1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142 
WESTIvt NSTER HAUL
Page 7
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE HOUSE of Commons has its funny littl endearing ways. There are, for instance, thos occasions when a Government Whip gets u in the middle of the afternoon to move "thi. this House do now adjourn" — and everyon ignores this and goes on talking for hours.
Then there are Supply Days. According t the rules, these are used to discuss the suppl of money needed to keep the country goin In fact they are handed over to the Op osition, who use them to hammer t Government, especially on those topics whit Ministers are anxious should not be aired.
Well, this is not the place to explain t peculiarities of Parliament — but quite a fe old Westminster hands would have liked explanation of the Tories' decision to use t first Supply Day last week to condemn t Government's transport policy.
After all, a Transport Bill is in the offir and its passage through Parliament will gi the Opposition ample time to criticise fut as well as past Labour plans.
Transport Minister William Rodgers, one, is sure the Tories had made a mistake. he pointed out, they had used their time give him a platform from which he was able give a trailer for his Transport Bill. (A passi thought — will the measure be known Transport Bill's Transport Bill?) Whether he was right or not depends your political point of view. The openi speech by Norman Fowler, in which reviewed "four wasted years", N. "deliciously belligerent" (a Tory view) "wretchedly thin on any possible alternat policy" (not a Tory view).
Mr Fowler was at pains to make it plain t he was not getting just at the present ister, but at his predecessors as well, but could not resist one personal dig at the sent incumbent.
He harked back to that letter sent out the Minister's special adviser to leader Labour groups on county councils. He scathing things to say about the moti behind that missive, when up popped col gue Ian Gow to ask, presumably becaus did not know, what paper the letter written on.
Mr Fowler expressed gratitude to his nourable Friend. Obviously he had forgo this vital point himself. The letter, he revet. went out on the writing paper of the Secre of State for Transport, and presumab went out in the official way (slowly?).
The cosy Lab-Con argument went on, most of the nasty comments watered dow personal tributes . . . . Mr Fowler is " a reasonable man" .... Mr Rodgers has "c and equanimity".