PMQs review: Cameron's Europe headache swells

In the Commons at least, Miliband has much to gain by banging on about Europe.

"We've been here 33 minutes," noted David Cameron at one point in today's PMQs. One senses that the Prime Minister doesn't enjoy it when his weekly inquisition overruns. Europe has become a headache for him, like all his recent predecessors, and Ed Miliband has every intention of exploiting this fact.

The Labour leader asked Cameron an admirably succinct question: what powers will he seek to repatriate at this week's EU summit? After all, six weeks ago, at the height of the EU rebellion, Cameron told his backbenchers that a treaty renegotiation would give him a chance to do just that. But the PM, waffling on about "safeguards" and "the national interest", offered nothing resembling an answer. As Miliband concluded: "the more he talked, the more confusing his position was."

He went on: "why does the Prime Minister think it's in the national interest to tell his backbenchers one thing ... and to tell his European partners another?" Cameron responded, as he always does, by going on the attack. It was Labour that "surrendered" powers to Brussels and that would take us into the euro (had he not heard Ed Balls tell the House that Britain would not join the single currency in his "lifetime"?). It is indicative of Cameron's woes that he now prefers to attack than to defend. The simple fact of the coalition means that he is in a lose-lose position on Europe. He can't say which powers he wants back because to do so would enrage either the Lib Dems or the Tories (or both). Miliband's quip that Cameron promised his backbenchers a "hand-bagging" but was now just offering "hand-wringing" was devastating because it was true. No fewer than eight Tory MPs asked Cameron about Europe and not one of them received a satisfactory answer.

But the Labour leader was notably less effective when he attacked the autumn statement for taking three times as much from the poorest third as from the richest third. He criticised Cameron for delaying a new tax on private jets (which would raise just £5m a year) but Cameron shot back: "he had 13 years to tax private jets and now some former leaders are jetting around in them." In apparent desperation, Ed Balls thrust an IFS decile graph in Cameron's direction. But while the facts are on Labour's side, the politics aren't (yet). For now, in the Commons at least, Miliband has much to gain by banging on about Europe.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496