asked about Babay P the PM was flustered and struck out in the only way he knows - by suggesting DC was playing party politics. More fool him, and more fool us for allowing him to stay in office.
Heaven help us if he does con another term in office - in which case would the last person leaving UK please switch out the lights.
Complain about this comment
I've noticed that a few of Chuck Hogwash's posts have been censored (aka 'moderated').
Please don't refer his posts: the more kindling he provides, the bigger the flames of his self-immolation.
Complain about this comment
Carles_e_H
or shall I call you Campbell's side kick ?
Never mind what Presb church clergy are called by concentrating on it you deliberately omiitted about Brown according to his ex-colleagues You went on making the 'minister' point to avoid answering my comments just as Brown did yesterday in PMQs
You look silly in avoiding the weighty point I raised about Brown partisanship. Minister or whatever his father was he was comfortably raised , not what he says'coming from an ordinary family'and if you have such ignorance about Pres Church influence, that is shameful and you should not comment.
I know case of promotions, appointments of university professors, hospital consultants, were fixed on Sundays in a Presb Church. The way you dismiss all this may earn you brownie points from Campbell but it reveals youer total ignorance. It is a pity you do not see beyond your Labour -tainted nose.
Complain about this comment
I only saw a recorded PMQ's late last night so didn't comment on this topic yesterday.
I'm going to give a big thumbs up to the speaker Mr Martin (believe me not something I have often done). I think he controlled some of the monkeys in the chamber extremely well.
Complain about this comment
"He will awaken the memories of even the most demented Tories to the days of Thatcher who wrote off billions from our economy, caused social devastation which we still live with, and made us the laughing stock of Europe"
So when Callghan was the PM we were great were we? We were called the sick man of Europe. Remember the Winter od Discontent when dead bodies lay unburied? Remember wehn Healy had to go cap in hand to IMF.
Remember also 'crisis, what crisis? of Callghan when secondary pickets organised by Scargill and his comrades were rampant. Wonderful sights these were. For your Info,I am not Dail Mail reading Tory, live in Islington, sent my son to the school Tony Blair shunned. Hodge killed in education system in Islington and every attempt to make it work is failing since that time.
We have become the most densly populated
country in Europe. Immigration is uncontrolled and just about anyone can walk into Britain. London looks like Mumbai.
Knife crime in London is worse than Mumbai and New Yor. So your Labour has done wonderfully well and we stand in attention and and salute 'Heil Gordon'. It is just pathetic.
Complain about this comment
#254 jonathan
But Germany have a bigger public debt as a % of GDP than us
Germany - 63.1% GDP
UK - 43.0% GDP
I don't understand the logic of your argument that Germany have 50% higher debt (proportionally to GDP) therefore they are more equipped to increase in further in response to recession.
Is it because there is no logic?
Complain about this comment
#307 Carrots
I saw both your links and I am even more appalled than I was this morning when Ed Balls tried to appear to us as a caring individual and talk his way out of the mess the Labour Front Bench created at PMQ's yesterday.
As I've said before, it all comes down to accountability which seems to be a misnomer in this day and age. Both the Government, and the Social Services in Haringey should be jointly and severally responsible for their blatant lack of Duty of Care to protect Baby P, when they were all very well aware that this baby was on the High Risk Register.
I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that watching, and hearing the report about the terrible suffering this poor little mite had to endure brought tears to my eyes. Perhaps if Mr Brown had concentrated his efforts on children like Baby P, instead of baying on about how Labour have lifted children out of poverty this little child may still be alive.
Complain about this comment
Here's an idea for the next PMQs...
If Gordon's away, instead of Harman, why not David Walliams in full receptionist rig, repeating, "Computer says no..." to every question put by Cameron?
Complain about this comment
I reiterate what I said earlier,and add a few pertinent points-:
1) Not for the first time Cameron spins a tale in the London Evening Standard and then devotes undue and unnecessary attention to it (why will be explained in the following points 3-5)
2) Their is a massive precent-June 2007 - Birmingham - a 6 year old starves to death whilst under Social Services control - the actualities of this story well documented at this time if anything show an ever greater systemic failure of so-called professions than Baby P - What does Cameron say and do?....(no global worldwide financial crisis at this time either so a very news worthy event) - Cameron does NOTHING!
Why - Birmingham City Council is Conservative controlled and the Council are widely condemned for CUTTING the Social Services budget....why then this party political attack on Harringey!
3) - Reason 1 - Cameron is totally off-beam on economic issues and has been usurped by the comments of the Bank of England praising Government action and plans
4) - Reason 2 - Lame Duck George Osborne is causing so many nightmares and problems for the Tories - Cameron is desperate to get off economic issues - Osbornes TORY party approval rating has fallen from 70% to 2% since Deripaska and the country-wide questioning of his lack of economic nous and ability
5) - Reason 3 - Cameron is aware the DEN DOVER AFFAIR is ready to go fully public,Dover is found guilty of mis-appropriating £750,000 from EEC funds via llegal expenses - Cameron sees Baby P - as a further means to cover this up!- he later publically expels Dover - but its hardly news he SHOULD have done it 10 months ago when the story broke - but Dover is NOT all over the front pages - YET! - so the plan has worked
It is clear the anger was fake and forced - Cameron we know is prone to dress rehearsal of everything he does - the big mistake Brown made was falling for it...
Cameron is a charlaton,an opportunist and a spinner no more no less....
Complain about this comment
Nick are you for real? What doe Mandy and Campbell got on you? I watched this exchange. I spoke about it with friends and people at work (we have the TV on here). Each one was disgusted by Brown. Should I explain what the role is of an opposition leader? Or are you so deluded now that you think it is a one party state and the PM can only be asked questions on a subject he thinks (I stress THINKS) he is an expert on. Cameron asked a simple question, before (and I believe him) he would move on to the economy. It had been in the papers, everyone was talking about BabyP. Brown, unprepared as he was focussing solely on pretending he is going to rescue the world by attending a meeting in NY where a lame duck president will be unable to commit to anything, was clearly annoyed that he had to answer such trivial questions, when what he really wanted to do is show off and be smug on the day many more people lost their jobs. Because that is Labour for you. We feel it in our pockets, they somehow think they have the political momentum back by arguing that Glenrothes was a win, despite in my book it was a loss of around 4000 seats and the Tories still leading 13 points in the polls!
