´óÏó´«Ã½

Hi Nick,

Quick question for you:

In this week's PMQ's, Gordon Brown referred to an e-petition in which only 26 people had asked him to call an election in 2007.

Given the publicity he has now given that petition, and the inevitable flood of signatures that it will now receive, what do you think are the chances that David Cameron will throw it right back in his face at next Wednesday's PMQ's?

Johnny Lyttle

Sorry Nick, I just don't get it.

Were we watching the same PMQ's? The story for me was how the PM had his credibilty to run this country completely demolished by the Leader of the Opposition. There were moments where I had to look away. Did you see the faces on the Labour benches? If the reverse had happened and Cameron had taken a beating on this scale then I can just imagine how the ´óÏó´«Ã½ would have reacted.

Surely it is not character assassination rather it is character communication. Gordon Brown is risk averse - he was never going to call an election in case he lost. He has no courage which is why he waited 10 years and why the reference to his own book was clever. He is incapable of giving a straight answer - hence asking him for a yes or no answer was only going to highlight his predilection for obfuscation. Stealing their popular ideas was a typical calculated risk. Voters do not like schemers. In fact the only trait they did not hit on was his controlling, bullying side but presumably that will come. If the Tories continue to highlight his true and innate nature, Gordon Brown will be very unpopular by the next election. Which is why not calling one during his honeymoon period will probably turn out to be a huge mistake.

I would not be surprised if quite a large percentage of people would actually welcome a 'lurch to the right' if this meant - No ID Cards, A Referendum on the EU agreement/ treaty/ sell-out and a review on immigration policy.

Whenever Mr Cameron and the Conservaative party have produced radically different proposals from the Labour Party, they seem to do better in the opinion polls - whenever it appears that they offer similar policies they do worse.

It may well be 'Time for a Change' but unless there is the option for a change, which can be presented constructively and coherently to the electorate, then the Conservative party will not do as well as they could.

The petition is going to be the story.

Now gordon has said that he is watching, every one in the country has the opportunity to show him what they think.

If enough people sign - there will be enough credibility that we never have to wait for a referrendum again.

No to the EU constitution? No to ID cards? No confidence in the PM and his government?

He has cack-handedly dropped the batton - and it is there for the people to seize.

I just hope that they do.

I looked for the petition for holding an election. There is more than one petition on the subject (to confuse things), and the one that currently has 26 signatures is to "Hold An Immediate General Election In England Only". Obviously thats not going to happen, so its an irrelevant petition. Did I get the wrong one? Surely GB wouldn't use that spurious petition for yet more spin, would he?!

In response to the first post, I notice that there has been a flood of signatures asking GB to call an election. The figure now stands at 1158!

Exactly right. Cameron's schoolboy swagger is playing well with his Westminster pals and schoolboy chums. But it surely is way off what the rest of the country wants to see.

Noone has an appetite for an election. The Tories can pretend to clamour for one, but it is all image and bravado, as virtually every commentator (including Parris!) said about their conference. In fact, as everyone knows, they'd get a pasting. Everyone else simply wants the government to get on with the job.

Cameron's attempt to blacken Brown's character is surely strategically misguided. The dialectic slips into the following pattern: DC says something amounting to a personal or character attack on GB, then GB responds with something about policy, spending, public services, or the national interest. Repeat that a few times, and which of these two men do you think the public will be more and more interested in listening to?

To the extent that any kind of differing vision for the country emerges from all of this, it seems to be as follows. Tories for the super-rich few, Labour for the many.

Broon. Spin-less? Spineless!

I haven't seen PMQs, but if Gordon Brown was so willing to listen to public opinion by quoting the number of people who have signed the e-petition for an election (on what website?) - why has he not mentioned the amount of people who have signed up online for a vote on the EU Treaty, for instance the 100,000 plus who have signed the petition on the Daily Telegraph's website?

Is Gordon Brown's use of public opinion selective?! Surely not.

No doubt his next book will be called "Why I love public opinion", in order to 'counter' accusations he doesn't listen to it...

His book titles are so overtly named to attempt to counter criticisms of him: it's pathetic.

Nick,

I suspect that the thoughts that you express regarding the dangers to the Tory Modernisers are most apt.

One of the things that I, and many other Tory supporters, have hated is the way that everyone of us have been painted as 'the nasty party' when quite clearly this has been completed rubbish.

What Cameron has done is to give voice to that part of the party that has always had a caring and compassionate side - which I suspect is the majority. Until the policy reviews came in, the only things he could really talk about were compassion and green items. Now we are seeing true Conservatism come to the fore and I for one am really pleased.

Anyone who saw IDS's speech at the conference and the reaction that it got could not associate this party with 'nasty'. Which is more than can be said for the Labour party at the moment.

...and just why are the public desengaged and disillusioned with politics??

This is an utter national disgrace, is this the way we want to be represented??

...and the new style of politics is??

The behaviours demonstrated by the politicians and the media are shocking to say the least!

This is fantastic. Brown has effectively announced an online referendum on the date of the election. We just get enough people to sign the petition. Cameron can throw it back at him next week. Brown can no longer say that it is irrelevant as he used it as an argument himself.

Please, let's not get all caught up in this phoney election 2007 stuff. This was dreamt up by the media catching on to the calls made when Gordon Brown became Labour leader. To blame also are some of the young guns in the Labour Party who whipped this idea up. The reality, and Gordon Brown understands this quite well, is that he does not need a "personal mandate". As he stated in his intervier with Andrew Marr this country does not have nor need a president. The Labour Party has a mandate which runs until 2010 and Gordon Brown has, quite rightly, stuck to his original instincts and decided that getting on with the business of government is more important than distracting everybody with an unnecessary general election so soon after the last one.

Any chance of Brown paying any attention at all to any of the so called 'petitions' on the Downing Street site? This NuLab cabal has never done so to date. And is Brown's position that the only thing he will take notice of is petitions on the Downing Street site? Can he not read the newspapers, hear the widespread discontent and loathing? Can he not even hear what is said shouted across the Despatch Box and spoken on the benches behind him? There's none so blind as those who will not see, and none so deaf as those who will not hear.

