What’s more important – the state the country is in, or the fact that a couple of people in the Cabinet have resigned.
Cameron just spent his ten minutes of PMQs lambasting the Government over the latter. He really didn’t go into the state of the country. He just wanted a new election. Meanwhile the sensible MPs on the back benches wait patiently for their turn to ask sensible questions.
But Cameron wants reassurances. Is resigning really challenging the respect of the boss? If I wanted to resign my job to do something else, would I be disrespecting them? Then Cameron wants guarantees that there won’t be any more resignations. Surely that demand goes against employment law – is that a sign of what we’d get under a Cameron led government?
This is the time that Cameron (and Clegg, and Brown for that matter) need to think more about the points in hand, the urgent running the country business, rather than cheap point scoring. The MPs need to sort their house out, Cameron’s bickering style of cheap point scoring is only serving to get in the way.
Watching PMQs today, Cameron seemed to call for an election an awful lot. If instead he concentrated on leading an effective opposition, he might actually earn some respect. If calling for an election is the best you can do, isn’t that a sign of throwing in the towel early? A sign that you really can’t be arsed to fight as opposition? A bit weak?
15 minutes into Question Time, we get sensible questions from other MPs, relating to the running of the country. Cameron used nearly 10 minutes of this critical part of the parliamentary week to make cheap jibes at the PM. What a waste.
Then 20 minutes in another Tory starts demanding an election, and it dawns on me that if Cameron succeeds and forces fixed-term parliaments, he wouldn’t have the ability to be challenged by the opposition. Talk about two faced!
Last comments