It was a cheap and low blow by Brown who is again incapable of apologising and doing the gentlemanly thing. The man is so utterly filled with anger and hate for all things Tories that yet again he walks into their trap. Get him angry and the rest will take care of himself. Did you see Ed Balls furiously trying to brief him? Clearly Brown had not given this much thought at all.
The outcome? Brown again alienates the voters, by appearing cold, aloof and mean spirited.
You yet again make me wonder what happened to your journalistic integrity.
It is again confirmed the BBC will do anything to please the government.
The sooner the Tories will get back in power the better it will be that what is now an outdated beast (that being the BBC) gets split up. It is staggering that in this day and age you think you can get away with such a biased view and expect us to eat it up. To think that 3 years ago I actually voted Labour!
Spin and lies is most definitly back and it has made Brown even worse. Before he was just dull and incompetent. Now he is dull, incompetent and downright callous.
Complain about this comment
324:
So much for your lauding of the great Bank of England:
The Governor of the Bank of England was thrown on the defensive yesterday after the deepening economic slump forced it drastically to rethink its forecasts for Britain?s prospects.
Mervyn King was forced to deny that he had been ?caught with his pants down? by the pace and scale of the country?s slide into a potentially deep and prolonged recession. He was largely unapologetic despite the Bank unveiling the biggest overhaul of its assessment of the economic outlook since it was given independent control of interest rates in 1997.
He said ?It is always possible to set policy with the benefit of hind-sight. There is no way in which the committee can have perfect foresight.?
Critics of the Governor?s past handling of the crisis are likely to be inflamed, however, if the economy succumbs to the severe slump that the Bank projected yesterday.
Detractors point out that only three months ago the Bank was predicting only one or two quarters of modest decline in the economy, but its main view now is for GDP to plunge by between 1.5 and 2 per cent next year, in the most vicious slump seen since the depths of the 1980s recession.
Critics also note that David Blanchflower, a dissident member of the MPC, predicted a recession as far back as the spring.
The scale of the change in the Bank?s analysis is emphasised not only by last week?s 1.5 percentage point cut in interest rates to 3 per cent, the lowest for half a century, but also by its indications that it is poised to cut rates further. Mr King conceded that the scaling-back of the Bank?s forecasts for inflation yesterday was the largest in the MPC?s 11-year history.
Mr King?s detractors will also accuse him of staging a U-turn over the case for a fiscal boost to the economy through tax cuts and public spending increases. Having questioned the value of this three months ago, and suggested it could prove ineffective, yesterday he gave cautious backing to expected fiscal action by the Chancellor this month. Subject to conditions he said it would be ?perfectly reasonable in these circumstances to see some fiscal stimulus?.
Complain about this comment
#324 greatandydudley
You really should be ashamed of yourself.
Complain about this comment
321 Balhamu
Well at least you are using the ONS stats - but the public are fed dodgy debt stats for the UK aren't they? We aren't allowed to know the truth, it might ruin our saintly image of Gordon Brown's economic genius.
Complain about this comment
327 - why?
Did the Conservative party convenienty forget the Birmingham issue?
Was it because Birmingham is north of Watford,was it because Birmingham is Tory run?,was it because they were embarassed at at cost of £2m to Birmingham taxpayers for hosting their September conference?
Was it because the Tories are desperate to cover up the Den Dover affair - conveniently on the middle pages of Tory rags this morning?
Will Den Dover pay back in excess of £50,000 he has paid through his companies - ALL recorded - to Tory party funds since 2002 - this story is far more relevant to the ethics of politics than Baby P?
Why did Cameron suddenly pick up on Baby P - OI dont recall and cant find any trace of him referring to the matter before,nor any of his front bench - this story has been in the public domain for over 12 months?
I cant say Brown covered himself in glory yesterday,he did'nt - unlike Cameron who simply has to trawl up stories like this and try to convince his own party that George Osborne is not a lame duck - Brown has possibly the most important world economic crisis since the 1930's to handle,and vital work to do prior to the most important worldwide economic conference (tomorrow) since Breton Woods.
Baby P was murdered , murdered by 3 people now gladly behind bars - Harringey Social Services already subject to 2 official enquiries BEFORE Cameron stood up - are now subject to three....
Woe betide any child,OAP,sick or disable person let down in the future by any local authority,especially those that are slashing social services and support budgets (unlike Harringey,like Birmingham) - I hope and expect Shoosmith and others to be sacked,becuase of Brown and Balls,despite Cameron and his phony apperplectic 5 minutes of fame..
And if you want to see biased pathetic totally disproportionate reporting at its worst,dont attack the excellent Nick Robinson,look at the totally useless Tom Bradbury on ITN,about whom complaints are justifiably flooding in!
Complain about this comment
Re #321. You're aware of the difference between a budget surplus/deficit and debt/GDP % I take it. You will note from the ONS (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=206) that, while Germany has posted a surplus, our deficit has accelerated in the last twelve months by GBP2.6bn to GBP5.9bn.
As for the difference between the UK's Debt/GDP %, you will agree that it depends how it is measured. Ignoring that GB uses his own measure, you're right that our published % is lower than Germany's. You will also no doubt be aware I'm sure of off-balance sheet liabilities (NOT investment) such as PFI debt, unfunded public sector pensions, etc. If these were included, our borrowing would be far higher than Germany's.
Add in the fact that German household's carry a lower level of personal debt than their UK cousins and it certainly makes a compelling case that we are in a weaker position.
Complain about this comment
Cameron is accused by the Labour die hards on here of faking indignation, being false, opportunist, uneccesarily emotional, playing politics (a strange one this as a politician he is) foolish, trouble making, immature, lacking in leadership, insulting, being a bully, displaying showmanship, never admitting to being wrong, always being negative about The Government and being irresponsible, all based on this one incident. I honestly wonder whether these people are living in a parallel universe because it's not one that the majority of us recognise at all. It's a complete distortion of the events of yesterday. Even NR wouldn't be as daft as to articulate criticisms such as these based on this one brief interchange. If Jon Crudass had repeated thoughts such as these on The Wednesday Daily Politics show The BBC switchboard would have been inundated with complaints. Hard though it may be to take for his supporters the P.M. is not beyond reproach himself.
