Cameron sails through PMQs but fails to answer pressing questions

Harriet Harman goes on the attack over family tax credits.

By James Macintyre Published 23 June 2010 13:33

Harriet Harman brought to life a rather dull and uneventful Prime Minister's Questions today when she pressed David Cameron to confirm that families with children earning less than £40,000 would not lose out on tax credits.

Cameron refused to rule out a loss in that bracket, instead accusing Labour -- and Labour leadership contenders -- of failing to come up with areas they would cut to help reduce the deficit.

Harman claimed that "Budget small print" showed "big cuts in eligibility for tax credits" and argued that "there are families on a joint income of £30,000 who will lose all their tax credits" under the government's plans, announced in yesterday's Budget.

At one point, as tensions rose, John Bercow, the Speaker, reminded the House that "barracking" was "detested by the electorate". After which Harman said that "what people detest . . . is broken promises".

Cameron accused Labour of adopting "Greekenomics" and said it had to "get serious" about the scale of the deficit.

A quiet, parochial and slightly boring PMQs, in which Harman put up a good fight, but a smooth Cameron sailed through with no real cuts or bruises. This, despite one of the most controversial, ideology-driven and risky budgets in modern British political history.

More from James Macintyre

9 comments

Wed, 2010-06-23 13:54 — mr_wonderful (not verified)

I have this horrible feeling Cameron is going to get away with this.

Wed, 2010-06-23 14:13 — swatantra nandanwar

Of course he is. He's got a 'mandate.
The voters can'y whinge because they voted him in. The Coalition will keep blaming Labour for 'the alleged mess and the weather'.
Harriets voice simply is not deep enough to challenge Cameron. Labour needs a battle axe aunt agatha type like booming Diane Abbott to land any blows on Cameron.

Wed, 2010-06-23 14:52 — Sue Davies (not verified)

I didn't hear the Cameron/Harman debate in quite the same way ... I thought that Cameron was quite rattled that Harriet was so unfazed.... she carried on authoritively in spite of his Patrician ridiculing... and his last few non-answers were really very weak.

He may well get away with this in the short term, just as Blair did ... but this budget revealed exactly how right wing and extreme this government is, and also the window dressing which the LibDems are providing.... Jenny Tong on the World at One was clearly not impressed.

Wed, 2010-06-23 16:36 — beak

He will get away with it because it is necessary.

Harriet Harman didn't land a blow, she was batted off with ease. Her performances at the dispatch box have confirmed why she didn't didn't stand for leader.

Wed, 2010-06-23 16:37 — beak

"Labour needs a battle axe aunt agatha type like booming Diane Abbott to land any blows on Cameron."

Oh please let her win! It will be hilarious!

Wed, 2010-06-23 20:38 — Nick9

What is pathetic is how Cameron and Clegg pretend they are the new Government of truth, they are not. They’ve blatantly lied; you know that; I know that. But please Beak don’t throw up the old ‘envy’ trump card. It’s not that I despise everyone who does well for themselves, I’m all for working hard and earning a decent crust as the fruits for our labour. But what I am against is the truly disgusting sums of money that are paid to some of these ridiculously high earners. No-one in their right minds can say a footballer is worth £90,000 a week. That’s just not right. So when the likes of Cameron say ‘we’re all in this together’; I expect him to mean what he says. He should look to them in the same way he does to everyone else and say ‘if we expect some people to take a cut on an income of around a couple of hundred pounds a week you can give up some of your vast fortune can’t you? Of course they won’t like it but that’s tough! There is an abundance of wealth in this country, it’s just as I say; the money needs shifting around so everyone has a fair slice of the cake. That way we’ll all get through this together and pay our debt with much less impact on those who will suffer greatly.

Wed, 2010-06-23 21:21 — beak

Footballers are a different case to people who have worked incredibly hard to earn their wealth. Why shoul dthey be punished for being successful? That just kills aspiration.

However, you are certainly right in some respects where companies pay their directors, sometimes, 20 times that of the average worker. Like that prat Adam Crozier. That is where the gap needs closing.

Wed, 2010-06-23 22:19 — clem the gem (not verified)

Another killer of aspiration would be inherited wealth and power. I believe Adam Smith had some very nasty things to say about the economic and moral consequences of a certain type of upbringing...:)

Wed, 2010-06-23 23:00 — Nick9

I agree with your 20:21 post Beak. I'm against those who don't justly earn their money. I do believe there is a case for a super tax on the ridiculously wealthy or more practically a clamp down on the loopholes used for tax evasion. Clegg promised that but he has gone all quiet and that's why this budget has come across as unbalanced. I fully appreciate that hard working entrepreneurs have a place in society because they create jobs for others. It's the people you refer to who I want to see nobbled in the same way that this coalition wants to nobble the benefit scrounger.