This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jun/04/david-cameron-commons-simon-hoggart-sketch

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
David Cameron was red-faced. But was he angry? David Cameron was red-faced. But was he angry?
(4 months later)
In the Commons, they were debating the horrible matter of the civil war in Syria. Over in the Lords they were discussing the less terrifying but equally contentious issue of gay marriage. David Cameron, who managed in his statement to lump Syria in with the murder of Lee Rigby and the need for more shale gas, started with a red face – no doubt the result of his holiday – which meant that we could not tell when he was cross. Or perhaps he wasn't angry at all, because if he had been, his face might have gone the colour of a powerful vintage claret.In the Commons, they were debating the horrible matter of the civil war in Syria. Over in the Lords they were discussing the less terrifying but equally contentious issue of gay marriage. David Cameron, who managed in his statement to lump Syria in with the murder of Lee Rigby and the need for more shale gas, started with a red face – no doubt the result of his holiday – which meant that we could not tell when he was cross. Or perhaps he wasn't angry at all, because if he had been, his face might have gone the colour of a powerful vintage claret.
He might have been at risk of a carmine contusion when Sir Peter Tapsell chipped in on the topic of Syria. It was, Sir Peter said, fundamentally a religious war, between the Shias and the Sunnis, "which has raged for the last 1,300 years!" We gasped. That was even before Sir Peter had been born! (But not so long before. Sir Peter does have a powerful folk memory.)He might have been at risk of a carmine contusion when Sir Peter Tapsell chipped in on the topic of Syria. It was, Sir Peter said, fundamentally a religious war, between the Shias and the Sunnis, "which has raged for the last 1,300 years!" We gasped. That was even before Sir Peter had been born! (But not so long before. Sir Peter does have a powerful folk memory.)
The Alawites – the governing faction – he told us, would fight to the end because "they believe they will be massacred if the regime is defeated, and so does the large Christian minority. Russia will never allow the regime to be overthrown because it would be a humiliating defeat for Putin, who made his reputation by crushing the Sunni rebellion in Chechnya!"The Alawites – the governing faction – he told us, would fight to the end because "they believe they will be massacred if the regime is defeated, and so does the large Christian minority. Russia will never allow the regime to be overthrown because it would be a humiliating defeat for Putin, who made his reputation by crushing the Sunni rebellion in Chechnya!"
There is rarely a reply to Sir Peter's jeremiads (who can destroy his argument about events in the seventh century? No one but Sir Peter himself!) and David Cameron barely tried. Ming Campbell told him lifting the arms embargo on rebels was a waste of time since Assad would never change course as long as he had the Russians onside.There is rarely a reply to Sir Peter's jeremiads (who can destroy his argument about events in the seventh century? No one but Sir Peter himself!) and David Cameron barely tried. Ming Campbell told him lifting the arms embargo on rebels was a waste of time since Assad would never change course as long as he had the Russians onside.
I popped over to the Lords, which was debating gay marriage. With two benchfuls of bishops sitting right there, the argument quickly took on a religious feel. Baroness Brinton felt that the "divine image" within us all meant that we should be treated equally. She went further – even if someone in a straight marriage changed sex, that should not imperil the marriage!I popped over to the Lords, which was debating gay marriage. With two benchfuls of bishops sitting right there, the argument quickly took on a religious feel. Baroness Brinton felt that the "divine image" within us all meant that we should be treated equally. She went further – even if someone in a straight marriage changed sex, that should not imperil the marriage!
I found Lord Waddington's speech confusing. He seemed to be saying that it was fine for gay people to marry, provided they married people of the opposite sex. There seemed to be something of a misunderstanding of the bill there. But I may be wrong.I found Lord Waddington's speech confusing. He seemed to be saying that it was fine for gay people to marry, provided they married people of the opposite sex. There seemed to be something of a misunderstanding of the bill there. But I may be wrong.
Lord Pannick said that legislation on marriage was not immutable, unlike the laws of the Medes and Persians, "which altereth not. But our laws altereth a great deal, according to social conditions". The Bishop of Leicester certainly confused me. The prime purpose of marriage was procreation, "which is not to say people who cannot have children are any less married".Lord Pannick said that legislation on marriage was not immutable, unlike the laws of the Medes and Persians, "which altereth not. But our laws altereth a great deal, according to social conditions". The Bishop of Leicester certainly confused me. The prime purpose of marriage was procreation, "which is not to say people who cannot have children are any less married".
Having apparently disappeared up his own cassock, the bishop announced he would abstain. Most alarmingly, Lord Anderson of Labour claimed that in Brazil three people had been allowed to marry each other, though he did not say which sex each of the trio was.Having apparently disappeared up his own cassock, the bishop announced he would abstain. Most alarmingly, Lord Anderson of Labour claimed that in Brazil three people had been allowed to marry each other, though he did not say which sex each of the trio was.
But the peers are always wonderfully sincere. Sincere but extremely eccentric.But the peers are always wonderfully sincere. Sincere but extremely eccentric.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.