Complain about this comment
Cameron is a charlaton,an opportunist and a spinner no more no less....
Gordon Brown is financially incontinent, a dissembler, a sociopath, an opportunist, a charlaton and a spinner.
The thing that is vexing the Brown-Jugend the most here is that their man was out-manouvred by Cameron. We (and they) all know that a great deal of effort goes into preparing Brown for these encounters. There is dress-rehearsal after dress-rehearsal. Figures and methodologies for re-rigging the figures are planted months, sometimes years in advance so that the Maximum Leader can stand up and give us some moonshine about 'Our debt is less than 40% of GDP'. or 'Unemployment is 'only' 1.8 million, whereas under the Tories it rose to 3 million'.
Those figures didn't appear overnight. It's taken a full decade to massage the methodology to arrive at the figures he prefers to quote. Liberties have to be taken with the truth. Our belief has to be suspended.
But that's okay. No matter what Cameron bowls him he'll have some 25-year-old figure to pad him away with.
If Cameron gives it - 'Prime-minister on the day that unemployment has increased by the largest quarterly amount since the worst of the 1990's depression do you still maintain this country is best-placed to weather the financial crisis' then Brown will just go to his 'Happy Place'
'Under the previous Tory government unemployment reached 3 million'
If Cameron gives it 'Failed to fix the roof...structural deficit of 3% entering a recession..'
Brown just gives it 'Under the previous Tory government fiscal deficits reached 7% of GDP..'
Who said being a historian didn't equip him to be PM eh? No matter what Cameron bowls him he has some figure from 25 - 30 years ago that was 'worse'.
Only to get clean-bowled by an underarm from Cameron.
Jolly unsportsmanlike of Cameron what?
Brown might as well use those figures while he can. I confidently predict that if Brown lasts till 2010 then the 3 million unemployed mark will be 'bettered' and likewise the percentage of GDP deficit will be 'bettered'. In fact by 2010,whoever is in power will be setting whole new records for presiding over a wrecked economy.
Inflation, unemployment, repossessions, bankruptcies, annual deficit and national debt records are going to be knocked out of the ground and through the window of the Chairman's Jaguar in the car park.
Uniquely placed? Yeah, we're going to need a whole new page in the Guinness Book of Records just to catalogue how 'uniquely placed' we were.
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7727772.stm
"The boy's mother had already pleaded guilty to the same charge, and all three will be sentenced on 15 December."
Anyone else for leaving the EU to save some money and have the power to bring back the death penalty for scum like this?
Complain about this comment
324. I am struggling to believe someone actually believes the stuff you have just written up. You should be utterly ashamed.
Complain about this comment
Nick I regret to say that I don't agree with your comments. Friends on either side of the political divide who viewed PMQs felt Cameron asked the "Baby P" question, intending to switch to the Economy later. However, Brown's disgusting response triggered the heated exchange. Besides, what is in the BOE inflation report that Brown can take heart from. Its as damning of the economy as can be, and the Governor King had to acknowledge that one of the Bank's MPC members had been predicting a UK recession for a while, and has been proved right. Confidence in politics is at a low, but I dont think Cameron was capitalising on a tragic incident. He's a father too. It was a question which the PM dodged just like he does time and again to everything uncomfortable he's confronted with. Only this time he was "cheap." This was the last straw for me, I will vote Conservative whenever the next general election is. Labour are fast morphing into an arrogant uncaring beast; Brown personifies it. Just as a footnote, Blair would not have accused Cameron of "party politics" over this issue if he'd been in Brown's chair.
Complain about this comment
Brown's failure to control government expenditure, his love of high taxation and the use of the tax system as a means of wealth redistribution smacks of the same old labour. Major was right in the 1997 camapign when he said "New labour, new danger"- simply put labour hisotrically fail to be economically competent.
Remember the first New labour administration followed our Tory spending plans (this is ironically when brown came to be considered prudent) but thereafter spending rose alongside unsustainable borrowing levels.
Cameron can win on the economy, but on this paticular PMQ, he lost his temper with a PM who failed to demonstrate any kind of emotional empathy, it is a PM's job to reflect the popular mood of the people and here today it was Cameron who did this and not Brown or his labour cohorts
Complain about this comment
So now we have to debates who's recession is worse - theirs (any one of 200 plus economies) ! - or ours!
Our actual public debt at 37% is lower than in 1997 when it was 44%.
We have gone in to recession (OK - lets assume we are in recession TECHNICALLY - we are NOT - we know we are) later than most , and indicators are ours will be shallower.
I cannot,simply cannot think of one BRITISH GOVERNMENT in history if whose policies we may have followed over the past decade WOULD HAVE actually kept us OUT of recession NOW and over the next 12 months...name me one?..Major,Thatcher,Heath,Callaghan,Wilson,et al - NOT ONE followed a fiscal policy that would have been recession proof in these times...
So lets cut the Tory spin of whose fault is it - ITS GLOBAL - we have to focus on Resolution and THE FUTURE globally - NOT nit-picking and petty politics.
When it comes to rebuilding,reinvesting,reinstating the GLOBAL and UK economy we all know Brown and Darling hold all the aces,they should imho bring Vince Cable and indeed Ken Clarke who both broadly support current plans but have different and worthwhile ideas on Board but Cameron and Osborne...No thank you!
And you know its really really bad when Cameron turns to Stormin Norman Lamont - I kid you not - for guidance!
Complain about this comment
331 - and the Political Party who designed and turned the ability never to give a straight answer to a straight question was...????????
The Conservative Party - Thatcher - handbags et al!
Complain about this comment
#270 Balhamu
"If you read my posts you'll see that I'm no blind supporter of Labour and think they have made a lot of mistakes.