The only reason that it is 'the election that never was' is because Brown bottled it, simple as that. He's had over a decade to 'flesh out' his so-called 'vision'. What has he been doing all this time? He's the man who repeatedly attempted to lever Blair out. Now that he's managed that he doesn't have a clue as to what he wants to do. The man is an obsessive of entirely limited imagination - or should that be 'vision'?

This is not 'character assassination' it is character exposure - for those who had not already recognised the beast.

What Brown should have said:

"Mr Speaker, Mr Cameron has accused me of being phoney…
Well, we all know that Mr Cameron cares for the people of this country – all of them and not just the better off
We all know that Mr Cameron is sincere in his desire to become Prime Minister so that he can bring about change
We all know that Mr Cameron is genuine when he said he knew ‘Britain would win’, not the Tories
We all know that Mr Cameron spoke without an autocue so that we might know what came from his heart
None of us believe that Mr Cameron was thinking about PR when he went to Alaska
None of believe that it was because of the image that he rides his bike or has a wind turbine
None of us believe it was for presentation that Mr Cameron changed his hair style
None of us believe that it was the polls that changed his opinion on grammar schools
None of us believe he has given up on changing the Tory party and making it nice again
None of us believe he has lurched to the right
We believe him. We trust him as a leader of substance, of character, of depth.
We believe him when he says he cares for the poorest in society – he understands them
We believe him when he says that a state school is his preference for his children
We believe his when he says that he is ready to lead the country
We believe in his integrity and his courage and his charisma.
Mr Speaker, thankfully we are no longer engaged in Punch and Judy politics.
Thankfully, the old politics has gone…
We know this because Mr Cameron has told us. I stand corrected"

In response to No.s 7 and 8 above, I believe the petition in question is: 'We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Hold a general election in 2007.' Submitted by Mark Batty.

As of 16:46 BST it stands at 1,276 signatures.

Any chance of you mentioning this petition on the TV, Nick?

After all the talk about 'voter apathy' it's a welcome bit of 'democracy in action' and it would be fun to see number of signatures rising to 6 fugures or more and wiping that smirk off GB's face.

Character assassination? What else is there to Brown apart from 'I'm GORDON BROWN'? He positively purrs at fawning applause. Ten years trying to stick the knife into Blair's back and not quite having the guts tells us all we need to know about the man's character. He comes across as a bully and like all bullies their sole purpose is to bully - oh yes, and to get re-elected more times and with more seats than Blair.

Sorry Nick, I just don't get it.

Were we watching the same PMQ's? The story for me was how David Cameron had his credibilty to run this country completely demolished by the PM. There were moments where I had to look away. Did you see the faces on the Conservative benches? If the reverse had happened and the PM had taken a beating on this scale then I can just imagine how the ´óÏó´«Ã½ would have reacted.

It can not be character assisination when it is just removing the carefully constructed mask of the early days of Gordon Brown's premiership. In any case, it is Brown himself who started this by reverting to type, spinning figures (Iraq), disappearing when the going got tough (Northern Rock) and denying the obvious reason for something (not due to the polls. Think you had better improve your terminology Nick, it might look pro Labour!

I have only seen the clip of PMQs on the Beeb's website, so I concede that this is not the best evidence but from what I saw I thought Cameron landed some blows but that GB did okay. At least he looked engaged and a bit more coherent. The problem for the Tories is is that they don't have much else in the way of ammunition or policy. They won't be able to make it last. If GB was canny, he'd call a referendum on the EU treaty. But he won't.

Nick
Can you ask when you are next at the Prime Minister's briefing, when Labour figures will actually start to add up? I don't remember a time that any political party has done this, and therefore for the Prime Minister to use it as an argument is ridiculous.
Secondly, the PM suggested the 150,000 non-doms was way off the mark, but that was possibly only because the treasury refused to give the information. How about they cut the loopholes over how footballers are paid? That could be a start to getting some of the billions in required. I am sure I read about them getting their pay sent straight to Jersey or similar regions.

They're all useless. Wittering about fine-tuning the tax system and who has the most "vision".... while the infrastructure of the country goes to hell in the proverbial hand-basket.

How are we going to ensure we have food, water and energy over the next 20 to 50 years (aka - keep the lights on, keep people moving about, keep it clean) and how to get the most people to the best standard of living are the key questions.... anyone for a "none of the above" party?

Same old, same old.
It is just history repeating itself.
Before any Government that is elected there is always a time when they look tired and devoid of delivering so many of the promises made whilst in Opposition.
Referendum on the Europe question? It falls on deaf ears despite a previous promise.
Watching Cameron and his cohorts piling on the agony for a disappointing Prime Minister at PM's question time brings memories of Major as he flailed hopelesly around.
The respective front benches, with a bunch of disasters on one side and a bunch of disasters waiting to happen on the other side are so busy throwing custard pies at each other, the rising number of violent crimes, illegal immigrants etc.,are a mere nuiscance to the whole bunch who have no real answer anyway.
For the most part, a bunch of grossly overpaid windbags,

Am I the only person who does not feel comfortable with someone running the country who wasn't voted in, but was put in by virtue of a resignation?
Does it also bother anyone in the apparant lack of flow between Labour's ideas under TB and the new policies under GB?
If each was in the party because they believed in it (which I would hope they would be) then shouldn't they have fewer polocies that seemed to contradict each other?
Bring the election on - If GB wins then he deserves his position. It should be the peoples' country and therefor the leader should be the peoples' choice

Nick
The real "black hole" which the government itself has "lurched right" into is the difference between the treasury forecasts of tax receipts and what the public borrowing requirement would be. Some 8 billion at the last count - far higher than any possible non-dom tory black hole.

I think this was a Micheavillean move by Brown. He knows elections can be won by charismatic leaders without any real policy (TB 1997). The prospect of a general election has forced the tories into publicising their economic plans for the next government. Now he can pick and chose the popular bits into the budget (inheritance tax). There by forcing the reformers of the tory party to retreat into rightist policies and become unelectable.

