PMQs row over Baby P

Whenever Gordon has talk about a topic other than economics his immediately shows he is out of his depth. He may have been a good Chancellor (or at least he thinks he was) but as a Primer Minister he is severely lacking in talent.

'Of course, beyond the Westminster village the public will demand that this story does not become a he says/she says row like those over Jennifer's ear or Rose Addis. If you don't remember them, don't worry. That makes my point.'

And if we do remember them what does that mean?

I think your were listening to John Cruddas and Charles Kennedy with a red tinted hearing aid as both were more of the view that David Cameron's indignation was honestly felt.

I'd suggest that you read the responses to your previous blog if you still feel that the general view is that Gordon Brown and Labour had a right to feel that they hold the financial high ground after Mervyn King's comments.

Why would Cameron avoid wanting to talk about the economy: the facts show that it is going down the pan under Gordon's watch?
He said he was going to talk about it and was then so insensed by Brown's stance that he used all 6 questions on the issue.

Wow Nick you really do love yourself don't you!

I remember both of them, and Brown behaved disgracefully today. Not only was he unprepared for the question which is why he waffled so much, as you say Labour MP's were caught off guard too hoping for questions on the economy.
Cameron can ask questions about whatever he wants by the way, not what the media or the Govt want him to ask questions about.
You omitted to say that Cameron did say that "We will come to the economy in a moment", but this was overtaken by Brown's disgraceful accusation of party politicking.

Cameron 10 Brown 0

Incidentally, you are trying to suggest that its a one minute wonder, it might be politically, but it will be ingrained on voters minds on how Brown behaved.

Oh and why did you have to add a touch of hearsay at the end about comments from the gallery, it adds nothing to the story .... unless you were trying to make a point in support of Gordon Brown?? perish the thought.

Mrs Shoesmith should resign immediately.

No ifs! No buts!

This is such a shocking state of affairs Gordon Brown should have agreed with Cameron and called for her head. Enquiries come later.

Disgusted by Brown's performance.

Has he no shame. And those backbenchers baying at Cameron for asking the question we all needed to hear,

They should all have been thrown out of the Commons.

The man showed very clearly today that he has no idea what is happening in the country let alone trying to lead it.

Oh dear.

I expect your phone Nick to be glowing white hot. Mr. Campbell and Mandelson will not be pleased.

Let me see, today should have gone like this....

9am Swervin' Merv releases UK Inflation report for November with some really hideous figures in it.

10am Swervin' says "Fiscal stimulus in the medium term is ok."

11am BBC line is 'UK heading for recession - fiscal stimulus the only answer says BoE.

12pm Cameron walks into said bear trap in PMQ.

1pm Tory's economic plan in disarray reports the BBC.

Job Done.

Only Brown's complete inhumanity royally screwed the pooch.

Cameron's economy questions were swept aside in visible anger Nick; we all saw it. Cameron was angry because Brown's reply intimated to protect those culpable for this poor child's torture and death.

Cameron never mentioned Haringey, never mentioned it was Labour-ran.

We saw it.

It would have been a massive dereliction on Cameron's part not to ask: How can a £100m organisation and one enquiry already let another child die so awfully and terribly?

Three members of staff got a written warning.

You get a written warning for 'liberating' a sheaf of printer paper from work.

Not having a child die in your duty of care.

You should be facing possibilities of a charge of culpable homicide.

A public enquiry would certainly lay bare the utter failure of Haringey council.

Heads should roll and rightly so.

Brown is now part of that whitewash as are the Labour backbenches for being complicit in shouting Cameron down.

Shame on them all.

Andrew Neal made the correct point in my opinion, Blair would have been able to deal with this opennly and with compassion, Gordon (out of his economic bubble of fake global super stardom) obviously can't.

In different circumstances, if Labour weren't desperatly clinging on to the vestiges of the artificial Brown Bounce hoping for a general election in the spring of 2009 they'd be seeing this in a very different light.

I can't stand this desperate Labour muck slinging whenever Gordon looks likes he's about to topple again, remember the 10p tax row? they had to finally give in inspite of all the denials and accusations, so I personally don't want to hear anything further on this issue beyond Brown having the decency to appologise for his lack of understanding.

....and Nick, I often agree with your often cheeky interpretation of events ..this time regardless of what Cameron did or did not do, you're off by a long way.

Brown was a good chancellor, but as a PM he's under qualified if it ain't about money.

The outcome of the Victoria Climbie affair was highly unsatisfactory as the blame was placed on the lower ranks whilst the people responsible for the entire system walked away unscathed.

The fact that lightning has now struck twice in the same place suggests that there is something wrong with childcare in Haringey. and there is a suspicion that of a further attempt to cover this up.

Be in no doubt that local Conservatives have been onto Central Office. How decisions are made in many local authorities similar to Haringey are a public scandal and need airing.

Cameron wrong-footed the Prime Minister by choosing a topic other than the economy. This is the name of the game and Brown should have been prepared. The government's response to the situation has been reasonable and balanced. However many people are angry that this has happened yet again. That is the real issue.

Also Cameron is a relatively young man with a growing family. Whatever we may think of his politics he clearly loves his children. This makes the issue very personal to many such as he.

Cameron was absolutely right to bring this tragic story up at PMQs - and I totally agree with him that an independent inquiry is needed. I find it truly despicable that many of the Labour MPs started to heckle him during his questioning and it shows the Labour Party in a very bad light indeed - as was stated in the analysis after by John Cruddas. Further to this the Prime Minister's response was utterly useless as always, and to accuse Cameron of 'playing party politics' with this issue is incredibly misguided. Cameron is clearly passionate and upset about the issue and to try and paint it in any other light is ridiculous.

Unbelievable. Now Mr Cameron is the focus of criticism for losing his temper.

The BBC just cannot help itself.

As for you, you had the perfect opportunity to admit you may have judged to situation wrongly. Instead you dish out more insinuation. You really have no shame, do you.

