Sir Teddy Taylor, the Member of Parliament for Rochford and Southend East, is an unpleasant, abrasive right-wing populist. This week, however, I was grateful to him. He publicised some information that made a whole lot of previously puzzling things far more
understandable. Sir Teddy explained that business is booming in the House of Commons bars, and that most MPs would rather join in rounds of drinks in those bars than take part in the debates in the Commons chamber.

Sir Teddy - a teetotaller himself - complained: 'The Commons chamber remains empty most of the time, while the multitude of drinking dens are crammed full. It is very sad, and the start of a great tragedy. This is a grim sign of what is rather a dramatic change in the Westminster lifestyle.'

There is strong evidence to support Sir Teddy's claim that Parliament is becoming an increasingly well-oiled machine. Research by a trade magazine, The Caterer and Hotel Keeper, recently found that beer orders from suppliers to the Palace of Westminster have
doubled since last October.

Taylor has offered a possible explanation as to why this state of affairs might have come about. He has commented: 'The problem is that MPs are not finding the debating chamber at all interesting, but they have to stay in the building to take part in votes. So, in increasing numbers and with increasing regularity, MPs are dropping into the many bars at Westminster.'

What's more, it sounds as if after they drop in, they often stagger out: 'I have noticed that there are now more people than before who find difficulty in walking along the corridors in a straight line. There is no doubt that beer-drinking in the Commons has gone up by leaps and bounds. The number of teetotallers in the Commons seems to have fallen to me and two ladies, whom I cannot name, and perhaps one or two others.'

Well, if you ask me, that explains an awful lot. Some of the more ludicrous policies pursued by the Government must have seemed like a good idea after a beer or six. Where others wake up with a sore head to wonder exactly who that is sleeping next to them or how that traffic cone got into their bedroom, Ministers could have focused blearily on the morning paper and thought 'I announced what!? Oh God... Well, better stick with it, I suppose...'

It also explains why the Conservatives seem to be taking so long to come up with any alternative policies of their own. Shadow ministers must have been waking up with stinking hangovers and deciding to put their homework off to another day. Most students and
ex-students will understand how easily that kind of thing can happen.

And of course, the much-criticised tone of many Commons debates is now perfectly understandable. With all the jeering and name-calling that goes on, the Commons often

sounds rather like a pub on Saturday night with two rival sets of football supporters on the premises. Now we know why.

There is a serious side to all of this. Taylor believes that the centralised nature of modern government is driving many MPs to drink: that they get depressed when they find out how little influence ordinary MPs actually have.

He says: 'The tragedy is that young people get elected to the Commons believing they can play a part in putting things right. And when they find they can't - because so many of the decisions are taken outside Westminster now - they resort to the drinking dens.'

He may well be right. But given that there seems to be virtually no possibility of the Blair administration becoming less authoritarian and actually listening to back bench MPs, perhaps all concerned should simply be more honest about the way things are. Many of us have been annoyed when we've gone to a show and found that we couldn't take our drinks from the bar into the auditorium. So why not let MPs take their drinks into the Commons chamber? That way, they might sit in the debating chamber most of the time and go to the bar when necessary, rather than vice versa.

Of course, there could be some problems if they weren't well enough organised. I can see it now: 'Point of order, Mr Speaker. Is the Minister aware that it's his round?'

I know that many Researchers are taking exams around now, but I hope you'll forgive me if I ask an economics question. Think hard, now. Take as long as you like.

Here's the question: 'English students are often obliged to take out loans that can leave them £10,000 in debt when they leave university in order to pay tuition fees. Is this likely to encourage or discourage people from low-income backgrounds from going into higher education?'

A tough one, I know. It must be, because Government ministers seem unable to work out the answer. The official line from the Blair administration is that it's one of their top priorities to try to ensure that 50 per cent of British people under 30 go into further
education by 2010, and that this obviously requires getting more people from relatively deprived backgrounds to become students.

But the Government freely admit that their current policies are failing to achieve this aim. Higher Education Minister Margaret Hodge has acknowledged that since the Labour government came to power in 1997, there's been no narrowing of the gap between the number of students from higher economic groups and the number of those from less well-off backgrounds. Instead, she has said: 'The gap has widened. It was a shock to me.'

However, there is one part of the UK where the picture is brighter. In Scotland, that target figure of 50 per cent of young people going into higher education has already been achieved. And there, the tuition fees have been abolished, thanks to the Scottish Parliament. You might think that the Government would accept the obvious lesson to be learned from that fact. But no, they stubbornly insist that English students will continue to suffer this financial burden that no longer afflicts their counterparts from elsewhere in the UK.

The Government's attitude appals student leaders. National Union of Students president Mandy Telford has commented: 'Scrapping the fees has done a lot to raise aspirations in Scotland - I don't see how Mrs Hodge can say it doesn't. Students perceive tuition fees as
a huge barrier. Debt is a huge deterrent.'

So why does the Blair administration continue to ignore the obvious lesson from Scotland? Easy: abolishing tuition fees in England would cost money. That might ultimately mean tax increases, and they in turn might cost the Government votes. Opinion polls might
suggest that people are happier to pay higher taxes to fund education, but the Government remains convinced that what people really want above all is less tax.

I'm sure that's the reason why would-be students from poor homes in England can only look on enviously at what's available to their Scottish counterparts. The Government will continue to pay lip service to the idea of higher education opportunities for all, but its fundamental cynicism prevents it from taking the steps that might really move all of the UK towards that worthy goal.

Much as I deplore just about everything the American Religious Right stands for, I have to admit that there is a part of me that would miss them if they weren't there. I'd hate to live anywhere where they had political influence, but from a safe distance I can find them hysterically funny.

These are, after all, the people who seriously believe that the 'Harry Potter' books represent an attempt to win children over to the occult; that the Teletubbies are corrupting the young because Tinky-Winky carries a handbag, and is therefore obviously meant to turn children gay; and that Bob the Builder symbolises Beelzebub.

I thought of them this week whilst watching Wimbledon, when the thought suddenly occurred to me: have the Religious Right ever campaigned against tennis?

After all, here is a game in which an old name for the Devil 'deuce' - is regularly shouted at moments of high excitement. And when a male tennis player wins a match comfortably, in straight sets, what numbers are most likely to be next to his name on the
scoreboard, symbolising his success? 6, 6, 6, the number of the Beast! (It's more difficult for a female player to achieve the same effect, but it can be done if she wins in three sets after losing the second set on a tie-break.)

Why, clearly, this so-called sporting event is little more than a thinly-disguised recruiting rally for Lucifer! Jerry Falwell and friends should get over to Wimbledon and begin picketing without delay!

I don't actually believe any of the above, of course. But sometimes it's fun to play devil's advocate.

Ormy's 'Notes' and Other
Scribblings

The definitive collection

Ormondroyd

27.06.02 Front Page

Back Issue Page