Hi Nick,

As much as i enjoy listening & read your comments on politics,i will disagree with you on today`s PMQ`s.

David gave Gordon a run for his money.You can see how David Cameron a learnet alot from Tony Blair.

He was exciting and gave clear cut answers.

We need a new change of government

Vincent Brian
London

In respect of the petition I think GB has shot himself and his party well and truly in the foot. Of greater concern to me is the pathetic, child-like and disrespectful behaviour of so many of our elected representatives. Surely BROWN, CAMERON and many others must be embarassed and ashamed when they look back at those scenes, which are repeated all too frequently. If not it speaks volumes about them and their ability to govern is brought into further doubt. You could be forgiven for describing them as arrogant in the extreme.

"The Tory press"! Who will they be then? Even the Daily Telegraph went Brown. All the Tories I know are either leaving it or muttering. They have just announced the details of their new political appointment at the Daily Telegraph in the Press Gazette. From the Daily Mirror!

Ok, so there is not going to be an election that nobody wanted.

Big deal!

The Tories want everyone who lives in run down council estates (they ran them down) to form an orderly queue with Obramovich and pay up a volutary tax instead of claiming £Millions from dead relatives.

Oh yeah!Get real!

The ones who build hopitals and schools everywhere and fill paupers pockets with tax credits will always be seen as 'bringing home the bacon'.

Gordon will take his bow when he's good and ready.

Gary

Why all the fuss about Inheritance Tax changes Is not 600K per couple the same as the old rate of 300K per person.

Let's hope this really is the turning point. Not so much from Labour to Conservative, Left to Right, whatever, but rather from the now outdated 20th century ideologies of enormous, incompetent governments dispensing patronage in return for votes. Tax cuts are only a part of it. We need a wholesale return of power to the people, to individuals, to families, to businesses, an ending of the state's fingers in every pie. Broon represents that worldview, he's soaking in it. He cannot lead Britain forward, because he himself is of the past.

I feel this article is rather biased towards our glorious unelected leader, not least in implying that he has a vision to flesh out. I see none. His ideas are all dusty, second hand, the naive ideas his ilk had 40 years ago in the Student Union bars.

There's every sign that this will be a lame, collapsing administration, toiling confusedly to the finish line at the next election as the electorate drum their fingers waiting for the chance to evict them, rather akin to the dying days of the Major government.

What makes Gordan Brown think we want to see HIS vision for the future of Britain realised?. This sounds very much like the words of a dictator and not a democratically elected prime minister, or not as the case is!. Maybe we should ask the Daily Mail to post a petition on wether or not the public would like a general election now or not as they did with the EU referendum.

Gordon Brown seemed to me to deal with the schoolboy tantrums of David Cameron with remarkable dignity at today's PMQs. Mr Cameron is clearly a gifted speaker and performer. However, it takes more than that to convince voters in this country. His 2 flagship policies seem to me to be flawed. Increasing the inheritance tax exemption to a milion pounds will benefit only a few very rich people and the taxation of non-doms in the way he suggests to pay for this just doesn't add up.

Clearly Mr Cameron will milk the Prime Ministers current discomfort for all its worth - which will please his supporters in the short run - but will soon be seen as clever but unsubstantial unless he can start producing some credible policies.

The past week has been most interesting however the picture which sticks in my mind is the one:

Where Alistair Darling is explaining how he is stealing the polocies from the Tories and the Libs, while in the background is smirking like an ape. I have to say it is an image which either reinforces how low politians will stoop to get applause or emphasis how short term they really are. In short anyone who is prepared to lift policied wholesale to stay in power is driven by the necessity of staying in power rather than any credibility, respect or leadership. Would I buy a car from this man is the test and the answer is no, no , NO.

Hi Nick

As a conservative that voted Labour in the 1997 election I have two questions. One to Mr Brown and one to Mr Cameron.

Mr Brown, can I trust you to take a difficult decision regarding our Countries future without putting your party first?

Mr Cameron, can I trust you to follow through your policies should you be elected prime minister?

I know where my loyalties lie. I`m just not sure where theirs do!

It is about the Opposition actually started opposing. We have had ten years of the Tories contemplating their navels. The government has run out of money and therefore ideas. Get stuck in!

And the Conservatives STILL think it is fair and right to give £2bn of inheritance cuts to people who are millionaires.

They should be ashamed of themselves.

If Gordon Brown really has any 'vision' of Britain, shouldn't he have got round to describing it before now? He's been absolutely central to government, especially in domestic matters, for ten years. That's the question you should be posing, instead of saying he's got to flesh it out a bit. Talking about 'vision' at this stage, and the need to put his vision before the country, is nothing more than a front for his having flunked calling an election.

Hi Nick, I've got a very important and deep observation on the recent days, there has been one consistency over the last few days:

1. Last week's trip to Basra
2. Saturday interview with Andy Marr
3. Tuesday's PBR/CSR
4. Wednesday's PMQ

He's had the same light blue tie on for all of them? Has he only got one?

I can't find a picture for monday's iraq statement..

Is this his 'lucky' tie, if so his young guns need another word in his shell-like and cut it up fast.

How can David Cameron enter into such an over the top rant at his opponent upon reurning to the House,
when he clearly stated, on his own election as leader, that he would put this type of politics into the past.

Can anyone really believe him to be anything other than A Phoney, so soon into his leadership!

The interesting thing about Brown's attempted defence today is that he is now trotting out Blair's 10-year statistics and catalogue of achievements, whereas until recently he was implying that Day Zero was when he took over, and by implication that he was not responsible for what happened under Blair. The carefully crafted image is beginning to unravel. It was also interesting to see Cameron's calm reaction to Brown's blustering replies to his PMQs. I suspect that on body language alone neutrals would feel more comfortable with that type of leadership. Also the pictures of Brown and Darling giggling like schoolboys yesterday as Darling announced policies from Osborne's speech (to the Conservative Conference) were hardly what should be expected of PM and Chancellor. Astonishing to say, Cameron seems to have more gravitas than Brown.