Your willingness to find some criticism of David Cameron and your unwillingness to criticise Gordon Brown is becoming tedious. You no longer argue rationally and are therefore biased. Perhaps you are not aware of it yourself but you and the majority of your colleagues are clearly Labour supporters. The BBC News at One showed a snippet of Question time but did not show Gordon Brown mentioning the word 'political' which was precisely the point of the report was it not?? It did not show David Cameron asking for the claim to be withdrawn either. How is THIS unbiased reporting? Why are you all so in love with Labour, what are you scared of? The truth perhaps. At the next general election you will have your answer.

So Nick you think that this gaffe will go away fairly quickly. It's one more nail in the coffin of a man with few morals desperate to hang onto power. It's not a storm in a teacup for the family of Baby P for whom this error on the part of the authorities will never go away. An extremely insenstive closing statement on your part Nick if you don't mind me saying so!

I still haven't seen PMQ's since I cannot bear to look at that dissembling mockery of a PM but I have to say I think Cameron chose the subject of Baby P precisely to wrong-foot Brown who was looking forward to comfortably reeling off another series of moonshine tractor production statistics.

The simple thing for Brown to do was to agree with Cameron that it was indeed a shocking state of affairs and he would tell his front-bench flunky responsible for such matters to take an active interest. Next question.

Brown, being Brown of course, couldn't give a straight answer to Cameron's question about it being a travesty to have the person responsible for Haringey services carry out their own enquiry. He was already ducking the next question - if he agrees that the Haringey person shouldn't carry out her own enquiry then he's leaving himself wide open to any number of Labour government enquiries that have cleared themselves of any wrong-doing. Bernie Ecclestone for example.

What David Cameron should do at PMQ is ask a 30 minute fillibustering 'question' listing the many and various egregious abuses of trust and financial incompetence displayed over the past 10 years by Gordon Brown. Don't even give Brown a chance to reply. Just a 30 minute tirade of facts and figures listing the decisions Gordon Brown has made and their consequences. Not the least of which is to leave us uniquely vulnerable to the economic holocaust at hand.

That'll learn him. If he's not going to answer the question then don't even ask him the question. Just get up and give chapter and verse on what a disaster he is.

And do the same next week.

And the week after.

The Baby P case is above politics and Cameron was right to raise it, as Jon Cruddas has pointed out.
Cameron only 'lost his temper ' in the way any reasonable parent probably did when hearing of this case.
Brown could have 'shared' Cameron's concerns and expressed the shock and outrage of the nation.
Instead he delivered a response which showed an inhuman side.

https://theorangepartyblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/pmqs-show-brown-isnt-human.html

So you seek to excuse and give Gordon Brown the benefit of the doubt because you think he was expecting some questions on the economy, but you snear , doubt and question Cameron's motives, even though he said he would be asking questions on the economy.

Just the sort of 'balanced' reporting we should expect of the 'impartial' BBC!

As both politicians have children, I would have thought that Mr Brown would have agreed 100% with Mr Camerons comments.

Listening to Mr Brown it is clear to me that he has lost his "Moral Compass".

If Mr Brown thinks his political attack on Mr Cameron has raised his own standing with the publics opinion he is very wrong, indeed the latest polling figures ( I exclude the BBC's Politics show poll, which has been proven to be biased!!, read todays Times for further explanation) show Labour to be 17 points behind the Conservatives.

I see. This was all Cameron's fault for not asking the the question the Labour backbenchers wanted to hear and why Brown had accused him of party politics.
Drivel, Robinson, pure drivel.

I can't remember John Cruddas and Charles Kennedy agreeing with you either. John Cruddas gave an honest answer, very refreshing for a Labour MP.

Cameron said he would come on to the economy. However, Brown's failure to answer the quesiton and then accuse Cameron of party politics is why the ecomony was not discussed.

Get it into your head - MK is employed by Brown. His report also does not pose any serious questions for the Tories. Are you being blackmailed by the NuLab Stasi?

Nick,

I think that you have let the readers down on this one. What it exposes is the fact that Gordon Brown is what I have previously referred to as a one trick pony. It is not the economy stupid, it is Gordon Brown as Prime Minister.

I have also said before that Brown almost needs one death a week of one our soldiers so as to bring a sombre feel to PMQs. He did no have one this week, thankfully. However, he could have done it by making reference to the appalling situation over Baby P.

What I think was so distasteful was the reaction of the MPs who shouted during Camerons quite fair questions. Anybody looking at the press reports of the treatment suffered by that baby will be shocked and appalled, actually almost beyond words, without resorting to unparliamentary language.

Also with regard to Brown can he not give answers without notes, it shows that the labour questions are planted. When the liberal democrat question came I think that he did not expect Cameron to go on Baby P, he was totally abjectly wrong footed, hence the point he made about the manner of the question from the lib dem, that was the question he wanted to answer.

Furthermore, he looked awful when making reference to children, the elbows on the despatch box, the insincerity in his voice. Brown has confirmed that he is not fit to be the PM, the sooner he calls an election the better, they must all go, they are a disgrace.

Gordon Brown sometimes assumes that everyone is 'in tune' with the argument but doesn't allow for slower thinkers. Thus, its obvious to him that he should not pre-empt the ongoing enquiry, nor should he pronounce on the report which has only just been received. Cameron knows perfectly well that Brown will not interfere directly so he asks a question to try and make Brown seem either slippery or out of touch with the public mood- that is an attempt to politicise the issue and that is exactly what Brown was talking about. Cameron regularly asks 'direct' questions knowing that there isn't a direct answer, it is his sole political tactic: first make the issue appear to be simple, to the audience, then ask a 'simple' question to which there should be an 'honest' (i.e. glib) answer. Brown needs to take this up and point out that judgement requires reflection. It is part of Cameron's lack of maturity that he sees every issue in sound-bites. What would he have done if Brown had declared he was suspending Harringey's social services department and putting it into the hands of a bunch of civil-servants? Brown's remark was not 'cheap' because it will give Cameron's journalist friends in the Mail and the Standard the opportunity to spin the answer into a description of Brown as out of touch or unfeeling - whereas it is Cameron who deserves to be lambasted. In the end, do the families of victims of child abuse and knife crime really appreciate Cameron and his team using their distress as a means of attacking Gordon Brown?

17 Where is this poll please . The Times has a populus poll with a Conservative lead of 6%.

#17

latest polling figures ( I exclude the BBC's Politics show poll, which has been proven to be biased!!, read todays Times for further explanation) show Labour to be 17 points behind the Conservatives.

