Parliamentarian of the Year
Thanks to the generosity of Highland I Park whisky, more than a hundred politicians and journalists sat down to luncheon at the Savoy Hotel last Thursday for the presentation of the Spectator/ Highland Park Parliamentarian of the Year Awards. After being welcomed by Mr Matthew Gloag, director of Highland Park, they ate an Orcadian meal (the Highland Park distilleries are in the Orkneys), including a dish largely com- posed of porridge. The proceedings were then opened by Mr Ludovic Kennedy, a director of the Spectator, who spoke on behalf of the paper's proprietor, Mr Algy Cluff, who was in the Far East. Mr Kennedy introduced the guest of honour, Lord Grimond, who, by accepting, had passed up an award which otherwise might well have been his. Lord Grimond, in a brilliant series of remarks, disparaged whisky, journalists and politicians in a way Which delighted the whole company. He then handed over to the editor of the Spectator who, on behalf of the judges, announced the awards and their accom- panying citations. (The judges were: Alan Watkins of the Observer, Peter Jenkins of the Guardian, Michael White of the Guar- dian, James Naughtie of the Scotsman, Cohn Welch of the Daily Mail, and Charles Moore, (editor of the Spectator.) Member to watch: Mr Malcolm Rifkind, MP for Edinburgh Pentlands. The obvious candidate for this award, the Earl of Stockton, disqualified himself by his re- marks in his maiden speech in which he claimed that he was now beyond ambition. The next candidate might have been a Member new to the Parliament, but the Judges decided that it is still too early to form a view on any of the new intake. They agreed to turn to more well-established, but rising figures, and did not have much difficulty in selecting Mr Malcolm Rifkind. Mr Rifkind is remarkable for his mastery of his brief, his ability to avoid embarrass- ment and his skill in argument. There have even been occasions when he has made Mr Denis Healey look slow off the mark. Mr Rifkind's only problem is that he may be considered too clever for advancement in the Conservative Party.' Troublemaker of the Year: . Mr Tam Dalyell, MP for Linlithgow. The judges were very divided on this award. There were some who felt that the most obvious troublemaker was not necessarily the best, and that the matter on which he made so much trouble was not sufficiently impor- tant. But in the end it was agreed that it ‘':',ould be perverse not to recognise Mr a.m. Dalyell's amazing persistence, and his 4bIlltY, by battering the Government with v°11ey after volley of facts and questions, to spread alarm and despondency in the ranks
of his opponents. Mr Dalyell was also commended for his defence of the Aldabra turtles and the Halvergate Marshes.'
Backbencher of the Year: Mr Nicholas Budgen, MP for Wolverhampton South- West. 'This award is open to all those dignified and respectable backbenchers who keep a watch on the affairs of the nation and a check on the Government, but this year, the judges are giving it to a controversial figure, Mr Nicholas Budgen. Mr Budgen is a clever speaker, a master of the intervention which puts his front bench on the spot, and a tireless upholder and exploiter of the freedom of the backben- ches. He fulfils the classic role of a back- bencher — to prevent the Government from forcing anything questionable through unquestioned.'
Debater of the Year: Dr John Cunning- ham, MP for Copeland. 'Many would say that the task of opposing the Government over ratecapping and the abolition of the metropolitan counties was one of the year's cushier billets, but the judges agreed that it has been outstandingly well conducted by Dr John Cunningham, His speeches on these subjects have been forceful, well- argued and enjoyable to listen to. In a year in which much opposition has been ex- pressed through the low arts of heckling and obstruction, Dr Cunningham has been distinguished for his reliance on the higher art of debate.'
Parliamentarian of the Year: Dr David Owen, MP for Plymouth Devonport. 'Although Dr Owen's aggressiveness is not to everyone's taste (one judge remarked that if the Doctor attained supreme power he would at once close Parliament down),
the judges agree that he has put it to great effect in the past year. He has succeeded in putting down the hecklers on the bench on which he sits, and in challenging the Government, particularly the Prime Minis- ter, with clear, simple, well-informed in- terventions. He has become a much more eloquent speaker than in the past, and has succeeded better than any other politician this year in using the House of Commons as a forum for political argument. Dr Owen has greatly increased his public reputation through his parliamentary per- formances at a time when several politi- cians have diminished theirs.'
All the recipients, except, of course, Mr Dalyell, were present to receive their awards. About their speeches of accept- ance there were divided opinions, but all agreed that Mr Budgen's was the best and Dr Owen's the longest.
The judges emphasised that they had formed their opinions solely on perform- ances in the chambers of the Houses of Parliament. They were sorry that they had not singled out a peer for any award. They felt that the House of Lords deserved some sort of collective recognition for its splen- did reassertion of its rights and its growing liveliness in a year when the standard of most debates in the House of Commons had not been high. If, as is intended, the awards become an annual event, the judges will be able to make more general comparative comments about changes in Parliamentary habits. In doing so, and in arriving at all their views, they do not claim to be authorities. They resemble not law lords, but theatre critics, free with their criticisms, happy in the knowledge that they will never have to rise from their seats and perform upon the stage themselves.
Previous page