I tell you what - one area where Brown and Labour have made a catastrophic error:
Not imposing significant extra regulation on the City (and trusting that 'the market knows best' was a massive mistake). Tighter regulation would have been well worth the capital flight to e.g. New York (no matter what other voices were saying), and the side-effect of a less distorted economy would have been welcome. A related mistake was not controlling extravagent City bonuses (through e.g. higher taxation or better corporate governance) - it was quite obvious no-one was worth that amount of money."
OK, well said, I take back what I said earlier.
Complain about this comment
329. greatandydudley
"Did the Conservative party convenienty forget the Birmingham issue?"
As I understand it the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to ask whatever questions he likes during Prime Ministers Questions. The Haringey tragedy was topical and it appeared there was a need for an independent inquiry; the government agreed and subsequently announced it later that day.
Should the Leader of the Opposition refrain from asking questions if a similar incident was not raised by them? No.
Complain about this comment
Fellow bloggers
Don't you find it rather strange that until recently the BBC Blogs were impartial and opened up good open debate through these and other blogs.
Whereas Alistair Campbell returns to Downing Street and this blog and the BBC appear to be running scared and becoming apoligists for Gordon Brown's lack of credibility and trying to make him into the conquering hero he ain't.
So Nick if Mr Campbell is pulling his old stunts, pass this on to your collegues - get back up on your hind legs and tell him you are journalists with integrity and won't be badgered or browbeaten by him or his ilk just to make his boss look good.
He got away with it for Tony Blair he will not get away with it for Brown, the public know he is there now and what he is like.
His bullying won't work this time becaues if he threatened to cut off access to the No.10 inner circle I don't think anyone would bother because there are a lot more sources that he can't control in the parlimentary Labour party than under Blair.
Complain about this comment
#328 jonathan
Do you stand by your view that Germany, with 50% more debt than the UK (proportionally to GDP), are better placed than the UK to increase borrowing?
Were you wrong?
If you are right, what's the logic?
Answer the question instead of changing the subject
#330 DGlazer
How can you patronise me when your argument is so clearly flawed.
PFI debt isn't massive - it's significant is in tipping total UK public debt above the magical 40% ceiling at which the dead rise from their graves and the sky falls in (apparently). I think the 43% includes this. The 43% doesn't include public sector pensions liabilities, that is true, but neither does the German dent figure.
I would agree that the PFI-inclusive measure gives a better sense of the true level of debt, than the fudge used by the Government at the moment.
re Germany has run surpluses.
It's completely irrelevant isn't it? They have a bigger debt - it is surely obvious that the UK, with a smaller debt, is better placed to increase it.
Are you telling me that if (for example), Brown increased borrowing by 50% of GDP 1997-2003, but ran surpluses totalling 20% GDP 2003-2008, we would be in a better position (higher debt than we have, but we've had surpluses for a few years so it's ok to increase it further)?
Complain about this comment
334 - Why should any citizen be ashamed when they merely dont agree with the rabid right wing DAILY Mail AND ITS ACCOLYTES...
I am a member of the (normally silent) moral majority who are getting frankly sick and tired of a politician who will stop at nothing to make cheap political capital at (a) a time of worldwide crisis and (b) despite having the brass neck to proclaim he was going to seen a end to punch and judy politics.
In my opinion,an opinion shared by the majority of people I listen to and overhear - Brown is NOT well liked BUT Cameron is frankly ridiculed and increasingly despised for his inability to provide a serious alternative to a Government that has made many mistakes in the past decade.
You will note the balance of this and my other articles- I am NOT a card carrying Socialist,never have been,never will be - I am merely a political pragmatist,a floating voter,the like of which Cameron needs but will never get given his record to date.
Complain about this comment
#335 king
You're kidding me right?
He was going to ask questions on the economy, but that nasty Gordon Brown was picking on him and hurt his feelings, so he was bullied out of it.
Come on. Be serious.
Complain about this comment
It's interesting to note the comments about this weekly knock about show called PMQ's.
This used to be held twice a week for 15 minutes a time, but that wonderful revisionist Mr Bliar decided that combining both into a 30 minute session once a week would give hime more time to be out of the house, so to speak.
Around that time, it became more common for the PM to turn up for th session with a big book with lots of post it notes in it, obviously witha different answer to a question, depending on the way it was posed. this was th ear of spin, and everything was about presentation, not the answer itself. I'm not for one moment suggesting that other PM's didn't have some prompt material, but Bliar made it an art form.
Hugh Jeers' problem is that his notes are more haphazard, but they're still there. His further problem he cannot be spontaneous, at least not very well, so if a question is not on his list of prepared answers, he's a bit stuffed, like he was yesterday.
We don't really need any more proof that this oaf is not fit to lead any kind of democracy, since he has no real notion of what that entails, so many of us are quite keen that he should put us to the test of an election as soon as possible.
Complain about this comment
Ref 339
I agree entirely BUT let us not forget! - and as a veteran of the financial services industry for over 30 years I am fully aware -
EVERY time Blair and Brown tried to regulate more - The Tories under a sucession of Leaders voted and spun vehermently against it..
Mortgages
Pensions
General Insurance
Investments
etc etc
Complain about this comment
I think it quite correct that David Cameron should display what I imagine most mothers and fathers feel over the tragic death of the child in Harringay, that is Anger. It is beyond belief that such a thing should happen, when there has been so much involvement by the local aurthorities. I do hope the government will do as they have said, and carry out a thorough independant investigation, and deal with those responsible for such apalling neglect. How else should a prospective leader of our country behave in such a situation, he is after all a caring father and should not be expected remain unmoved. What is wrong with having feelings? and displaying them, I say nothing at all.
Complain about this comment
#340 royalgrounded
Quite right that the opposition can choose to raise whatever matters they wish.
But it blows the "not making a party political point, genuinely concerned about the standard of social care in this country" argument out of the water though, doesn't it?
Birmingham did not matter (Tory council, directly linked to cuts in social services to reduce council tax). Haringey does (it's Labour, it's not the economy, it takes the flak of George Osborne, our economic policy, and the exposure of the corruption of our MEPs that the papers would otherwise be focussing on).
