My feed reader shows me the latest Iain Dale Daley Dozen in which he points to us and asks why we didn’t cover PMQs today.
Although it may not have been our finest hour, the real reason is that Stephen, who usually covers that for us, is away, and none of the rest of us remembered until we were prompted.
For the sake of completeness, here is the full exchange between Vince Cable, covering for Nick Clegg today, and Hariet Harman, who was in the Prime Minister’s shoes.
Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham) (LD) rose—
Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Dr. Cable: May I begin by adding my condolences over the soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq?
It was reported earlier this week that Her Majesty the Queen had cancelled her diamond wedding celebrations because it was judged inappropriate to engage in extravagance at a time of economic gloom and recession. Does the Leader of the House share my view that that demonstrates Her Majesty’s unerring instinct for the public mood, or do the Government think that she was overreacting?
Ms Harman rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not discuss Her Majesty the Queen. Perhaps he could try asking another question. He has used one up, and he will not get another after that.
Dr. Cable: I am very happy for the Leader of the House to return to the issue of economic gloom and recession. Does she agree with that assessment?
Ms Harman: As I told the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), our concern is to ensure that people continue to have jobs. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the economy still contains 670,000 vacancies, and we want to ensure that it continues to grow as it has for some 62 consecutive quarters.
Dr. Cable rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of order. I must move on.
7 Comments
It was only not our finest hour if it was an omission. I’m not so sure it was and we were trying to make a point about the antiquated rules that govern Parliament.
Coming on the day that the Information Commissioner overruled Commons authorities and required disclosure of how allowances are spent on party propaganda (sorry members newsletters) it seemed like a pretty good point
I agree more with Hywel than Alex on this one. I think coverage such as the BBC’s has been very good for the party; showing Vince and Nick at odds with our antiquated political system is a good thing.
I think Michael Martin came out of this worse than Vince. While its a mild clanger to mention the Queen in a PMQ when rules say you can’t I though Martin was really partisan in the way he dealt with it.
I’ve always held to the “dignity of office” arguement about Martin. We shouldn’t undermine him because the office he holds is more important than the efficency of a tempory holder of it.
However after yesterday I don’t see why we shoyuldn’t just say he’s useless, biased and should go asap.
The only reason to hold fire would be if we thought there was a reasonable chance of getting it for Ming or Alan Beith.
This isn’t the first time Speaker Martin has proven that he isn’t above the parties, but just a tool of the Labour Party. Speaker or not, Liberal Democrats should consider running a candidate against him in the next GE.
Vince didn’t look bad at all. It was a shame to lose a question but Hague had basically nicked his special subject (on purpose, no doubt) so it may not have been set to be blinding ayway.
Since when do bloody Tories care about the 10p band anyway? I’ve had arguments with Tories in which it’s quite clear that neither they individually or the party as a policy unit (such as it may be) gives a toss.
The fact that you all forgot about PMQs seems to confirm how irrelevant it is if even a bunch of people interested in politics can’t be bothered to turn on.
More power to your elbow and keep the important stuff coming!
FWIW I too think this convention is anachronistic and should be junked. But it didn’t make Cable look good.