David Cameron gives a speech about the further powers devolved to the Scottish parliament on January 22, 2015 in Edinburgh. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

PMQs review: Cameron's "weaponise" charge throws Miliband off balance

The PM's sheer chutzpah allowed him to command the session. 

Few PMQs in this parliament have been as brutal as today's. Ed Miliband led again on the NHS, Labour's strongest suit (and the issue that polls show is of greatest importance to voters), questioning David Cameron on his failure to save A&E units from closure. Cameron responded by immediately challenging Miliband on his refusal to deny that he vowed to "weaponise" the health service, demanding that he apologise. At this point, the session descended into one of the ugliest encounters yet between the two men. 

The Labour leader attacked Cameron's evasiveness (with supreme chutzpah, he simply ignored his questions) but the PM would not relent. After persistent goading, a furious Miliband hyperbolically accused him of declaring "war on Wales" before clarifying that this referred to his use of the "Welsh NHS" for "political propaganda". Any channel hopper unfortunate enough to catch the exchanges would likely have switched off at this point. 

The Tories' outrage over "weaponise" is, to put it mildly, rather confected. It was largely through their briefings over welfare that the word first entered the political lexicon. But it does provide Cameron with a means of throwing Miliband off balance every time he raises the subject. Most voters are unlikely to care about the substance of the "weaponise" row (a word that conjures up images of armed doctors). But they will notice Miliband's equivocation and the rhetorical exaggerations that Cameron provokes ("war on Wales"). Having said several times that he "does not remember" what he said to the BBC's Nick Robinson (who first reported the "weaponise" claim), the Labour leader cannot now defend his alleged use of the word without being branded a liar. 

The PM's ruthless form was testimony to his increasing confidence (the Tories having taken the lead in the polls). In response to a question from Labour left-winger Jeremy Corbyn on his conversation with Syriza leader Alexis Tsipras, the PM, deploying his party's mantra of choice, quipped that he asked him what his "long-term economic plan" was. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

New Statesman
Show Hide image

Quiz: Can you identify fake news?

The furore around "fake" news shows no sign of abating. Can you spot what's real and what's not?

Hillary Clinton has spoken out today to warn about the fake news epidemic sweeping the world. Clinton went as far as to say that "lives are at risk" from fake news, the day after Pope Francis compared reading fake news to eating poop. (Side note: with real news like that, who needs the fake stuff?)

The sweeping distrust in fake news has caused some confusion, however, as many are unsure about how to actually tell the reals and the fakes apart. Short from seeing whether the logo will scratch off and asking the man from the market where he got it from, how can you really identify fake news? Take our test to see whether you have all the answers.

 

 

In all seriousness, many claim that identifying fake news is a simple matter of checking the source and disbelieving anything "too good to be true". Unfortunately, however, fake news outlets post real stories too, and real news outlets often slip up and publish the fakes. Use fact-checking websites like Snopes to really get to the bottom of a story, and always do a quick Google before you share anything. 

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.