to which the answer is No.
the point having been well made by Cllr Willis here
where he asks the question "Has Martin Salter No Shame?" I have known Mr Salter for well over 20 years but even I am disappointed now. He asked a Prime Minister's Question this week, after months of gurning for the media about Gurkhas. He spoke in Parliament about going to the funeral of a Gurkha veteran from Reading. (That veteran was, of course, a Reading East constituent.) Then there was a LibDem motion - on the Gurkha veterans' issue. Then there was a vote. He abstained. He used the same line in the media he has used many times before, notably when he abstained on Crossrail, namely that he would not vote against the government because he had received "private assurances" on the issue. This even though he had pledged to use "all Parliamentary means" to campaign for the Gurkhas. Except speaking in the House on the issue. He was silent throughout the debate, if he was there at all. And did not vote, obviously. Those two little letters after the name, "MP" mean that you are, er, a Member of Parliament, and that your place is there. If Mr Salter changed his mind on the Gurkha issue, as he is entitled to do, then given that he had been a clanging cymbal for the media, and had also made a self-justificatory statement, published uncritically by the Daily Telegraph, on his U-turn, why did he not stand up in the House and state his position? His constituents deserve that much, even though it was a deceased Reading East constituent he had most recently spoken about. An amendment was tabled in his name as well as in that of George Howarth, a Labour MP I always found to be honourable and decent though we did not always agree. But he did not speak to it. Did not speak at all. Only to the newspapers. Shame. Shame.
He didn't use this line when he abstained on Iraq He just lied.
Which is worse?