Surely Brown's big opportunity to show us all his elusive 'vision' was during the Comprehensive Spending Review?

Instead he had to steal Tory ideas. I think that says it all, really.

Perhaps the difference between the so called "westminster village" and the majority of those in the solid conservative cmmunity who prefer Blair or Brown to Major, Hague, Smith (let's not pander to the Panda)Howard, Cameron is that we look at the real, rather than the frenzy.

It is mostly the Tory Press, and those on the other benches, who cannot see the trees, but pick out wild lianas which traverse the whole scene, with almost no subsatnce.

When the fishwives of Coronation St in the '60s would scream as MacCamaroon did today they gained no respect, even when they were right. It even worse becomes an old Etonian, wet behind the ears, and desperate that his Party has effectively disowned his reforms 2 years before an election.

Gordon Brown has a vision, and it will be shared when enough of it is in train, clearly ascribable to his period in office, and plans are in place for more to be put into effect.

We do not need a loud braggart: a steady, if shy, but brave politician, committed to the good will do for quite some while I believe.

I am no son of the manse, but I know.

Trust me, I stopped being a politician.

(Unwise to trust those who will not declare their own views, but pretend to be mysteriously "balanced" imho)

The behaviour of the Tories at today's PMQs was like a schoolboy pack of Hooray Henrys holding court at a playground bullying session. The screwed up faces, the Haw-haw grins, the childish remarks. Is this what private school education churns out? This is supposed to be Parliament. No wonder it is often called the Palace of Varieties. Don't ever let these dimwits run the country.

Perhaps people were watching a different PMQ's to me but I thought that Gordon Brown riposted the Cameron onslaught rather well under the overbearing Conservative jeering on display. Yes of course it is all elementary in politics but the facts remain that regarding "spin" Cameron has plenty of it. He still doesn't have any policies and the one about the non-dom tax was absurd as Brown pointed out rather well; it won't work because it hasn't been though through. Darling also spoke about inheritance tax a number of months ago which was before the Conservatives jumped onto it and then suggested it was "pinched" by New Labour in the "non" pre-election budget report. Cameron is spinning his was through his own party leadership and doing something even more pertubing in that his is forgetting the facts. But hey... never let the facts get in the way of a good headline!

If there would be a hung parliament at the next election, then Ming Campbell shall be the keystone. Perhaps people can put aside the European issue (which only matters at a European election, since it's been thoroughly decided without the People's permission) & recognise the value of LibDem policy at the national & local level. David Cameron is proving to be a better attack-dog than I expected, but he's no leader of seniority & experience - yet! There is heavy damage on the government's side of the house, now. The Brown ship has been critically holed, this week. Labour are punchdrunk, having to adopt policies which are not their own. Whether this is fatal is yet to be decided, but it's getting mightily close, as the lieutentants Milliband & Darling are proving to be ineffectual. A conservative (with a small 'c') liberalism is the only way forward, which I can see. i.e. Liberalism with the sense to realise that 'anything goes' does not build upon what is intellectually (not just physically; in the sense of a house, for instance) inherited. Labour's socialist mishandling of the country is proving itself to have run out of original ideas (which were never truly constructive, anyway) & will, instead, steal them from better minds. The rusty ironclad, from Fife, is ready to break. It is Crossfire Time!

I'm sorry Nick but Gordon had that coming.

He played games with our democracy, he scored political points using our troops. He talked tough, talked about policies he had no chance of implementing.

He allowed an election to be talked up, bottled out and had little in the way of policy in his 'vision' by way of an excuse. Which let's face it is a Tory 'vision' now.

In short, in the last week and a bit, he's made a mockery of parliamentary democracy.

Labour's atrophy was called today, Cameron had every right to demolish him for all to see. Labour's edifice looks like a clapped out Hollywood set, seen better days, tatty, looks real but nothing there once you get beyond the facade.

Cameron did what any self-respecting leader of the opposition should do.

He started to kick the crumbling mess down.

Brown's a lame duck, if it limps like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims round in circles like a lame duck.

It's a lame duck.

NICK

This was your nice affable man from last week,I believe?

More like a spoilt 3-year old deprived of an ice-cream cornet by an artful elder brother! Don't they teach people anything at Eton?

As I said last week-Mr Cameron(I will use good manners,even if he can't!)will never be PM. Would you want that sort of peevishness on the international stage? Voters won't, when the time comes.

And, as I also said last week-nothing beens GOVERNING!! You want tax cuts-we got 'em! All Mr Cameron can do is talk about them.

Oh come on Nick. This could well be Cameron 'finding his groove'. Buoyed by his conference and Gordon bottling the election this fiesty display will surely bring more Tory dissenters back into the fold and solidify support. The positive feedback of this on his own sense of esteem and 'mission' should not be underestimated !

Dear Nick

Where does Gordon go from here? Next It's Europe to deal with, it all Sounds very un-Gordon like, Bring back Campbell!, never thought Gordon would need to be unspun.

I would say that the general public feel its all been "a bit of a mess"

on a Serious note, at least he has two years to to repair the damage.

Chris Cashmore

No 9 above is dead right. I keep hearing the alienated anti-politcals approving the GB content - eg. the latest on foreign policy which starts to give the UK back it's independent line, independent of the USA, that is.

Did you notice how George Osborne was mouthing the insults exactly as Cameron was hurling them? How strange. I wonder if he finishes Cameron's sentences for him, too?

How can any self-respecting Labour Party supporter believe in a party that adopts Tory policies?

I'm sick and tired of being told by the ´óÏó´«Ã½ that Brown has bottled it. I confess that I am a Labour supporter, and a left-leaning one at that.

When the public went to the polls last time, the fact that Tony Blair would be standing down mid-term was made perfectly clear, and it's doubtful whether Labour would have won the election had there not been that confidence.

Listening to MPs in the commons reminds me of the kind of talk I hear every day on the school playground. They sneer at opposition members, try to assassinate their characters, and make mistakes where there hardly were any. To me, it seems disgusting, and I'm only 15

The fact that Cameron has the guts to call someone else phoney seems naive to me, he is, to me, the most awfully fake politician I've ever heard.