Complain about this comment
#318 brightfastflipper
You might appear more rational if you knew who you were talking to.
I am no supporter of the Labour Party, and frankly the ideological nonsense between Tory and Labour in England are of little interest to me.
Your misrepresentation of the position of a Scottish institution, however, needs to be corrected for the information of the reasonable people who post here.
There are no "clergy" in the Church of Scotland, or any other of the presbyterian churches in Scotland. There is no such thing as "the Pres Church".
My father was an elder in the Church of Scotland, so I have more knowledge than someone who visited here for a few years.
I am quite sure that a number of appointments were sorted out where the decision makers meet. That would include the relevant church (often the Catholic Church in the West of Scotland), the Labour or Conservative Clubs, at a Masonic meeting, or down the pub.
Your paranoia about one denomination of one religion is singularly unattractive.
Complain about this comment
greatandydudley
As I've said before, it all comes down to accountability which seems to be a misnomer in this day and age. Both the Government, and the Social Services in Haringey should be jointly and severally responsible for their blatant lack of Duty of Care to protect Baby P, when they were all very well aware that this baby was on the High Risk Register.
You and I both know that it is highly unlikely that Ms.Shoosmith will be called upon to resign - unless a labour politician's neck is on the block, when she will be extremely dispensable - with a nice little nest-egg for her troubles, I'll wager. This Government beggars belief on the rights and wrongs of running the country - Peter Mandleson being brought back into the fold after being sacked twice is living proof of that. The war in Iraq, Dr David Kelly, Litvinenko, Hinduja's, Bernie Ecclestone, cash for honours, the list goes on and on. Labour seem to think they are all untouchable.
David Cameron didn't have to trawl up this story - it was on the front page of virtually every newspaper in the land. Gordon Brown managed to associate himself with Lewis Hamilton's win at the Grand Prix, and the Ross/Brand story - he had to have a view on that too - and he jumped in very quickly when Barack Obama won the presidential election in the US.
It was obvious that he was ill-prepared for the questions from the Opposition Leader at PMQ's regarding Baby P, and he has to take the flak for that. He should be answerable to all of us - bar none.
We must remember that these people are all public sevants. We pay their highly inflated wages and it's about time we saw some value for money!
Complain about this comment
I've found Nick's calmer and more rounded comments are an easier read.
Most of the more reactive comment is just ego knee-jerking from behind the wall of internet anonymity. People go fanboi if Nick isn't praising their chosen one, and turn every comment into a life and death struggle.
I've seen a bunch of referrals and lurid attacks chucked in my direction. Can't be bothered with them any more. People are only grandstanding and sniping to get attention.
I'm no big fan of Bruce Anderson or Prince Charles but one "high attention earner" makes an interesting comment on the other "high attention earner" by discussing intellectuallism and the, sometimes, retarded British attitude.
Complain about this comment
If our Govt of 11 years is simply an instrument of global forces, how can you claim that Brown and Darling hold 'all the aces' in rebuilding it?
Aside from that, the ONS publishes the debt/GDP % as per my previous post yet this unrealistic 37% is still quoted and it bears no relevance given that we (you, me, my next door neighbour) DO hold the debt of Northern Wreck. We DO hold the liabilities associated with PFI. We WILL have to pay public sector pension for which no provision has been made.
Complain about this comment
I am very sorry that Mr. Brown and his wife lost their first child. I am also very sorry that Mr. Cameron and his wife have a child needing a great deal of help. I am sure that Mr. Brown is lovely in private and if he had been down the pub discussing the state of play, he would have been as angry with the way Baby P died as we all are.
But he is the Prime Minister who showed for many months that he was not good at debating anything other than his years as Chancellor of the Exchequer. As has frequently been said on your blog Nick, he is not up to the top job. The moment he is taken out of his comfy environment of the economy (because for ten years he has learnt the language, not because he was actually good at it), he flounders.
And anyway why is he so intent on telling the rest of the world that he has all the answers? Is it to try and hide his failings at home? Henry IV told his son to fight wars in France to avert the civil strife developing in his own backyard.
There were a number of economists who long ago forecast trouble ahead, but they were ignored. Nobody, especially the then Chancellor, wanted to see anything but "happy ever after". And the awful thing is that the problems are being made worse by every decision made by this Government. They are still looking at the short term expedient what ever they say.
The bill for all the extravagence will have to be paid. It is just a question of when.
Complain about this comment
#341 glenholme
I've mentioned this before. I thought it funny that the BBC went from being imparshal to pro-Labour overnight - at around exactly the same time that Mandleson and Campbell came back.......!!
Complain about this comment
Nick Bobinson said: "Labour's John Cruddas and the Lib Dems' Charles Kennedy - who were in the studio with me - agreed. Interestingly, some who were watching in the Commons gallery did not. They thought the Tory leader's visible loss of temper showed him in a very poor light."
I have a question: You were in the studio. Peter Mandelson was in the gallery. How can you know what he thought?
Complain about this comment
350
I will be shocked and amazed if Shoosmith and others are NOT sacked once the inquiries are completed.
As an employee of Harrigey Council her political background should not be an issue-her moral responsibility to go,should be.
If the Council and/or Ed Balls dont give her the push,assuming she does'nt have the moral fibre to resign,then they should and will rightly be condemned.
This is not a party political issue,Cameron made it one,and paradoxically Balls has the opportunity to trump him good and proper...
Complain about this comment
354
I dont think BBC is biased - its only becuase ITN is obviously the tv arm of the Daily Mail-they own it after all - and Daisy and Tom are so overtly politically biased - that by comparison the politically negative BBC seem to be pro Labour
Complain about this comment
The whole crux of this is predicated on the assumption that, somehow or other, Brown is in a better position than the opposition when it comes to the current economic predicament. And this assumption is based on the 'interpretation' of a very small part of what was contained in the Bank of England's inflation report, which stated that under certain fairly narrow circumstances, it could be defensible to increase borrowing to fund tax cuts.