I confess I am stunned every time I see a figure like that. Labour 17 points behind the Conservatives. Why are they not 50 points behind the Conservatives?

Who are these people who would even consider voting Labour after the fruits of a decade of their rein of infamy are now laid bare before their eyes? I can understand it on Blogs - you'll always get a few trolls who enjoy winding folk up - but with the anonimity of a telephone poll surely one in three people aren't trolls?

What would Labour have to do to lose these people's vote? Economic collapse not good enough for you? Unemployment increasing at the start of a recession eclipsing the worst figures during the last recession? House prices collapse more in one year than the worst four years combined of the last housing price collapse? House price bubbles of the sort that Gordon Brown vowed to eliminate.

A 3% of GDP structural deficit after 16 years of economic growth? A recession even with those levels of deficit spending? In fact, by 2009/2010, a recession even with 8 - 10% of deficit spending?

What do you want? Tanks on the streets? Suspended elections? What will it take for the scales to fall from these people's eyes?

Nick,

You make excuses for the Prime Minister:

"What's also clear is that Labour backbenchers were relishing the prospect of a political punch-up on the economy. That's why they shouted when the Tory leader chose another subject. That, perhaps, is what was in the prime minister's mind when he suggested that Cameron was playing politics."


Whereas you lay into David Cameron:

- He lined up the Evening Standard because he didn't want to talk about the economy

- He couldn't believe his political luck

- Everyone else though Cameron was poor because he lost his temper.



Whereas to everyone in the real world, who watched that:

Cameron lost his temper and didn't ask other questions, because Brown had launched his cheap "playing party politics" jibe.

GET REAL NICK. GORDON'S BOTTOM IS NOT UTOPIA.

Not only did Brown and Labour mis-read the mood - I think you have too Nick. That was the most shameful PMQ's I have seen. I think you have become too cynical and are now such Brown/Labour fanboy. On Daily Politics show John Cruddas - a man who'se politics and beliefs I hold frankly contempt got it completely right that Cameron was perfectly entitled to raise the issue and was not playing party politics. All respect to him on that.

Here's the thing - the electorate is interested in policies but they are more concerned about judgement and character and Gordon Brown's lack of judgement and poisonous character showed through at PMQ.

Children and their problems are a touchy subject for both men - one reacted with real empathy and concern and one lost the plot. Gordon Brown is not fit to be Prime Minister and the sooner Haringey's social work department is purged the better.

I've already commented on the horror of the Baby P case on the previous forum. On PMQs it was raised, and we all saw the coldness of Brown's reactions. This goes beyond politics. I wonder why the bodies who are always so concerned about human rights for terrorists, foreign born murderers and criminals, who cannot be sent home because they would be in danger, don't concern themselves with British children being tortured in their own homes. Should Amnesty International be contacted?

This is a copy of my previous blogging. I am reproducing it here, since there is now a forum for this tragic case.
Listening to the platitudes on News at Five (Radio Channel 4), I understand that all we will ever hear is "Lessons have to be learned." If this is the best the NSPCC can come up with, then I seriously believe Amnesty International should be brought in to protect our children at risk. This is NOT a political case, it is to spare the suffering of innocent children. How can an inquiry take place, with people such as Sharon Shoesmith being involved? It's almost like getting the accused in a criminal court to act as judge and jury.

Nick

Brown could have moved on to the economy at any time.

He just had to admit that cameron hadn't made his question party political - cameron even said that he was just asking for the PM's confirmation that he would be doing what ed balls had already proposed !! It doesn't get less party political than that!!

Either brown wanted to avoid the economy; or he was too stupid to think on his feet and move it on.

I beleive it is quite possible that Brown is entirely incapable of thinking on his feet - that is why he studies the financial details so hard in advance - but out side of that, dither city here we come...

20:

Brown made a mistake. Even his own man Jon Crudass admitted as much. Trying to shift the blame for his annoyance at missing the opportunity to laud his economic prowess onto David Cameron is clutching at straws. He was caught off guard and blew his response. End of!

Sorry I do not know where your head was on the Daily Politics today but Cruddas, Kennedy and Neil did not agree with you. I think all their empathy was with D. Cameron. I think you got it spectacularly wrong and you are exposed as having Labour bias.

If Labour had no case to answer then why is Balls grovelling all over the place as only he can do.

I just heard you on Radio 4 Nick. Own up, where have you hidden the real Nick Robinson (the one who is a professional and unbiased journalist).

Nick

Care to comment on the very last line of the BBC report on this -- particularly with the changes highlighted here:-

https://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/172710/diff/3/4

Another truly dreadful reading of the situation by you Nick almost as bad as Browns,if you had a shred of credibility left you would resign immediately.

As I have had to say time and time again awful,awful,awful.

I'm sure Campbell can use a man of your 'ability' at labour party HQ.

I still can't quite believe what tou wrote.

Shameful.

I really am dissapointed at the lack of neutrality in your blog,Nick.
I hope that the consevative party have dropped a word on the beebs ear that if they evey get back into power,which despite the BBC ,they may well do at the next election,that the party's over ,the games up the BBC will be broken up or maybe sold lock stock and barrel to Nu Labour.
We really do need balanced reporting not this one eyed stuff in favour of Gordo's gang.
jethro

Where Cameron fails every time is in the way that he makes often strong, accurate and devastating points. His style is probably more suited to the Oxford Union or some debating society at Eton. It is inappropriate from someone who wants to be the next PM. It lacks the gravitas and leadership quality that is needed and often seems little better than name calling.

Cameron was right to bring the matter up and it shows what a poor team Brown has around him if someone couldn't have given him a quick briefing and a piece of paper about something that had been the lead item on the Tuesday's news. If Brown is looking after the economy (our major issue) who is looking after the rest of HMG's activities?

With all his smart 'debating points' successes Cameron still has to do a lot more if he wants to be PM. He should compare Kinnock in '92 and Blair in '97, take policies out of it and then work out why one succeeded and the other didn't. Then if he applies what he has learnt to himself he might give us a better reason for voting for him than the fact that he isn't Gordon Brown.