Brown keeps on saying that he's a conviction politician, why? One of the reasons I looked forward to his premiership was that I thought I was going to have a calculating PM, not one who followed his conviction? Anyone remember when Blair followed his conviction into Iraq?

XYZ is spot on.

I don't like New Labour but anyone who thinks that DC is a credible alternative is a fool. It's easy to bluff wanting an election when you have nothing to lose. If there isn't one DC will not be around for the next. He just sounds like a fool.

The problem is Menzies Campbell is no better. Never an insightful thing to say and ousted LDs best leader in a underhand fashion to say the least.

That is Britain's main problem today and it is nothing directly to do with Tony Blair which is rather amazing; there is no party worth electing.

It is such a shame politics has become this dire.

I think voter apathy should be taken more seriously. When the majority of the country do not vote for anyone perhaps people should not critise but realise that the major problem is the parties not the people.

Being one of the super rich few (earning less than £15,000 a year), I'd vote for the Tories over Labour any day of the week.

After 10 years of Blair's lies, it looks like we will have to have another two years of Brown's lies.

Labour for the many? All of the stealth taxes they have introduced have hit people on the lower end of the wages the hardest.

If we have a 'new politics', why has the Labour Party machine been focused throughout the summer on a strategy to annihilate Cameron and the Conservatives? This has been the sum total of a hubristic 'Brown vision'. At the first sign of a genuine counter-attack, the reaction has been to cry 'foul'! Cameron's role is to provide effective opposition, and this is a very effective start.

The correct petition cited on here currently stands at 3222.

If I were David Cameron I would see it as an excellent opportunity for more fun and games next week at QT.

There was a stony faced collection of Labour MP's sat on the Labour benches,including the front bench who probably wished they had never been in the House today.
They saw Gordon Brown being ragged unmercifully by David Cameron and all he could do was to rant about what the Conservatives did in 1979 et al.Gordon Brown's credibility and honesty is now under scrutiny and he should be aware that the voters will not easily forget his
"making of statements with the intention to deceive"
Perhaps the 26 signatures on the website petition to hold an election were all the "7 minute" Ministers who spoke at the Labour Party Conference,acting on instructions of course.

Hi Nick
It was almost impossible to connect your comments on the PM Question Time with the event as seen on the TV and web. For the last ten years the Government has been attacking the characters of the (three) various Conservative leaders. Now that the official Opposition has finally hit on a person, in David Cameron, and a set of policies that expose the lack of new ideas from the government and the Prime Minister, you waste not a minute to round on them for 'character assasination'. Given Gordon Brown's attempts to steal the Conservative's clothes, do you not allow any credit for the Opposition anger at their policies being rifled? Clearly a chord has been struck with the electorate, but you ignore it. Your approach leaves you vulnerable to charges of bias.
Georgie Williams

All a bit distasteful really, from the snippet of PMQ's that I saw. What we have here is two world class wallies fighting over a bone.. And that's been the story of british politics for the last decade.

If we were to have an election, who would we vote for? What has become increasingly clear is that both major parties want power and neither has any idea what to do after that. The shame of it is that we will be forced accept one of these groups and neither are particularly attractive.

I do think that GB is wrong to delay the election, he would win hands down purely because he will get the "better the devil you know" vote

People may throw spaghetti and snipe from the sidelines but the Prime Minister is correct not to pay much attention to it. Indeed, his muted reply is more damning of their disappointing behaviour than any full throttled counter-attack. The opposition parties still don't get that their competitive behaviour is adding nothing to the delivery of governance the Britain so desperately needs and is kicking their rise to power deeper into the long-grass.

In many ways, policy detail and voter communication is less important than the approach, as the approach is what dictates what happens down the line. The Prime Minister's switch from the political high road to the political low road isn't especially clever but it's very, very smart. It lowers him to a fundamental level where his angle of attack and emotional quotient have a natural ability to solve issues and build support as taught by Daoist masters.

Nick comments that the opposition parties current strength is, paradoxically, their greatest weakness. Indeed, the flashing of yang in the face of the Prime Minister's yin suggests that they can only decline and the Prime Minister can only rise. More sober economists would say "Buy on a falling market, sell on a rising market". By riding this wave of growth and decline the Prime Minister is coolly, calmly, and effortlessly surfboarding to success.

Blessed leader is doing very well. I applaud his effort!

Silly Gordon. Now he has to give credence to the petitions, no matter how.

Hi Nick

How many signatures on the petition do you think would be required to oblige brown to call an election?

As brown has specifically identified the petition as a way of the public giving their oppinion - why isn't the ´óÏó´«Ã½ promoting the web address on the front page?

As a public service, surely you have a duty to inform the public?

A Commons performance is only truely effective when it hits at an underlying truth. The charge of deception is one. The public are asked to believe that election speculation is tittle tattle and that ministers are getting on with the business of government when in fact calculated briefing is going on and election polls analysed. Cameron is a smooth operator it's true but maybe, just maybe he was as annoyed as the rest of us for being played for fools.

To me the PMQ was an embarassment for all three main parties. Yes, Brown got a drubbing and the image of himself he created as a strong leader may be momentarily questioned. But as for Cameron, Osborne etc..

Watch the footage again- Look at them literally squawking away in aggressive delight. This wasn't serious political debate, it was gamesmanship, and it looked (sorry Romsey Rapid) incredibly nasty.

It was an old fashioned image, and one which, as Brown noted, Cameron said he wanted to move away from.
A short term victory for the Tories, but that kind of behaviour will come back to haunt him. He looked weaker in attack for playing games, and I can't see how any self-respecting Tory could consider that leadership (would David Davis have acted in such a way?)

The Lib-Dems discussed inheritance tax two weeks before the Conservative conference. Their idea was also stolen for aviation tax. Perhaps it is to their merit that they aren't creating such a fuss over this, but it feels like an opportunity missed, and an example of poor leadership from Ming.