So, for those who claim Cameron set out at PMQs yesterday to avoid any questions on the economy, or like Nick Robinson, he decided half way through to ditch his second set of questions in favour of pursuing an apology from Brown for a perceived slight, there would have to be an assumption that he, Cameron, agreed with the 'interpretation' of the inflation report that was promulgated in Nick Robinson's blog yesterday morning, i.e. pre PMQs, which was that, somehow, said report supported the government's case for massive unfunded tax cuts.
Now I'm no mind reader, and I have no desire to get close enough to Cameron to know his most intimate thoughts, but quite frankly, I find that proposition ludicrous. Aside from the fact that I doubt if Cameron has any great regard for the views of a Governor of the Bank of England who has been exposed as an utter incompetent (let's face it, who does), there is more than enough ammunition in that report and elsewhere, to make any opposition leader who wanted to have a go at the PM as happy as a pig in the you know what.
So regrettably, it don't stack up. Shame that.
Complain about this comment
"In my opinion,an opinion shared by the majority of people I listen to and overhear - Brown is NOT well liked BUT Cameron is frankly ridiculed"
Nonesense. I am yet to speak to someone who is considering voting for Brown in the election. And I work in the media which is notoriously liberal. Why do you think Johnson got in here in London? We are fed up! That is why. Also, I agree with the writer that said that since that awful Campbell came back (let me remind you he couldn't even manage the press campiagn for the British Lions team!) the blogs have reverted back to the usual biased spin. No more.. I will never in my life vote for Labour again.
Complain about this comment
#337
We have gone in to recession (OK - lets assume we are in recession TECHNICALLY - we are NOT - we know we are) later than most , and indicators are ours will be shallower.
'Scuse me? Who's indicators are those? Gordon Brown's? I think you can safely discount any figure he comes up with as pure fantasy.
I thought the IMF had us forecast for the deepest recession.
You want evidence of Brown's fantasy numbers? Get on the BBC website - oh, we're already there. Now search every budget since 1997. See if you can conjure up the pre-budgets too.
Every budget, regular as clockwork do you remember what he used to do?
'Government borrowing requirement this year will be 25bn, rising to 27bn next year then falling to 10bn, 2bn and a surplus of 5bn [5 years from now].'
Next year guess what?
It's exactly the same.
'Government borrowing requirement this year will be 25bn, rising to 27bn next year then falling to 10bn, 2bn and a surplus of 5bn [5 years from now].'
Always he predicted we were just 18 months away from being over the hump of borrowing and then we'd really start getting that deficit under control. Always, in 5 years time the budget would be balanced and then we'll really be off. Perpetual 'investment in infrastructure' AND a balanced budget. Always 5 years away.
Do you know how many times he got it right? Ten budgets, 5 predictions per budget? Fifty annual predictions. Sometimes, with the pre-budgets, an extra five predictions only six months since the last one. Can you guess how many times he 'over-delivered' with his predictions?
Not once.
He constantly over-promised and under-delivered. And so it is with his moonshine about being 'uniquely placed'. We are utterly naked in the nuclear winter of economic conditions. Economically speaking he has done the equivalent of taking away all our clothes and burning them to generate heat.
Now we have no fire and no clothes. We are going to be frozen to death.
Nice one Gordon. 'Uniquely placed'. Pure comedy Gold.
Complain about this comment
#356 andydudley
This is not a party political issue,Cameron made it one,and paradoxically Balls has the opportunity to trump him good and proper...
No, he didn't. He just asked the question most of us wanted Brown to answer. Brown couldn't answer the question so he accused Cameron of making it a party policical issue - which was a very cheap shot from a man who should know much better. Even Michael Martin tried to correct Brown. Ed Balls shoud resign with Ms. Shoosmith - but as I said, I doubt anything will happen to either of them.
Complain about this comment
# 342. I'm glad that you acknowledge that PFI should be included but I'm afraid to say that the GBP100bn cost comes on top of the Net Debt of GBP633bn. Garnish this with unfunded pensions (GBP1071bn). Maybe a sprinkling of off-balance sheet Network Rail liabilities (GBP20bn) and a twist of Bradford and Bingley debt at GBP30bn. Soon it adds up to real money!
GBP1854bn, or 127% of GDP.
These numbers do not take account of the costs of the part privatisation of the banks, nor future borrowings required for tax cuts.
Enough to give anyone indigestion in the future.
Complain about this comment
Nick.
Please take note of the number of posters who have felt compelled to write for the first time as a result of this and your previous statement.
Complain about this comment
Re 359
Thankfully the world does NOT revolve around London - where Cameron is based,and whose interests he seems solely concerned in!
Come to the Midlands,go to the North West,the North East,Wales and Scotland as I do regularly.
Brown is not liked but he is gaining respect for his handling of the economic crisis - rightly or wrongly he is - and Cameron who has had a wonderfully long honeymoon is getting twitchy!
The Tory party under Cameron will have the problem it has had for the past decade,persuading sufficient people that it can be trusted and more importantly,convincing enough people outside of its heartland it actually represents them.
Thatcher lost that trust,Major could'nt regain it - no one has since and Eton - Boy certainly is going to struggle in tnat regard outside of the Metropolis!
Whats next for the Cameron gravy train - God forbid Otis Ferry's political imprisonment - now that would be political suicide!
Complain about this comment
361
why should Ed Balls resign?
Resign for calling an inquiry?
He was'nt Minister responsible when this occured so whats he done other than to deal quickly and expeditely with the issue?
Complain about this comment
#359 orangejuggler
I'm considering voting for Brown, unless Clegg can get his act together.
I see Cameron as the Conservative Party's Neil Kinnock rather than their Blair. It's 1991 again rather than 1996.
Complain about this comment
325 orangejuggler and fellow bloggers.
I've been to busy of late to be able to post, some might say thank goodness for that.
I decided I would just have a quick look to see how the boys and girls were doing then I saw the guff on this blog by the usual characters and found it unbelievable.
Regarding PMQs Cameron asks a question, Brown says this report which is very long only arrived on the childrens ministers desk a little while ago, the child minister will study it and then make a judgement about what they would then do.
Now that seems a reasonable answer to me and it should have been for Cameron, but no,Cameron gets to his feet and says why cant you give me a straight answer well you Tories if you dont think that Brown gave a straight answer then I dispair at what you would consider a straight answer.
