In the last PMQs before the half term recess, the economy took centre stage, and David Cameron unsurprisingly chose to begin by bringing up Sir James Crosby.
Sir James was formerly the Chief Executive of HBOS and then was appointed as Deputy Chairman of the FSA by the Prime Minister. He was also Knighted on Brown's recommendation in 2006 and has been an economic adviser to the Prime Minister, writing a report advising the government how to resurrect the ailing mortgage market.
However, yesterday Sir James came under pressure when Paul Moore, who was the head of regulatory risk at HBOS from 2002-2005, told the Treasury Select Committee that Sir James was the "original architect" of HBOS's "grow assets at all costs" expansion strategy which has led to its fall from grace and that when he tried to raise the alarm about the risks being taken, Sir James took a unilateral decision to sack him. HBOS and Sir James deny these versions of events and say an internal 9 month investigation conducted by KPMG found Mr Moore's dismissal claims to be unfounded.
The problem for Brown, given his closeness to Sir James Crosby was that allegations of this kind are extremely damaging particularly as it ties the Prime Minister to the financial catastrophes of the City via calling into question his judgement. If Mr Moore's claims are true then Brown has been guilty of appointing someone who pursued a foolish strategy that brought a huge bank to its knees to the important position of Deputy Chairman of an organisation which is supposed to regulate the banks. Critics charge Brown with employing someone who was completely unsuitable for the FSA and to give advice about Britain's mortgage crisis.
More...
Consequently, it was no coincidence at all that half an hour before PMQs, Sir James announced he was resigning as Deputy Chairman of the FSA. This was clearly a case of Sir James being pushed rather than him jumping. Brown was obviously keen to spike Cameron's guns and attempting to neutralise the issue.
Had Sir James not gone before PMQs then Cameron would have demanded Brown sack him. Brown would no doubt have prevaricated and therefore it would have been a gift to Cameron. As it was, Cameron was left only to question Sir James's appointment in the first place and demanding from the PM that he admit his appointment was an error of judgement.
Brown, of course, did no such thing. What he did do, however, was drop Sir James like a stone. Brown said the allegations were "serious but contested" and said "these are allegations that he will have to defend, so it is right that he has stepped down as vice chairman of the Financial Services Authority." Brown also sought to distance himself from Sir James by claiming that far from him being one of his economic advisers, he had just written two reports - one for him and one for the Chancellor - and both of these had now been completed. The clear implication was that he wasn't an adviser anymore. The PM had just cut his ties with Sir James who was now out in the cold.
Cameron linked the Prime Minister's lack of regret over Sir James's appointment to Brown's inability to apologise for saying he had "abolished boom and bust" and saying we were "best placed to weather the downturn." Cameron scolded the Prime Minister for not apologising for anything, saying the Prime Minister should admit that "he got something wrong." He added: "Even the bankers have apologised? When is the Prime Minister going to?" Linking to my earlier post, from Brown's reply it does not sound like Brown is gearing up for any kind of mea culpa. The man is unapologetic about every decision he has ever taken.
What then followed was similar to what has taken place in recent weeks. The PM says he has taken action and done X, Y, Z while Cameron has done nothing other than oppose the steps the government has taken. Then Cameron says X, Y, Z have all been failed policies and Brown should have done what the Tories have advocated which is A, B, C. It is all a bit "i'm right, you're wrong" and we just end up going round in circles.
However, Cameron was in fine combative mood - more so than of late. He went on the attack accusing Brown of being the one who set up the "failed regulatory system."
The two leaders also had a bit of a ding-dong over the issue of VAT cuts. Brown saying the cuts were a good idea, Cameron disagreeing. Cameron said the Dutch, the Germans and now the French thought it was a wrongheaded policy. He quoted the French President Nicolas Sarkozy who said Britain’s VAT cut had “absolutely not worked,” Brown was "ruining" Britain's economy and Sarkozy had said he would not be repeating the Prime Minister's "mistakes." Cameron wanted to know what Brown thought could be the "mistakes" Sarkozy was referring to. Brown then drew attention to Ken Clarke who he said was in favour of a VAT cut.
But Cameron hit back by saying the PM needed to get his facts straight - Clarke had voted against the VAT cut in the Commons. "Why can't the PM get his facts straight?", Cameron asked. While on the theme of factual accuracy, Cameron also jokingly highlighted Brown's claim not so long ago that the artist Titian finished a painting aged 90 and had said he felt he was just learning about painting. Brown had said he felt like that about the economy. But Cameron corrected the PM saying Titian had died aged 86!
