X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week. If you receive it, you’ll also find your subscriber number at the top of our weekly highlights email.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050. If you’ve only just subscribed, you may not yet have been issued with a subscriber number. In this case you can use the temporary web ID number, included in your email order confirmation.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

If you have any difficulties creating an account or logging in please take a look at our FAQs page.

Coffee House

PMQs: Miliband and Cameron attack on each other’s weaknesses, not the issues

7 May 2014

2:21 PM

7 May 2014

2:21 PM

Both Ed Miliband and David Cameron turned up to PMQs today wanting to expose the flaws in their opponent’s character.

First, Ed Miliband taunted the Prime Minister about Labour’s new private rented sector policy. Now that Labour is producing policies which seem to have purchase with voters, the Labour leader has what some might describe as the ‘intellectual self-confidence’ to kick off PMQs not just with a Labour policy rather than a government cock-up, but also predict that the government will eventually concede that Labour has a point. He said:

‘On our proposal for three-year tenancies in the private sector, can the Prime Minister tell us when he expects to make the inevitable journey from saying they represent dangerous Venezuelan-style thinking to saying they’re actually quite a good idea?’

[Alt-Text]


The Prime Minister replied that ‘if there is an opportunity to find longer-term tenancy agreements, to give greater stability, a proposal made at last year’s Conservative conference, then I’m sure we can work together. But if the proposal is for rent controls that have been tried all over the world including in Britain, and have shown to fail, I think that’s a very bad idea.’

Miliband leapt on this, claiming that this was a ‘very quick U-turn’. He certainly looked thrilled, like a football fan thrilled that his team had scored unexpectedly, when the PM mentioned the Tories’ own plans for longer tenancies (plans which were first revealed by Coffee House in 2012). But he was being clever here. Because the Conservatives have been working for the past few years on these longer-term tenancy plans, but have not been examining an upper ceiling on rents in the same way that Labour has. So the two parties have long had the same aim on one element, and very different stances on another element of private rented sector policy. But because the Conservative response to Labour’s private-rented sector policy wasn’t great, Miliband exploited the party’s confusion today. He wanted to suggest that ideologically, David Cameron is a bit of a sheet in the wind, blown about, rather than resting on the courage of his convictions. He didn’t refer to Labour’s energy price freeze, but he was trying to build up a pattern here.

The Labour leader split his questions today, and when he returned, it was David Cameron’s turn to tell the House what he thought of Miliband. If Miliband thinks the Prime Minister lacks intellectual self-confidence, Cameron thinks the Labour leader lacks backbone and principle. He used Miliband’s questions on Pfizer’s takeover bid for AstraZeneca to argue that his opponent was keen on playing politics with a serious issue. He didn’t refer to Miliband’s position on Syria, but he too was trying to build a pattern here of a party leader taking decisions to cause his opponents discomfort, rather than in the interests of Britain or the interests of those suffering. He said:

‘The most important intervention we can make is to back British jobs, British science, British R&D, British medicines and British technology. That is why I asked the Cabinet Secretary and my ministers to engage with both companies right from the start of this process and I’ll make no apology for that because we know what happens when you don’t engage, when you stand back, just say you’re opposed to everything, what you get is abject surrender and no guarantees for Britain. We’re fighting for British science and I just think it’s a pity he’s trying to play politics rather than backing the national interest.’

Miliband then said he would back the government in putting this deal to a public interest test, but Cameron later repeated his accusation about the party playing politics. Both men probably conveyed what they wanted to about the other, but it wasn’t a Prime Minister’s Questions where we learned much about government policy: it is still not clear what the government will really do beyond looking cross if its fight for British science isn’t successful and Pfizer doesn’t provide the guarantees it is looking for.

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close