Would a straight answer be if Brown had said "yes we dont care whats in that report we are going to sack them all, we dont need to read what they've got to say, Dave is not satisfied with proceedings in a measured way he just wants me to sack the lot." that would have satisfied Cameron and I suspect all you Tories on here but it would have been wrong, what the PM said was the right thing to do.
Cameron came back twice more getting more childlike each time. he could have been saying "your not saying what I want you to say" Gordon brown gave him the same answer which was the right answer in the same measured tone.
Because Cameron could not see the logic in Browns answer, Cameron by this time was almost screaming why dont you answer the question. Brown by this time was getting a little fed up with this almost out of control person opposite him that he said quite rightly that this should not become a party political issue, which it patently was becoming, all that Cameron had to say was" we will wait to see the outcome with interest" but instead of waiting the few hours that it took to make, as I say a measured response, he flew into a rage, and then Cameron showed us all that there is no way that he should ever be the leader of this country, the man has a uncontrollable temper I dont know what program you were watching orangejuggler but not one word of what you say happened it only happened in yours and one or two other Tories minds there was only one person who lost control and that was Cameron and you in particular have proved Gordon Brown right with your dreadfully politically biased view of the events,
Your hero lost his cool not for the first time and he was found wanting yet again.
Next time you watch PMQs remove the rose tinted glasses and try it with your hearing aid switched on.
Complain about this comment
#288
I've been half tempted this afternoon to write a formal complaint.
We pay for this drivel and deserve impartiality.
Complain about this comment
"The death of one is a tragedy,- the death of a million is a statistic".
I have no doubt that with all the emotive spin in the world, that this was a deiberate diversion from the bigger picture. It is so easy to work up a moral panic from a tragedy.
I will concede though that Brown was exposed as he hadn't prepared for the question and the emotional gulf between him and the 'general public' was left exposed.
http://www.starkravingmoderate.com/baby-p-the-politics-of-tragedy/
Complain about this comment
The government had some issues with policy and presentation and the media filledthat hole to selll copy. A tiny minority loved that because every day was always critical or negative of Labour. The government are now much clearer and confident so things have changed.
There were an uncountable number of days where Nick's topics were very challenging and a lot of the comment was just a primal scream. I don't hear anyone complaining about that but one topic that was feintly critical of the Tories had Central Office giving Nick a full broadside.
I don't watch broadcast TV so can't really comment on that, but you make a sound point that people may be making an issue of Nick's perspective when, really, they're just viewing his comment through their own perspective.
When the grandstanding and partisan attitudes are stripped away I don't know much about this particular case nor the people and organisations behind it.
It's difficult to comment but when one rich person is surrounded by five salesmen in a diamond boutique, and one social worker has to stretch to 500 cases, this might be a clue we have our priorities wrong.
I understand the government is interested in better professional standards and funding, and there's a convenient European model they can use to justify this. Certainly, if an organisation is better staffed and resourced it's more capable of delivering solutions than drowning under an ever increasing workload and pleasing nobody.
Turning anything around is hard, and private industry and people are no different. They can continue to make howlers and get bad press but, sometimes, you just have to keep gently pressing on. I think, that's where people can get it wrong in being quick to judge and bring down the hammer.
Complain about this comment
Now, balhamu, as you are so fond of requesting links to data you would rather ignore:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5141436.ece
here is a link to a well informed article in today's Times.
Arguably, John Major, the prime minister before the obfusticating Blair and Brown period, would not be allowed to write such an article and publish figures about the current givernment's records without the proper checks having been made.
So, if balhamu would like to dispute the numbers - perhaps he might take them up with the editors of the Times and not me.
Debt has spiralled out of control under newlabour. The published numbers are fantasy. Adding in the 100bn of off balance sheet liability from PFI plus Northern Rock plus Bradford and Bingley, plus Metronet takes the number way way beyond government estimates.
Personal debt is way above previous peaks. Arguments about affordability are irrelevant as they do not begin to address the issue of repaying vast multiples of income.
And finally; Gorodn Brown bought into all this hook line and sinker; "an era that history will record as the beginning of the Golden Age of the City of London" , he said only recently at the Mansion House speech.
What utter hyperbole and hubris. Gordon Brown knows full well he bought into the credit boom and used it to finance his every whim.
We, the taxpayer, will pay for his incontinet largesse for years to come.
The BBC dare not even begin to cover Gordon Brown meeting his nemesis as they too will be finished by such a debate.
Whatever the debate about public services - we can't afford the current enormous budget that newlabour have bequeathed us on our behalf.
Cuts will have to be made.
And why not when boroughs like Haringay cannot even police themselves after public enquiries?
Why not when the disgraced ex Mt police commissioner walks away with a handsome pay off? He makes Lehman brothers look like a chimps tea party.
Call an election, immediately. The situation is bith desperate and urgent.
Complain about this comment
#362 DGlazer
And let's not forget education, NHS, state pension, police, benefits etc expenditure that the state will incur in all future years. It's debt really isn't it? I mean, the Government will have to spend something on these services.
A conservative estimate would be 500 billion/year. Over 100 years that is an additional 50 trillion pounds of debt.
That's approximately 5000% of GDP.
Who cares about whether this means anything? It's a big argument. And it's all Brown's fault.
#363 jonties
....and also the number of IP addresses that these new posters have come from, and the proportion that are in 1 office in Victoria Street, London.
Complain about this comment
#342 Balhamu
Statistical arguments based on proportions or percentages can always be skewed to support an argument.
Lets say that the GDP for 97-03 was 1bn (its only a number). Therefore 50 percent f that figure is 500 mn for each of 6 years, lets say total 3 bn, for the sake of round number.
Now GDP can grow, and lest say that for 03-08 was 1.5 bn. Therefore 20 percent of that figure is 300 mn for each of 5 years, say a total of 1.5 bn, being repaid.
During the entire period 97-08 borrowing would have been higher by a total of 1.5 bn overall. Now you can slice and dice those numbers as much as you like to give support to an argument.