Mr Robinson,

I have just watched your comments on the daily politics and read your blog and I must say that I am embarrassed for you. Your quick to pick holes in Cameron, but when it comes to our Hopeless Leader you always come up with an excuse for him.

The BBC is suppose to set the broadcasting standards, not political bias. Please can you go back to reporting the facts and stop trying to save Browns neck.

Cameron got the better of him today and made him look a fool. Be honest and say it how it is, the labour MP on the show could not defend Brown so how can you!


Get a grip!!

Sooooooo matter of factish in your 17.50 update Nick, no comment about Labour desperately scrabbling around trying to make up ground after a disatrous PMQ's by the PM.

IF I read the posts correctly on this site so far, I havent seen a single post in support of your stance, nor for that matter of Gordon Brown.

You ought to get out of the village ocassionally and talk to real people instead of Campbell and his ilk.

This sort of tragedy keeps repeating but I do not believe that these politicians have the political will to make the radical changes that are required to produce a more effective 'social services' system.

So the vulnerable babies and children will continue to die until we, the people, start electing whose who have the political courage to handle it.

Because we voters do not take politics seriously enough, in effect, we are responsible for the fate of these children.

Therefore, in the final analysis, it is ultimately our own political apathy which causes these children to be harmed because we do not elect the sort of independently minded people who would deal with it.

Cameron just wants to misdirect and stoke rage. His grandstanding and trying to link the government with misfortune is just so way off base and manipulative it breaks the dial. Cameron knows the Prime Minister tends to be focused and isn't so emotionally talkative which is why he went for this with relish.

Cameron's attempt to blame a misery that's caught the public's attention on the government throws up how unprincipled and desperate he is. I found Charles Kennedy's after the event reaction to be smug and self-righteous. This is easy when you have no responsibility for government or the position Cameron tried to project.

In desperate times people want simple solutions and cling to comfort zones. This is understandable but poor performance and rushed responses just fuels see-saw politics and takes peoples focus off driving real improvement. Instead of getting caught up in political gain, I'd hope people could be more understanding and patient.

Britain has real issues with ignoring people and not caring until things go wrong. It's always picking the pieces up when it's too late, but quick to grandstand and wag fingers after the event. Perhaps, the government could have done better but the Tories and Liberals are guilty of fuelling a rushed and judgemental attitude that solves nothing.

Overall, I think, the Prime Minister handled this ambush well. He answered the matters of substance and brushed off the Tory opportunism. This is a much surer performance than he's given in the past, and beneath the rhetoric it must be getting the Tories worried. Plus, the Liberals have an issue in deciding who their friends really are.

#15 theorangeparty

Thanks for the link. Your blog says it all in one sentence, really: "It has taken a true Labour MP, Jon Cruddas, to stand up for common sense and tell the BBC the case of Baby P was 'beyond politics' and 'David Cameron was absolutely right to raise it.'"

Let's hope this is another 10p moment that comes back to haunt "Duff" Gordon.

#20 Biased_Beeb

It's hard to imagine how you could be wronger.

As an old Liberal, I dislike both BluLab and NuLab unionist policies, but at least Cameron showed he has a heart while Brown forcefully demonstrated he doesn't have a brain.

How despicable for Cameron to try to portray as unfeeling a man who has suffered the death of his own child. We should remember:
1. Cameron does not have a monopoly on compassion and caring – so it was insulting to others for him to make out he has;
2. He was trying to make his party appear more caring than the government and so gain a political advantage;
3. He demanded that the government ‘take over’ Haringey Council – which HMG has no power to do;
4. Cameron, by repeatedly mentioning the name of the female Head of the Social Services Dept. in Haringey, appeared to be acting as Judge, Jury and Executioner;
5. The PM spoke with compassion but also with competence and responsibly;
6. The PM cannot, and should not, make instant judgements on local government officials; as head of government he has to follow procedures. He has announced the national Laming Inquiry and must now allow the Children’s Secretary to read the report from Haringey before the Children’s Secretary announces a specific inquiry into Haringey Social Services if that is what he decides.

Time for Nick to show some humanity and understanding as well.

Can't believe that the BBC News was so gutless as to fail to mention Gordon Brown showing (again) at PMQ why he is completely unfit to be PM.

I see even Nick Robinson has toned down his initial (correct) impression, supported by everyone on Daily Politics that Gordon Brown's performance was a complete disgrace. Must admit that this is rather a surprise as Nick Robinson is an excellent journalist who I would have expected to be all over BBC News today explaining how GB had messed up quite so badly.

I'm left with the impression that Nick Robinson has been warned off by somebody in BBC management. I can't see Channel 4 taking this approach.

All very sad and far worse than the Brand/Ross affair which was bad enough in itself.

As I recall at PMQ's David Cameron said he would ask about the economy in a minute. It was only his astonishment at the PM's mindless and insensitive response, never mind the slurr cast at him by G Brown that resulted in the exchange, in which Harriot Harman and labour MP's in particular behaved disgracefully.
Nick Robinson seems to have lost his sense of balance. How can he postulate on what Cameron was thinking? This is a line I would expect from labour whips and apologists, not the BBC. Has the BBC lost confidence after Hutton and other recent events? Perhaps this is why I find myself turning to ITV and Channel 4 News for effective scrutiny of the Government.

Studiously impartial there Mr. Bobinson.

Defend the indefensible behaviour of the PM and Labour MPs, and belittle the rightful actions of Cameron to use his 6 Questions as he sees fit largely on an issue that has horrified the public.

And the BBC claims to be impartial.

Did you not see Gorbals Mick have to intervene?

Did you not hear the Labour MPs jeering and shouting despite the serious subject?

Shame on them and shame on you. Particularly for the following: "What's also clear is that Labour backbenchers were relishing the prospect of a political punch-up on the economy. That's why they shouted when the Tory leader chose another subject. That, perhaps, is what was in the prime minister's mind when he suggested that Cameron was playing politics."

You know what Brown said. We know what Brown said. You and we know exactly what Brown meant. He and his Party can never look past the cheapest point scoring opportunity and he got it drastically wrong again. The only party politics today seems to have been from the Government.

