The Sketch: Normal folk don't talk like this

At the words, "he is also the minister for digital inclusion" there was a great shout of laughter from Tories, the Lib Dems, the gallery and the world at large. How could it be otherwise? When MPs are being exposed for having their fingers in the pie, it now appears there is a minister to protect their interests, "pay tribute to their efforts" and "celebrate their achievements".

The Prime Minister, whose words these were, continued with the list of duties which the digital minister had, oblivious to the effect of his words.

The PM would have retired from PMQs with dignity, not having descended to this foolish world of double entendres. But I defy anyone – anyone who is not a member of the political class – to use the term without some smirk or other. "I was talking to the minister of digital inclusion the other day and he pointed out..." No, it's impossible. Normal people just wouldn't say the words. They are instantly ridiculous and faintly sinister for us late-middle-aged men who... but let's not, as people say, go there.

The PM presents himself as homme sérieux focused on long-term decisions and the proper processes of government. Thus he allows himself this clumsiness. But when he is asked important questions from his own side he has no answer for them either.

Martin Salter asked him what the ****ing **** was going on (he used some equivalent but we knew what he meant) when the Government couldn't get leaflets into schools warning against forced marriages for fear of giving offence. The PM had nothing to say. The Schools minister would look at it. That's not quite enough, some will think.

Cameron has discerned this inability. He asks Gordon questions which demand a "moral compass" answer. Should al-Qaradawi be allowed into Britain? Erm... there are processes. Judicial processes. But, Cameron presses, the cleric advocates executing gays and suicide bombing: Should he be allowed in? Ah ... he's not in Britain, he's outside the country. Yes, but what do you think? You? Cameron persisted, you the Prime Minister (who has, he might have added, some influence with the Home Secretary whose decision this is). Rien.

Long-term decisions are the easiest ones for a politician. Remember Prescott and some damn thing or other "in five years' time?" When it all goes wrong the public has "moved on". And that's it: The PM can tell us happily about the minister of digital inclusion, but about forced marriages and al-Qaradawi, he needs notice of the question. So how, actually, is he going to manage in a crisis?

simoncarr@sketch.sc