Nick, what do you predict public mood will be like in 12 months time as a result of political media take on the past few weeks?

"Labour will portray their commitments to spend a billion on lifting inheritance tax from some of the richest in the land..."

Important to bear in mind that this magic £1 billion isn't new money.

I think what we're seeing here Nick is spin delivered with a clunking fist.

The way in which The PM has conducted himself appears very amateurish and clumsy. This is in stark contrast with the silky smooth cunning of Blair.

If they were burglars Brown would knock down the door, shoot up the place with an AK-47 and dive out of a closed upstairs window to get out - Rambo style.

Blair would pick the lock, swiftly swipe all valuables and leave, locking the door behind him - 007 ninja style.

P.S. - Ming's toast.

Contrast the Downng Street petition with the Daily Telegraph's one for a referendum, which now stands at over 100 000. What makes me think the population are about as convinced by the Downing Street poll machine as they were by Peoples' Juries?

Ian B at 34 for Prime Minister!

Anybody, and I mean anybody, that can actually feel sorry for the treatment that GB has received should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

1. Yes, yesterday was rowdy, but that's what debates about the affairs of state should be - colourful, energetic and MEANINGFUL. If you take the job of PM you have to expect to take the flack when you mess up -- it's a hugely powerful position and not one that should be treated so blithely.

2. And blithely GB has treated the gig. He seems to be running his government like a local council -- cashing in where he can.

3. Tax cuts are needed and the government can find ways to do it by dispensing with invasive policies and laws that people don't really need (ID cards - what's the point? Please don't say to counter terrorism because it won't work -- huge waste of money). I'm not greedy and I don't mind putting in the pot but 30% of my salary each month, far too much. Most people just want life to be a little bit easier, and an effective tax cut, I mean a real one, would help.

4. This "Westminster Village" nonsense. How patronising it is to suggest that the only people interested in politics are media types. The governing of this country is of grave interest to everyone I know and I think this country does very well at keeping it's politicans straight -- we allow so much but then eventually they get their's.

5. Polling -- This country has millions of residents. Why is so much power put on polling data of a 1000 or so people? It is in no way representative of the country as a whole. Polling is about the manipulation of data and whenever you manipulate anything it tends to get messed up.

Enough for now, it's amazing, honestly, how angry the comments on here make me.

Enough for now, it's amazing, honestly, how angry the comments on here make me.

Sounds like you need to sort yourself out first because it gets in the way of seeing things how they are and formulating a sound response. It colours almost every comment I've seen from you in Nick's blog. They can look a little narrow minded and inflexible. The Prime Minister is handling himself well. You could learn from this.

I think the REAL difficulty for the future of politics is that ALL politicians really only desire power. To get power they have to be ALL things to ALL voters. The spin first - so as not to be out-spun is endemic - so is (listening) but priming opinions to suit.

Voters have long been saying - why vote they are all the same. Sadly this is true - note the recent policy sharing.

Popularism has overtaken virtue - name-calling has replaced debate - illusion has leap-frogged integrity - deception has become commonplace.

The Autumn election was never going to called because the turnout would have been so embarrassingly low.

So looking ahead - what of the future for this government?

Mr Brown please give the voters your vision - show us some conviction - be more truthful - but more importantly, give us a reason to vote!

Whatever anyone says, Gordon was very clearly rattled ("cool and calm" doesn't register) and, although it did nothing to reach a happy concensus, it worked wonders in the interests of Parliamentary democracy. Both sides evidently used a certain amount of licence in their arguments, nonetheless there needed to be a bit of a bust up in order to clear the air after the previous hyped-up week. 'Twas ever thus.

everyone has had there opinon on Brown /(non) election.

here's just one more

Comment
Want to make a few points here

A)the non-election and the world

B) Political Poker and Damage Limitation

C)Brown image and reconstructing it

Point A

could it be that there are too many elections just about to occur (as is likely in Australia mostly likely this side of the new year and in the US next year).

while i grant Australia isn't as important as the US in terms of political situations, nevertheless Brown will want to see what he has 'got to work with' in terms of issues such as Iraq and troop withdrawal.

Also people complain about Brown not calling an election, same thing is happening in Australia where Rudd (ALP)has asked Howard to 'call the federal election'

ultimately its the PM's choice and if we are all being honest (and i know its asking a lot), if we where in Browns shoes we wouldn't call an election if we felt we couldn't get the best election result possible.

Then again all the Tories can do(and the situation ALP are in, in Australia) is count down the days till the next election and in the meantime try and show some signs of getting out of the wilderness they found themselves in.

every time i see Cameron challenging GB to call an election it reminds me somewhat of those car journeys where kids ask 'are we there yet, are we there yet?'

to which the parents after hearing for this again have the courage to say 'look. well get there when we do. Till then just be quiet'

Point B

could Brown be planning a good game of political poker. he under no illusion polls go up and down.

Is he hoping that Cameron will crash and burn?

Is Browns just letting Cameron carry this 'election baton' and the moment where it gets too much, goes thanks very much and calls the election.

BROWN HAS GOT THE TIME BUT HAS TO STILL PROVE

CAMERONS GOT TO PROVE but HAS THE DISADANTAGE OF NOT HAVING AN EXACT DATE FOR AN ELECTION

ADVANTAGE GORDON?

Point C

We have all seen Brown playing No2 to Blair (remember him?) - between the two of them. what Brown wants is his chance to be shoulder-to-shoulder to Blair but as No1 in the same picture frame.

best chance of that happening....

(any answers)...

...and the answer is ..

London Olympics 2012.

yep love 'em or hate them its happening.

and yep you can hear the commentator now....

'well and there we see in the crowd for the opening ceremony the former Prime Minister who made it happen (cut to Blair) and the current Prime Minister Gordon Brown'

is that the only chance Brown will have in the limelight not only to prove to the UK but the world.

and of course he will do everything to make it happen (ie delaying date of first election).

suggestions?

David Cameron at PMQ reveals his real character as an arrogant, insulting pubilc school boy. Seems the conservatives are still the nasty party.