I've just scanned the comments in so far,and people seem so desperate to score points against the government that there's no effort given to the issues. Really, that just tells me where some people are coming from. It's a robotic response and, I note, people aren't adverse to ripping off some phraseology when it suits them. So, yeah. Lots of typical online ego in here.

I've found that a lot of British can be closed minded and partisan with even modest things. I tend to blame this on asset stripping and consumerism. It will take some time to boil off the legacy of Thatcherism but if the government can continue to press a better approach this should change over time.

Some people may not remember the preventable murder of a Polish woman earlier this year and, certainly, nobody will have heard of or care that it took me a week to reclaim money I'd been shortchanged on in a high street store, but both examples help illuminate how deeply embedded poor ways are in Britain. If you want better world, you have to be better people.

Let one give DC the benefit of the doubt, and say that he was/is passionate about this case as is GB and everyone who has a heart.

Then why did DC suggest that the PM should simply be the judge and jury and start dismissing people before the inquiry gives it's verdict?

Why did not DC ask GB to dismiss the doctor that FAILED to diagnose this martyr with a broken back?

One also accepts the fact that not everyone see the "good" intension of a leader when he was literally reading on and on, which also gave the impression, that he had actually prepared this long dialogue and had NO intension whatsoever to discuss other hot issues which concern our livelihood.

I give DC the benefit of the doubt, but since this Glossy Mag. model had never lost an occasion to jump on a bandwagon, one has doubts, and for me he came across as if he tried to portray GB as non caring.

Shame.

I'm afraid Nick Robinson is as out of touch as most politicians. He'd mugged-up on the economy but Cameron wanted to talk first about a subject that was the talk of the country. It's ridiculous to suggest Cameron didn't want to talk about the economy. He would have been sacked by the Tories if he had not asked a question. But nobody could expect a PM to be a stupid as Brown was today. Brown tried to defend the indefensible and it lasted 5 hours. They have now performed a U-Turn and have still managed to look stubborn. I am not a Tory supporter - far from it. But today was not Labour or Nick Robinson's day. Any more of this and there will be calls for heads to roll....... Sort it out - both of you

Mr Robinson

This blog is so out of alignment with what happened at PMQs, which I watched with my own eyes, and so tilted towards exculpating Brown, as to be beyond a joke.

Do you really not get it? The public want accuracy and balance from the BBC. We pay your salary.

Time you found a new job, I think.

ps who are the "some who were watching in the Commons gallery"?

I read through Nick's article again. Someone commented that Cameron has never had a Clause 4 moment. I think, his attempt to fuel hate and whip up the gallery with manufactured anger and concern is accidently and disastrously, for him, one of those defining moments.

Cameron's Thatcherite 'tell' at the Tory party conference and this routine bullying and opportunism paints him as a mere follower and quite petty. This is consistent with his personality type, and as people begin to understand this he looks more unfit for government with each passing day.

Cameron is a great showman and knows when to shut his mouth to seal the deal but the Prime Minister dealt with him confidently and caused him to lose the plot. As Nick comments, Cameron's fire and wind may look good on TV but as the radio listeners rumbled Nixon, so the people in the gallery have rumbled Cameron.

Nick..Having made some posts regarding distasteful comments on your most immediate previous blog,I am now driven to support all the others on here who think you've made another big mistake.
I find your own comments about Camerons motives in his questioning of Brown at PMQ's today to be as equally distasteful as some of those over at the other blog.

Cameron very clearly said he would come to the economy "in a minute".It was obvious that Browns cold hearted attitude towards the Haringey issue was the catalyst for Cameron to throw away his script,and angrily (and emotionally) challenge the PM. Yet you charge in with a stubborn defence of Brown,adding that,in some eyes, Cameron showed himself up in a poor light.

That can only be the response of a blind supporter trying to justify the unjustifiable.

Shame on you.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Nothing changes. Over 40 years ago I was a medical secretary. I worked for the Lady Almoner's, now known as medical social workers.
The file for one particular child was kept under lock and key. There would be a case conference including probation officers, police, social workers et al.
I typed up their findings and the file was locked up again.

As has been said on other political websites, this would not have happened under Blair. For all his failings he knew how to read the public mood and act accordingly (Iraq excepted). Blair would have agreed with Cameron and would have ordered an inquiry there and then thereby defusing the issue. No one has said that Cameron was wrong to raise Baby P as an issue as clearly someone, somewhere failed. Yet it was the Labour backbench who started shouting "Shame!" and Brown chose to play to the gallery. Just looking at the exchange, wasn't Cameron pushing his prepared sheet of questions to one side the equivalent of saying "Right you! Out the back in 5 minutes?"

Nick,

You are losing your touch. You need a break.

People outside know that there is a recession.
They know that unemployment will rise
They know that it will take many months (at least) for the economy to get better.

What they wanted to hear today was a Prime Minister who shared their horror and anguish at this sordid case of child abuse, murder and criminal incompetence - and a promise to deal with the matter decisively.

Instead they got the pre-prepared statements, evasions and stubborn stonewalling of a man who was more keen to talk up his 'tractor production figures' than to demonstrate empathy with the nation at large.

I am no fan of Tony Blair, but he would have known how to respond sympathetically and then move on.

Instead we've witnessed one of the most unedifying performances of Gordon Brown at PMQs.

Indeed he has the ability to turn gold into lead.

Nick, you're obviously miffed at Brand and Ross getting all the attention at the Beeb so came up with this ridiculous analysis of events.

The only positive news for Labour in all of this was John Cruddas's which shows they just might avoid slipping into oblivion after the next election if he can find some supporters from his party who also show some honesty.

As for Brown, I look forward to seeing you and him holding hands on the way to the Job Centre. You deserve each other.

Finally, why is the moderation of comments so slow? Are the Beeb worried about criticism of your misjudged analysis?

Nothing new. Over 40 years ago I worked as a medical secretary for the Lady Almoners now known as medical social workers.
A particular child's file was kept under lock and key. He was frequently brought into hospital and each time a case conference was held. The conference consisted of many 'professionals'. After their findings I typed the notes and they put the file back under lock and key. Up to my time of leaving the child was still alive. I am tired of hearing 'we will learn from this' with each dreadful case which happens today.
Is it not time that the 'professionals' became accountable for their actions?

