STUART TROTTER describes how, in the Prime Minister's absence
yesterday, unfortunate stand-in Tony Newton was thrown to the lions as
MPs concerned themselves with questions of morality
IT WAS back to Westminster and, of course, back to basics yesterday.
The Opposition at the first Prime Minister's Question Time after the
Christmas recess were like ravening lions who, having been thrown some
raw meat, were avid for more.
What were the roars, or at any rate howls of rage when it appeared
that the Prime Minister had unfortunately been unable to make it back
from the Nato summit in Brussels in time to take his place at the
despatch box.
A wise Opposition might have accepted this philosophically as one
reason for his absence -- apart from any bribes that might have passed
to Brussels air traffic control -- was Mr Major's approval for possible
air strikes on the Serbs which could well be a violation of the basic
defence concept that you don't volunteer for any conflict unless you are
sure you are going to win.
Labour back benchers are mostly hawkish on the subject of bombing
Serbs have satisfied themselves that they are now fascists rather than
communists.
Mr Smith is a bit of a hawk too, so Mr Major may have unearthed one
bi-partisan policy which we will just have to hope is not paid by UN
ground troops.
It was thus Mr Tony Newton, the PM's stand-in, who was thrown to the
lions. He prudently adopted the minimalist version of back to basics --
improving education, fighting crime, strengthening the economy; not so
different, really, from what Governments claim all the time they are
doing.
Mr Newton, not being not being able to find a better hole, kept his
head down and reduced his script to, well, basics.
Some Tories who, one imagined, had survived their whips' searching
investigation of their personal morals, rose to ask Mr Newton if he did
not think the revival in the housing market, improvement in the economy
and burgeoning of business confidence were wonderful examples of just
how well the Government was doing.
The Opposition hooted derisively and Mr Newton, although he did,
naturally, think all these manifestations were wonderful, restrained his
rapture.
Mr John Smith, for whom back to basics has been turned by the spate of
recent Tory misadventures into an open goal aimed some further well
directed shots at this large target. Mr Newton's and the Prime
Minister's abbreviated version of what it was all about did not sound
much like the ministerial rhetoric of last autumn's party conference, he
observed.
Having warmed up he accused the Government of ''hyprocisy and double
standards'' and, sounding like the old fashioned, albeit right wing,
socialist he probably still is denounced the Government for ''having one
set of rules for the people and another set for ministers and Tory
MPs.''
Mr Newton, having picked the ball out of the net three times had a
brief respite while the polite Mr Eric Clarke (Midlothian -- Lab.)
wished him a happy new year and Mr Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge -- Con.
launched a diversionary attack on the Liberal Democrats.
A politically incorrect Liberal Democrat councillor in Mr Ashdown's
own constituency had written remarks about various ethnic minority
groups which, said Mr Nicholls with only a little hyperbole, ''would not
be tolerated in the National Front.'' Mr Ashdown sat like a man who
knows he has to take it.
With one minute to go, Mr Newton was pounced on by Mr Dennis Skinner
(Bolsover -- Lab.) with a double-barrelled attack on what he called a
''housing fiddle'' when referring to Tory MP Alan Duncan (Rutland and
Melton) and the Government's #200,000 bail out of a Tory MP's failed
company (this an attack on Gyles Brandreth, Chester).
Mr Newton insisted Mr Brandreth and his company had been treated no
differently from any other individual or company in similar
circumstances and had nothing to say for Mr Duncan that he had not
already said for himself.
The Speaker rang the bell and the House moved on to a Bill on crime
and public order. What the Conservative Party needs is some private
order but there is not much sign that it has yet got back to that
particular basic.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article