Here's the reality you have to face under Browns maladministration of our economy -
statistically government borrowing in the period since 1997 is, on average, about 40 percent of GDP. In that period GDP has grown.
That must be true 'cos Gordon keeps telling us. That means in ABSOLUTE terms, for each of those years the 40 percent figure keeps growing, in line with GDP growth.
If he's lying about GDP growth, then borrowing may be lower in absolute terms, but its still at 40 percent, and that excludes what you claim to be minor PFI figures. And, as we have previously discussed, it excludes the net cost of NR and B& B, and the potential cost, which hasn't actually happened yet, of the bail out.
There is NO WAY this oaf has been fiscally prudent on our behlaf, and thas is why the costs are to us are going to be higher than even the worst pessimist is currently forecasting.
Have a think, if the US, who are closer to the cause of this problem that we are, are pulling back from a bank rescue, how are we going to push the waves back? Is El Gordo planning to be carted down to the coast so he can tell the tidal wave of bad debt to go away?
Really where does he think the money is going to come from? Europe with its shoddy accounts? The IMF, who've bailed everybody else out, and will apply strict terms, because that's what he keeps urging on them? US, who've got a bigger problem than us? The middle east, whose main income flow is currently dropping like a stone?
Think it through please. That might actually be a first for a man of the left.
Complain about this comment
balhamu wrote:
#335 king
You're kidding me right?
He was going to ask questions on the economy, but that nasty Gordon Brown was picking on him and hurt his feelings, so he was bullied out of it.
Come on. Be serious.
Nicely spun, New Labour would be proud.
Cameron didn't drop the questions on the economy because Brown had picked on him, he decided to focus on an issue which (clearly) Brown was unprepared to answer questions on.
You are Cameron and your job is to make Brown look ill informed and out of touch, so do you:
a) Follow up on a line of questioning on a subject where Brown is clearly ill prepared
or
b) change the subject to focus on something that Brown would have clearly prepared in advance for and would be able to respond confidently?
If Cameron got any political mileage out of this subject it is only because Brown opened the door for him with his inability to answer a straight question with a straight answer.
Brown could have closed the entire line of questioning down with one of three answers:
"Yes, I agree..."
"No, I disagree..."
"We currently don't have all the information to hand"
If he had chosen option 3 he could have scored political points by highlighting that the party in Government do not have the liberty to judge events solely on an emotional basis.
Complain about this comment
#365 andydudley
He was'nt Minister responsible when this occured so whats he done other than to deal quickly and expeditely with the issue?
Because he's the Minister for Children and he's accountable and responsible, that's why. He took on the position with all the other trappings and he should accept the consequences. The rest of us would have to. The only reason he has reacted in the way he has, is that he knows the public are very angry and upset about this and he has to be seen to be doing something. He also said on TV this morning that DC did not make it a party political issue. He then went on to say that the Labour MP's got upset because DC got the woman's age wrong. If you believe that......;it's purely self-preservation - Labour are really good at this. Let's just wait and see who keeps and who loses their jobs shall we......?
Complain about this comment
Balhamu,
You are trying to turn Germany's slip into recession as triumph for Gordon.
Germany were the second worst prepared of the G7 to enter a recession.
Sadly there are no surprises as to who is worst prepared are there?
The point is at least Germany had been making a better effort to control it's public finances
Germany
Whereas in the UK we have been on Gordon's zero prudence - spend, spend spend - 'Money Wasters Anonymous' roller coaster ride.
The next OECD international economic forecast is due 25th November. I wonder what form of large scale distraction of the media Gordon will employ on or around that time to mitigate the bad news he will be expecting for the UK's outlook compared to every other country??
Keep polishing Gordon's turds ;-)
Complain about this comment
"greatandydudley wrote:
Ref 339
I agree entirely BUT let us not forget! - and as a veteran of the financial services industry for over 30 years I am fully aware -
EVERY time Blair and Brown tried to regulate more - The Tories under a sucession of Leaders voted and spun vehermently against it..
Mortgages
Pensions
General Insurance
Investments
etc etc"
Oh poor Labour, they wanted to impose stronger regulation on the markets but they were stopped by the nasty Tories, even though for the majority of their time in Government they had a massive majority and could easily have passed any legislation that they wanted to.
Do you understand what a majority means? It means that even if EVERY other MP votes against something the party in power still has enough MPs to vote it through the House of Commons. That means that if they failed to get these bills through the Commons their own MPs were the ones stopping it NOT the nasty Tories.
Complain about this comment
Old nat:
"
You might appear more rational if you knew who you were talking to"
Sound like threatening. Not surprising
I was threatened many times in Scotland by your Churchmen when they wanted some one to be appointed and I resisted as a member of an appointment committee.
That was a univesity.
"Your misrepresentation of the position of a Scottish institution, however, needs to be corrected .."
Not necessary, I know and interpreted as it occurred, I understand still occurs. I worked in Scotand for over 10 years
"There is no such thing as "the Pres Church".
This is hilarious. I shortened the name as I did not want to type the whole words.
"My father was an elder in the Church of Scotland, so I have more knowledge than someone who visited here for a few years"
Elder? That sounds like tribal, proves what
I am saying. If you belong to tribe one treatment otherwise bad luck.
"I am quite sure that a number of appointments were sorted out where the decision makers meet. That would include the relevant church .."
Really? The appointments I am referring to are public appointments and promotions, like university professors, head teachers, consultants at hospitals... which affects citizens of all religions and non-believers. Meeting in church to make decisions in a tribal environment, not in the appointment committee meetings at the appropriate institutions?. It is cabal, which was what I was referring to. You also say about Masonic Lodges: I can now understand what you are getting at.
My son's god parents once belonged to your church. Now non-believers. I understand why!
Complain about this comment
Thank goodness is probably just about right though a little mild in my opinion. Once again an abusive remark this time about about hearing aids. I have great respect for the Labour M.P. Jon Crudass who on The Daily Politics show admitted that The P.M.s gaffe did not show up his party in a good light. He went up in my estimation as soon as he said it. Even Ed Balls in his evening statement was more conciliatory and sympathetic than the majority of those spouting anti David Cameron jibes on here.
Complain about this comment