I think you should take a holiday Nick.

I watched the daily politics today and your report of Mr. Kennedy and Mr Cruddas agreeing with you is not what I heard.

For anyone reading this, I suggest viewing the Iplayer and deciding for yourself.

I've noticed that Ken Clarke is stoking up fear and doubt. Just when things are calming down and the press are being positive he opens his mouth and runs people down. Put next to Cameron's assault this looks a little deliberate and suggests to me that the Tories would rather talk Britain into a recession and fuel hysteria than focus on fixing things. But, what else can people expect from a nasty and directionless party like the Tories? No wonder sensible leaders and the media are deserting them.

37:

You Sir are living in CloudCuckoo land!

#37

I really must apologise for not getting the joke sooner. You are hilarious. Keep 'em coming Charles, I just can't get enough of that post-modern irony stuff. And Zen. Don't forget the Zen. That's the best bit.

Cheers!

I have just watched PMQ's and Nick Robinson's remarks and I must be in a minority of one. I did think that Brown's suggestion that Cameron was making political capital out of this was ill-judged strategically because he opened the door for Cameron to become persistent and duck the issue of an alternative Tory economic strategy. A blunder certainly but insensitive, inhumane, out of touch? Where did this come from?

I felt that Brown was initially quite well attuned to the mood and it was only really when tempers frayed and it got a little out of control that he started to bluster. In the circumstances, Nick's subsequent remarks seemed quite balanced, especially as both Crudas and Kennedy seemed to agree with him. Personally, I think some posters are making rather too much of Nick's alleged pro-government position. Everyone was genuinely surprised at PMQs.

CEH @37...again!!

"Cameron just wants to misdirect and stoke rage. His grandstanding and trying to link the government with misfortune is just so way off base and manipulative it breaks the dial.

Cameron's attempt to blame a misery that's caught the public's attention on the government throws up how unprincipled and desperate he is.


Overall, I think, the Prime Minister handled this ambush well. He answered the matters of substance and brushed off the Tory opportunism."

If anyone is trying to stoke rage,it is you Charles.Your disgraceful comments previously;your inability to apologise for them ,and your repeated attacks on Cameron for behaving like a human being show you up what you really are.

I could believe in David Cameron's sincerity if he had gone to PMQs with all the right information in preparation for his verbal assault on the Prime Minster about Baby P. But when he referred to "a 17 year old mother, and an illiterate boyfriend", one realised that, unless he was talking about a totally different case he had, yet again, got the facts all wrong. One wonders who briefs him at CCO. Gordon Brown has the excuse that, as PM, he doesn't have dogs and bark himself. David Cameron has no such excuse. He was quick enough to get the ES on side prior to PMQs, but then he blew it, not only because of his hysterical outburst, but because he was so woefully ill-informed. If he did, as he said, watch the reporting of the case on the television last night, and had read today's press reporting, he would have known that the mother is 27 years old and what on earth has a person's literacy got to do with their parenting skills. Does he think all parents with mild learning difficulties are monsters? He has absolutely no idea.

'Overall, I think, the Prime Minister handled this ambush well. He answered the matters of substance and brushed off the Tory opportunism. This is a much surer performance than he's given in the past, and beneath the rhetoric it must be getting the Tories worried. Plus, the Liberals have an issue in deciding who their friends really are.'
This is the best joke I've heard all year. I think there is a good case for permanent exclusion here. The down side is that here is no better blogger to support real evidence for the removal of Gordon Brown.

Oh dear. Gordon was an utter shambles and really shamed his office today. Today's little performance has confirmed a few of the bad things I have heard said about Brown. Quite an eye-opener.

David Miliband, where are you now? Your country needs you.

Ed Balls on Channel 4 News trying desperately to rescue the PMQ gaffe and failing miserably!

I was appalled at Brown's remarks made at PMQs today - what a shameful 10 minutes for him and the Labour party.

I am also appalled at Nick Robinson's profound cynicism.

Apart from that, his assumptions always favour the governmental stance. Where is the objective scrutiny of recent government activity? And why have the media completely backed off Gordon Brown?

The whole thing stinks. Someone is pulling Brown's strings - probably Alistair Campbell - and we all know the BBC are TERRIFIED of him.

It strikes me the BBC is being "got at", because all they seem to do currently is regurgitate governement spin as fact.

Oh dear, Nick - your short hand has let you down again. I watched PMQs and the after piece on the Daily Politics Show and what you alleged was said in your blog was no way near what actually happended. I think it is time the BBC started to put some editorial control over your imput. I know you like your scoops, like the advanced information you got from Ed Balls today when the Govt was in a bit of mess and they were trying to get themselves out the sticky stufff, but this is not professional journalism. Its awful. It should be objective and straight down the middle. Cameron can ask whatever he wants at PMQs. He does not need to consult you or the Labour party. If the tories win the next election I would go looking for another job;because you are not going to be treated very kindly by them. If you were even handed in your reporting no one would mind but I think people of all political persuasions now think you are becoming a bit of a joke. David Cameron should be applauded. If his intervention has saved a life in Haringay all credit to him. The economy can wait another day. Its going to be in trouble for ages to come and questions about that can wait until another day.

Mr. Robinson

I hope you change your tact on tonights 10pm News you appear to have lost the mood of the majority of the poster on here. I think its time you reported with balance.

#37 CEH

It's about time this Government started to bear some of the responsibility for the appalling treatment and death of a helpless little baby. This is not the first, but the second time it has happened at Haringey Council.

Our Government, through the Council, have appointed people to run Haringey Social Services and these people, along with the Government - starting with the Children's Minister, Ed Balls, should be held jointly and severally accountable. Social Services have a Duty of Care towards the children they are supposed to be protecting, at a cost of £100 million per year. Losing their jobs should be the least of their worries.

How very Nu Labour public sector:

A department with a budget of a hundred million a year allows 2 children, on its radar to die cruel, painful and protracted deaths..

The director of said department is also the head of the board which is tasked to commission the report into the failures. (You really couldn’t make that up). Christ!

The PM comes to the dispatch box saying hes is only considering another review and wont even give a serious answer to a request about serious consideration.

The public sector broadcasters political correspondent tries to diminish and dilute the opposition leaders points by making out that he just wanted to draw attention away from questions about the economy.



