PMQs 11 June 2008

David Cameron starts by leading on Afghanistan. A serious issue but the UK economy is surely more important and Gordon Brown can be held responsible for that.

Two on Afghanistan and now onto the 42 days question.... How long before Gordon Brown accuses David Cameron of being soft on crime? First question is about the DPP not requesting the extension to 42 days, Gordon fails to answer it.

Q4 - A lot of police support it, a lot don't, the prosecuting authorities don't, intelligence not all in favour. "When we trash our liberties we do their (terrorists) work for them". Gordon Brown goes back to the Northern Ireland chief of police and tries a dig at the Conservatives - out of sorrow.

Q5 - The concession of parliamentary debate on an individual case makes the legislation unworkable. There's the first Gordon Brown stutter.... No answering of the question posed, just more quotations.

Q6 - It is popular, but is it right. Not possible to be draconian and ineffective, it is. Shouldn't PM be on the side of liberty. Gordon Brown doesn't answer the question, for a change.


Nick Clegg also goes on the 42 days issue and raises the same question as David Cameron's Q5. Gordon Brown seems to say that no evidence will be provided just a statement that there was an major terrorist action pending. This is news to me...

Labour MP worried that the 42 days will apply to more than just terrorists and asks Gordon Brown for assurance. Exceptional and grave terrorist threat. We all know that once on the statute book it could be extended - salami tactics...

Conservative MP asks about the Dispatches programme and asks why Gordon Brown stated that nobody would lose out from the 10p debacle when his Chancellor said he could see the problem as soon as he was appointed. Gordon Brown avoids answering the question.

Question on EU referendum, Gordon Brown ....

What is the point of blogging PMQs? Gordon Brown only answers the fawning questions from his lickspittle MPs and fails to answer others. PMQs is a sham, I have had enough... Hold on, here's Michael Howard ...

"Can he explain how this house could debate and vote upon the detention without charge... without subsequently prejudicing any trial". He has misunderstood the legislation, only thing brought before the House would involve no evidence. THIS IS STAGGERING, GORDON BROWN HAS CONFIRMED THAT NO EVIDENCE WILL BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE HOUSE, just a statemnet that Home Secretary is applying for the power. What informed debate will then be possible.