And another thing…

CONSERVATIVEHOME have leapt to the defence of David Cameron, who was pictured drinking Champagne (shock! horror!) at the Tory conference last night.

I was given a chance this afternoon to add a quote to the story, expressing outrage at Cameron’s hypocrisy for such triumphalist shenanigans – an opportunity I declined, since I enjoy the odd glass of bubbly myself and wouldn’t want to be called a hypocrite next time I’m quaffing away in Strangers or anywhere else for that matter.

But the more intersting point of the conhome story is editor Tim Montgomerie’s justification for his party’s ludicrous opposition to Heathrow’s third runway:

I don’t think one vote will be changed by that photo (of Cameron drinking Champagne) but the story on opposing Terminal Three (sic) will win seats along all Heathrow flight paths.

So there we have it. Screw the economy and screw the environment (because the party has admitted it doesn’t oppose aviation growth elsewhere in the country) – so long as they can win some anti-Heathrow seats, then job done.

Such short termism and short-sightedness is more typical of an opposition party than a government in waiting.

THE GOVERNMENT lost a vote in the Commons today and I think it might have been my fault.

Let me explain…

I received a text message from the whips saying there was a vote expected. So I trooped into the chamber to see that the LibDem MP Susan Kramer was using the device of a ten-minute rule bill to push a silly idea about having parliament approve every planning application by major airports. Bonkers, of course, but… well, she’s a LibDem, what more can I say?

She was followed by David Wilshire, the Tory MP for Spelthorne and, on this subject at least, a good egg. He spoke for a few minutes on the general dottiness of Susan’s proposal before sitting down.

Now, this is how ten-minute rule bills work: the member promoting it speaks for ten minutes and then, usually without a vote, it’s agreed by the House, a date is set for Second Reading and it’s never heard of again. However, this time, there was opposition. From me. Because when the Deputy Speaker asked those who opposed it to say “No”, I did. And when it looked as if she was unconvinced by the sincerity and volume of our protests and was going to give the day to Susan and her followers, I thought: “No chance – let’s have a vote – that’ll show them!”

So I shouted louder, joined by a paltry few from our side and, of course, David Wilshire. Hearing the full strength of opposition to the measure, the Deputy Speaker had no choice. “Division!” she announced, and I sped off to the “No” lobby.

And then we lost. By more than 30 votes, I think. A couple of wags on the LibDem benches shouted “Resign!” at me, before realising I was in no position to do so. I can’t remember the government ever losing a vote on a ten-minute rule bill before. And now, following the vote, Susan’s bill will… never be heard of again.

Would there have been a vote anyway, even if I hadn’t shouted? Perhaps, but perhaps not. I fear I may be the guilty man, without whose intervention my government may well have avoided humiliation.

It seemed like a good idea at the time. There’s a phrase that will be etched on my gravestone…

AN INTERESTING and unreported aspect of Tuesday’s debate on Heathrow was the Conservatives’ tacit admission that their opposition to the third runway has nothing to do with concern about climate change.

I thought this odd at the time but hadn’t really considered it much until I received this comment earlier today:

Well the Heathrow decision’s not doing Labour any favours. Ignoring the will of the people is a bad idea, and ignoring climate change is a really bad idea.

I work for an NGO campaigning on climate change and got phoned up at work on Tuesday by possibly the least ‘green’ person I know, asking what he could do to voice his opposition to the decision.

However, it became clear throughout the debate that the Tory position is based almost entirely on concern for people’s votes homes to the west of London, rather than any negative effects on Britain’s carbon emission targets. Whenever this was mentioned, their front bench offered lip service and nothing more. Their actual position was exposed towards the end of the debate while Greg Clark was winding up for the Opposition:

Colin Challen: For the record, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that his party is in favour of aviation expansion? 
Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman intervened earlier with a similar question, and I shall make our position very clear. The motion that we are debating is about a third runway at Heathrow, but if he is asking whether the Opposition will say no—for ever, any time, any place or anywhere—to airport expansion, that would clearly be ludicrous. Of course we are not suggesting that.

So if you’re a Conservative supporter, by all means leave comments denying that man-made carbon emissions don’t actually cause global warming (which is, after all, the prevalent view of Conservative Party members). But please don’t try to pretend that your party’s opposition to Heathrow has any more altruistic or principled a motive than winning votes and seats.

CURIOUS comment from Iain Dale about yesterday’s Heathrow vote in the Commons; he hails it as a “first class (Tory) whipping operation”.

I beg to differ. This was a debate on an opposition motion. Its text was lifted from an Early Day Motion (EDM) that had been signed by more than 50 Labour MPs, many of whom had indicated they would vote with the Conservatives. Whips on both sides were nervous; this could have been the first time that the government had ever lost an opposition day debate vote.

So why were ten Tory MPs absent? As Iain rightly says, no Tory MP actually voted with the government. But there are about 350 Labour MPs and only 297 voted with the government (and some of them were DUP MPs). This could so easily have ended in defeat for the government and for Heathrow’s third runway.