All hail the android emperor…. Eh Nick!



And what the hell does…. Whitehall guidelines state that "any report must be commissioned from a person who is independent of the agencies/professionals involved". It doesn't state that any report should be commissioned by someone independent

DO I need Sir Humphrey to explain?

Robinson...you are an absolute disgrace to your profession.
You are supposed to be impartial, not a lackey!

You really are clutching at straws Nick and I am completely convinced that you are now nothing more than a Labour mouth piece.
You and the organisation you represent a disgrace.
You might want to acknowledge that Ed Balls has just announced everything that David Cameron called for during PMQs. That would seem to vindicate the stance he took.

30. At 6:01pm on 12 Nov 2008, the-real-truth wrote:
Nick

Care to comment on the very last line of the BBC report on this -- particularly with the changes highlighted here:-

https://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/172710/diff/3/4

If this site has picked up a genuine edit then it just shows that the BBC is little more then a mouth piece of the Labour party.

Perhaps they should just abandon the attempt to appear impartial as it doesn't seem to be working.

I blame the speaker, he should ensure all the questions are answered, if not the person should reply in a written answer.

Nick, have you missed something out with Andrew Neil on BBC2 Question time? When the Leader of the house got a barracking from the speaker... leaders running their own inquiry does that not ring a bell?

All to easy to see why the back benchers got a little angry, bet they weren't even whipped on the subject.

I'm afraid you have misjudged the incident Nick. John Cruddas and Charles Kennedy were spot on.

Cameron's anger was heartfelt and honest in my opinion. This was genuine.

Why be so cynical? Can't politicians speak from the heart?

Your assessment is wrong. Cameron was justifiably angry with Brown's inability to answer a simple question and try and make cheap political points.

Sorry Nick, but shame on you.

A few facts and a few opinions.

Facts

PMQs is the most confrontaional and Party Political event in the parliamentary process.

The Baby P case was only concluded yesterday and therefore sub-judesay to that point.

The report prepared by an independent body was given to the minister this morning.

Opinions

Cameron was probably not wrong to ask a question about the case but given the above facts surely could have accepted that it was not possible or correct to go into detail about sanctions as yet undecided during PMQs, only 2 hours after receiving the report.

Cameron sets the agenda at PMQs, he asks the question, he should and could have stopped at one or two questions and asked for a detailed and urgent response later today.

There is no doubt in my mind that he was avoiding the economy and politicising this event. It was frankly shameful political exploitation of a tragedy.

No Prime Minister, politician or Council will ever eradicate this sort of event because cruel and devious people exist and they d cruel things always have,always will. Social Services will minimse theses crimes as far as possible but mistakes (if shown to be)are a fact of life.

Anyone with a brain knows that these things happen regardless of which party is in power nationally or locally.

Cameron's behaviour in pursuing this with all six of his questions was just appallingly bad judgement and done for his own political benefit, nothing else. Then to claim innocence after the third question that party politics was never on his mind beggared belief.

A sad day IMO opinion. Cameron could have moved to another question at any point when it was clear it was politically heated, he chose not to. You'd have thought he may have wanted to goon to the economy.

Before PMQs the comentatorsI heard on R5 said (paraphrasing) that he woldn't be looking forward to PMQs with the Economy inevitably going to dominate. They clearly didn't realise he had other plans.

Some of you guys astound me. David Cameron desperately wants to be the next PM - he thirsts for power and, taking a leaf out of the TB and BC book, he is acting like crazy to make a good impression. He's quite good too - much better than Gordon Brown.

This is a horrible case but don't let it turn you into complete fools. I'm being generous here and assuming there was some turning needed.

Nick

You more or less go along with Brown's line that Cameron was playing politics with a tragic situation by suggesting as you do the he was happy to use it as a means of avoiding the economy as a topic.

Cameron said he had a question he wished to put before he moved on to the economy. All Brown had to do was to break the habit of his PM lifetime and answer it - surely not too much to ask given the subject mannner.

I imagine Cameron was no different from the rest of us in feeling genuine horror and anger at the fate of that poor child and I'm not surprised that it was inflamed by Brown's non-answers followed by his despicable accusation followed by his graceless refusal to withdraw it.

Just an awful performance by Brown on a human as well as political level. John Cruddas gave an immediate an clearly genuine reaction which was that he thought the exchanges did not show his party of his PM in a good light. Cruddas and Kennedy have got it right - you have not.

As well as the tragedy of Baby P, there are two other stories in the headlines this week with not only a strong child protection angle, but in which the various child protection agencies can be seen clearly to have performed badly (I’m referring to the child in Herefordshire who was nearly subject to a court order in relation to heart surgery that she had decided she didn’t want, and, of course, to the Shannon Matthews case). It is a perfectly valid view that an unacceptable degree of failure is endemic in the child protection process, and that the combination of the secrecy behind which the agencies operate and their high proportion of internal rather than external regulation do nothing other than make failure endemic.

In that context it is wholly appropriate that David Cameron should do exactly what the Opposition is there to do – hold the Government to account. With child protection being topical it was reasonable that he should ask questions today. It was also reasonable for him to expect the Prime Minister to be prepared to answer them.

Unfortunately, the PM was not ready, and that was desperately unprofessional on his part. He was wooden, repetitive and evasive. Cameron had every right to be annoyed, and to express his annoyance as a sequence of reasonable questions went unanswered. Brown’s accusation that Cameron was trying to use child protection as a party political football was actually itself the first party political element of the exchange. It is an accusation straight out of the Brown ready-use phrase book, translates as “stop making me look stupid” and is usually used as part of the answer to Cameron’s sixth question, so he can’t reply. In the context of the day, it was a disgrace, compounded by his refusal to withdraw it.

So Nick, I don’t agree with your assessment. I think you defended Brown because it is your instinct to do so. By defending him, and making cheap remarks against Cameron too, you spread smoke over the real problem, which is that there are fundamental problems in child protection which urgently need to be resolved. For me, Brown’s disinterest in the subject, his laisse faire attitude to the system as it currently stands, and his willingness to deflect valid criticism of what is going on in child protection, amount to a disqualification from office.

