Curly: See, I don’t think that Brown was being uncaring at all. He did exactly what most would have expected of him on the first two answers; it was only when Cameron was angered by the shouting of the Labour backbenchers that he responded in kind. The rush to judgement by all sides now is what I find far more troubling.

I doubt that these scenes would have occurred with Tony Blair at the Despatch Box.

When a pretty white child goes missing the tabloids go to town, and they just love a paedophile story. It gives them the chance to drum up fear of the stranger. Yet about one child a week is killed in this country every week by their natural parents. Alas, See todays news.

The very fack those two tory pillocks Guido Fawkes and Iain Dale are frothing at the mouth tells you all you need to know about this issue.

Every child death is a tragedy, but it is time that the media and the government stops demanding inquiries and wanting answers… The brutal fact is that there are no answers.

To-day’s tragic news from Manchester only re-inforces that.

It does, on the other hand, occur to me that if company directors can be open to prosecution for corporate manslaughter in the case of gross H&S breaches leading to fatalities, there may be a case for making elected councillors similarly liable in the case of gross failures of child protection.

Or, alternatively – is this an appropriate local government function? Presumably we don’t think that local electorates really want the opportunity to choose between philosophies of child protection at the ballot box. I suspect that this is an area, like the administration of justice, where we want the same high standard applied irrespective of locality. That would suggest that local councils aren’t the right employers for child protection workers – move them into the Probation Service, maybe?

Re. Yesterday

I just said over at Justin’s that this is a case of shame on both their houses. But the more I think about it, the more I wonder…

Cameron must be getting pissed off with Brown’s constant and blunt refusal to answer a straight question. And it is the duty of the LOHMLO to hold the government to account. I can understand if Cameron becomes annoyed if the PM continues to belittle his questioning by his avoidance techniques, but Cameron should have risen above the fray once it was clear Brown wasn’t going to retract the accusation of playing party politics.

Had he made his feelings clear and moved on, he would have been the Statesman to Brown’s partisan beast.

In fairness Cameron probably did see capital in this line of question. It’s in his nature. Anyone who watches Cameron closely could say he is anything more than a political animal. He’s never convinced me of any hidden intellectual or ideological vigour. He’s a careerist and a prominently placed spin-doctor.

Had he any real class, he would have called Brown on his slur, and moved on. We don’t pay Cameron to be overly sensitive.

Score points? Are bloggers running for political office?

If so, you can get your Aaron4Pres buttons and bumper stickers from the usual vendors.

I still rather feel that The Guardian this morning was right to point out that Cameron did seem to be returning to his ‘broken Britain’ narrative and that he was not blameless in how it handled it and that as the BBC said in it’s anylysis of PMQ’s it will be hard for him to avoid the charge he was politicising the issue.

Nobody is saying Cameron didnt have a right to raise it but the manner in which he did leaves me with the distinct impression that he was looking to take an advantage for himself and his party out of it.

In response to your substantive points then yes there should be resignations and people should be held accountable. However, I find Camerons entire manner of handling this irresponsible, partisan and as distasteful and Brown’s ‘tin ear’ and clunky response….

Surely people of all political persuasions wonder when there will be an apology and resignations?

Don’t you?

It wasn’t that the issue was ‘taken up’ it was the way it was taken up ie, in an explicitly partisan way. Guido Fawkes branded Brown ‘emotionally retarded’ and Iain Dale said that it should put ‘steel in the backbone of Conservatives to show Brown the door’. Two examples of the fact that Tory bloggers were clearly looking to score political points off the issue…

Cameron’s opening questions were reasonable, the sort of questions anyone of any political shade would want answers to.

Brown has unfortunately developed a fatal habit of reaming off ‘facts’ instead of answering questions at PMQs. Like his predecessor, he debases the session, which is one of the most watched moments in the commons.

It was Brown who introduced the spectre of party politics. Just because the case of that poor child is taken up more by bloggers on one side of the line does not make it any less deserving of proper political scrutiny.

Cameron was entitled to ask for a witdrawal, and Brown, by ignoring the request, came away comprehensively worse off to the eyes of any observer.

The exchange demonstrated that behind the slick new spin operation which has prevailed since Mandelson’s return, the PM is still a liability.

As The Guardian editorial notes this morning it is hard to avoid the impression at times that Cameron was making a return to his ‘broken Britain’ narrative which would be unsurprising given how flat-footed the Conservatives have been on the economy.

In the end the real loser will be the political process though because the whole thing was shabby and tawdry.