After the messages of thanks to the soldiers and families of soldiers that have died this week as well as Michael Foot, PMQs this week, as usual, kicked off a couple of backbench questions solidly answered by Mr Brown. The Prime Minister came across well, by not sounding dismissive of issues raised by backbenchers on either side of the house, but by sounding sincere and interested. The issue of Lord Ashcroft’s tax status was raised and Mr. Brown seemed conciliatory; stating he was comfortable with the assurances given by his opposite number Mr. Cameron. Mr. Cameron then asked his first question to an interesting malaise, which was definitely not the atmosphere which surrounds politicians who are expected to be the Prime Minister within the next three months.
Mr. Cameron’s first question seemed tired and was asked with what sounded like tiredness. He has not yet reached election fever pitch and he already sounds fed up on the job he is undertaking as Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Brown’s response was equally dull, but the slow atmosphere had been set by the right hand side of the house, and neither bench was invigorated. At an interesting point during Mr. Cameron’s next question the Prime Minister looked almost asleep until he heard the words ‘Chilcot Inquiry’ at which he beamed a smile and looked ready for action. The question, as it turned out, was not a question but a populist jibe at the government and Mr. Brown’s response was exceptional. He managed to put his opposite number on the back foot with accusations of deliberate political stirring. Throughout this back and forth the Prime Minister was convincing in his tone by making it seem that Mr. Cameron was asking all the wrong questions, looking for a pat on the back from his party that is unnecessary and unhelpful. Britain loves an underdog and Gordon Brown has today managed to portray himself as just that. An underdog fighting against a petty behemoth which assumes it is moving into government. I can imagine that Mr. Cameron’s press office will assure him, in a sycophantic manner, that he was excellent, but in reality he has nothing to be happy with in his performance today.
1 Comment(s)
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
As a putative commentator on Parliament, as opposed to Senate, I imagine you intended “lack lustre”.