Cameron signed off with a hard-hitting attack line: "Incompetence + arrogance = 2 million unemployed."
But Brown retorted with a line about regulation, insisting that the Conservatives had been urging deregulation rather than new regulations and Cameron had even called him the "Great Regulator." The problem for Brown is that it was his financial regulation that failed. The issue at hand is about wrong-touch regulation rather than light-touch regulation. Moreover, Brown had also quoted Cameron out of context - he had been talking about general business red tape and regulation rather than specific financial regulation.
Brown finished off by saying that Cameron had opposed measures to rescue the banks and boost the economy. "They have been wrong, wrong and wrong every single time," he told the Commons.
Two other things to mention about the exchange - one criticising Tories, the other Labour MPs. During the exchange, Cameron asked a serious of questions such as: "Who gave us the largest deficit in the developed world? He did. Who made Britain the highest personal indebted country in the world? He did. Who set up the regulatory system that has so failed? He did." It is the "he did" part i have a problem with because every time Cameron says it, the Tory backbenchers joined it. Stop it! It sounds so naff and cheesy and all it achieves is making viewers at home cringe and give the Labour benches a cheer as they mock the Tories. I don't mind Cameron doing it, but others should definitely not join in.
Now the Labour criticism: why do the Labour MPs always shout "more" after the Brown vs Cameron exchange finishes? This is just as naff and sad. I think they started it when Brown's authority was diminished and shouting "more" was a way of sounding like Brown had given Cameron a drubbing and the Labour benches had really enjoyed it: hence "more!" It was transparently false when they started it and it still is. Give it a rest!
Now, on to Nick Clegg. I thought for the second week running he gave a good performance. The Lib Dem leader said that the government was making three announcements a day - how many of these were actually being enacted? Brown completely ignored the question and instead outlined several steps he had taken.
Clegg then went on the offensive saying that Brown had promised to get the banks lending again but had failed to do so and was letting bankers keep "millions in bonuses" because they had issued "a cynical apology." In a hard hitting attack which turned the "do nothing" jibe back on the Prime Minister, Clegg said: "It's bad enough being a do nothing party, but isn't it worse being a say anything, do nothing Prime Minister?" It was a good line that managed to attack the Tories as well, but the real sting in the tail was reserved for the Prime Minister. Brown responded saying: "If I had taken his [Clegg's] advice, we would have made the wrong decisions."
Sir James was formerly the Chief Executive of HBOS and then was appointed as Deputy Chairman of the FSA by the Prime Minister. He was also Knighted on Brown's recommendation in 2006 and has been an economic adviser to the Prime Minister, writing a report advising the government how to resurrect the ailing mortgage market.
However, yesterday Sir James came under pressure when Paul Moore, who was the head of regulatory risk at HBOS from 2002-2005, told the Treasury Select Committee that Sir James was the "original architect" of HBOS's "grow assets at all costs" expansion strategy which has led to its fall from grace and that when he tried to raise the alarm about the risks being taken, Sir James took a unilateral decision to sack him. HBOS and Sir James deny these versions of events and say an internal 9 month investigation conducted by KPMG found Mr Moore's dismissal claims to be unfounded.
The problem for Brown, given his closeness to Sir James Crosby was that allegations of this kind are extremely damaging particularly as it ties the Prime Minister to the financial catastrophes of the City via calling into question his judgement. If Mr Moore's claims are true then Brown has been guilty of appointing someone who pursued a foolish strategy that brought a huge bank to its knees to the important position of Deputy Chairman of an organisation which is supposed to regulate the banks. Critics charge Brown with employing someone who was completely unsuitable for the FSA and to give advice about Britain's mortgage crisis.
More...
Consequently, it was no coincidence at all that half an hour before PMQs, Sir James announced he was resigning as Deputy Chairman of the FSA. This was clearly a case of Sir James being pushed rather than him jumping. Brown was obviously keen to spike Cameron's guns and attempting to neutralise the issue.
Had Sir James not gone before PMQs then Cameron would have demanded Brown sack him. Brown would no doubt have prevaricated and therefore it would have been a gift to Cameron. As it was, Cameron was left only to question Sir James's appointment in the first place and demanding from the PM that he admit his appointment was an error of judgement.
Brown, of course, did no such thing. What he did do, however, was drop Sir James like a stone. Brown said the allegations were "serious but contested" and said "these are allegations that he will have to defend, so it is right that he has stepped down as vice chairman of the Financial Services Authority." Brown also sought to distance himself from Sir James by claiming that far from him being one of his economic advisers, he had just written two reports - one for him and one for the Chancellor - and both of these had now been completed. The clear implication was that he wasn't an adviser anymore. The PM had just cut his ties with Sir James who was now out in the cold.