Whatever anyone says, Gordon was very clearly rattled ("cool and calm" doesn't register) and, although it did nothing to reach a happy concensus, it worked wonders in the interests of Parliamentary democracy. Both sides evidently used a certain amount of licence in their arguments, nonetheless there needed to be a bit of a bust up in order to clear the air after the previous hyped-up week. 'Twas ever thus.

Hopefully Gordon Brown will learn from the last few weeks, although initial indications are not encouraging.

I believe he was right not to call an election, because, while some sections of the public were keen for it, there was certainly not any overwhelming clamour from the electorate. Had there been a General Election, I suspect turn-out would have been frighteningly low, which would have been bad all round for British democracy. Sadly, however when he told Andrew Marr that he had decided against one, the people Gordon Brown told us he had listened to were all the usual subjects - Labour activists in marginal seats and political advisers.

Likewise, I am afraid the obfuscation was clear at the Monday press briefing. Had he said that he had decided not to hold an election because the evidence suggested that no overwhelming majority of the British public wanted one, that would have been fine - responding to the wishes of the electorate. Instead we got some fudging about wanting more time to present his policies to the country ie his agenda. It all smells to me of 'political advice.'

If he wants to present a 'New Politics' he has to lose the obfuscation and demonstrate that he is really taking account of the opinions of the British people, which means being very wary of 'political advice' and not simply quoting 'Citizens' Juries' - how do you get on one anyway?

He has to learn that for him, spin won't work. He does not have the personality to pull it off. (Incidentally, I believe that to be a good thing!) And he would probably be better trusting his own instincts.

Cameron has peaked too early.

Good news for David Davis.

Ming has reached the final curtain.

And Brown?

He'll bite back when he's good and ready.

I found David Cameron's attack on the Prime Minister at Question Time yesterday quite disgraceful. If anyone is treating the electorate like fools, it is David Cameron himself. To me his attack was amounted to a totally unwarranted slander on Gordon Brown's integrity - sheer "Yah-Boo" politics of the worst kind. It had nothing to do with policies, or with anything the PM has done or failed to do. I do not recollect Gordon Brown saying anything at all about an autumn Election. If the pundits and the Conservative Party thought otherwise, they have only themselves to blame. To me, David Cameron's conduct in the House was unworthy of a Leader of HM Opposition - let alone of an aspiring Prime Minister. He should be ashamed - and apologise, publicly. Bob Wilkinson

Nothing wrong with being passionate about how you feel.

* 79.
* At 02:43 PM on 11 Oct 2007,
* Charles E Hardwidge wrote:

Enough for now, it's amazing, honestly, how angry the comments on here make me.

Sounds like you need to sort yourself out first because it gets in the way of seeing things how they are and formulating a sound response. It colours almost every comment I've seen from you in Nick's blog. They can look a little narrow minded and inflexible. The Prime Minister is handling himself well. You could learn from this.

40% dont vote, how much is this down to you Nick?

After watching the PMQ, I think Gordon brown was out-played by David Cameron. Of course, I know he is not Tony Blair, but he has to stand up like a PM. You don't have to be a lawyer to be a PM, Cameron isn't, but Brown is just not up for the difficult and hard debates, not even answering journalists' questions. He can't handle it and can't swing away any tricky questions. Being a PM isn't just do it by the book all the time, it's not a text book politics, you have to have a quick response to every question the opposition asks you.
Watching him on Wednesday, I can see a big different between an Oxford Posh kid and an Edinburgh Humble kid fighting against each other. But the Posh kid beat the humble kid this time round.

Some nicknames stick and this is especially true in politics. In the 80's we had the 'Iron Lady'and the 'Welsh Windbag'. The 'Clunking Fist' never really got going but he will be remembered as either 'Bottler Brown' or the 'Clucking Chicken'. And these names help define how these figures are perceived.
Make no mistake Mr Brown has destroyed his aura of experience and sound judgement (which was always an illusion).

The question for the Tories is how to continue the momentum?

I'd go first with all guns blazing on a demand that Mr Brown delivers on his 2005 manifesto pledge to have a referendum on the new EU Treaty/Constitution.
Again, he'll 'Bottle' out and can be seen as untrustworthy and undemocratic - afraid of putting his VISION to the people.

With the Brown's debt fuelled Boom now over, we're seeing the start of the Brown Bust. So, I'd hit his 'out of control spending'. Massive amounts of tax payers money have been poured into unreformed public services. In the 90's Brown promised never to do this but then he got tired of Ken Clarke's 'Prudent' spending levels and ... LA DELUGE! All to be paid out of ever increasing taxes.

Behind in the polls, facing electoral meltdown, the old Blairite/Brownite squabbling will reignite.

Then we can throw this inept bunch of
no-hopers out and start rebuilding our once great nation (yet again).

This bruising encounter reminds me that the most successful Governments in the world work in a consensual, constructive way.

Adversarial politics is pretty distasteful and ultimately destructive.

No wonder we English have been stranded (politically) for decades.

The petition now has over 11000 signatures, so sign up now if you want to have your say as GB obviously takes a great deal of notice of these...

59. Stephen Broady:

It is not a question of 'decent Labour supporters copying Tory policy' as you claim.

It is with joy that decent Labour members and supporters watch as the Tories now love the NHS and despise Grammar schools and it is further jo to watch them as new schools and hospitals go up.

All up by the next General Election whereby what's left of the Tory drivel will be forced against their wishes to attend.

As Tony Blair said, "We made them change" (in response to a third victory).

Gary

This past week has been highly enjoyable for me.To see the New Labour project and Gordon Browns career crumble has restored my faith in British democracy.When Brown has the guts to call an election in may 2010 I am confident that David Cameron will win an overall majority,if G Brown keeps self destructing as he has this past week.It's terrific isnt it!

Did Gordon Brown train as a solicitor or a barrister ? If not, it definitely shows.

"57.

