PMQs review: a surprise win for Miliband as Cameron dodges EU questions

The PM refused to say whether he would allow Conservative cabinet ministers to campaign for EU withdrawal during the referendum campaign.

Today's PMQs was a preview of the arguments over the EU that will be had repeatedly between now and the 2015 election. Ed Miliband accused David Cameron of condemning Britain to "five years of uncertainty" by promising a referendum in the next parliament and of hanging a "closed for business" over the country. In response, Cameron falsely claimed that the choice at the next election would be between a party that wants to keep Britain out of the single currency and one that wants to take us in. Ed Balls, for instance, has said that "there's no possibility anytime in my lifetime of a British government joining the euro". But Cameron was on stronger ground when he declared that Miliband "doesn't believe the people should be given a choice". It is hard to see how Labour will be able to avoid making some kind of referendum pledge before the next election.

While Cameron's promise to give the voters a say hands him a major advantage over his opponent, Miliband unsettled the Prime Minister with several well-chosen questions. Asked whether he would allow cabinet ministers to campaign for EU withdrawal during the referendum campaign (an issue I looked at earlier this week), as Harold Wilson did in 1975, Cameron simply ignored the question. But he will need to have an answer ready when he takes questions from the media after his speech on Friday.

Reminding MPs that William Hague had previously argued against an immediate in/out referendum on the grounds that it would create too much "economic uncertainty", Miliband defined Cameron's position as "an in/out referendum now would be destabilising but one in five years time is fine for the country". Challenged to say which powers (if any) Labour would seek to repatriate, Miliband was cheered by his MPs as he declared: "the biggest change we need in Europe is to move from austerity to growth and jobs".

The Tories are confident that the public are on their side, with some hopeful that the party will receive a poll bost from Cameron's speech. The PM declared that political parties could "sit back, do nothing and tell the public to go hang" or stand up for "the national interest". But Miliband was surely right when he said that while Cameron may hope his Europe problems are over they are, in fact, "just beginning". The danger for Cameron remains that the gap between what Tory MPs want from a renegotiation and what he can deliver is so great that he has set himself up for failure. The advantage he has is that this will not become a problem until after the next election. As a holding strategy, Cameron's is not a bad one.

Ed Miliband declared at Prime Minister's Questions:"it’s the same old Tories, a divided party and a weak Prime Minister". Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.