PMQs review: Cameron turns Brown and Miliband turns red

Cameron is sounding ever more like Gordon Brown, while Miliband is turning left.

As the economy continues to struggle, David Cameron is sounding ever more like his predecessor. Asked by Ed Miliband at today's PMQs to respond to growth of just 0.5 per cent in the last 12 months, Cameron replied that any growth should be welcomed amid the "global storm in the world economy". The man who once mocked Gordon Brown for blaming "global conditions" for weak growth now steals his lines.

Miliband went on to ask his favourite question: does the Prime Minister know how many businesses have been helped by the [insert failing growth policy]? In the case of the Business Growth Fund, which has five offices and 50 staff, the answer was just two. From there, as Miliband raised the subject of FTSE 100 directors' pay, the exchanges descended into a noisy squabble over who had taxed the rich the most, over who had been meanest to the bankers.

Cameron pointed to the rise in capital gains tax, the new levy on non-domiciles and the tax deal agred with Switzerland. Miliband reminded him that it was the last Labour government that introduced the 50p tax rate, which the Tories want to abolish. His full-throated support for the top rate (the fourth highest in the world) will raise eyebrows in Westminster but never forget that, as poll after poll has confirmed, most voters favour it.

That wasn't the only moment when Ed sounded redder than he has for some time. For the first time, he echoed the language of the St Paul's protesters, accusing Cameron of always favouring the 1 per cent over "the 99 per cent". It was further evidence that the Labour leader believes the political spectrum is shifting leftwards. If he is right (as we must hope is), the political rewards could be great.

It was left to Alistair Darling to sound a sombre note and remind the House that the Greek crisis is entering its terrifying endgame. As he urged Cameron to persuade the G20 to produce more details on the alarmingly vague rescue package, events in Westminster suddenly felt a lot smaller.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.