PMQs review: Cameron claws back some ground

The PM's performance will have settled some Tory nerves.

Ahead of David Cameron's appearance at the Leveson inquiry tomorrow, Ed Miliband led on Jeremy Hunt at today's PMQs, the first for three weeks. Asked why he had referred Baroness Warsi to Alex Allan, the independent adviser on ministers' interests, but not Hunt, Cameron gave his stock reply that a "judge-led inquiry" was gathering all the information behind the Culture Secretary's case. As scripted, Miliband then pointed to Hunt's likely multiple breaches of the ministerial code. But Cameron had a trump card - he produced a letter from Allan in which the latter concluded: "The fact that there is an on-going judicial Inquiry probing and taking evidence under oath means that I do not believe I could usefully add to the facts in this case". Yet Allan isn't required to "add to the facts", rather, he needs to rule on whether Hunt broke the ministerial code. One might also note that Allan lacks the power to trigger his own investigation (as Allan told Cameron, Hunt's adherence to the Ministerial Code is "a matter for you".) Thus, the letter does little to bolster Cameron's defence but it still allowed him, however briefly, to regain the initiative.

Miliband recovered well after this surprise, challenging Cameron to explain why, if his case is so strong, his deputy is not supporting him. To which the PM candidly replied: "I understand, it's politics." It was a neat riposte that Cameron might want to use again. At this point, Miliband remarked of Cameron: "I have to say he's reached a new state of delusion, he just wants to talk about the past." In anticipation of the words to follow ("He was the future once", Cameron's famous jibe against Blair), Miliband was interrupted by barracking from MPs, and when he eventually delivered the line it fell terribly flat.

Given the extent of the government's woes, Cameron will be relieved to have emerged largely unscathed from today's session. Miliband's surprising decision not to ask a question about the economy meant the PM was not required to defend the coalition's weakest point. As Cameron left the chamber he was patted on the back by George Osborne, both men satisfied by a performance that will have settled some Tory nerves.

David Cameron insisted he was right not to refer Jeremy Hunt to the adviser on ministers' interests. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Watch: The evidence Nigel Farage said money sent to the EU should go to the NHS

After the EU referendum result, Nigel Farage said it was a "mistake" for Leave to suggest funds could go to the NHS. But what's this?

Remember Friday? (I know: it's not necessarily a pleasant thing to do, but bear with me.) On Friday, hours after the result of the EU referendum was announced, Nigel Farage appeared on Good Morning Britain and said that the Leave campaign advertising which linked the extra "£350m a week" Brexit would allegedly gift us with the NHS was a "mistake".

Sure, it was on posters, and emblazoned on a bus, and he didn't speak up to disabuse anyone of the notion. But let's give Farage the benefit of the doubt and pretend he does sorely regret the fact that, through no fault of his own, members of the electorate may have been led to believe that that money would be put into healthcare. It must be tough, when you ought to be high on your victory, to have to answer for other people's mistakes

Ah. Hold that thought.

It looks like the Independent has unearthed a video of Nigel Farage on television before the vote, and  strange thing  he tells Hilary Benn that the money currently being sent to Europe should be spent on, er, "schools, hospitals and the NHS".

Well, this mole isn't sure what to say. Maybe Farage doesn't remember this specific moment? Maybe when he said "schools, hospitals and the NHS" he actually meant something different, like "negotiating our exit from the EU", or "paying to access the common market despite no longer being a member"? Or maybe when he said that money should be spent on these things, he didn't mean it necessarily would be, and it would have been entirely unreasonable for the voting public to make such an absurd leap?

All I can suggest is that you watch and decide for yourself, dear reader.

I'm a mole, innit.