Cameron linked the Prime Minister's lack of regret over Sir James's appointment to Brown's inability to apologise for saying he had "abolished boom and bust" and saying we were "best placed to weather the downturn." Cameron scolded the Prime Minister for not apologising for anything, saying the Prime Minister should admit that "he got something wrong." He added: "Even the bankers have apologised? When is the Prime Minister going to?" Linking to my earlier post, from Brown's reply it does not sound like Brown is gearing up for any kind of mea culpa. The man is unapologetic about every decision he has ever taken.
What then followed was similar to what has taken place in recent weeks. The PM says he has taken action and done X, Y, Z while Cameron has done nothing other than oppose the steps the government has taken. Then Cameron says X, Y, Z have all been failed policies and Brown should have done what the Tories have advocated which is A, B, C. It is all a bit "i'm right, you're wrong" and we just end up going round in circles.
However, Cameron was in fine combative mood - more so than of late. He went on the attack accusing Brown of being the one who set up the "failed regulatory system."
The two leaders also had a bit of a ding-dong over the issue of VAT cuts. Brown saying the cuts were a good idea, Cameron disagreeing. Cameron said the Dutch, the Germans and now the French thought it was a wrongheaded policy. He quoted the French President Nicolas Sarkozy who said Britain’s VAT cut had “absolutely not worked,” Brown was "ruining" Britain's economy and Sarkozy had said he would not be repeating the Prime Minister's "mistakes." Cameron wanted to know what Brown thought could be the "mistakes" Sarkozy was referring to. Brown then drew attention to Ken Clarke who he said was in favour of a VAT cut.
But Cameron hit back by saying the PM needed to get his facts straight - Clarke had voted against the VAT cut in the Commons. "Why can't the PM get his facts straight?", Cameron asked. While on the theme of factual accuracy, Cameron also jokingly highlighted Brown's claim not so long ago that the artist Titian finished a painting aged 90 and had said he felt he was just learning about painting. Brown had said he felt like that about the economy. But Cameron corrected the PM saying Titian had died aged 86!
Cameron signed off with a hard-hitting attack line: "Incompetence + arrogance = 2 million unemployed."
But Brown retorted with a line about regulation, insisting that the Conservatives had been urging deregulation rather than new regulations and Cameron had even called him the "Great Regulator." The problem for Brown is that it was his financial regulation that failed. The issue at hand is about wrong-touch regulation rather than light-touch regulation. Moreover, Brown had also quoted Cameron out of context - he had been talking about general business red tape and regulation rather than specific financial regulation.
Brown finished off by saying that Cameron had opposed measures to rescue the banks and boost the economy. "They have been wrong, wrong and wrong every single time," he told the Commons.
Two other things to mention about the exchange - one criticising Tories, the other Labour MPs. During the exchange, Cameron asked a serious of questions such as: "Who gave us the largest deficit in the developed world? He did. Who made Britain the highest personal indebted country in the world? He did. Who set up the regulatory system that has so failed? He did." It is the "he did" part i have a problem with because every time Cameron says it, the Tory backbenchers joined it. Stop it! It sounds so naff and cheesy and all it achieves is making viewers at home cringe and give the Labour benches a cheer as they mock the Tories. I don't mind Cameron doing it, but others should definitely not join in.
Now the Labour criticism: why do the Labour MPs always shout "more" after the Brown vs Cameron exchange finishes? This is just as naff and sad. I think they started it when Brown's authority was diminished and shouting "more" was a way of sounding like Brown had given Cameron a drubbing and the Labour benches had really enjoyed it: hence "more!" It was transparently false when they started it and it still is. Give it a rest!
Now, on to Nick Clegg. I thought for the second week running he gave a good performance. The Lib Dem leader said that the government was making three announcements a day - how many of these were actually being enacted? Brown completely ignored the question and instead outlined several steps he had taken.
Clegg then went on the offensive saying that Brown had promised to get the banks lending again but had failed to do so and was letting bankers keep "millions in bonuses" because they had issued "a cynical apology." In a hard hitting attack which turned the "do nothing" jibe back on the Prime Minister, Clegg said: "It's bad enough being a do nothing party, but isn't it worse being a say anything, do nothing Prime Minister?" It was a good line that managed to attack the Tories as well, but the real sting in the tail was reserved for the Prime Minister. Brown responded saying: "If I had taken his [Clegg's] advice, we would have made the wrong decisions."
No comments:
Post a Comment