At 10:02 PM on 10 Oct 2007,

Tupac wrote:
We have gone from a narrow win in the opinion of some for Mr Cameron in PM's question session to now a devastating win. Why did the ´óÏó´«Ã½ change their view to such a overstatement of the what Cameron did.
Complain about this post"

Because the Tories and Crypto-Trots at the ´óÏó´«Ã½ have picked up the story.

The news footage is edited that way too.

After watching the PMQ, I think Gordon brown was out-played by David Cameron. Of course, I know he is not Tony Blair, but he has to stand up like a PM. You don't have to be a lawyer to be a PM, Cameron isn't, but Brown is just not up for the difficult and hard debates, not even answering journalists' questions. He can't handle it and can't swing away any tricky questions. Being a PM isn't just do it by the book all the time, it's not a text book politics, you have to have a quick response to every question the opposition asks you.
Watching him on Wednesday, I can see a big different between an Oxford Posh kid and an Edinburgh Humble kid fighting against each other. But the Posh kid beat the humble kid this time round.

I'm probably in a minority of 1, but I think you've got this "non-election" wrong. Nobody but the media wants an election, so they're the only ones who maybe feel foolish. Look at it this way.. Brown, encouraged by opinion polls says "perhaps we'll call a snap election". Results ? .. the media goes into a frenzy of speculation, the Tory Party conference agenda is hijacked and Cameron is forced into that puerile nonsense about "C'mon if yer 'ard enough and call an election" Brown then says "No, I dont think we'll have an election" leaving the opposition looking naive and silly .. sounds like clever politics to me .

What do the polls say now ?

Hi Nick!

As a Labour supporter, I think Gordon Brown has really got to stay away from playing games.

They don't suit him, it's not his forte and, if he continues, he'll fall flat on his back.

I think people see a solid leader in Brown, someone with good ideas about how to take the country forward. A man of substance.

But if he's tempted to go down the route of spin and playing games with the opposition, he can kiss goodbye to his pad in Downing Street because people will see the Tories with some decent new policies and opt for them.

Brown needs to stick to politics. If he does, he might just be ok.

What's happened to Nick Robinson?

This is the last Blog as at Monday Moring (14th).

Has nothing happened in politics or is he recovering from the rugby world cup on Saturday?

It was a disgrace to democracy. This overbearing grotesque public schoolboy treating Parliament as his personal stage for his amateur dramatics.
Now as it took a week for him to rehearse for his conference acting debut.
How long did it take to learn last weeks tirade.
Just do a re-run of this disgusting spectacle and if you look hard enough you will see Osborne has learned the same lines off by heart.

Actually, the person who was best at rough Parlimaentary tactics was the privately-educated Tony Blair. Just ask John Major and Michael Howard - neither of whom went to private school (I think Thatcher wasn't privately educated either). Pointedly, David Cameron did not rant or needlessly shout in his exchange with Gordon. It was Gordon who did all those things. It was also Gordon who set himself up for a fall. He had to take it on the chin, and to his credit he did so, trying but failing to provide an effective counter to the criticism. But no-one should berate Cameron for getting one over on Gordon, and especially not for his prvuate edcuation. This is an interesting theme; are we to expect that the anti-Cameron tactic is going to be focused on his education? If so, we shouild be enlightened as to the education of the present Cabinet.

Character assassination is inevitable and was anticipated, a la Tony Blair. It is being organised by the same people. When Gordon Brown has a good Question Time the ´óÏó´«Ã½ will probably cut it short, also a la Tony Blair.
We are going to suffer months or even years of electioneering, with the media in full spate. It is awful to contemplate. However, when election day arrives the question will inevitably be whether the many who have enjoyed the financial success of the last ten years will trust their future well-being to a front bench of Eton schoolboys.What could persuade them to do such a thing?

The e-petition apparently had 4000 + signatures on page two of that infamous e-petition. Was Brown misguiding Parliament??? Just a thought.

J WESTERMAN has it about right, it will be 18 months minimum I believe before the next election.

The public has a limitted appetite for lurid nonsense in its political interests though, vide Tony Blair's approval rating on leaving office.

While he was loathed by many he was still very widely trusted despite his endless traducements in the face of objective exonerations on the charges of lying re Iraq, loans for honours etc.

Gordon Brown is a man of character. We can expect him to stand firm, if sometimes shyly, and to carry on doing the best that can be done for the UK for the overwealmingly greater part.

Often the cunning plan is to be honest and just plough on, he knows that.

Actually the Tories go for all of Labour's leaders when they feel threatened by them: Harold Wilson was a prime target for many years.

How "newspapers" like the Mail and Express, whose moral compass rarely extends beyond unenlightened selfishness, can find themselves the chutzpah to grapple with people whose main aim is to help improve the lot of others remains a mystery.

It is often claimed by those whose ignorance is usually self imposed that politicians are in it for the dosh.

All of Labour's leaders since the war, at least, would have been better off in other occupations.

Print the names of the owners/controllers instead of the Mail and Express and all becomes clear.

Whilst there is a real issue in Scottish MPs being able to vote on English affairs, but not visa versa, the questions you have posed show how this would be impossible to fix in practical terms. The only solution is a fully independent Scotland and fully independent England, which would be good for both countries.

It seems to me that there is a fundamental question arising from Sir Malcolm's proposals which no one seems to be trying to address, namely - if we were to apply the principle that only English MPs can vote on matters that affect only England, will this then apply to other parts of the UK? For example, will the whole of Parliament get a vote on (say) proposals to extend devolution in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales, or only MPs from the country affected?

What is so far lacking in this debate is the concept of accountability to constituents which is fundamental to our parliamentary system. Two brief examples : Transport in (especially Southern) England suffered huge underinvestment of some 5 years with successive secretaries of State (Darling and Alexander) accountable to Scottish constituents. Amazingly, Darling was able to veto light rail systems in Leeds,Portsmouth and Manchester but had no powers re the Edinburgh tram despite being an Edinburgh MP ! On stuedent fees, the Govt majority depended on votes from MPs in Scotland re-inforcing overt discrimination from Universities in Scotalnd and imposing charges on the English that had no effect on their own constituents. This can't continue............