PMQs review: Cameron profits from Labour's pensions move

The PM's framing of the party as soft on welfare but tough on pensioners is dangerous for Miliband and Balls.

It was the unending struggle between David Cameron and Ed Balls that defined today's PMQs. After the shadow chancellor revealed at the weekend that pensions would be included in Labour's welfare cap, Tory MPs set the PM up to deliver attack after attack on Labour for targeting those who've "worked hard all their lives". As Balls furiously pointed out, the party has pledged to keep the "triple lock" on pensions, but Cameron seized on Douglas Alexander's statement that this was their policy "at present" (the standard formulation used by shadow ministers) to declare that Labour would "cut the pension". That Cameron is now able to claim as much, however implausibly, is dangerous for Balls and Miliband. As the PM knows well, It is the over-65s who are the most likely age group to vote (76 per cent did in 2010, compared to 65 per cent of the total population). Cameron is now framing Labour as the party that wants to "protect welfare [it has refused to support the £26,000 benefit cap in its current form], punish hardworkers and punish pensioners." 

Cameron launched another rhetorical assault on Balls later in the session when he declared that the shadow chancellor's statement that the last Labour government did not spend too much "will be hung around his neck forever", describing it as "the most important quote in the last 10 years of politics." For the Tories, Balls's and Miliband's refusal to "apologise" for overspending gives them the opening they need to claim that Labour has "learned nothing" from the crash. 

The exchanges between Cameron and Miliband - on Syria and living standards - were less memorable but highlighted the significant division that has opened up between the two parties on arming the Syrian rebels. Miliband asked the PM: "given that Russia is prepared to send more arms to the Syrian government, does the Prime Minister think it is at all realistic for that 'tipping strategy' to work?" Cameron replied by insisting that he had "not made a decision to supply the Syrian opposition with weapons" but floundered when asked by Miliband what safeguards had been put in place in the event that he did. With many on the Tory benches as sceptical of Labour of the merits of arming the rebels (81 Conservative MPs signed a motion demanding a vote on the matter), this is likely to become a growing headache for the PM. 

David Cameron and Ed Miliband walk through the Members' Lobby to listen to the Queen's Speech at the State Opening of Parliament on May 8, 2013. Photograph: Getty Images.

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.