When I say 'contributions', I mean it only in the most minimal sense. He spoke. Wisdom was not forthcoming. For instance:
May I welcome the review announced by the Home Secretary today and elaborate on that? Opposition Members have spoken about how legislation was introduced under the previous Government. Often, that was easily done by arguing that it was what the security forces requested. Returning to the point made by Michael Dugher, it is easy to take that prosaic approach. I welcome the approach taken today; it shows a holistic and encompassing view, which promotes the fact that we in the Chamber and the Executive take these decisions for reasons of collective security against individual freedom, rather than taking such a prosaic approach.
What does this mean?
1. Labour bad.
2. Tories good.
3. I want ministers to know who I am.
4. I don't know what 'prosaic' means. Or that 'holistic' and 'encompassing' mean the same thing.
5. I have nothing to say but need to say something.
His second attempt to rival Cicero, or Michael Foot, consists entirely of this:
Much is made by Labour of the regressive nature of the VAT rise. Given that the Labour Government inherited the most benign of economic conditions in 1997 and had a couple of years of good economic performance, why did they not choose to lower the VAT rate when they were in power?
Mm. Dumb pointscoring. Glib, shallow, meritless. Well worth £65,000 per year plus expenses. And, of course, ideologically repulsive. For all their points, Labour used taxes to improve public services. The Tories intend to abolish or privatise them, other than the ability to kill millions of people in one go.