A truly “first class whipping operation” would have ensured that every Tory MP was present and would have ensured a better representation of LibDems while they were at it.

Just how desperate for office is the Tory Party?

PS: I do have the list of 12 absent Tories, but two of them were tellers (whips who voted but weren’t listed in Hansard), and I can’t identify them, so I don’t want to publish their names with the absentees.

A MAJOR advantage to being a blogging MP, as opposed to being simply a blogger, is that I’m in a position to offer unique insights from the perspective of the House of Commons.

So for instance, you may well have expected me to talk about the drama in the chamber today when John McDonnell tried to make off with the mace in protest at the absence of a vote on Heathrow’s third runway.

Except I can’t, because I wasn’t there. 

This always happens to me. Once, during Treasury questions a few years ago, I was sitting next to Dennis Skinner. I left the chamber briefly to make a phone call and as I walked back in, I passed Dennis, who was leaving. He didn’t look particularly fazed or upset, so I thought nothing more of it. It was only later I discovered that a few seconds after leaving the chamber to make my call, Dennis had stood up to accuse “Boy” George Osborne of drug use! He had just been named and suspended from the Commons when I passed him.

And then there was Otis Ferry’s invasion of the chamber during the debate on the ban on fox hunting. I was in the tearoom when that happened and only realised something was up when “Sitting suspended” was displayed on the annunciator.

I was there in 2004, however, when those entirely sane and responsible individuals of Father4Justice* launched their missiles of purple dust from the public gallery of the Commons during Prime Minister’s Questions. As I saw the dust descend on the crowded benches, I stood up from my position on the front bench (the front bench that’s actually a back bench, if you follow me) just below the gangway. Sky News, as my big brother Kenny gleefully told me later, showed the same piece of hundreds of times thereafter, apparently showing the Honourable Member for Glasgow Cathcart (as my constituency was then called) jumping up to save his own skin. In fact, I was wearing a brand new suit and was worried about it being stained…

But I wasn’t there today, sadly. As he said himself on TV afterwards, John is not at all a flamboyant MP and he did what he did out of frustration and on behalf of his constituents. He’s paid the price with a five-day suspension. But support for a third runway has been his party’s policy since before the last general election. And however strongly some of his constituents feel against these plans, many, many more, I suspect, owe their jobs, directly or indirectly to Heathrow and might not feel as disappointed today as John clearly does.

* written under legal advice

I MISSED last night’s Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) meeting which the Prime Minister addressed.

There are usually at least 200 or so attendees, and apparently three or four of them gave the PM a hard time over the impending Heathrow announcement. So now, Sky News are reporting a possible delay in the the announcement while GB tries to smooth some ruffled feathers. I hope this isn’t true – we need a positive announcement about the third runway going ahead as soon as possible.

Meanwhile, some luvvies (and a couple of MPs) have tried to scupper any future development by buying up some of the land that would be needed for construction. Must be nice not to have to worry about the economy or unemployment. But if the runway gets the go-ahead, I have a feeling such gestures won’t count for much, or at least I hope they don’t.

I saw an interview on TV last night with a young girl who had taken part in a “peaceful” protest at Terminal One (apparently it’s okay to have a demonstration which disrupts people’s travel plans,  provided you don’t hit any police officers) who was bemoaning the fact that she had been reduced to this kind of protest because no-one was listening to her arguments. Well, perhaps she should consider this: maybe her arguments have been listened to but have been found wanting. Just because you feel strongly about something does not necessarily mean that your view must prevail.

I TOOK part in a radio debate on Today in Parliament this week, on the increasingly fraught subject of whether Heathrow should have a third runway. The debate starts at about 13 minutes in. Listen by clicking here.

WHILE staying perfectly sober and respectable at all times, I spent part of this evening at a party in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster and fell into some disreputable company - specifically a prominent and respected Tory MP.

Taking advantage of the “lobby terms” that prevail at such events, I asked him what he and his colleagues thought of the Shadow Transport Secretary, Theresa Villiers’ crazy bonkers plan to block a third runway at Heathrow if the Tories win the next election.

He sighed deeply and said: “Theresa was Shadow Chief Secretary, and then she was Shadow Transport Secretary. We have a saying in the parliamentary party: no third Villiers.”

Maybe so, but it still doesn’t explain why Do-Nothing embraced her “policy” so whole-heartedly at Tory Party conference this year.

I’M DISAPPOINTED by the announcement that we’ll have to wait until next year to get a decision on a third runway at Heathrow.

But I concede that 70,000 submissions to the consultation will have to be considered and that might take a little while. And given that a judicial review – whatever the decision – is inevitable, consideration must be seen to be thorough.

Meanwhile Theresa Villiers is sounding more and more like a Liberal Democrat in her increasingly shrill opposition on environmental grounds. Many Tories on the sensible wing of the party are incredulous, not just at Villiers’ stance, but at the speed at which Do-Nothing capitulated to her view.

THERESA Villiers’ incredibly short-sighted vision as regards aviation policy is at last coming in from some serious criticism from within her own party, according to Iain Dale.