Brown has revealed yet again his inability to think outside the box and to deal effectively and empathetically with issues unrelated to what he has gemmed up on (in this case the economy).

Clueless Brown is not Prime Minister material - he only shows any function when there is an immediate crisis to deal with (floods, foot & mouth and banks).

Hardwidge@47

It was the TV viewers who saw through Nixon (allegedly). The radio listeners heard a confident voice, but on TV he had a five o'clock shadow, was sweating profusely and looked decidedly shifty.

Your historical inaccuracy is another thing that weakens your argument.

If it shows evidence of management failures Mr Balls has the power to take over the running of Children's Services in the borough - effectively replacing the entire management team. He does not have the power to sack individual staff.




Well of course not. I mean we cant have public sector staff, responsible for catastrophic failure leading to the deaths of children being fired can we.

Outrageous suggestion

Ed Balls tonight does the decent thing and rescues his leader from further embarassment by following David Cameron's advice. Obviously a last minute decision to save face but fooling noone. The damage to reputations has already been done.

If it shows evidence of management failures Mr Balls has the power to take over the running of Children's Services in the borough - effectively replacing the entire management team. He does not have the power to sack individual staff.




Well of course not. I mean we cant have public sector staff, responsible for catastrophic failure leading to the deaths of children being fired can we.

Outrageous suggestion

Please Nick...can you point to exactly what bit of the daily politics piece where you think John Cruddas and Charles Kennedy agreed with you? I watched it twice and fail to see it. What struck me was the sincere and truthful (for those that saw PMQ's) way in which they both though Brown was WAAY out of order whereas you you seemed to think that Cameron was acting or not really angry but just appearing so to take advantage of the situation. I was staggered as you also endeavour to use up half the allocated time waffling along and making other similar comments about Cameron and add (for BBC non bias effect I imagine [snigger]) the tone-deaf bit about Brown.

48:

Incidentally the year I was born. Hear Hear!

Nick

Your blog reads like a governmental damage-limitation exercise written by Alastair Campbell himself. Perhaps that's what it is. Shame on you - you don't deserve to be called a journalist.

The (few) defenders of Brown and critics of Cameron, regarding today's PMQs, should take note of two simple facts.

Firstly, Cameron stated quite clearly that he would come on to economic matters shortly, but was then so astonished and enraged by Brown's answers that he was driven to pursue the matter further.

Secondly, Blair would have skilfully wrapped up the matter in his first response, and not made a hash of it in the way that Brown did.

And it does seem a great pity that Nick Robinson's impression of the reactions of the others on PMQs was so at odds with the judgements of the majority of the viewers.

Charles_E_Hardwidge are you Nick Robinson in disguise? You have CLEARLY not seen or listened to PMQ's and you have clearly not seen or listened to the Daily Politics programme linked in the post. What ARE you on about? Your posts are so incredibly out of sync with the OP and all the comments; I've seen some of your seemingly sensible posts on other threads so what has got into you?

I think that David Cameron looked like a bit of a prat when he lost his temper. Why? Because on the subject of infant death, above all others, Gordon Brown has some bitter personal experience. It is a simple statement of fact that this case will have affected him deeply; it would have been distasteful had he indulged in vocal histrionics of the 'my angst is greater than yours' variety.

Labour MPs will be well aware of this, and that may account for their hostile reaction to Cameron's outburst.

In answer to Charles_E_Hardwidge:

Mr Hardwidge, according to this blog you have written forty one (41!) paragraphs about this topic today. Please do not claim that this message board is full of online egos when you are overflowing with righteous comment.

The vast majority of people commenting today are of the opinion that Nick Robinson got it very wrong and that he should be reporting in an unbiased way.

Please, no more lectures. We have a right to air our views when we feel that an injustice has taken place. It is called free speech.

'Scuse me!! I've just been listening to The Daily Politics and Nick saying David Cameron was thinking he couldn't believe his luck that questions were "not allowing Gordon Brown to focus on the problems I've got with the economy"... Whaaaat?
DAVID CAMERON'S problems with the economy?.....
Nick must have lost every sense of reasonable responsible reporting?

How the 'ecky thump can it be David Cameron's "problems with the economy"
Gordon Brown has caused the largest part of the problems...he has been in charge for the last eleven years not David Cameron.
About time Nick stopped grovelling to Gordon, Campbell & Mandy et al and got on with the job of holding this government to account!

Chusk @57,

Your posts are getting more shrill and desperate.

Putting party loyalties to one side for one minute and having listened to PMQ`s, I would say and any fair minded neutral observer would agree that Cameron used this issue to mount a personal attack on Brown and its only after Cameron`s jibe about Brown not answering the question did Brown question Cameron`s motives. Surely no one, not even Cameron is questioning Brown`s and any right think persons absolute horror at what happened to that poor child. The fact is that Brown whether or not you agree with his politics is decent family man, and the comments made against him here and elsewhere are disgusting and the perputrators bring the whole political movement into disrepute

well well well...the link to The Daily Politics show has BEEN REMOVED from the opening post! Any particular reason? For those that wish to watch and listen here it goes...

https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/default.stm

Having read through many of the comments re Nick's blog, I'm absolutely bewildered. So much so, that I went and re-read it to look for signs of lefty bias. Sorry folks, it just ain't there. Did any of you read Nick's comment re the PM being "tone deaf to the public mood"? That Labour propaganda is obviously just too subtle for me.

I have a strong suspicion that many of the people who leave comments here are the sort who complain about being persecuted by speed cameras - a virulent, if slightly irrational, strain of reactionary.

Vote Tory for no more awful baby deaths! ...

#57

Sir, you would be hilarious in a zoo or in a circus clown routine, but the fact that you are out there, sharing my world, is frankly disturbing.

Where's grandantidote? I miss his ludicrously starry-eyed politics, dreadful spelling and grammar and inane, digressive rambling... Nick's blog just isn't as much fun without him.

Why are you, the BBC news team, so scared of Alastair Campbell? Are you intimidated by his physical presence? For pity's sake grow some backbone and stand up to him. Here's an wacky idea; go and do some journalism, uncover as many facts as possible and then present your findings as objectively as possible. It may not be very nice for the government, but without the truth how can the country improve?