Today's PMQs: the head boy and the swot

It was a bad tempered affair today in the House of Commons. And loud. The build-up occurred in the usual manner. First came Cameron, who took his place on the Government front benches, glasses on, dossier upon his knee, reading. With five minutes to go, Ed Miliband was not in the corresponding seat on the Opposition front bench. Neither was Ed Balls. With three minutes to go, in came George Osborne and drifted into his place beside the PM. Nobody spoke. Shortly after this, the two Eds appeared, accompanied by Douglas Alexander, the shadow Foreign Secretary, who has also recently been given the job of marshalling Labour’s next election campaign. Then the the three Labour men finally whumped down onto the Opposition front bench. The Labour lot do like to revise right until the last minute. Opposite them Cameron lounged, legs crossed, black slip-on shoes buffed. Miliband, in contrast, sat upright, hunched forwards, legs uncrossed with papers on his knees—the head boy faced the swot.

The first question concerned employment and whether Labour had been wrong in the dire predictions it had made about jobs and ought now to apologise. It did not surprise the House when the PM agreed with the questioner (Sheryll Murray, Cons, SE Cornwall), taking the opportunity to recite a now-familiar list of the government’s economic achievements, before concluding that it was time Ed Miliband “got to his feet and told us he was wrong.”

The Leader of the Opposition obliged on the first part of this suggestion, but not the second. Instead, he drew out the policy pilum with which he has been jabbing at the PM since Conference season and aimed once more for Cameron's ribs. As the government benches roared at him, Miliband asked: “Can the Prime Minister tell us what is the difference between his energy policy and that of the energy companies?” Cameron replied that he wanted to inject more competition into the energy market to make it easier for consumers to change provider. The PM noted that Miliband himself had recently changed energy providers, at which the government benches emitted a deafening smear of diphthongs. They loved this.

Not to be put off his favoured line of attack, Miliband asked: “As unofficial spokesman for the energy companies, why are prices rising?” Less significant than Cameron’s reply was the terrible noise that came from the Labour side of the house during his answer. The heckling was very loud and constant, like a drone of over-flying bombers. Miliband wondered why Cameron had gone from “Rambo to Bambi,” on energy policy—presumably he meant this rather than "Rimbaud to Bambi," which would have been a more interesting line. “He’s a one trick pony and he’s run out of road,” replied the PM, sticking with the animal theme. Ed replied that Cameron had the chance to instigate a price freeze immediately by amending the current energy bill to include one, to which Cameron countered with the somewhat wobbly line that “it’s not a price freeze, it’s a price con," before going on to claim Labour’s plans were “economically illiterate.” The Leader of the Opposition advised the PM to “stop acting like a PR man for the energy companies." The PM picked up the example of HS2 and hurled it at Miliband, accusing him of having “cowered in his office,” while Ed Balls toured the newsrooms to denigrate the project.

In essence, both men were accusing the other of being weak, which may be the case. It is not impossible that both are bereft of new ideas and have lost control of their parties. It was an unsavoury exchange and there was little to be learned from it other than at present the two leaders seem well matched, more so than they have been for a long time.

The greatest difference between them now is that Cameron becomes much angrier than perhaps is good for him. Does he have no one around to tell him to calm down during these exchanges? Is there no one left at No. 10 who can tell him things he does not want to hear?