Wednesday, 17 March 2010

PMQs Review - Gordon Backtracks

The Unite connection is hitting Gordon hard. An interesting, shocking PMQs in which the Prime Minister accepted that one of his lies had unravelled and conceeded that he was in the wrong about military funding. The moment was years in the coming - cherish it.

Cameron was nifty and managed to box Brown round the ears as the PM was obviously flapping re BA. Something tells TB we will be hearing "Labour is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Unite union" again. As Cameron said, there is no denying Unite pick candidates, choose policies, elect the leader, and have special access to No.10. Hence Brown's refusal to answer anything on it.

Irritatingly the SNPs Angus Robertson's question about Steven "sniffer" Purcell was drowned out. He asked if Gordon had taken part in a conference call when deciding by-election candidates for Glasgow. Clearly Purcell's little problem came up in said convo. Brown denied taking part but they wouldn't have asked unless they were on to some thing...

Cameron 8 Brown 3 Clegg 4

4 comments:

titus-aduxas
said...

It's not only Whelan that's in No 10. Clare Moody has also got a desk and she's paid by Unite.

Brown - Unelected PM
Unite - Unelected Govt

cupoftears said...

It would be nice to see Mr Brown backtracking on some other kind of miscalculation. The real cost of Trident replacement, for instance(on which both Labour and Conservatives agree)actually amounts to £97bn, a much bigger number than the declared £15-20bn! I guess politicians are just not so good at maths...

cupoftears said...

It would be nice to see Mr Brown backtracking on some other kind of miscalculation. The real cost of Trident replacement, for instance(on which both Labour and Conservatives agree)actually amounts to £97bn, a much bigger number than the declared £15-20bn! I guess politicians are just not so good at maths...

Spurgeon said...

The figure of £15-20 billion for Trident replacement, which was quoted at the time of the replacement debate in 2007, is just for replacing the submarines. It doesn't include the costs of running the subs over 25-30 years; making new warheads; buying new missiles from the USA; or decomissioning at the end of the system's lifetime.

Agree with cupoftears that cost calculations are not politicians' strong point, and that the costs of replacing Trident are a good example of where we are only being told part of the story.

Post a Comment